Senate
4 December 1947

18th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1947

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3147

QUESTION

OIL FROM SHALE

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister for Supply and Shipping. I preface my question ‘by saying that I understand there are vast shale deposits at a place called Widden Creek in New South Wales, and that it is possible to produce 100 gallons of petrol from 1 ton of that shale. I am also given to understand that many valuable by-products could be produced. In view of the serious position that this country will have to face in the immediate future in regard to petrol supplies, I nsk the Minister whether he is prepared to make a public- pronouncement saying how far the Government is prepared .to go in giving financial and practical assistance, either by a reduction of excise duty, by bounty or by any other means, in order to encourage the production of petrol in Australia from our vast shale deposits?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government has already spent a considerable sum of money in developing the shale deposits of this country. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent for that purpose at Glen Davis. Experimentation has taken place and is still taking place there in regard to the retorting of the oil from shale, and at the present time a Renco retort is in the process of manufacture.

Ab far as encouragement from the Government in regard to the development of the shale’ oil industry in this country is concerned, I do not think it could give any further assistance. The experiments at Glen Davis have proved to be very costly. Whilst flow oil is available there will be no possibility of oil produced from shale competing with it; it is not economically possible. As I have already stated, the Government has spent a considerable sum of money and has taken the best possible advice in regard to the experiments at Glen Davis, and an appreciation of the development there and at Newnes has to be -made. I do not regard the considerable amount of money that has been expended as being entirely wasted, because, as a result of the development at Glen Davis, we know as much about the production of oil from shale as most other countries in the world at the present time. The development is stil continuing and it is anticipated that at Glen Davis the oil will be produced at a cost of approximately 2s. per gallon. However, even with mass production methods the retorts situated .on the side of the shale, and all the other ingredients available on the spot, the venture is not profitable at present, and I do not think the Government would be interested in supplying further capital for shale oil production in Australia.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Government give consideration to the removal of excise duty from petrol produced from shale by private firms at places other than Glen Davis?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Government has not removed the excise duty on petrol produced even at Glen Davis. I am prepared to bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Government with a view to encouragement being given to private enterprise to develop the shale oil industry in Australia, but again ‘I point out that I do not think the Government will bo interested in making finance available for the production of petrol from shale.

page 3148

QUESTION

KAIL. TRANSPORT

Trans-Australian LINE

Senator RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior whether the Government will give consideration to the appointment of train hostesses to care for women and children travelling on the TransAustralia railway. I should like to know also whether arrangements could be made for the provision of a supply of certified milk for children on the train.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for the Interior and obtain an answer as soon as possible.

page 3148

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Smithton Aerodrome - -Tasmanian Services

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– As Smithton aerodrome is one of the best all-weather fields in Tasmania, will the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Avia tion discuss with the Minister the possibility of making further improvements to that aerodrome so that when Wynyard and Launceston aerodromes are unserviceable because of bad weather, aircraft may land - at Smithton instead of continuing on to Hobart annd adding 100 miles to the journey of north coast’ passengers? Further, as TransAustralia Airlines are contemplating the introduction of intra-state services, will the Minister give consideration to including Smithton and King Island in the Tasmanian north-west coast service,, thus restoring that service to what it waa some years ago when it was operated by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited?

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall obtain an answer to the honorable senator’s question from -the Minister for Civil Aviation as soon as possible.

page 3148

QUESTION

MACHINERY BEARINGS

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– In view of the . reduction of imports of roller bearings and other machinery bearings from the United States of America due to dollar restrictions, will the Minister for Trade and Customs endeavour to have these bearings imported from sterling countries so that the manufacture of machinery in this country will not be hindered ?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The matter raised by the honorable senator is receiving the urgent consideration of the department and the Government. Because of the dollar scarcity we are exploring every possibility of obtaining machinery and parts required for our economy. I shall make further inquiries, and supply the honorable senator with a detailed answer as soon as possible.

page 3148

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have received a letter from the Anti-T.B. Association of Western Australia, expressing concern over the spread of tuberculosis in that State. Recently, we were given details of the Government’s plans to bring migrants from Great Britain, Europe and the United States of America, but in none of those official statements have I noticed any reference to the examination of migrants for tuberculosis. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration whether any thought has been given to this matter, and whether migrants will undergo X-ray examinations for tuberculosis.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP

– All migrants are obliged to undergo a general medical examination in the country of embarkation. In addition, the Minister for Immigration has announced that this examination will embrace checks in respect of tuberculosis. I am not certain whether that will apply only to migrants coming from Baltic countries, but I understand that it will apply to all migrants. That examination will be conducted at the port of embarkation. I shall bring the matter raised by the honorable senator to the notice of the Minister.

page 3149

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Hours of Business

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– A few weeks ago the press reported that hours of business at country post offices and telephone exchanges throughout the Commonwealth are to be extended. I have received many letters inquiring as from what date the extended hours will operate. Is the Postmaster-General in a position to give that information to the Senate?

Senator CAMERON:
ALP

– I am not in a position at the moment to give precise information on the point raised by the honorable senator. This matter is still under consideration, and as soon as a decision is made I shall advise the honorable senator of it.

page 3149

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOB RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Senator AYLETT:

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether Australia has paid its quota to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development under the Bretton Woods Agreement. I understand that all other signatories to the agreement have paid their quotas. I should also like to know whether the bank has commenced operations.

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Commonwealth is committed to pay its quota, and I assume that that obligation has been met. I shall confer with the Prime Minister on the matter, and supply full information to the honorable senator.

page 3149

QUESTION

BAND SAW STEEL

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have been informed that band saw steel of good quality, manufactured in England, is available in widths suitable to meet all Australian requirements. Most of the steel used for the manufacture of band saws in Australia has come from the dollar area. As certain conditions which havebeen imposed on the importation of steel make it impossible for British steel to be sold at prices comparable with steel from the United States of America, will the Minister for Supply and Shipping have inquiries made with a view to granting every concession possible to English band saw steel to enable Australia to trade in this material within the sterling area and the British Commonwealth of Nations?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I assure the honorable senator that if steel for use in the manufacture of band saws is available from England or other countries in the sterling area it will be imported. The dollar situation is so acute that Australia must explore every avenue in order to obtain the goods that it needs for industry. I shall make inquiries and let the honorable member have a reply at a later date.

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Trade and Customs said that every endeavour would be made to obtain band saw steel from England. However, in view of the difficulty which Great Britain is experiencing in regard to dollars, will the Minister give every possible encouragement to the production of such steel in this country? I remind him that we have the finest iron ore in. the world, and all that is necessary to exploit it is machinery.

Senator COURTICE:

– The honorable senator require no assurance from me in regard to the Government’s policy of encouraging the development of Australian industry, and so far as the production of steel is concerned, this country is in the vanguard of progress. I am not aware of the position in regard to the manufacture of band saw steel, but I shall make inquiries to ascertain whether it is possible to produce steel of that kind in Australia.

page 3150

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understand that in future petrol ration tickets will be obtainable only from post offices nominated by users of motor vehicles. In view of the fact that such tickets are distributed by many post offices on only three days in each week, and the users of petrol sometimes require to obtain tickets on other days, will the Government give consideration to the issue of tickets by Commonwealth employment officers, particularly in thickly populated areas, and so relieve the pressure of work on postal officials, who, I am sure, will come in for a great deal of abuse in connexion with the distribution of petrol ration tickets ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– Any inconvenience in connexion with the distribution of petrol ration tickets is the result of leakages vhieh have accurred. A considerable quantity of petrol is not accounted for each month, and in an endeavour to trace the leakage, and because of the serious dollar position, the Government is taking steps to ascertain where the leakage occurs. I should be reluctant, to interfere with the efforts of my department to trace this leakage. Postal officials have had experience in the handling of these tickets, and it is thought that they and officers of the Liquid Fuel Boards would be more likely to check leakages than if the work were entrusted to employment officers who have not had such experience. I am confident that postal officials who carried out their work so efficiently during the war will perform these duties satisfactorily.

Senator AYLETT:

– Professional fishermen in Tasmania have suffered severely because of the reduction of their petrol ration from 80 to 50 gallons a month, and the new ration will not enable them to haul fish to market. Since they are engaged in a seasonal occupation, fishermen would be quite agreeable to forgo .their petrol ration during certain periods of the year if they could be permitted to obtain the maximum amount to which they are entitled during the fishing season. Will the Minister for Supply and Shipping consider their suggestion?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I think that the suggestion is a good one, and I shall certainly give consideration to it. It seems to me that a similar arrangement might very well be made in the case of other seasonal industries. When the Government determined to make a reduction in the allocations of petrol, it imposed an overall cut upon all users of petrol. That was ;he fairest way in which to do it. However, the suggestion made by the honorable senator is one which is worthy of every consideration and I shall pass it on to my department for examination, not only in regard to the fishing industry, but in regard to other industries that do not operate continuously throughout the year.

page 3150

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator CAMERON:
ALP

– On the 27th November, Senator Aylett asked the Postmaster-General -

In view of the serious inconvenience caused to telephone subscribers in Launceston because of the insufficiency of telephone installations in that city, can the Postmaster-General inform me what steps are being taken to improve the position 1 Have plans been drawn for thu construction of a telephone exchange at East Launceston to relieve the congestion, of traffic and, if so, what progress has been made in its construction?

The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows: -

The establishment of a manual telephone exchange in East Launceston to relieve the Launceston exchange has been approved. Accommodation has been obtained bv renting premises, and work is in progress to effect necessary internal alterations and to provide suitable amenities for the staff

Hie new exchange will have an initial capacity of 400 lines. Despite the heavy demands which are being made on the available supplies of equipment, it is hoped that the exchange will be ready for service about the middle of 1948.

The importance of the work is appreciated by the Department and the honorable senator may be assured that no effort will be spared to complete the installation as quickly as possible.

page 3151

QUESTION

FILMS

Production : Use of Army Personnel

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact, as (stated in a recent issue o( Smith’s Weekly, that for the past month 300 members of the Permanent Army, Interim Army and British Commonwealth Occupation Forces have been toiling in the bush outside Singleton, New South Wales, helping to build settings for the film Eureka Stockade?
  2. Is it a fact that the Army has accommodated the film cast at the Singleton camp and lias used troops and bulldozers to make a road, that the soldiers have to perform certain camp duties for the film company, that they are transported daily in army trucks to the place where they are working and that, in due course, they will don other clothing and take part in mob scenes?
  3. If so - (a) does the Minister consider that such work should be carried out by troops who, it is understood, were previously undergoing intensive training at Greta; (!>) who gave permission for them to undertake this work with the film company; and (c) is it intended that they shall be allowed to continue with such work?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers : -

  1. No, but Army personnel are rendering assistance in the production of the film Eureka Stockade by Ealing Studios. 2. (a.) the Army has made arrangements at Singleton camp for the accommodation of the civilian members of the production unit; (6) troops and equipment have been used to make a road at the production site as part of the training; (c) soldiers are not performing camp duties for the film company; [d) civilian vehicles are used to transport both civilian and military personnel between Singleton camp and the film location site at Blind Creek, under arrangements made by Baling Studios; (e) in due course, it is anticipated that army personnel acting as extras will take part in mass scenes.
  2. (<i), (6) and (c). In view of the historical significance of Eureka Stockade and the value of a film based on this incident in publicizing Australia overseas, and the fact that production would not have been practicable without the assistance of the Army, the Government has agreed to make available army resources and the services of a number of troops where practicable to assist in the production, of this film. Payment is being made by Ealing Studios to the Commonwealth for the use of army facilities and personnel at Singleton camp. The assistance rendered by the Army is in conformity with the practice adopted in other countries to provide help to the motion picture industry in producing films of national interest. This particularly applies in the case of the personnel of West Point Academy in America.

page 3151

QUESTION

BANKING

Commonwealth Bank

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of statements made by opponents of bank nationalization, and one incidentally used more than once by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), that the late Eight Honorable John Curtin could not get accommodation from the Commonwealth Bank and had to go to the private banks, will the Treasurer state whether between 1024 and 1 945, severe restriction were placed on the operations of the Commonwealth Bank, including the following: - (a) That no new branch of the Commonwealth Bank could be opened where a trading bank was operating; (6) that no business could be taken from private banks by the Commonwealth Bank; and (c) that the Commonwealth B!ank was not permitted to advertise its overdraft rates?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister and Treasurer has supplied the following answer : -

No legislative restrictions were imposed on the operations of the Commonwealth Bank during this period, but until 1945, the Commonwealth Bank followed u policy of noncompetition with the trading banks for advance business. While a few new branches were opened by the Commonwealth Bank at point? where trading banks were operating, as a general rule a customer of a trading bank could only arrange to transfer his overdraft business to the Commonwealth Bank where special circumstances warranted such a course. It was not the policy of the Commonwealth Bank to advertise its overdraft rates during this period, but the information was always available on application.

page 3151

QUESTION

PRICES CONTROL

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– On the 24th November, Senator Critchley asked me the following questions: -

  1. Has any material increase in price occurred on items on which price stabilization or subsidies have been withdrawn since 30th June, 1946?
  2. If price increases have occurred on any items, what was the amount of the increase ?
  3. What is the amount, or estimated _ amount, of saving in respect of each subsidy ‘ withdrawn since 30th June, 1946?

I now furnish the following replies : -

  1. Some price increases have necessarily been granted on items from which price stabilization subsidies have been withdrawn since 30th June, 1946.
  2. Prices of many thousands of individual lines have been affected by withdrawal of subsidy and the preparation of a list would involve weeks of work. For example, the withdrawal of the subsidy formerly paid to offset the increased wages to female employees affected the costs of all items in the industries affected. Furthermore, the effect of the withdrawal of subsidy cannot always be isolated because price increases granted since the subsidy was withdrawn have also taken into consideration other increased costs such as the increase in the basic wage. The increase of 5.1 per cent. in the “ C “ series index between June quarter, 1940, and September quarter, 1947, shows some ofthe effects of the withdrawal of subsidy,but it also reflects other cost increases as well.
  3. This again is difficult to estimate. With regard to imported goods, the saving is the difference between the landed cost and the basic price but as landed costs have not been static the saving in subsidy has not been static. Expenditure for1945-46 on subsidy on some important items no longer subsidized was as follows: -

page 3152

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RENTS AND PRICES) BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3rd December (vide page 3060), on motion by Senator

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

. Last night I showed what the consequences of uncontrolled rents and prices would be and quoted the experiences of other countries that had found it necessary to continue price and rent control. I believe that the power to control rents and prices must be a national one and that the matter cannot he dealt with effectively other than on a national basis. No honorable senator would claim that co-operation between the States, however sincere, would have achieved the same results as those which have attended the administration of these anti-inflationary controls by a federal department.

It has been ascertained that rent approximates to 20 per cent. of the cost of living. If one State relaxed or abandoned rent control, that action would have repercussions in the other States. The basic wage and cost of living standards would be thrown out of gear if one State had rent and price-fixing controls while another State allowed a “ fair go “ for the black marketeer and the rent robber. It can be seen that if there were no controls in Victoria, and as a consequence rents and prices rose, whilst in the adjoining State of ‘South Australia those items were controlled, the cost of living in South Australia would be much lower and there would be an exodus of labour from Victoria to South Australia, leaving the industries of Victoria in an unfortunate position.

As I understand it, honorable senators opposite are saying that some form of control is necessary as long as it is not Labour control. Why do they not “ come clean “ and admit that their resistance to this bill is merely a token one and purely a matter of party politics? The Australian spirit does not take kindly to unnecessary controls and restrictions. By nature I am not meek, mild or placid, but I recognize the necessity for the imposition of controls, restrictions and discipline in the interests of the community, and the common good. Like other honorable senators, I can take my own part, but it is the duty of this Parliament and of this Government to protect the interests of those who are not so fortunately placed. I consider it is the duty of the Government to protect the people who might come under the influence of those who control large numbers of rentable properties, and who would, if they were given the opportunity, indulge in exploitation. No government could uphold the principle of fettering the Australian people unnecessarily. It is quite obvious that the imposition of restrictions merely for the sake of imposing them would eventually lead to a revolt. The people cannot be chained hand and foot, and this bill is not designed to do that. Experience during the war proved that these controls were absolutely necessary.

I am convinced that two things are of paramount importance. First, there must be an orderly transition from war to- peace ; and secondly, there must be power to mitigate the effects of any economic recession that may be caused by outside conditions. Power to control rents and prices would offset to a considerable degree any inflationary tendencies that might arise in this country. It is not a question of State interests, ‘State boundaries or party politics. This is a national matter. During the war the Australian Imperial Force was raised in all States, but we went away as a national army. We fought as Australians and not as Tasmanians, Victorians or citizens of any other State. Our shoulder-tabs bore the word “ Australia “ and not the name of any State. This bill has been brought into the National Parliament to achieve a national objective, and again I say that when matters of national importance arise they should be above party politics and State interests.

The Opposition opposes, this measure not on its merits; not in the interests of the country as a whole; not because control of prices and vents is unnecessary; and not on the ground that the prices authorities are corrupt and inefficient; but just because opposition to any government proposal is part of the campaign organized by the Leader- of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies). Because this is a Labour move, it must be wrong. It seems to be m principle of the Opposition that no matter how well meaning the Government may be in introducing a measure, that measure must be wrong, simply because a Labour government initiated it. On the other hand, of course, if the Opposition parties were in power, everything that they did would necessarily be right in their own eyes-. We cannot be right al] the time;, but we cannot be wrong all the time. The Government’s legislative programme has been designed in the interests of the people. We have heard arguments advanced against the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill, the Banking Bill, and almost every other piece of legislation that the Government has introduced during the present sessional period. Now, we are hearing the same arguments about this bill.

Senator Osullivan spoke about the twittering of birds and other irrelevancies, but when- he actually got. down to tin-tacks, the whole basis of his argument against this measure was that it would mean “ more power for Chifley “. He could have expressed, his opinion in one sentence,, without bothering to wander through the bill. I ask, “ So what ?. “ Unless we confer power upon the proper authority what can we achieve? It is all very well to have an army,, but, unless there is a power directing and controlling, it, that army cannot achieve anything. It is only a lot of men in uniform, bearing, arms, but lacking direction.. This opposition to a measure just because it is a Labour proposal is completely without merit. In all good governments, the authority comes upwards from the people through their various organizations. The impetus must come from the people. The allegation that this is just another power sought by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) is- absurd. The desire for this power has been conveyed to the Prime Minister from the people, through their representatives in this Parliament, through caucus and through Cabinet. The Prime Minister is merely the instrument by which the wishes of the people may be achieved. On the other hand, of course, in the Liberal party, policy is directed from the top down through the capitalistic- organizations to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and then to Opposition members of Parliament, who- tell the people what “ they “ want.

The people most vitally concerned in this proposal are tohhse who pay rent to live in houses and those why buy groceries and clothing- and all the other things that go to make- up a reasonable standard of living. The desire of the people for prices and rent control has been conveyed to the Government by the elected representatives, of the people* I support this measure wholeheartedly. T commend it to all honorable senators, and I hope that it will be passed without delay.

Senator LARGE:
New South Wales

– I am happy to support this measure which seeks increased- power for the Commonwealth Parliament. Many attempts have been made to enlarge the powers- of: the federal Parliament, but unfortunately too often these attempts have failed, not through any lack of logical reasoning in the efforts to convince the people of the justice of the proposals, but because of the extraordinary opposition that Labour has always had to face. In addition to vested interests - the moneyed people - we have had to face their tool, a vicious, hostile press. The reason why more power has not been conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament is that the people have never been permitted to understand the questions upon which they have been called upon to express an opinion. Recently, I examined a “ For and against” pamphlet issued in connexion with the 1912 referendum proposals. The increased powers then sought were in respect of trade and commerce, corporations, industrial matters, railway disputes, trusts, and the nationalization of monopolies. I find that on that occasion opponents of the proposals advanced exactly the same arguments as are being used to-day by the Opposition parties. The passage of 30 years apparently has made no difference to their outlook. These individuals, who have always opposed progress, are still living in the 1912 atmosphere.

A referendum was held in 1944 on the proposal to grant to the Commonwealth power to legislate in respect of social services, the marketing of primary products and industrial matters. Unfortunately the social services question was the only one that received an affirmative vote. Had it not been for the failure to secure power to legislate in respect of industrial matters, I venture to say that half of the industrial trouble in which this country has been embroiled since that time would have been obviated. Despite the refusal of the people to grant power to the Commonwealth in respect of industrial matters, the Government has had to bear the odium associated with all this industrial unrest.

Although the- ranks of the Opposition parties are weak in this chamber, they will be considerably augmented when the outside campaign against this proposal is opened. Opponents of this measure will be supported by an antiLabour press. Labour’s campaign will be confined mainly to public meetings throughout the country. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) stated that on the occasion of the last referendum, government supporters spread the bogy that if the people did not give to the Central Government power in respect of social services, all existing social services, such as child endowment, would be lost. The honorable senator said that that claim was a bogy, and that subsequent events showed that had that power ‘been refused by the people, existing social legislation would not have been endangered at all. On the contrary, events in the interim have proved that had the people refused to give that power to the Central ‘Government, those who obstruct progress and depend for success upon the defeat of the wage-earners, would have emasculated, and, in fact, almost eradicated, that legislation through the High Court. I am satisfied that that would have been done. The Leader of the Opposition was simply chasing butterflies when he was dealing with that subject.

I have always been surprised at the keen advocacy of State rights by the Leader of the Opposition. A stranger listening to his speech would imagine that he was a special representative of the Queensland Parliament and not a representative of the people of Queensland in the National Parliament. He appears to be concerned only with the rights of his State, and he is convinced of the State’s ability to administer powers such as are sought under this measure better than the National Parliament of which he is a member. That attitude springs from either an inferiority complex or an attempt to insult members of the National Parliament as a whole. I have been surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should he so loyal to one State, and so disloyal to the National Parliament of which he is a member.

He said that. he did not want to decontrol rents and prices yet. He does not want to de-control them until production has improved and we get on a. more even keel. He estimated that we should reach that point about the end of 1948. He contended that when that time arrived, the control of rents and prices should be abolished and the people thrown to the wolves on the old principle of dog eat dog. He claimed that the people could rely on the generosity and beneficence of the employing classes and manufacturing and commercial interests for a fair deal for the unprotected toilers. He said that he does not want these controls removed yet. He said that they were imposed in war-time and that they were necessary under war conditions and during the transition from war to peace. He agreed that up to date they have operated satisfactorily. If that be so, why not continue these controls for all time? Have not all of ns learned the lesson that when the nation had been put to the severe test of war, private enterprise has been unable to evoke a 100 per cent, effort from the people? Private enterprise has failed in every war in that respect. Is not the measure of our success in international conflagrations to be determined by the degree to which we have taken over all controls necessary for the successful prosecution of the war? .Surely, the Leader of the Opposition has learnt that lesson from the two world conflagrations which this generation has endured. On the day that World War I. broke out in August, 1914, private employers ceased to exist in Germany; but it was not until two and a half years later, during which period Germany had taken every trick, and the Allies had done no good at all, that the British Government realized the necessity to take over the transport system of Great Britain and the control of foodstuffs and other essentials. From the day the British Government assumed those controls, the Allies went from success to success. Our Allies did not make the same mistake in the recent war, because they immediately took over control of essential commodities and services, and extended them as the war proceeded. The point of all this is that it has invariably been proved that private enterprise cannot ensure a 100 per cent, war effort. Therefore, private enterprise cannot be as efficient as governmental enterprise under proper administration. It seems to me that many of the opponents of these controls are still living in the flat earth age.

The Leader of the Opposition declared that this measure embodied socialistic principles. I fail to see any connexion between it and socialization. Every honorable senator knows that I have been a convinced socialist for many years. I do not run away from those problems, but I cannot see any connexion between this legislation and socialization. What I have just said about the failure of private enterprise to evoke a 100 per cent, war effort from the people, and the necessity thereby imposed upon the Government to socialize various commodities and services, should make it clear to every one that socialization is good. However, I cannot see any connexion between this measure and the socialist bogy. Opponents of Labour principles have constantly raised the socialist bogy ever since I arrived in this country about the middle of 1908. In the following year, Australia was in the throes of general elections, and one of the first posters I saw depicted a gaudily painted, hideous tiger which was labelled, “The Socialist Tiger”. Labour’s opponents have been riding that tiger ever since. It is trotted out at every general election. Although the tiger now shows signs of bashings, it is still the same old tiger.

Another reason why powers of this kind should be given to the Central Government is that our federation is the weakest of all federations in the world. It is weaker than the American, Canadian and Swiss federations and much weaker than the German federation was. Only a few powers were handed to the Commonwealth by the representatives of the States, who were jealous of their position. One reason why these powers are required is that the States have shown their utter incapacity to agree among themselves. Yet, members of the Opposition urge that these powers should remain in the hands of the States. Is there anything so sacred about the Constitution that it must never be altered? Is it not proper that the people themselves should say where power shall reside? Are they not entitled to say that authority should be vested in a government representative of all the people rather than that it should be left in the hands of a half a dozen States? I agree with Senator Murray that, if the administration of these matters were left to the States, the economy of the nation would soon be upset. I well remember how, in the days before federal awards operated in certain industries, one State was played against another. On one occasion when I was giving evidence before a wages board, the advocate of the employers said, “ We would not mind if the claim of the appellants was twice what it is ; Ave would give an extra £1 a week to them, provided that the other States were forced to do the same “. Throughout the history of Australia one State has been played against another. Those who cannot protect themselves need the protection of the Australian Government. They cannot be given adequate protection by the States, and for that reason I favour the extension of powers in the hands of the Australian Government. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that these powers are not necessary in normal times, and that private enterprise in the sphere of trade and commerce would prove satisfactory to all. That attitude is peculiar, especially in the light of what is contained in a pamphlet which I hold in my hand. It is an open letter, written in affidavit form, and relates to the royal commission which was appointed in 1935 to inquire into the ramifications of various oil monopolies in Australia. Among the matters which were inquired into was one as to whether the British and American oil monopolies, acting in collusion, had robbed Australia of £250,000,000 between 1921 and 1935. I am not content to leave controls in the hands of such people. I do not believe that it is safe to leave these powers in the hands of the captains of industry and those engaged in “ big business “. All their actions, including their misdeeds, can be presented in a favorable light to the public by a press which is paid by them.

This matter should be considered from the ethical standpoint. I have not forgotten what happened during the last depression. It is all very well to say that in those days goods were in abundant supply and that money was scarce. That is true, but it was-only the effect. No one during this debate has said that the depression was brought about because of the fact that the monied people of this country, who had invested their .money at a set rate of interest, found themselves at the conclusion of the war, when prices began to rise, in the position that their interest receipts, which were, say £5,000 a year before the war, had fallen in value to £2,500 a year, out of which they had to maintain an establishment costing £5,000 a year. They demanded that the banks should devalue the Australian pound. That is the reason why overdrafts were called up, and why the purchasing power of the people was lowered. Many people were told that their overdrafts must be reduced. I was in that position. Because the £1 was not worth so much to wealthy men as a result of the inflation which followed, the war, a depression started. That is why there was an abundance of goods and not sufficient money to buy them. That is why goods became cheap and money became dear. What was the result of that depression? It caused far greater casualties than did the war of 1914-18. There were more deaths from slow starvation, more maimed people as the result of malnutrition, and a greater lowering of the physique of the people. Now we are asked to trust the people who brought about those conditions. I hesitate to take the advice of an honorable senator who, in this chamber, voted against a fiduciary issue of £18,000,000 to relieve distress in the community when the depression was at it9 worst. The expenditure of that sum of money would have gone a long way towards alleviating the situation and preventing the catastrophe which then occurred. We must have regard to the poorer section of the community who, unless the banks are controlled and unless money is made available for such work as the construction of roads and bridges, water conservation and reticulation, including the supply of water to inland areas, the unification of railway .gauges and other such projects, will be placed in a position similar to that which existed in the depression years. Happenings in Britain, France and the United States of America should stimulate us to take measures to prevent another depression as bad as, or even worse than, that which had such harmful effects between 1929 and 1933. I believe that if the people really understood that direction of financial policy and control of prices and rents would enable the Government to shelter them from the icy winds of economic adversity, they would unhesitatingly support this proposal. However, all the forces of reaction have been employed to mislead the people and to resist the Government’s proposal. I know that during 1944 every effort was made to explain to the people the nature

Of the Government’s proposal for reform of the Constitution, and I myself travelled about 4,000 miles in the course of that campaign. Our efforts did not Succeed, because, among other reasons, the forces of reaction, including a hostile press, were too powerful. I am satisfied that the bill is a good one, and that its principles should be approved by the people, because control of rents and prices is a necessary corollary of control of financial policy. If the people really understand the nature of the Government’s proposals, I am satisfied that they will vote for them. In any case, I believe that they will look upon the proposed referendum as an opportunity to express their continued confidence in the Australian Labour party. Labour governments have carried them safely through the greatest war in history, and introduced and administered a scheme of rehabilitation second to none in the world. Although I do not indulge in personal abuse of political opponents, I desire to say in conclusion that I have had great difficulty in controlling my feelings in regard to the tactics employed by those who are endeavouring to defeat the Government’s proposal.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– My opposition to the bill is based upon three important considerations. In the first place, Australia is completely opposed to centralized government; in the second place, I have no doubt that the people do not wish to entrust the Government with unlimited power for all time; and, in the third place, I believe that the present proposal is unnecessary, and that the end which it seeks to attain may be achieved by more simple and straightforward methods. I believe that this proposal discloses another segment of the pattern of “ things to come “. First, a Labour government introduced unification of taxation, and that had the effect of reducing the State governments to the position of mendicants. Then this Government attempted to socialize the banks, and if its recent attempt is successful, it will create a gigantic government monopoly to control our enterprises. Now Labour brings forward a proposal intended to confer on the Government the right to control rents and prices for ever. What sort of a world are we making? On the one hand, we are reducing the powers of the .States, whilst, on the other hand, we are building up the powers of the Commonwealth. Is that in accordance with the will of the Australian people? In all sincerity, I say that it is not. Furthermore, the disclosure that the Government seeks to exercise these powers for all time will come as a shock to the people of Australia.

From the three measures which I have mentioned emerges the pattern of life which the Government envisages for us; the design to render the States ineffective by gradual processes, the desire to create huge government monopolies, the determination to introduce regimentation and control. That pattern of life is, in short, one which will so regulate and control us that we shall live, work and progress only within the narrow confines of the decisions of an aloof and unapproachable government in remote Canberra. I believe that that is a conception of life which the average Australian detests and abhors; yet the Government is seeking to fasten it on the people before they realize its real intention. What has happened to the idea of federalized government? Has this Ministry, after years of absolute power, exercised under the defence provisions of the Constitution, suddenly decided that it must retain that power at all costs? This bill certainly indicates that that is the case; the lust for power is apparent in every line of it. This desire for more and more power has been evident in so many of the Government’s recent proposals that its ambitions are becoming increasingly obvious to the people.

One after another, the States’ powers have been reduced, and those of the Commonwealth have been built up. There can be only one basic reason for that, and it is to be found in the Government’s determination to retain all the power over our lives which it had during the war. The exercise of such power is contrary to the Australian conception of federation rather than unification. I question very much whether the pronounced trend towards unification will make for the good of the people, because, obviously, decentralization, rather than centralization, is what Australia needs.

During the war years, the people had a taste of centralization, and they know what it means. They know what happens when a matter is referred to Canterra ! They know what occurs when (eai authority, the authority that makes decisions, is remote from the people. They know what happens when that authority is out of touch with the problems of a daily life of different type from ite own. The people of Australia have experienced this type of control, and yet the Government now proposes to ask for power to continue for ever control from Canberra of rents and prices. I believe that the people of Australia certainly do not want it. There is far too much camouflage and not enough sincerity about this proposal. Why cannot the Government tell the people the truth? If the Government cannot trust the people, how can it expect the people to trust it. The truth, as I see it, is that continuance of the power to control prices and rents is necessary during the transition period, but is quite unnecessary as a Commonwealth power once the national economy is restored. If this is accepted, then the only question which remains to be decided is how the Commonwealth can be given the necessary powers “for the limited period during which they will be needed “. I emphasize the words : “ for the limited period during which they will be needed “, because they contain the root of my objection to this proposal.

The Commonwealth does not need these powers for ever, yet if this referendum proposal is adopted, it will have them for ever. Why will the Government need these powers after the economic position and production have been restored? My answer is that it wishes to force upon Australians a socialistic pattern of life, a pattern which is abhorrent to the majority of the people of this country. There are many ways in which these powers could be given to the Commonwealth for a limited period. They could be referred by the States under section 51 of the Constitution; the States could be invited to pass State legislation setting up machinery to deal with this problem, with the power of co-ordination conceded to the Commonwealth ; or the Government could present this question to the electors with alternatives, such as for two or three years, or for any specified time, so that the electors could answer in conformity with their appreciation of the Commonwealth’s needs. I feel very concerned about these powers being given to the Government for ever. I fully appreciate the need for control during this present period, but it is a very grave and serious thing to give the power for all time. I ask the Government to tell the people why it wants this power for ever and not for only a limited period.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I support this measure, which is a bill for an act to permit the Government to seek the approval of the people of Australia to an alteration of the Constitution permitting it to control rents and prices, including charges. The Opposition has spoken of what the result of the referendum will be. The referendum, however, is a democratic way of altering the Constitution by submitting the question to the people. When the Constitution confers certain powers upon the Government, it acts under those powers, and does so with a full recognition of its responsibility and of its duty to the people. In this matter, however, the Government is satisfied that the Constitution does not, confer upon it the power to do what it considers absolutely necessary for the protection of the Australian people and for the maintenance of the economic stability qf the country.

It has been said that this power to control rents and prices is at present held by the States. As a weapon in the hands of the States, honorable senators opposite do not fear it. When the States act, they do not say it is socialism or regimentation; they did not say it was a restriction of freedom when the Government of the State of Queensland acted in the interests of its people. When the exercise of this power becomes a national issue, however, they use all those arguments to oppose a measure which will have precisely that effect, although instead of being dealt with parochially the.problem will be dealt with nationally.

Senator O’Sullivan told the Senate that the Queensland Government passed legislation for the control of prices and charges, and that the results of that action were very satisfactory; but arguments put forward in the industrial courts by workers’ advocates claiming that the workers’ wages are not sufficient to meet their needs contradict that assertion. Queensland has, I admit, made an honest attempt to deal with these matters. That attempt has met with only a degree of success, because, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) told the Senate quite frankly, in order to obtain essential materials for home building in Queensland, it is necessary to go on to the black market and to pay black-market prices.

The Government is asking the people for power, under the Constitution, to enable it to maintain the ordered economy which has served this nation so well. This is a matter which affects every citizen of the nation. The workers go to the Arbitration Court to have their wage rates fixed. Those rates are determined in accordance with certain formulas, which are altered from time to time when the evidence submitted justifies that course. The workers accept the principle of arbitration, but they contend that when their wage rates are fixed in that way some control should be exercised to ensure that they are not exploited. The Opposition argue that although one side of the equation should remain constant, the other should be allowed to be altered. Honorable senators opposite say that this disequilibrium £>ives an advantage to the person who is not subject to control in regard to the price at which he may sell his commodities, because it gives him an incentive to produce. That is a bad argument. If a fair price has been fixed for the commodities a man is producing, he should be prepared to produce to the full. If he is not prepared to do so, he should get out of that field of production and permit somebody who is more honest than he is to take his place.

Honorable senators opposite argue that the fixation of prices will work in one way. Apparently they have not given much consideration to the system under which the country has operated since 1942. The extraordinary conditions caused by the war forced the Government to take action to ensure that the vast majority of the people of this country should live without exploitation within the framework of the economy best suited to the nation. The system of price regulation that has obtained up to the present time is one which has aimed at maintaining the position that existed in 1942, the year that was taken as the base year. It has been a very difficult task to do that. The prices of tea, potatoes, onions and other necessities have been fixed at a level far below that at which they could be sold if prices were based on the cost of production, and as a result the Government has .paid large subsidies. This Government has done excellent work in maintaining a balanced economy in Australia, and it would be wrong for it to say, at a time when the maintenance of that balanced economy is more than ever necessary, that it proposed to hand back to the States the duty of controlling those vital elements in the economy which govern the general living conditions of the people. It would be wrong to return to an economic system in which one side of the equation was adjusted by one power and the other side by another power.

In 1942 a conference of representatives of the Commonwealth and State Parliaments was convened to discuss a proposed alteration of the Commonwealth Constitution. The conference was attended by representatives of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,’ South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania being represented by their respective Premiers. It was agreed that it was necessary either for the States to exercise the powers available to them or for the Commonwealth to be given power to regulate and to maintain the balance of the economy of the country. Honorable senators opposite agree that in time of war these things are essential, but they say that in times of peace the Government should keep out. They take the view that if a man can get an advantage, that is quite proper; and if somebody else is thereby disadvantaged, they say it is just unfortunate. Although all the States were represented at that conference, very few of them have chosen to exercise their right to introduce legislation for the fixation of rents and prices. An attempt was made by a Labour government in Western Australia, but after the measure was amended by the Legislative Council it was useless and might just as well not have been enacted.

The legislation restricting the rights of mortgagees was passed when the 22£ per cent, cut in wages, salaries and government expenditure was forced on the nation by virtue of the fact that the economy went from equilibrium into disequilibrium. Everything was thrown to the wolves. Many vain efforts were made by anti-Labour forces to end the Mortgagees’ Rights Restriction Act, but the measure was re-enacted for some years on an annual basis. The result was that those operating under it were in a constant state of suspense. Its repeal would have caused interest rates on mortgages to jump at once to 7 per cent, or 8 per cent. The Australian Government, however, provided money at 4£ per cent. Subsequently, these anti-Labour efforts to remove the people’s protection against high interest rates ceased, for the Australian Labour Government gave superior protection through its banking legislation.

Senator Rankin made an appeal for sincerity in our approach to these matters. If we are to be sincere, we have to analyse the question from the point of view of what is possible. The honorable senator knows very well that it is not possible to alter the Constitution for a limited period of time. She knows very well that when the necessity for the regulation of prices no longer obtains because supply and demand have become adjusted one to the other, the Government will have no need, and indeed no desire, to interfere. However, when a set of conditions arises where, either as a result of natural causes or, as is more often the case in peace-time, as a result of unnatural causes brought into being for the purpose of forcing up prices, the supply is not sufficient to meet the demand, the Government must interfere. Every primary producer fears a glut.

We, too, as a sensible government, fear the time when, because of lack of power to take remedial action, gluts may ruin not only the primary producers of this country, but also our whole economic system, which depends upon primary production for stability. The Government seeks the right to determine not only the maximum prices that shall be charged for goods and services, but also the minimum prices necessary for the maintenance of a stable economy. It is our desire to ensure that the living standards in this country shall be maintained, and that no section of the community shall be prejudiced by natural or unnatural economic conditions that may be forced upon them.

Let us analyse the position from the point of view of the States. The States already have power to control prices. Each State could introduce its own legislation for this purpose. But would such legislation be uniform ? One State which is concerned mainly with primary production may take action to ensure that primary producers shall have farm machinery at reasonable prices, particularly at a time when primary products are bringing comparatively low returns. The economy of that State would be entirely different from that of another State which was concerned mainly with secondary industries. The result would be that we should have six different economic systems operating throughout the Commonwealth, and the Australian Government would not have power to restore the balance on a national basis. These are the broader issues involved in this measure. Of even graver concern are the domestic issues. Every individual in the community is vitally concerned with what he has to pay for the necessaries of life. The Government’s intention is that rents should be fair and reasonable and that there should be no exploitation of the housing shortage. In respect of the fixing of the prices of commodities, there is no intention to restore the position existing prior to 1942. We shall introduce a system whereby food will be sold at a price that will ensure protection to the consumer, and an adequate return to the producer. Producers will not be forced out of production by unfair and unbalanced competition. The end of the war saw the departure from this country of huge numbers of allied troops. In the absence of adequate controls, this could have resulted in tremendous gluts of marketable commodities, such as occurred in the pre-war years when, on many occasions, primary producers did not even receive the price of the cases in which their goods were packed. This is a problem that can only be tackled on national lines.

For the last five years I have been associated with the marketing of primary products in Western Australia. It is generally admitted in that State that it would be impossible for Western Australia, under its own legislation, to protect the economic security of its people. As the honorable senators from Queensland are aware, some time ago in that State there was an inquiry by a royal commission into the marketing of primary products. The royal commission was instructed to ascertain whether the economy of Queensland was being prejudiced by the sending of vegetables and other goods in short supply in Queensland to New South Wales, because of the better prices prevailing there. An investigation was also made of the circumstances in which gluts occurred in the Queensland markets. Naturally the aim of all merchants is to buy cheaply and to sell on profitable markets, but the Queensland royal commission was charged with inquiring into the operations of individuals who acted as both agents and merchants - a practice which can only be termed unmoral. These people, acting as the agents of the growers, were buying produce at glut prices, and then, as merchants, sending the produce to markets where the ruling prices were considerably higher. The royal commission recommended that that practice be stopped. Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have all had similar experiences. For instance, while jams produced by H. Jones & Company were being dumped in Western Australia, they were being sold for higher prices in other parts of the Commonwealth and nobody was benefiting. Under a system of prices’ control, the small shopkeeper and the big shopkeeper alike know the prices at which they can buy their commodities and they know the margin of profit that they are allowed. Should this profit margin become inadequate to carry on business economically, representations may be made to the prices authorities for adjustments, and these adjustments are made in such a manner that one State will not secure an advantage over another. In the past, representations from the various States in regard to prices matters have been received by the Commonwealth with the greatest attention. We realize that the State governments, like this Administration, are endeavouring to do their best for the people that they represent. As the representative in this chamber of all the working people in Western Australia, including the small businessman, the legitimate trader, and the primary producer, I welcome this measure which will give to Australian citizens the right to determine whether or not they wish to return to the conditions of economic uncertainty that existed prior to the introduction of prices control. I commend the bill to the Senate in the hope that, when the referendum is held, the people will show their appreciation of the need to protect the economy of this country on a national basis.

Senator KATZ:
Victoria

.- This bill has one object, namely, the maintenance of a stabilized economy. I have observed from my reading of conditions abroad that in no other country is there the stable economy that exists in Australia. Opposition senators have referred to the fact that in Queensland prices control has been exercised by the State Government since 1920. We may rest assured that the introduction of price fixing in Queensland is not attributable to the Liberal party. The Queensland senators who comprise the Opposition parties failed to point out to the Senate that, as the result of the action of the Labour Government in Queensland, the people of that State have not had to suffer to the same degree the cost-of-living increases that have taken place in the other States.

This measure does not relate only to the control of rents and prices; it embraces also the. control of charges.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– - So does the Queensland legislation.

Senator KATZ:

– Apparently, Senator O’Sullivan, despite his legal training, is not aware that the Queensland Government cannot control rates of interest, whereas, as the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) has pointed out, this hill deals directly with that matter. Possibly that is one of the reasons why the Opposition is so adamant in its desire to defeat thi9 bill.

Senator Rankin said that she opposed this bill because it would grant additional powers to the Commonwealth. The hill does not do anything of the kind. It merely gives to the people of Australia the right to determine whether any Australian government in the future shall have the right to control prices, rents and charges. One of the main factors in determining the cost of living in the past has been rents. Any honorable senator who has the interests of the people of the Commonwealth at heart and the slightest knowledge of the economy of this country, must realize that the abolition of the control of rents would mean chaos. In Victoria, the housing commission is at present charging 37s. 6d. a week for homes. Elsewhere in the State it is utterly impossible to obtain a five or six roomed house for that sum. If rent controls were abolished tomorrow, rents would be doubled because of the shortage of houses. Houses which to-day are obtainable for £2 or £2 5s. a week would cost £4 or £4 10s. a week, and working people would be unable to afford them. There would be immediate meetings of trade unions to consider demands for increased wages, and discontent would be rife not only in the capital cities, but also in all provincial centres throughout the Commonwealth. The effects upon our entire economy would be drastic. All these things would happen with the removal of the control of rents only. The Government’s action therefore in seeking permanent power to control rents is understandable.

We can only assume that had the Liberal party been returned to power at the last elections, one of its first acts would have been to abolish prices control. I shall refer to a case which was ‘brought to my notice only last week in one of the more popular suburbs of Melbourne, near where I live. One shop was retailing butter at the black market price of 3s. 6d. per lb. and the proprietor of the shop is now being prosecuted under the law introduced by this Government. I suppose that, if the proprietor is convicted, he will be fined £50, and some people will probably say, “ Well, that is what pricefixing does “. However, if it were not for price-fixing, hundreds of establishments would be resorting to the same practice. Officers of the Prices Commissioner in Victoria are confronted with many difficulties of that kind. The people who try all these tricks are not members of the Labour party, but are contributors to the Liberal party’s funds; and I have no doubt that they will do their best to defeat the proposal to be submitted to the electors at the forthcoming referendum.

I shall cite another case in order to illustrate the dodges to which people resort in order to defeat the price-fixing law. The maximum price at which ladies hats can be sold is fixed at £4 10s. In most milliner’s shops, as in Collins-street, Melbourne, the price shown on hats on display is the maximum price of £4 10s. But what happens? When a lady goes into the shop to purchase a hat at that price she is informed that the trimmings will cost an additional £3 10s., and a veil an additional £1 ls. Thus, the proprietor of the shop endeavours to make a sale, in respect of that hat, not at the maximum price of £4 10s., but at £9 ls. Naturally, no lady wants to buy a hat with all the trimmings removed from it. That is typical of the dodges perpetrated on the public by sellers who try to defeat the price-fixing law. I anticipate that the question to be placed before the people at the forthcoming referendum will be answered in the affirmative. If it is, practices of that kind will be short-lived. Although the price of rabbits is fixed at 9 1/2d. per lb., the pricefixing inspectors have discovered many reputable tradesmen charging ls. per lb. The necessity for this measure is clear. Prices control must be retained in order to protect the people.

The Minister for Health (Senator McKenna), in his second-reading speech, stated that we now have full employment in this country. I do not suppose that 125 per cent, of employable persons in Australia are now unemployed. This happy state of affairs is due mainly to the fact that since the war ended this Government has had powers which have enabled it to stabilize our economy. It now seeks to retain its power to control rents and prices. I do not regard as rich any country which has workers unemployed. To-day in Australia employers in all industries are searching for employees. Indeed, many seek to engage children as soon as they leave school. But what are the present conditions in the United States of America, which is alleged by many to be the richest country in the world? The latest reports from that country bear out what the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has told the Parliament and the people. The Sydney press this morning publishes a cablegram from New York stating that last night in that city 3,500 men queued up in the snow in order to apply for 1,000 jobs as labourers with the New York City Council, although wages of labourers in that country are less than those of ordinary stenographers. The report states that many of those men slept all night in the snow in order to retain their places in the queue. It added that many of them were ex-service personnel of the recent war. The Government is seeking powers under this measure in order to protect the people of this country from conditions of that kind, and, in doing so, it has at heart the interests of not only ex-service personnel but our people generally. No government in any country has done more than this Government to protect the interests of its ex-service personnel.

Senator O’sullivan dealt with the second.reading speech of the Minister for Health in piece-meal fashion. I draw the attention of honorable senators to the following striking passage from the Minister’s speech : -

The power over rents would cover the fixing or “pegging” of rents and would include power to provide for the determination of fair rents and, as an incidental matter, to protect tenants against eviction. It would apply to rents of goods as well as rents of land and buildings

The power with respect to prices would enable Parliament to control and regulate the prices at which property of any kind (including commodities, land and shares in companies) is sold.

The Minister stated that the foremost feature of this proposal was in relation to the control of rents. He also dealt with the subject of evictions. That subject is of paramount importance to the workers of Australia, who suffer most under the present law, which, like most laws passed in olden times by predecessors of the present-day Liberal party, sought first to protect the interests of the landed property class. Under the law to-day, any person who pays a deposit of, say, ?500 for the purchase of a house can obtain immediate possession of the dwelling, the occupant being immediately evicted. Recently, in Victoria, in one month, the number of evictions exceeded the total number of new houses constructed. Bearing in mind facts of that kind, I have not the slightest doubt that the people will endorse this proposal at the forthcoming referendum.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Why are not the regulations, enforced to protect occupants of houses against eviction ?

Senator KATZ:

– Because evictions are carried out under State law.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is not correct.

Senator KATZ:

– I do not know what the position is in Queensland in this respect, but in Victoria many occupants of houses are evicted under State law in the circumstances I have indicated. I wholeheartedly support the measure. I believe that the workers of Australia will be sorely disappointed if the proposal is not accepted. The bill is long overdue and I commend the Government for its courage in introducing it. I am confident that when this proposal is submitted to the people they will wholeheartedly endorse it. By giving this power to the Central Government they Will enable the National Parliament not only to build a better Australia but also to develop an economy which will offer opportunities to every citizen.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

: - I support the bill, because I believe that it is absolutely essential that the Central Government should retain control over rents and prices. Surely, members of the Opposition realize what will happen if these controls are abolished. However, judging by their arguments, they do not appear to realize the full implications of their opposition to this measure. By endeavouring to defeat this proposal, they are doing a great wrong to our people. Should the referendum fail to achieve the purpose of the Government, they will be responsible for confusing the minds of the people on this issue, which they are trying to sidetrack for party political purposes. The -Minister for Health, in his secondleading speech, stated that the object of the measure is to ensure that nation-wide protection shall be given to the tenant, housewife and primary producer and, in fact, every Australian who has to pay for land or goods or services of any kind. By opposing this measure, honorable senators opposite are betraying the trust reposed in them by the people. Senator O’sullivan asked why the Government required these powers. The Constitution gives to this Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good Government of the Commonwealth. The object of this hill is to give permanent nation-wide protection to the people I have mentioned. It is, therefore, legislation for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. The Opposition says that the Government wants this power for ever. The framers of the Constitution provided that certain powers should reside in the Commonwealth. Although they are permanent powers, that does not necessarily mean that they will last for ever.

Under section 51 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth is given power over a number of matters, including trade and commerce, taxation, postal services, census and statistics, currency and coinage, weights and measures and so on, all of which are matters which are essential for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. We on this side have pointed out the evils which would arise from an uncontrolled economy in the future. We have shown that the economic blizzard which is gathering strength in other parts of the world may afflict Australia unless there is power to control prices and rents and to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. The attitude of the Opposition to this measure can be likened to the actions of the people who are sabotaging the Government of France. The Opposition in this Parliament consists of political saboteurs. They admit the necessity for this legislation, and yet, for party political purposes, they are using the press and the radio and every means’ at their disposal to turn the people against it. The actions of saboteurs in other parts of the world are roundly condemned, and I am sure that history will judge the present Opposition as saboteurs of Australia. The story that was put forward before federation is again being advanced by those who are trying to set the States against the Commonwealth. The States have certain powers, and in their own sphere they exercise them. It is admitted that Australia has reached a position in world affairs which fully justifies additional powers being given to the Commonwealth. In attempting to prevent the central authority from exercising its powers, the opponents of this measure are placing a further burden on the people of Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the cost of homes is high. As it is well known that there is a lag in housing, which may not be overtaken for fifteen years, the honorable senator, to be consistent, should support this measure and so enable prices to be kept down for that period. Unfortunately, he is one who would lock the stable door after the horse has escaped. We are approaching one of the worst economic crises that the world has known. As a unit of a British Commonwealth of Nations, Australia must be prepared to take its part in cushioning the effects of that crisis. I say plainly that by preventing this Parliament from taking the necessary measures to cushion the effects of a world-wide crisis, the Opposition is encouraging conditions which may get Australia into the financial and economic whirlpool. We have experienced recessions in the past, because recessions are part of the existing economic system. The old way of laisserfaire has been unable to cope with the crisis, yet the whole argument of the Opposition is based on the idea that Australia should remain in that condition. The Opposition i9 fighting tooth and nail to prevent any encroachment on its citadel of power and privilege, whereas we on this side consider that, in the interests of the people of Australia, those privileges should be removed because they create depressions. We have long hoped for a new order, and now we must do something to establish it, because a continuance of the old order will inevitably mean further chaos and ruin. The inflation which would follow any lifting of the controls of prices and rents would affect mainly people on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners and wage-earners who would find their income insufficient to meet their needs. The result would be a decline of the Australian standard of living. That is the aim of those who have had control of this country for so long. They desire at all times to depress the standard of living so that the masses of the people may be kept in subjection. In the event of inflation our standard of living will be lowered, and many years will pass before it will be restored.

I point out, in conclusion, that what is happening in other countries, particularly the struggle that is now taking place in France, is the result of politics of the kind in which the Liberal party in Australia believes. The agonies which France is now experiencing are in store for other countries which do not take the necessary precautions. That dangers lie ahead of the people of Australia is obvious’; but if we take the necessary precautions and give to the Government a mandate to act to meet the crisis we shall be doing what we, as the elected representatives of the people, should do. We must legislate for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply - The debate on this bill has provoked many honorable senators to express their views. Generally, the speeches have been brief and to the point. Several matters mentioned by Opposition speakers call for some mention. There can be no appreciation of the purpose of this bill unless we understand the basis on which the National Security Regulations now operate. The controls, particularly in the economic sphere, which are exercised at the moment under the temporary wartime power, rest for their validity upon the defence power of the Commonwealth. This power lies dormant in peace, but it expands to enormous proportions when war is upon us. It expands so much as to enable the Commonwealth Government to summon every element in the community to the aid of the successful prosecution of war. Again and again the High Court has upheld that view. It has also intimated that the defence power will extend into the transitional period so long as is necessary to unwind the war effort. The court has held that each control must be looked at in the light of its own circumstances. Earlier this year the High Court said that because it was completely competent for the Commonwealth to build air-raid shelters in the middle of streets in wartime, the coming of peace did not constitute such shelters an obstruction; according to the law of a State. Thecourt held that there must be time to. remove the shelters. It has given similarinstances of the possibility of the defencepower being utilized gradually to unwind the war effort until peace-time conditions return. The mere fact that troops are occupying enemy countries is an intimation to the High Court that the war is still going on. In eases decided earlier this year the court pointed out that peace treaties had not been concluded. That position, however, is altering rapidly. Yesterday, I laid on the table of the Senate peace treaties which have been concluded with five countries and which require ratification by Australia. The situation is changing from day to day, and the continuance of controls can be said to be dependent on the circumstances of the moment. Earlier this year .there were in the High Court two cases which showed the jeopardy in which a continuance of the defence power regulations lies. The case Dawson v. the Commonwealth related to land control and, as honorable senators know, land control relates primarily to prices. In that case the High Court was evenly divided. In favour of upholding the regulations were the Chief Justice, Sir John Latham. Justice Sir Owen Dixon and Mr. Justice McTiernan, whilst opposed to their continuance were Justice Sir George Rich, Mr. Justice Starke and Mr. Justice Williams. That vastly important control was retained solely by reason of the casting vote of the Chief Justice. There is an indication that High Court opinion is turning against the continuance of controls.

In a further case that concerned prices - Miller v. the Commonwealth - which was heard earlier this year, where the question of the control of shares and their prices was at issue, the High Court was divided, there being forjudges in favour of the regulations and two against them. More recently the Chief Justice of the High Court intimated plainly that the defence power was wearing rather thin. No doubt honorable senators saw his comment. No one can say when this power will vanish. It may happen at any time; it may disappear at the first attack. What, then, would be the power of the Australian Government to preserve stability and protect the people in receipt of pensions, wage-earners and others who are in an inferior position in the country’s economy? If we rely upon the States to pass uniform legislation simultaneously we are relying upon an exceedingly forlorn hope. We have only to remember what happened in connexion with a comparatively trifling matter - that of the air navigation regulations - to realize that that is so. Australia was a party to those regulations which were agreed to in Paris in 1920, but it took seventeen years to persuade six States to pass uniform laws and regulations to regulate air traffic and to provide for safety in that new field of development. Common sense ought to have dictated that action within a month not seventeen years. Only recently in this Senate, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper), I delivered a short discourse on the subject of uniform taxation. I did so because the honorable senator’s remarks conveyed the impression that there had been agreement between the States and the Commonwealth regarding the introduction of that legislation. His colleague, Senator O’sullivan, in the course of his speech on this bill yesterday, reaffirmed that proposition. I regret that the honorable senator is not present to hear what I have to say on the subject. I repeat what I then said, that when this country was in jeopardy - when the Japanese fleet was converging on Australia and Japanese troops were racing towards Australia - the then Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, met the Premiers of the States and put to them that there must be elbow room for the Commonwealth to summon all the resources of Australia by calling on the people to meet the challenge of total war. Every Premier refused to grant to the Commonwealth power to introduce uniform taxation for the period of the war and one year thereafter.

Sitting Suspended from .7.246 to 2.30 p.m.

Senator McKENNA:

– Immediately that situation arose, the Commonwealth, despite State opposition, introduced legislation to implement uniform taxation. Five out of the six States concerned contested that decision in the High Court of Australia. I emphasize that they adopted that course in June 1942, at the height of the war. Four States, including Queensland, pursued the matter in the High Court, and it was only because the judgment of the High Court was in favour of the Commonwealth that the system of uniform taxation could he continued. The fact that the Commonwealth, when it introduced that legislation, had provided that it was to operate for the duration of the war and one year after, was a decision made solely by the Commonwealth. That provision was inserted by the Commonwealth without any agreement with the States. Since then, the Commonwealth has continued to levy uniform taxation, and it will continue to dp so. The only bodies who oppose the continuance of that arrangement are the State governments. There is almost complete unanimity on the part of members of the business community and the people of Australia, generally as to the benefits conferred by that legislation. The Commonwealth made two attempts to secure agreement with the States, in regard to prices control. In view of the waning of the defence power of the Commonwealth, State Premiers who attended the conference of Commonwealth and ‘State Ministers held in 1945, agreed to endeavour to persuade their respective Parliaments to enact legislation to introduce uniform control of prices. What degree of success has attended their efforts? Tasmania rejected the proposal out of hand, and Victoria passed an act to provide that if every other State agreed to co-operate it would do so. Thus two States declined to participate at the very beginning of the post-war period. It is perfectly obvious to any one that if even one State fails to introduce prices control of uniform pattern any scheme of control must fall to the ground, for just as water finds its own level so do goods seek the best market. It is perfectly clear that if the price fixed for shoes in Tasmania is 22s., whilst that charged in Victoria is 25s., only the Victorians will be able to buy shoes. It is utterly impossible to obtain anything like effective price control in the States unless uniform control applies in each of them. As I say, experience shows that it is impossible for the States by themselves to achieve any such degree of control.

At the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in 1946 the Premiers agreed to supplement the weakening power of the Commonwealth over prices by passing State legislation, and each Premier undertook to endeavour to obtain the necessary power from the Parliament of his .State. What success attended their efforts? At the conference it, was freely acknowledged by all the Premiers, including the Leader of a Liberal government, Mr. Playford, that it was necessary to ‘buttress the Commonwealth’s waning power over prices. In pursuance of that agreement, Victoria introduced a bill which was due to expire on the 30th June, 1947. In May last the Victorian Government introduced a model bill drawn up by the Commonwealth at the request of the States. What happened? It was opposed by every member of the Liberal and Australian Country parties in the Legislative Assembly, and was rejected in the Legislative Council. The result is that Victoria would be without any kind of price control to-day if it were not for the powers exercised by the Commonwealth.

Members of the Opposition talk about sincerity, and their desire to continue prices control during the present emergency .period. However, they give only lip service to prices control. Let us look at what their own colleagues said in the Victorian Parliament. The men who made the utterances, which I propose to quote, were at that time in opposition, but are now members of the Ministry. On the 13th May, Mr. Dunstan, a mem ber of ‘he Australian Country party, a former Premier, and now Minister for Health, said -

We have no right whatever to try, by State legislation, to prop up something which, in the event of an appeal to the High Court, would probably be declared invalid.

Mr. McDonald, now Deputy Premier, said ;

I am prepared to let the people buy at the prices they are prepared to pay. It is about time that the Government gave up trying to protect every business and every individual’s interests and allowed them to protect themselves.

Which voices of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party are we to heed ? Members of those parties in this Parliament pay lip service to-day to the needs of the people and to the desirability of continuing prices control. Are we to listen to them, or to their colleagues in Victoria ?

Ihe introduction of prices control in Tasmania followed ‘a similar course. With great difficulty, the Government of that State persuaded its Upper House to continue prices control until the 30th June, 1948, which is only seven months hence. I emphasize that every member of the Liberal party in the Lower House opposed the measure. Yet notwithstanding the attitude of their colleagues in two States, members of the Opposition in this Parliament stand up to-day and declare that prices control is necessary, and will continue to be necessary for some time. What members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party really desire, despite the lip service they pay to the necessity for protecting the people, is freedom - freedom of action for the profiteer and racketeer, complete lack of control of monopolists and big business. I have been addressing the Senate on the subject of sincerity, and I have pointed out that members of the Opposition speak with two voices. I have warned the people on previous occasions to beware of people who speak with two voices. It is important that certain sections of the community should be safeguarded. Wage-earners must be protected in order to ensure that the purchasing power of their wages shall not deteriorate too rapidly, and the same consideration applies to pensioners and other people who are dependent upon fixed incomes and limited savings. Reverting for a moment to the subject of sincerity, I remind honorable senators that after two and a half years’ membership of the Senate I declared -

I have yet to hear an argument from the Opposition that is addressed to the welfare of the people of Australia.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– There are none so deaf as those who will not hear !

Senator McKENNA:

– Of course, and I shall refer to those who will not hear. We hear members of the Opposition advancing arguments in favour of hank directors, banking institutions and every other privileged class in the community ; but I have yet to hear from them an ^argument directed to the true welfare of -the people for whom they pray, with the President, every time the Senate meets. T repeat, I have still to hear such a a argument from them.

This bill was introduced because of the failure of the States to take effective Action to control rents and prices. Although the Premiers acknowledged the need for prices control, several of their parliaments rejected entirely the legislation which they introduced to give effect to it. The Premiers cannot control their parliaments because the Upper Houses of their parliaments are undemocratically elected. Those chambers, as Governor Denison admitted in the last century, are so constituted as to “stem the riG i tide of democracy “. In making that admission h6 told the truth, because that is plainly their function. It would not have been necessary for the Commonwealth to seek power to control prices - and it is not so much a seeking of power as an acceptance of responsibility, because there can be no power without responsibility - if the States had been able to achieve that end. Whether the power sought is to be exercised by the Commonwealth or some other authority, it is unquestionably true that the people of Australia look to this Parliament to preserve the nation’s economic: stability, rather than to a number of State governments. The States have had two opportunities to rectify the present dangerous situation.

It is impossible for members of the Opposition to “sell” the idea to the people that there is no danger of infla tion, because people know what is happening in other parts of the world. They know that in China prices have increased by 2,000,000 per cent, and by 15,000 per cent, in Poland. Inflation of almost unprecedented character has occurred in every European country, and the people of Australia realize that inflation is just around the corner, awaiting the removal of controls. Any person who has given the least consideration to economic facts must realize that prices will rise whenever goods are in short supply. The suggestion made by members of the Opposition that an increase of production would solve the problem is only half correct. A great deal of the goods used in this country are produced outside it, and we have no control whatever over their manufacture. One has only to think of motor cars and petrol to realize the Government’s inability to control the production of many vital things. It should not be necessary for me to argue the need for prices control, because even members of the Opposition admit quite freely that it is necessary. However, the point is that whilst they admit it in this Parliament, their colleagues in the State parliaments strenuously deny it.

The power to control prices will be exercised exactly like the defence power; it will expand when the need arises, and until then it will lie dormant. So far from seeking to arrogate additional powers to itself, the Government has given every evidence of its desire to abandon controls. In the last couple of years the Government has voluntarily surrendered control of thousands of items. It has already permitted State governments and instrumentalities to control the costs and charges of their undertakings. Prices of electrical current and power are now controlled by the States, and matters such as the price of milk and the determination of taxi cab fares, which can be better dealt with locally, have been abandoned entirely by the Commonwealth in favour of the States. The Commonwealth has given every evidence of its desire to pass controls to the States, and to that end it has readily abrogated controls. The matters which I have mentioned as an indication of the desire of the Commonwealth to share control with the States can be multiplied many times.

Senator Rankin made the allegation that the Government wanted the power to exercise prices control for ever. Either she did not hear or she ignored what I said in my second-reading speech, when I informed the Senate that -

The introduction of this bill does not mean that the Government considers that it will be necessary to operate prices control indefinitely, or to operate it in the detailed and complete form to which we have become accustomed in recent years. Price control in that form is necessary only in a period of general excess of demand over supply - a condition which is now being steadily removed. As shortages disappear, so can prices control disappear, until it will become essentially a reserve power, operating only when and where it is required for the health of the economy.

That should sufficiently dispose of the honorable senator’s argument. It is no answer to a request for the grant of this power in complete and permanent terms to say that it may be abused. There is not one power of the Commonwealth Parliament that any honorable senator can name which is not capable of abuse, ft has- been said many times here that our power over marriage and divorce would enable this Parliament to dissolve every marriage in Australia overnight, and that our power over defence would enable us to send all the ladies to war instead of the men. Our power over currency would enable us to abrogate all currency and means of exchange and to force the country back to barter. There is not one power that cannot be grossly abused. The reason why they are not *o abused is, of course, because there is a political sanction for so doing. This is a democratic country and this is a democratic Parliament which, under all conditions, must go back to the people every three years and give an account of its doings. That is the greatest safeguard against abuse that any country could have, and nothing can abrogate that need for the Government to go back and give an accounting to the people who elected it.

I propose now to say a word about prices control in this country. I concede that prices control was initiated by the Opposition. According to the lip-service they pay to it to-day, it is favoured by honorable senators opposite. In the course of my second-reading speech, I demonstrated by figures that over the whole of the war period the price structure rose by only 30 per cent. - far less than in the 1914-1S war, which covered a more limited period. I pay a great tribute to the persons who administered prices control in this country under very great difficulties. “Without precedent, without prior experience and with untrained staffs they came into the field. Their responsibility was to oversee tens of thousands of items, to cover the whole of Australia, to investigate the cost of manufacture of every article and, above all, to police their prices when they were fixed. I pay the most generous tribute of which I am capable to the work they have done in leaving Australia, two years after the war has ended, with the most stable economy in the world. That result is a magnificent tribute to the -men who achieved it. There are, of course, flaws in price-fixing, and people are prone to magnify them. I say very deliberately to the Senate that when the Government recently considered the question of prices control it was faced with the need for abandoning it altogether, and for no reason other than that it could not hold the staff. The men who are expert in particular fields - the accountants, the economists and the investigators - feel that the power the Commonwealth enjoys is running out and they are looking foi more permanent employment. They need to provide for their security. This measure is the only alternative facing the Commonwealth. We have tried the States. We should have been forced to concentrate on a few items only, or else to de-control prices altogether. I do not have to talk to this Senate about what would have been the effect on the people if decontrol had occurred.

It has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) that this is one more move towards socialization. He did nothing more than to make that bare, bold and wild statement. It is beyond my comprehension to see how the mere control of prices would enable the Government to nationalize anything. The honorable senator was very careful not to embark upon a dissertation on how that could be accomplished. Every honorable senator opposite has been very careful to stay a long way away from a demonstration of how this Government could, under the Constitution, get power to nationalize industry.

I propose now to deal with an extraordinary argument that the honorable senator addressed to the Senate. In the course of my second-reading speech I pointed out that subsidies were payable as an incident to price control. I implied that they might be in some jeopardy if our power over prices ended. I think I am interpreting the honorable senator correctly when I say that he replied to that by referring me to the Government’s power under the Constitution to pay bounties on the production and export of goods. He referred to section 51, plactitum iii, and to section 90 of the Constitution. Many ofthe subsidies that were paid during the years of the war had nothing whatever to do with production in this country, and many of them had nothing whatever to do with goods. I refer in particular to tea. No tea is produced in this country. It is not possible for the Federal Government to pay a bounty upon production outside Australia, and in fact what was done was to subsidize consumers. I ask the honorable senator where is the power in the Constitution for the Government to do that if it is not as an incident to price control.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Motion (by SenatorMcKenna) agreed to-

That the third reading of the bill be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

Sitting suspended from 2.57 to3 p.m.

page 3170

CALL OF THE SENATE

The bells having been rung for two minutes,

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform honorable senators that their names will be called alphabetically by the Clerk. I request them to answer to their names.

The Clerk having called the names accordingly,

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that all senators, with the exception of Senators Arnold, Collings, Eraser, Grant and Tangney, have answered to their names. I direct that the names of those who have not answered be called again.

The names having been called,

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that of the senators absent Senators Arnold, Fraser, Grant and Tangney have sent apologies. I regret to inform honorable senators that Senator Collings was taken suddenly ill this morning and is now in the Canberra Hospital.

Motion (by SenatorAshley) agreed to-

That, in view of the fact that Senators Arnold, Fraser. Grant and Tangney have sent apologies and that Senator Collings is unable to attend because of illness, the said senators be excused for failure to answer the call of the Senate.

page 3170

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RENTS AND PRICES) BILL 1947

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McKenna) put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, as required by the Constitution, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3171

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3rd December (vide page 3016), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That thebill he now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This is a bill to approve of Australia becoming a member of the World Health Organization. Australian delegates attended a World Health Organization meeting held in conjunction with the United Nations Conference at San Francisco on the 25th April, 1945. At that time the word “ health “ was introduced into the Charter of the United Nations. The organization will become operative when the 26 nations concerned ratify the signatures of their delegates. It is pleasing to note that the United Nations have become interested in world health standards. This, I consider, is a great step towards world peace, because the raising of the health standards of all countries, particularly of those nations that are backward in this regard to-day, will remove much of the dissatisfaction and unrest that leadsto war. Apart from this aspect, the people of all nations will be able to share the benefits of the discoveries of medical science, many of which at. present are available only in the more advanced countries. I hope that the new organization will concentrate its efforts upon the elimination of diseases such as tuberculosis, which are prevalent in all parts of the world. If the ravages of this disease can be minimized, a substantial contribution will have been made to the welfare of future generations. Air travel has annihilated distance and has brought within a few hours’ travel countries which previously were two or three days, or even weeks, away by sea. This development has necessitated special measures to prevent the introduction of diseases from overseas, particularly from the older countries which for centuries have suffered pestilences that so far have never reached our shores. I refer particularly to Asiatic countries, where cholera and other dread epidemic diseases exist. This country will have to be most careful to safeguard its health standards. Membership of the World Health Organization will undoubtedly make all countries concerned more health-minded. The Opposition welcomes this bill, and has pleasure in supporting it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3171

QUARANTINE BILL (No. 2) 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3rd December (vide page 3018), on motion by tor McKenna -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

. - Except for minor alterations, the principal act has not been amended since 1924. The object of this measure is to give to the Minister power to deal with possible outbreaks of disease in remote parts of Australia, the urgency for which arises largely from the greater speed and volume of air travel. For instance, an aircraft bringing passengers from overseas on the northern route may, owing to adverse weather,be unable to land at Darwin and be diverted to proceed inland. There is also the possibility that an aircraft carrying passengers from overseas may crash on the mainland before touching down at its first port of call. These possibilities increase the danger of the introduction of diseases. We know that recently an aircraft arrived at Darwin with a passenger who was suspected of having cholera.

The measure also provides power to proclaim certain areas outside Australia, and to oblige passengers embarking at such points to produce certificates of inoculation, or vaccination, before joining aircraft en route to this country. This provision is important, because in respect of many diseases a person could be infected on arrival at the first port of call in this country, but could remain well until nearly two weeks after disembarking. Tinder the measure, owners of aircraft will be responsible for the production of such certificates by each passenger. Further, aircraft coming to Australia may call at countries in which an epidemic may suddenly break out. Under this measure, provision is made to prohibit entirely the entry into Australia by air from such places. All of these amendments are most desirable. The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COOKE:
Leader of the Opposition · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to know whether any facilities have been provided at Darwin for the quarantine of animals. I recall that some time ago a dog which was landed at Darwin was destroyed.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– No dogs at all are allowed to enter Australia by air. It is an offence to import dogs by air. The committee will realize the need for that precaution, because a dog might escape, and might infect dingoes and wild dogs inland from the port of call. Should an imported dog introduce disease in those circumstances it would be most difficult to arrest its spread. Such a possibility wouldbe a constant source of danger to human beings. Lt is not intended to make any provision at Darwin for the quarantine of animals, which, as I said, will not be permitted to land by air. In other parts of the Commonwealth, animals, when permitted to be imported from approved countries, are subject to quarantine. Work is in train to provide adequate quarantine facilities at Darwin for aircraft passengers. A diagnostic laboratory has been established there, and a diagnostician will be immediately available at all times to cope with suspected cases.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3172

REPATRIATION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, PERTH

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

– As Chairman, I present the report, with minutes of evidence, of the Public Works Committee, on the following subject: -

Erection of Repatriation Administrative Offices, Perth

page 3172

EGG EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now reada second time.

The purpose of the bill is to provide for the constitution of an Australian Egg Board for the purpose of regulating and controlling the export of eggs and egg products from the Commonwealth of Australia. In July, 1943, the responsibility for the stabilization of egg pricesand control of the marketing of eggs produced in Australia was taken over by the Commonwealth Egg Control organization as set up under the National Security (Egg Industry) Regulations, and continued in force under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946.

When this Commonwealth control cases on the 31st December, 1947, the responsibility for egg marketing will revert to the individual State egg boards, which will be responsible for the stabilization of prices and marketing of the production of their own States which will be at levels upwards of 50 per cent. higher than the previous highest they had controlled, which was in 1942-43. This anticipated surplus over Australian requirements is of such dimensions that every assistance has been given by the Commonwealth Government to the proposed establishment of an Australian-wide egg marketing organization, which, however, is only possible if supported by every State government. It is now evident that such an organization cannot be ready to take over from the Commonwealth Egg Control organization on the 1st January, 1948.

The Australian Government recently successfully concluded a long-term contract with the Government of the United Kingdom for the purchase of Australian eggs in shell, egg pulp and egg powder for the seasons 1947-4S. 1948-49 and 1949-50. The prices to the 30th June, 1949, have been agreed to, but those for 1949-50 are to be discussed in January, 1949. To assist in the orderly marketing of the anticipated surplus and to ensure that the conditions of the long-term contract shall be fulfilled, the Government has decided to establish an Australian Egg Board which will look after that portion of surplus production which is of a quality suitable for export.

Under clause 13 (e) of the bill the proposed board is empowered on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, to buy and sell eggs and egg products which are intended for export and comply with the provisions of the Export (Dairy Produce) Regulations. In addition, the board is authorized to deal with all matters relating to the export of eggs and egg products from Australia, to make such experiments as are likely to lead to the improvement of the quality of Australian eggs and to promote the sale overseas of such eggs. The export and distribution after export of Australian eggs will be controlled by the board by the issue of a licence to any person desiring to export eggs from the Commonwealth. The licence will be subject to such conditions and restrictions as are prescribed.

The bill provides for a board of ten members who will be representative of the following interests: - Egg producers of Australia, one from each State, 6; persons with commercial experience, 2; employees engaged in the handling, grading and processing of eggs, 1 ; Commonwealth Government representative, 1. The egg producers of Australia, with six members on a board of ten, have a definite majority.

It will be noted that provision is made for the producer representatives to be elected, but for the first board the time factor may render this impracticable and so provision is made for selection after consultation with representatives of producer organizations. Members are assured however, that wherever possible elections will be held. During the period of the long-term contract for the sale of Australia’s exportable eggs and egg products, the board will handle annually Commonwealth Government finance to the amount of from £4,000,000 to £6,000,000, and in these circumstances it is considered that the Government itself should have the right to appoint the chairman. This bill also gives the person presiding at a meeting the right to dissent from any decision of the board. This right is necessary, because of the Australian Government’s financial interest in the operations of the board. It is essential that the chairman shall have the right to bring to the Minister’s notice immediately any resolution which he believes may involve the Australian Government in any way on a point of principle or in financial losses or gains.

The other provisions of the bill are of a machinery nature only and are necessary to give effect to the major clauses to which attention has already been directed.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This is a bill to control the export of eggs. For twenty years the poultry industry has played an important part in Australian primary production, and I am pleased that it has grown to such dimensions that it is now necessary to provide an organization to ensure orderly marketing of its products. Poultry-raising has proved successful in every State, and during the years Australian poultry men have developed their own breeds to meet Australian conditions. The industry is now established on sound lines and has come to stay. Although large sums have been invested in poultry raising in Australia, it is possible to commence operations in a small way without much capital. During recent years many people who like an outdoor life have engaged in poultry raising as an industry rather than as a hobby. Ten years ago, when approximately 10,000,000 dozen eggs were exported, Australia’s production of eggs was valued at £1,000,000. By 1943-44 the production had increased to 12,000,000 dozen, and it has increased considerably since then. It is estimated that this year approximately 30,000,000 dozen eggs, valued at approximately £5,000,000, will be exported. In addition to the export of eggs, a considerable trade is done in chilled dressed poultry. There is a substantial home market for egg9 although the consumption of eggs and egg products is not so high in Australia as in many other countries. I have no doubt that the home consumption could be increased considerably by proper advertising and publicity. I am convinced that the industry is well established and that its prospects for the future are favorable.

This bill is similar to many other measures designed to control the export of primary products. Its chief purpose is to ensure the orderly marketing of eggs. This is a sphere in which some measure of control is necessary in order to ensure proper supervision of the quality and uniformity of grade of the eggs exported. So far as I know, the representative organization which had been formed by poultry-raisers was not consulted before this bill was drafted. If that be so, I regard it as a great mistake on the part of the Government, because the practical men and women engaged in the industry, who know its problems, could have been of great assistance to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) in its preparation. There is provision for a board of ten members, and I am pleased to note that six of them will be producers of eggs in Australia who are actually engaged in egg production. Each State will have its representative on the board.

As in other bills of this kind, this measure provides that the chairman shall be appointed by the Minister. I have no objection to the Minister nominating the chairman, but I do object to a decision of any board, consisting largely of practical men engaged in an industry, or having commercial experience associated with it, as well as a representative of the employees, being set at naught by the Minister because the chairman disagrees with it, and the Minister agrees with his view. It should not be possible to render null and void a decision of practical men in that way. I regard that provision as dangerous, and regret that it is contained in the bill. It gives to the

Minister complete control of the industry, because, should his view differ from that of the members of the board, his view prevails, and the members of the board become merely his advisers. In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) said that this power was necessary because the board would handle large sums of money. It is true that the board will have control of considerable funds, but those funds will consist largely of advances made against eggs which are the property of poultry-raisers. For many years it has been the practice of banks to make advances against products, without interfering with the method of sale of the products themselves. As the eggs which the board will control will be sold on the basis of contracts entered into before the eggs are shipped, I fail to see why the board could not handle the finances of the industry as effectively, or even more effectively because of their personal interest in the industry, than the Government. There are still a number of boards dealing with the export of primary products which are completely controlled by the representatives of the producers. They have been functioning for many years and have always given complete satisfaction to both producers and consumers, and their administration has been beyond criticism. I emphasize my opposition to the provision in the bill giving to the Minister the power to veto a decision of the board. I believe that the poultry industry will suffer because of the dictatorial controls conferred upon the Government by this bill, and I believe that the policy to be followed by the board proposed to be constituted should be determined by the producers’ nominees on that board. They will represent the producers, and because of their practical experience of the industry and their direct concern in its successful operation they are more likely to be au fait with matters affecting the industry than the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture located in Canberra.

I am pleased to notice that the bill provides that after the first year of operation of the board, representatives of the producers are to be elected by the producers themselves. That will afford them an opportunity of selecting and electing those who are best able to safeguard their interests.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

. - in reply - I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) supports this measure, although he states that he is opposed to one of the principles which it contains. His objection does not surprise me, because he has consistently opposed the inclusion of a similar provision in a number of bills relating to the marketing of primary produce which have been introduced. However, when lie complains of that principle, as it is expressed in sub-clause S of clause 9, I think he exaggerates the difficulties which may arise. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the chairman of the board proposed to be established would completely disregard the views of his colleagues and recommend to the Minister a course of action which is opposed to the best interest of poultry-farmers. Because such a substantial sum of public money as £5.000.000 may be involved, the Government believes that it should have the right to appoint the chairman of the board, if only to safeguard public money. Of course, in appointing any one to that position, the Government will have in mind, the necessity for protecting the interests of the people as a whole, as well ns those of the poultry-farmers. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that previous governments which he supported, constituted boards to which they appointed all the members, and the primary producers concerned were denied any representation at all. This measure intends to safeguard the industry and to protect the community, and I think that people generally will agree that the Government should be able to exercise some control over bodies of the kind proposed to be established.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

The bill.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I appreciate the explanation furnished by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice), in reply to my remarks concerning sub-clause 8 of clause 9. How ever, I point out that although the Commonwealth is to advance the sum of £5,000,000, no money will actually be advanced by the Commonwealth Bank, which will handle the board’s transactions cn behalf of the Government, until the eggs are ready for export. The Government will be simply authorizing the loan of money to finance the export of eggs to overseas countries which have contracted to purchase Australian eggs, and adequate security will be available against any advances that are made. Furthermore, the Government will take no risks, because the eggs will be insured. However, I again point out to the Minister that, the bill empowers the’ Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to sell the produce at a price which he fixes, and not at a price which the board determines. We have had experience of the operation of similar schemes. In the case of the wheat sold to New Zealand, the Government, at the instance of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, made the sale without informing the Australian Wheat Board, and sold it at a price very much below world parity. Undoubtedly, that deal will prove most expensive to the taxpayers of this country. Had the negotiations been handled by the Australian Wheat Board, the wheat would certainly not have been sold at the price fixed by the Government.

The board proposed to be constituted by this bill will not be empowered to fix the selling price of eggs for export, because the ultimate decision as to price and other factors will rest with the Minister. Such a provision confers far too much power on any Minister or on any Government. Poultry produce belongs to the poultry- farmers and they should have the right to determine at what price their produce shall be sold.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

, - I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) in regard to sub-clause 8 of clause 9. Whilst I am in favour of organized marketing, I do not think that the Government should be empowered to interfere with the conduct of an industry to such a degree as to destroy the autonomy of those engaged in it. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) admitted that the chairman of the proposed hoard will have sweeping power to over-ride other members of the board, and the Minister’s admission refutes the claim made by supporters of the Government that this proposal will afford effective representation to primary producers. The hollownes9 of their contention is apparent when we realize that the chairman can, by the exercise of his own dissentient voice, over-ride all the other members of the board. The Government claims that the inclusion of such a provision is justified because itis making a large sum of money available for the marketing of poultry produce. Although the Government has made a lot of “ bloomers “, surely it does not claim credit for the eggs laid by the hens owned by poultry-farmers. Of course, it contends that it is financing the marketing of egg9, but I point out that it certainly does not intend to produce a sum like £6,000,000 out of its hat and say: “ There is £6,000,000 against nothing”. It cannot make any such suggestion, because its advance will be more than covered by real security in the eggs. Financing of the export of eggs will be nothing more than an ordinary commercial transaction, although it will doubtless be handled very admirably by the Commonwealth Bank as the agent of the Government. However, that does not justify the claim made bv the Government that it should be able to exercise complete power over those engaged in the industry.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3176

EGG EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill he now read a second time.

I do not think that there is any need for me to go into any detail regarding the provisions of the bill, because it sets out quite clearly the charges proposed to be made, and I think that the rates of those charges are generally accepted by those engaged in the industry.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Although I have only just received a copy of the bill, it is obvious that it is complementary to the Egg Export Control Bill 1947, which has just been read a third time, and members of the Opposition have no desire to impede its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3176

DEFENCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by SenatorMcKenna) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to continue in operation for a further period of twelve months certain of the National Security Regulations whose operation was prolonged by the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946 until the end of December, 1947. “When he introduced the bill for that act the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) went fully into the question of the constitutional basis for such a bill and there is no need for me to cover this ground again. At the same time, I think all of us felt at the end of last year that by December, 1947, we should be able to dispense with a good many of the regulations that were then being carried on. Events have shown otherwise. The most important single reason for this is that Western Europe has not succeeded in getting back to a state of economic health. At this time last year Europe seemed well on the road to economic recovery, and reconstruction was progressing more rapidly than after the first world war, but since then, however, there has been the exceptionally severe winter and the drought which followed. During 1946, the fact that the balance between the productive power and resources of the western hemisphere and those of the rest of the world had been upset was hidden by the vast quantities of goods that the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and other organizations had poured into Europe. To the winter and drought was added the 1947 dollar crisis. These three events have had repercussions far beyond Europe; indeed they threaten the foundations of the world economy.

Last year the Attorney-General emphasized the central place in the Government’s plans for the orderly transition from, war conditions to peace conditions which is occupied by the network of economic controls designed to check inflation and to achieve some measure of stability. The Government at that time indicated its view that these regulations covering prices control, rents control, capital issues and land sales, would need to operate beyond December, 1947. The bill makes provision for continuation of these regulations for a further twelve months.

Nobody would argue that prices control in Australia has not been highly successful in helping to keep the economy steady. Cost of living figures in Australia to-day, compared with those which followed the 1914-18 war, and those of countries which have abandoned prices control, prove the wisdom of the Government’s action in continuing its war-time prices control regulations into the post-war period. It is the objective of prices control to avoid a repetition of the boom and disastrous slump which were experienced after the first world war, and so far it has been remarkably successful. Retail prices had risen 22 per cent, over pre-war levels by V-P day and 30 per cent, by August of this year, two years after V-P day. This represents an increase of only 7 per cent, above the level ruling at the cessation of hostilities, as against an increase of 29 per cent, in the corresponding period after World War I. Australia to-day is among the countries showing the lowest price increases, and a comparison of our living costs with those of other nations where prices control has lapsed or never been enforced proves how well we have controlled the post-war boom. In the United Nations monthly bulletin of statistics for September, Australia is the only country, in a list of 35 tabulated, in which the rise in wholesale prices since 1937 has been less than 50 per cent. The same authority gives the following percentage increases in retail prices from 1939 to June, 1947 : Australia, 28 ; New Zealand, IS; South Africa, 39; Canada, 32; United Kingdom, 29; United States of America, 57 ; Argentina, 75 ; Sweden, 52 ; Switzerland, 56 ; Spain, 109 ; Ireland, 70; Turkey, 245; Poland, 15,010; and China, 2,087,900.

The indications are that during 1948 the Australian price level will be under pressure as it was in 1947. Export prices had increased by 78 per cent, over prewar by V-P day, and 183 per cent, by June, 1947. Import prices rose 99 and 147 per cent, respectively. There is no sign of the increase in overseas prices steadying as yet, and there is no doubt that a serious post-war boom is taking place in the international field. In these conditions, it would not be wise to remove the existing control over prices.

An attempt to control prices generally without control of land values would, in the present state of demand, permit serious distortions in the whole cost-price structure. Excessive land values would greatly inflate the cost of home-building and would make the administration of rent control extremely difficult, if not impossible. For the rural industries in particular, the effect would be especially serious. Export prices for the most important of our primary products are now at record high levels. The present season is one of the best in living memory. All the conditions at present favour an unhealthy boom in land values. It is a situation of a type all too familiar in Australian economic history. When producers are receiving favorable returns for their products, speculation becomes rampant and land changes hands at boom prices, financed by mortgage loans. Then, when export prices decline, many producers find themselves burdened with debt and high costs. A long and painful readjustment becomes inescapable; and the result is a general state of depression throughout the rural industries. To prevent a repetition of such experiences and to prevent excessive land values from unduly inflating costs generally, it is proposed to continue the control of land values for a further twelve months under this bill.

Speculative investments, of course, are not confined to land. At present there is a large supply of capital awaiting investment, but it is impossible for all of this to be employed without making inordinate demands on the available resources of material and man-power. It is therefore clearly desirable that some control of the direction of investment should be preserved. Obviously, it is in the interests of the community that resources should be concentrated on essential production and not be diverted to speculative or unnecessary enterprises. During the war, particularly in the later stages, the control was made very strict. Since the end of the war it has been relaxed considerably, although capital transactions which are clearly unsound or speculative are still prohibited. But under present conditions, when there is great competition to start ventures of all kinds, this selective function is essential and should bc continued for the time being.

Rent control is a special aspect of economic controls, and its continuance is rendered necessary by the present shortage of accommodation of all kinds, lt ensures a measure of stability where stability is most needed. Its removal and the removal of control over evictions under present conditions would result in inflation of rents, wholesale evictions, exploitation and much misery.

I shall mention briefly some of the marketing regulations which it is proposed should be continued. The regulations under this group, which it is sought to continue, include the Australian Barley Board, Apples and Pears, Hides and Leather Industries, Potatoes, Rabbit Skins, Wheat Acquisition and Wheat Industry Stabilization Regulations. The reasons for continuing them are simply that the conditions which necessitated their introduction are still with us, and the Commonwealth must keep faith with the primary producers. In the case of the Australian Barley Board, it was expected that legislation would be enacted by the South Australian and “Victorian Governments to carry on after the end of 1947 the authority originallyestablished by the Commonwealth, but: the sudden dissolution of the Victorian Parliament has delayed the necessary legislation in that State, and the Commonwealth is accordingly obliged to continue the regulations so that there will be no disorder in the handling of the forthcoming crop.

Refrigerated shipping space for theapple and pear crops of Tasmania and Western Australia, the main exportingStates, is still inadequate; hence the continuance of assistance is necessary to protect the growers in those States. ‘ As regards potatoes, the Commonwealth has let contracts to growers for the 1947-48 crop, and the regulations are intended to control marketing until the crop is sold. It is hoped that by the end of 1948 the States’ organizations will be ready to take over potato marketing.

The Wheat Regulations are intended to cover the period of the marketing of the 1947-48 crop, which will, undoubtedly, be a record one. It has not been practicable to reach agreement on a permanent marketing scheme for the industry, but a further conference with the States will be held on this matter shortly. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth is continuing the Australian Wheat Board in accordance with the desires of the growers and all the State governments. In fact, no other organization could satisfactorily market the crop. The controls over hides, leather and rabbit skins are necessary for price stabilization purposes mainly, es the world prices of these commodities greatly exceed the domestic prices. A limited section of -the Food Control Regulations is preserved so that the distribution of certain fats and oils may be equitably arranged and also that essential service supplies may be obtained.

Quite different considerations apply to some of the other regulations. There is a group of regulations which affect servicemen still serving in the occupation forces in Japan. It is obviously necessary to keep in force the Military Forces, Naval Forces and Women’s Services Regulations. There are still a few internees and prisoners of war in Australia, and although very few of them are affected by the regulations, the provisions by which their detention is regulated must remain in force.

During the last year or so, Parliament has considered several measures dealing with industrial conditions, notably the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1947, the Stevedoring Act 1947 and the Coal Act 1946. These enactments go some distance in bringing back to a peace-time footing the framework within which industrial conditions are settled. There are still, however, fields to which attention has not been given, particularly those concerned with employees in the maritime industry and the craft unionists who are employed in the coal industry. Pending some further clarification in these fields, the existing regulations must be preserved for a time.

Shortages still exist in respect of many of the lines which have been in short supply. Except in the case of fertilizers, it has not been possible to discontinue any of the regulations controlling commodities in short supply which have been in operation during the year. The Superphosphate Regulations have been discontinued, and the operation of the Agricultural Aids Regulations restricted to the single item of nicotine sulphate. The prospect of a record harvest has aggravated the demand for both cornsacks and galvanized iron, and control over these commodities must be continued for some time longer.

As I have said earlier, the recovery overseas has not been as rapid as we expected last year. While the need is so great in the United Kingdom it is unthinkable for Australia to remove all restrictions on commodities which are needed so badly there, and, accordingly, rationing schemes are being continued, particularly in relation to’ meat and butter. There is a list of shout one dozen sets of regulations to be continued tinder which war materials .ore being disposed of. war damage claims settled, compensation with regard to requisitioned cargoes assessed, property of enemy nationals administered, and the hundred and one other things done which are necessary to unwind the war effort. A good many of the provisions of this sort cannot be dispensed with until the Treaty of Peace is signed with Japan.

I turn now to the other part of the bill. Last year a few amendments were made in permanent legislation. This bill also gives permanent expression in appropriate acts to some provisions that have hitherto been contained in National Security Regulations. The Acts Interpretation Act is amended in two respects. One, provision is made to cover the case where the functions of one department are transferred to another department. Reference to the former department or its Minister will be read in any agreement as referring to the latter department or its Minister. Secondly, there is a provision relating to delegation of powers or functions by a delegate in circumstances where the exercise of the power or function is dependent upon the opinion, belief, or state of mind of the person exercising the power.

An amendment made last year to the Land Tax Assessment Act is continued for a further year. This amendment continued for land tax purposes the pegging of land values which, up to that time, had been pegged at 1939 values by regulation under the National Security Aci. The assessment of land tax upon land owned as at the 30th June, 194S, will be based on the 1939 value. This is achieved by clause 6 of the bill. As the Land Tax Department has not required land-owners to lodge full returns of land owned for the last nine years, it has been decided by the Commissioner of Taxation that to ensure that the department shall have up-to-date information of the land holdings of taxpayers he will call in due course for full returns of land owned as at the 30th June, 1948.

Action is being taken by clause 8 to amend the Defence Act by exempting from jury service members of the Citizen Forces who are engaged on war service.

Probably the most important of these changes in permanent legislation is clause 19, which repeals the National Registration Act 1939. This legislation has for most purposes been in abeyance since Supplementary Regulation 65 was gazetted on the 15th August, 1942. This regulation suspended the obligation to furnish a form in pursuance of section 21, or to advise any change of address in pursuance of section 22 of the act. The Government regards the National Registration Act as a type of legislation which is undesirable during peace-time. The effect of repealing Supplementary Regulation 65 would be to revive the National Registration Act, and accordingly, it is proposed to repeal the act. During 1946, in terms of volume, about 90 sets of regulations were allowed to lapse in whole or in part, and about ISO individual regulations were removed from the General and Supplementary Regulations. This year, the number which it is possible to dispense with is very much smaller, the figures being fifteen sets and nineteen general and supplementary. It is the policy of the Government to embody in permanent legislation at the earliest possible date, provisions now contained in National Security Regulations and to which it is desirable to give permanent effect as part of the law of the Commonwealth.

This bill is one of a group of about half a dozen bills which deal with matters that have previously been covered by National Security Regulations. Already the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill has been introduced by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and one of the effects of its passage will be that the Dairy Produce Acquisition Regulations will be permitted to lapse at the end of the year. The Minister for Repatriation has introduced the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill 1947. This bill contains a provision permitting regulations to be made in relation to patriotic funds and accordingly the Patriotic Funds Regulations will not be continued next year. Other legislation involving amendment to other acts is in train and will be introduced at as early a date as is possible. When these bills are introduced the opportunity will be taken of placing in permanent form some of the provisions now carried on temporarily. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

I have had prepared for the convenience of honorable senators a table showing how the various provisions now in force by virtue of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946 are dealt with in this bill or by other legislation to be passed this session. With the permission of the Senate, I shall incorporate this statement in Ilansard. It is as follows : -

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I support this measure, and the support that I give to it will, I hope, put in correct perspective my opposition to the referendum measure that was passed by this chamber earlier to-day. It was rather a pity that, in his secondreading speech on this bill, the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) made no acknowledgment of the authorship of the powers that are now to be extended. It has been rather idly and irresponsibly said in this chamber that it is the cruel and wicked wish of the Opposition to destroy every vestige of protection that the people of Australia now enjoy under the emergency legislation. Nothing could be more absurd. I am sure that the people of Australia realize that the controls that this bill seeks to continue were introduced by the Menzies Government. How idle it would be then for members of the parties that were responsible f or’ the introduction of this excellent legislation to attempt now to destroy it. Why introduce it in the first place if such was- their ultimate intention? I shall quote an extract from a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in theHouse of Representatives (Mr. Menzies).. This statement is one to which I personally subscribe entirely, and I am surethat other members of the Opposition arein general agreement with it. He said -

For some period after the war prices must, unquestionably, remain subject to control. To remove control suddenly would he to produce- hopeless confusion. I am not concerned toadvocate the removal of all control as soon as- fighting ceases. I believe that many departmental activities will continue for some timeafter the wai-. I believe that we must concert the nation from a- war to a peace footing with: infinite care, and with as much skill as possible.

Yet, in the face of that, honorable senators opposite are sufficiently irresponsible to accuse the Liberal party of wishing to destroy the edifice that they constructed to protect the people of Australia! I regret also that the Minister,, in introducing this bill, did not clarify certain misstatements that have been made. He could have explained, for instance, the circumstances of theDaveney case. It has been suggested- in. this chamber and the House of Representatives that the whole principle of prices control was at stake in that case, and that that was the reason why certain legislation was necessary. The allegation was that the whole principle f prices control was to be attacked immediately and was hanging on the very slender thread of the word of the Chief Justice of the High Court, other members of the bench being equally divided in their opinion. The principle of prices control was not at stake in the Daveney case; it was the principle of profit control. To make the position quite clear to honorable senators, I shall read two extracts from the judgments on that case. The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, said - ft was reasonably clear from the evidence that the reduction in prices notified to D. on the 8th February, 1946. was made in order to reduce the profits of D. The question was whether, if it was taken as established that the reduced prices were fixed for the purpose of reducing the profits of D., such action was within the powers conferred by the Prices Regulations.

The regulations as such were not attacked. Mr. Justice Starke said that what the Commissioner could not do directly he could not do indirectly. The Commissioner had no authority to use power, confided in him for the pui’ pose of fixing prices at which goods might be sold, for the purpose of fixing and controlling profit margins.

I challenge the Minister to contradict the proposition that it was not the fabric of prices control that was being attacked in that case, but the principle of using prices control to impose profit control. In regard to the possibility of this measure being challenged in the High Court - the argument that has been used in favour of more drastic legislation - I say that without any shadow of doubt - I shall cite legal authorities in support of my contention - it has never been seriously argued in the High Court that the Commonwealth Parliament has not power to continue its emergency legislation under its defence powers during the transition period from war to peace. T emphasize that there is no midway course between war and peace. A nation is either at war or it is at peace.

Senator Courtice:

– We are at peace now.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– No. The King declares war, and only the King can declare peace. We shall not be legally in a condition of peace until after a proclamation, with the authority of the Executive Council, has been published announcing peace. Until that is done, there is not the slightest possibility of the defence transitional powers legislation being attacked. A short statement on the position appears in Halsbury, volume 6, at page 525, and is reprinted in the Australian Law Journal, volume 20, at page 2 -

As war can only be commenced so it can only be terminated by the authority of the Crown, and this is usually effected by a treaty of peace and announced to the nation by proclamation or Order in Connell.

We are still at war ; there is no midway course between war and peace. But even after the official state of peace has been declared, there is still ample power under the Commonwealth’s defence power to continue to legislate for the slowing down, or softening-in, period from the condition of emergency occasioned by war to the softer times of peace. The High Court has made that abundantly clear in several cases, but, particularly, in two cases which were determined as recently as October of last year, which was a considerable time after the formal cessation of hostilities in September, 1945. I take the following extract from the judgment of the Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, in Dawson v. the Commonwealth, volume 73, C.L.R., page 176:-

The defence power does not cease instantaneously to be available as a source of legislative authority with the termination of active hostilities or even with the end of the war. The power is not cut off as with a guillotine. The defence power includes not only a power to prepare for war and to prosecute war, but also a power to wind up after a war and to restore conditions of peace - gradually if that is thought wise, and not necessarily immediately by the crude process of immediate abandonment of all federal control.

That proposition emanates from the highest authority in the land and there has not been any appeal against it. It has never been seriously contended that that is not the legal position. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies), inside and outside the Parliament, has always contended that that was the legal position ; and no one who can be considered to be a legal authority has given utterance to the suggestion that the Commonwealth’s defence power does not still continue and may not be exercised until the requirements for it entirely cease to exist. In the same case, Mr. Justice Dixon, delivering judgment, said -

But it is apparent that the change back from a war economy to an economy appropriate to peace is a task calling for further measures of a legislative nature and the defence power, in my opinion, is not insufficient to authorize laws for that purpose.

The same proposition has been upheld by the High Court in the second case, Miller v. the Commonwealth. For those reasons I am quite in accord with the continuance of this legislation. There are certain items in respect of which I should like to see improvement effected, but they are matters more of administration than general principle. I cannot speak with respect to conditions in other capital cities, but I know that in Brisbane it would be more satisfactory if, instead of rents being determined in the manner now followed, that is more or less departmentally, the Commonwealth appointed an arbiter, a representative of the landlord section and a representative of the rent paying section of the community, possibly nominated by the Trades and Labour Council, to determine rents, and if the proceedings of that body were held in open court instead of departmentally as at present. That would give greater confidence to the people in this matter. Although the present rent controller in Brisbane is remarkably efficient and capable, in the scheme of things he will not always be there. With minor exceptions, involving administration, I support the bill.

Senator McKENNA (TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services^ [4.36]. - in reply - I listened with interest to the comments made by Senator O’sullivan, and I am glad to have the Opposition’s general support for this measure. He mentioned one or two matters to which I shall refer. He intimated that there had been no acknowledgment of the fact that the Menzies Government had introduced economic controls and prices control in particular. It is obvious that the honorable senator was absent from the chamber when I was replying to a debate on another matter, or he would have known that I made that acknowledgment.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I accept that statement.

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator also developed an argument upon the Daveney case, and claimed that the argument in that case proceeded upon the question of profit control and not prices control. At no time have I based an argument to the Senate on that case. When I spoke earlier I referred to both the Dawson case and the Miller case, and gave the purport of what the judges said in those cases, emphasizing, as did the honorable senator, the power to unwind the war effort. There is no doubt but that the general proposition has to have application to particular cases. The honorable senator will remember that in one of those cases one of the judges found that while black-out regulations might have been completely supported by the defence power, at one stage of the war long before hostilities actually ended, those regulations would have been invalid having regard to the circumstances which later existed. Although there is not a complete state of peace in the technical sense to-day, I do not believe that any one would argue that the Government or Executive would have power to-day to pass black-out. regulations.

One thing the honorable senator did not tell the Senate when discussing Dawson’s case was that, despite the general affirmation by all of the judges of the Commonwealth power to unwind the war effort, in that case which dealt with land price control, a very vital matter of prices control, the judges were evenly divided in applying the general proposition of unwinding the war effort to the facts of the particular case. The Chief Justice, with Mr. Justice Dixon and Mr. Justice McTiernan, upheld the contention as to the continuity of the Commonwealth’s power in respect of landprice control, but the remaining three members of the Bench, Mr. Justice Starke, Mr. Justice Rich and Mr. Justice Williams opposed it. So the very case cited by the honorable senator actually supports the proposition that the Commonwealth’s power is waning in respect of prices control. In the second matter - Miller’s case - which was also dealt with early this year, the court was again divided, four justices upholding the view that the Commonwealth has power to control share prices, and two justices being opposed to that contention. I remind the honorable senator that the Chief Justice, in the . course of the last few weeks, made a remark from the Bench which was widely publicized, that the Commonwealth defence power “ is wearing a little thin “. They .are very significant words coming from the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Government, having those words in mind from the beginning, believes that it would be recreant to the trust the people have placed in it to conserve their interests if in the light of all of the developments it did not ensure the continuance of controls at least for a comparatively brief period. There is no argument between the honorable senator and myself on what is the broad proposition of law; but the honorable senator did not point out to the Senate just how the judges applied that general proposition in the two matters of share price control and land price control.

He would be a very rash lawyer, indeed, who would embark upon the proposition put forward by the honorable senator that no one would have any doubt about the Parliament’s power to continue controls under the special defence power. Any lawyer who has given thought to the matter and studied recent judgments and noted the divisions of the court itself on these vital matters must realize thai the power is tottering and coming rapidly to a close unless there is the most specific relation between the purpose of the regulation, or proceeding, and defence itself. That is the true test. What is “the particular relation between what is proposed and defence? The nexus is becoming less ‘dear as time goes on. The honorable -senator must recognize that .general propositions are all very well, but that -where they fall down is in their application to the facts of the particular case; and that what the High Court will do when any particular control is under consideration is to look at the facts of the particular case. I again point out that peace treaties are being rapidly .concluded -with enemy countries. When we have passed this measure we shall deal with five bills relating to peace treaties, whilst the Japanese peace treaty is under discussion, and it is a safe assumption that it will he concluded early in the new year. It is almost certain that many other peace treaties will be concluded and ratified by the various nations in the coming year.

The honorable senator must face up, as the High Court has faced up, to the fact that a very definite stage has now been reached in this matter, and the reconciliation of what is proposed in these emergency controls with the def ence power will be a matter of increasing difficulty. I am not making bold when I say that I have no confidence that any one of the controls which this bill seeks to perpetuate to the 31st December of next year will survive that period if subject to attack in the High Court. The court will determine each case entirely on the facts of the particular case ; and the honorable senator knows that when it becomes a matter of weighing the facts and determining whether the circumstances are such that the connexion with defence is too remote that is purely a matter of opinion. He and I may differ strongly or agree on that .point. The justices of the High Court may continue to differ in their viewpoints, ‘as they have differed only this year on very vital controls. I pointed out earlier to-day that the anxiety of the Government to be free of these controls as rapidly as possible has been demonstrated so amply $hat I do not propose to embark upon any further discussion of that phase. I appreciate the support of the bill by honorable senators opposite and their readiness to facilitate its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3188

TREATY OE PEACE (ITALY) BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing .and Sessional Orders suspended.

Ball (on motion by Senator McKenna read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is being introduced to enable the Parliament to approve the treaty of peace with Italy and to give to the Government power to do “ all such things as are necessary and expedient for carrying . out and giving effect to the treaty on the part of Australia “. The other four bills, dealing with the treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, are cognate. I propose, therefore, Mr. President, with the permission of the Senate, to refer to these hills as well.

The five treaties, which were signed in Paris on the 10th February this year, have been ratified by the governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Prance and the Soviet Union. With the deposit of the ratifications of those four powers in respect of the treaties to which they were signatories, on the 15th September, the treaties came into force. However, the treaties only came into force in respect of each Allied or associated power, whose instrument of ratification wa9 deposited later, upon the date of deposit of such ratification. They do not, therefore, come into force in respect of Australia until such time as the Australian ratification is deposited. Of the remaining Allied and associated powers, Canada, India, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have deposited instruments of ratification. All five ex-enemy States have ratified the respective treaties.

The treaties are being submitted for approval of the Parliament in accordance with the wish of the Government as expressed by the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) in a statement on the 26th February last, which was tabled in the Senate on the 5 th March. As the Minister stated on that occasion, careful consideration was given to the treaties before their signature on behalf of Australia was authorized by the Government, [n many respects, the treaties were thought to be inadequate and imperfect. From the point of view of Australia’s long-term interests, they could not be regarded as adequate to ensure a just and durable overall peace. Indeed, many problems, particularly those connected with reparations, were solved on the basis of expediency and without regard to basic principles or to the effect of the solutions on Europe as a whole. A number of proposals designed to eliminate the weaknesses which were apparent in the treaties in the drafting stage were submitted by the Australian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, but, because of the limitations on the powers cf that conference, those proposals were at no time considered on their merits. The procedure adopted in preparing the treaties was also unsatisfactory. It denied to the nations which took an active part in the war a full and just share in the framing of the peace. The drafts before the Paris Conference had been prepared exclusively by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and, after the conference, its recommendations were subject to final review, and even alteration, by the Council of Foreign Ministers. In many respects, therefore, the treaties do not represent the democratically expressed wishes and ideals of all the belligerent nations. In spite of these obvious shortcomings, the Government believed that the treaties at least adequately safeguarded Australia’s short-term interests, and that their entry into force would be an important step in the restoration of normal conditions in Europe. In addition, it was clear that there were no practical means by which more satisfactory treaties could be secured. In these circumstances, the Government decided to authorize the signature of the treaties on behalf of Australia.

Both the Australian proposals at the Paris Conference and the substantial issues of the treaties themselves were put before the Senate in November, 1946, and again in March of this year. On the latter occasion the ministerial statement which was tabled contained a summary of the Australian proposals at the Paris Conference, a table showing the results of the final review by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the major recommendations of the conference, and summaries of the provisions of the treaty with Italy affecting Australia and of the main provisions of the treaties with

Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland. As in the case of the Treaty of Peace Bill of 1919, the full texts of the treaties have not been reproduced as a schedule to the present bill. A copy of the treaties has been laid on the table of the Senate, and further copies are available in the library. The full texts will shortly be printed in the Australian conference series.

I turn now to the second purpose of the bills, which is to give to the Government the necessary power to implement the provisions of the treaties. Each bill provides that the Governor-General may make such regulations and do such thing.? sis appear to him to be necessary or expedient for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the treaties, and, in particular, for prescribing punishments for offences against the regulations. The matters on which such regulations will be required are not expected to be numerous. They concern mainly the economic and financial articles and technical annexes of all treaties, in which certain rights are conferred and also certain obligations are imposed on the Allied and associated powers. Among the rights conferred by the treaties is that to restitution of property removed by force or duress by any of the Axis powers from the territory of the United Nations. A further article provides for the restoration of all legal rights and interests of the United Nations and their nationals in the ex-enemy States, and the return of their property or, in the case of damage, compensation to the amount of two-thirds of its value. In addition, each of the Allied and associated powers has the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property, rights and interests, which on the coming into force of the respective treaties are within its territories and which belong to the ex-enemy States or nationals, with the exception of Finland, and to apply such property, or the proceeds thereof, to the limits of its claims or those of its nationals against ex-enemy States concerned.

Whilst most of . the obligations contained in the treaties are imposed on the ex-enemy States, there are certain provisions which require reciprocal action on the part of the Allied and associated powers. For instance, whilst the Allied and associated powers and their nationals are given a period of one year from the corning into force of the treaties “ to accomplish all necessary acts for the obtaining or preserving in Italy “ - and other ex-enemy States - “ of rights in industrial, literary and artistic property, which were not, capable of accomplishment owing to the existence of a state of war “, these powers are required to accord like rights to ex-enemy States and their nationals. A similar provision relates to suspension, for the duration of the war, of periods of prescription or limitation of right of action in respect of relations affecting persons or property. It will be evident that the legislation on the part of Australia will not be so extensive as that required by countries such as the United Kingdom, whose nationals had more business dealings with the ex-enemy States concerned prior to the war. It is, nevertheless, essential that the Government shall have the power to implement those provisions- of the treaties which affect Australia, and for this reason 1 trust that these bills will be passed without delay.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– The bills are designed to approve treaties with the States of Italy, Roumania, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria, which have already been made and were signed by Australia’s representative at the Paris Conference on the 10th February last. As the. treaties have already been signed, all that the Parliament can do is “ to ratify them. Australian forces did not actively come in contact with the forces of Roumania, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria, but they and the forces of New Zealand did take an active part in the defeat of the Italian forces, not only in Africa but also in Italy itself. I agree with Australia’s representative at the Paris Conference that Australia had a definite right to participate in the making of the treaty with Italy. However, as these bills are merely before us for the ratification already entered into, the Opposition has no desire to delay their passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative. 1’Ji.ll road a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3191

TREATY OF PEACE (ROUMANIA) BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 3191

TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 3191

TREATY OF PEACE (FINLAND) BILL 1.947

Hill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 3191

TREATY OF PEACE (BULGARIA) BILL 1947

lit ill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional- Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

CommON WE ALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1947.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley rend a first ti inn.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

f5.8. - T move-

Th.it the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes to make a number of amendments to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1947, some of which relate to machinery provisions. The following are the more important aspects of the bill.

Clause 4 proposes to make two additions to section 71 of the principal act. In its present form that section enables the Public Service Board to grant continuous leave without pay up to twelve months, and where leave is desired to enable an officer to undertake a course of study related to the duties of his office the maximum period permitted is three years. The proposed amendment will enable the board to extend the leave to meet the needs of reconstruction trainees and officers undertaking lengthy research work or study courses. It will also cover the cases of officers appointed by registered Public Service organizations to full-time executive offices, so that it will not be necessary for them to resign from the Service. Paragraph b of clause 5 is designed to enable the board to grant officers overseas the holidays observed in the particular country in lieu of those prescribed in the act for officers in Australia.

Clause 6 will give temporary or exempt employees with continuous service over an extended period, and employees who contribute to the superannuation fund, similar rights of appeal against dismissal to those provided for permanent officers. It sometimes happens that a permanent officer and a temporary or exempt employee are involved in the same offence. If a recommendation is made for the dismissal of the permanent officer, he has a right to appeal under section 55 of the Public Service Act, and the appeal board may impose some prescribed penalty instead of dismissing him. However, no similar right is enjoyed by the temporary or exempt employee, and the board has no alternative but to dismiss him.

Clause 7 relates to the provision contained in a number of acts which provides for the payment of remuneration to members of boards and commissions constituted by those acts. In certain eases officers are appointed as members of such boards and commissions, whose salaries have already been fixed by the Public Service Board so as to cover all the services rendered ‘by the officer. Proposed new section 91a will enable the board to exercise discretionary power so as to ensure that an officer shall not retain extraneous payments made to him for services which have already been taken into consideration in fixing his salary.

Any further explanations required by honorable senators will be furnished when the bill reaches the committee stage. I commend the bill.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

. pleasure in supporting the bill because, as I have said on a number of occasions, Australia is very well served by its public servants. For that reason any measure designed to improve their conditions or ameliorate any hardships which they suffer will receive my cordial support. At the same time, I consider that the bill might have gone further in some respects. I believe that it would contribute to the peace of mind of our public servants if some statutory protection were afforded to the rights of seniority and promotion of members of the regular Public Service against persons imported into the Public Service. During the term of office of the present Government, and also during that of previous governments, a number of outstandingly able civil servants have been impelled to resign from the service in order to accept positions outside. So that the country may be loyally and ably served, I believe that the conditions of employment of public servants should be made at least as attractive as those which obtain for employees of private firms, and it is only by that means that we can hope to retain able men in the Public Service.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · New South Wales · ALP

– I was pleased to hear the remarks of Senator O’Sullivan, because only a few weeks ago he made a rather bitter attack on public servants, their numbers and the work which they are doing.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– My attack was directed against the Government, not against the public servants.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– No, the honorable senator attacked the public servants. He compared the number employed to-day with the number employed before the war.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– But a great many of those employed to-day are not regular public servants.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I believe that the attitude manifested by the honorable senator in the course of his remarks to-day is the only correct one. At the time Senator O’Sullivan made the attack on public servants which I mentioned, they were being subjected to a barrage of criticism in the press, which sought to suggest that a great number of parasites had been created which should be eliminated. I have examined in some detail the position obtaining in my own department. The result of that examination shows that if there are some unproductive public servants - and I do not say that there are not - there are also large numbers who are productive. The Munitions Department has a total staff of 15,104. I do not know whether I have been included in that figure; if not, the total is 15^105. I have not yet decided whether J should be included among the productive or unproductive members of the organization.

At the Footscray ammunition factory there are 1,010 employees, 400 of whom are employed directly on commercial orders. They are engaged in the production of electric iron and toaster components, petrol irons, small screws, nuts, and copper, brass and nickel-silver strip and sheet. The Maribyrnong explosives factory is producing cotton dressings, varnishes, paints, enamels and lacquers, and an order for 54,000 moulded cases for telephone receivers has been placed with it by the Postmaster-General. There are 1,310 employees at the Maribyrnong ordnance factory, and 690 of them are engaged directly on commercial orders. The factory is manufacturing wood thicknessing machines, ice making plants for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, rotary printing presses, tractor components, microscopes for universities and mechanism for 16-millimetre film projectors. The explosives factory at Finsbury in South Australia, is producing brass sheet strip, gilding metal and phosphor bronze. At that establishment 170 employees are engaged directly on commercial orders.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– How many of them come under the Public Service Act?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am dealing with Commonwealth public servants.

Senator O’sullivan:

– This measure deals with the Public Service Act.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The honorable senator was not dealing with that matter when he spoke in this chamber a few weeks ago.

Senator O’sullivan:

– I was dealing then with what was relevant, and I ask that the Minister should deal with what is relevant now.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The honorable senator was dealing with public servants. That is what I am doing now. All these people who are engaged directly on commercial orders have been grouped together with the other Commonwealth public servants and strongly criticized in the press and in this Parliament. I am taking this opportunity to point out that in the Commonwealth Public Service a great amount of productive work is being done. I feel that some credit should be given to these employees for the type of work they are doing. The Echuea ordnance factory is manufacturing ballbearings for commercial use. Of a total of 1,564 employees at the Lithgow small arms factory, 1,380 are engaged on direct commercial orders, manufacturing “ talkie “ projectors, sporting rifles, motor parts, tools of trade such as spanners, and golfing irons. I could give details of what is being done in all the factories controlled by my department.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I hope the Minister will not detain the Senate for as long as that.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I do not want to detain the Senate, but I am anxious to show that there is another side to the picture painted in the press. At the aircraft production factory-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister making a ministerial statement, or is he dealing with the Public Service Act?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– That is for me to decide.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The aircraft production factory is building Beaufort homes for commercial use, and it is hoped that they will soon be pro duced in large numbers. An interesting part of the work being done by the Commonwealth Public Service is the disposal of excess war materials. Over £23,000,000 worth of machine tools and gauges has been disposed of to industry. That, of course, entails the use of a great deal of man-power. The department is alsomanufacturing diesel engines, and the Doxford and English Electric Company engines are being made in its factories.’ In the year ending in June of next year, commercial orders to the value of £2,500,000 will have been delivered from all these factories.

It will be seen, therefore, that a man is not an unproductive unit in the community merely because he is employed in the Commonwealth Public Service. On the contrary, he is, as I have shown by this examination of the position of my department alone, a very productive unit and a necessary part of the community. I propose now to deal quickly with the Postal Department.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister must confine his remarks to the bill. I have already allowed him considerable latitude.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am always grateful for any latitude that is extended to me. It is very rarely that I need it ; but I felt that in discussing this bill it would be in order to discuss the activities of the Commonwealth Public Service.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will be out of order if he wanders too far away from the bill. I am usually lenient in these matters because my mind goes back to the time when I was not occupying this position and when I liked to wander myself. The Standing Orders provide that the Minister must connect his remarks with the bill.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Without wandering, I was just about to enter the post office-

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the Minister should leave the post office and deal with the bill.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I agree with the remarks made by the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) introducing the bill and with those made by Senator O’sullivan supporting it. The Commonwealth Public Service is staffed by people of great, capacity, energy mid loyalty and this is reflected in the increased amount of work that is done by the Service. Admittedly the stuff of the Postal .Department has nearly doubled in the last five or six years, but. on the other hand, in that period the amount of revenue collected rose from £17,000,000 to £30,000,000. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I welcome this bill, which is designed to improve the conditions of Commonwealth public servants - a body of people much maligned from time to time in this chamber and in the House of Representatives.

Clause 6 seeks to amend the principal nut by inserting a new section, section 82a a. giving protection to those employees who, when the Commonwealth Public Service was expanded during the war, were enlisted into it as temporary employees. They are rendering faithful and useful services to the community, but they do not enjoy the privilege of being made permanent employees, ns they would have done had they been absorbed into the Service as a result of a normal increase in its numbers. They came into the Service at a time when heavy responsibilities were being discharged by the departments in which they were employed. They were not privileged to enlist as permanent officers in the same way sis those who were more fortunate and who enlisted in times of peace, but they arc performing services that are absolutely necessary.

Clause 6 provides that a temporary officer shall have the right to appeal against sentence of dismissal from the Service, and I think it, is an admirable clause.

T commend this bill to the Senate. I think the Government should go further and investigate the whole position of these permanent- temporary members of the Commonwealth Public Service. They ure doing a legitimate job in the Service and have thoroughly established their right to an assured continuity of service. J hope that in the near future the Government will consider making these temporary employees permanent employees, thus freeing them from the fear of dismissal under which they labour as temporary employees, and from the thoroughly unjustified criticisms that n re now being made of them.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– in reply - I appreciate the reception that has been given to this bill by the Opposition and by my colleagues. What the Minister for Munitions (Senator Armstrong) was endeavouring to do was to answer the criticism of our public servants that is constantly being made in the press and sometimes in the Parliaments of the country. Much of the criticism is unjustified. The increased number of public servants is accounted for by the extra, work that they are doing at the present time. The Disposals Commission, for instance, has handled over £100,000,000 worth of commodities, scattered throughout the country, during the last two or three years. It has done an excellent job.

Senator O’Sullivan raised the point that the bill should go further with reference to promotions and preferments. Every care is taken in that regard. He referred to people coming in from outside and being promoted to fill appointments that would otherwise be filled by public servants. The position of thi public servant is not endangered in any way. The only occasion when that can happen is when the person coming in from outside has special qualifications or is recruited to fill a specific appointment for which there is no suitable person within the Service.

As to salaries being increased to a level equivalent to that of the remuneration offered outside the Service, I agree with the honorable senator that there have been many occasions, especially where highly paid public servants are concerned, when industry has offered greater inducements and remuneration. In those cases th, public servants have left, and they have boon a great loss to the Public Service. I would point out, however, that public servants, like other people, had their wages and salaries pegged as a result of war conditions. Their wage and salary rates have been revised within recent months and have been substantially increased. They are constantly under review, and I do not think any more can be done in that regard. I am glad of the reception that has been accorded to the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3195

IMMIGRATION

Motion (by Senator Armstrong) agreed to -

That the following paper, presented on thu lilli March, be printed: -

Immigration - Admission of Refugees and Displaced Persons - Ministerial Statement.6th March,1947.

page 3195

BEEREXCISEBILL(No.2) 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) readafirsttime.

SecondReading.

Senator COURTICE (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) [5.33J. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a short measure of a machinery nature; the amendments proposed to be made to the Beer Excise Act relate to the renewal of licences to make beer and the form in which a brewer’s licence is issued. Section 16 of the act deals with the currency of licences and the AttorneyGeneral is of the opinion that as regards the renewal of brewer’s licences from year to year the existing legislation is not clear and the amendment is designed to clarify the matter and to ensure that licences when renewed shall comply with the law. The second schedule to the act prescribes the form of licence and the amendment to the form provides specifically for renewal. No other aspects are involved, and I submit the bill for favorable consideration.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This appalently is a machinery measure. However, I should like to hear from the Minister some clarification of his state ment in regard to the alteration of licences. Otherwise, the Opposition wishes to see the measure passed as speedily as possible.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

. -in reply - The amendments are to clarify the present provisions of the act relating to the renewal of existing licences as distinct from the issuing of fresh licences. The amendments provide for an alteration of the wording of the licences consequent upon the amendment of section 2 of the act. As I have said, this is a. machinery measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3195

DISTILLATION BILL1 947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now reada second time.

It is proposed to amend the Distillation Act 1901-1934 in certain directions. In regard to the amendment to section 12 covering licences to distil spirits, the position is that in 1923 the act was amended to remove the necessity to license stills of a capacity of one gallon and under, as at that time there appeared to be little danger to revenue as a result of the exemption and administration was simplified. Such stills are used mainly for experimental and testing purposes, but cases have arisen in which potable spirits have been distilled by apparatus of a capacity of less than one gallon and the excise duty thereon evaded, but the law precluded proceedings being instituted. After giving consideration to all the circumstances it is thought desirable in order to protect the revenue and to permit of suitable action being taken in the future to revert to the provisions which were in existence prior to 1923, that is to require all persons using stills of any capacity for the production of spirits to he licensed under the act.

The proposed amendment to section 42 concerns the entries which are required to he made covering the removal of spirits. As the law now stands, the distiller only is competent to make such entries. This presents no difficulties when the spirits are being removed from a distillery, but it frequently happens that the goods are removed under bond and subsequent entries are necessary when they are dealt with at their destination. In these circumstances, it is impracticable to require the distiller to make the entries in all instances, and the amendment is framed to permit the distiller or the owner to do so.

Section 73 of the act deals with the forfeiture of goods. Paragraph 4 of that section as it now stands empowers the seizure of vehicles or boats conveying illicit stills or illicit spirits but there is no provision to cover the forfeiture of stationary vehicles. The omission of this power has at times proved embarrassing to the Department of Trade and Customs and has on occasions prevented reasonable action being taken. The amendment will overcome an anomaly and give appropriate powers to the department when dealing with illicit practices.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill amends sections 12, 42, and 73 of the principal act. The first amendment is aimed to protect the revenue by withdrawing the exemption from duty of spirits distilled by apparatus of a capacity of less than one gallon. I see no reason why this revenue should be lost ro the Treasury. The second amendment deals with facilities regarding trading in spirits that are held in bond. No doubt the change has been sought by the traders themselves. The third amendment provides for the seizure of stationary vehicles. At present the act provides only for the seizure of vehicles or boats conveying illicit stills or illicit spirits. The Opposition supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3196

SPIRITS BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill proposes to amend the principal act insofar as it relates to the use of methylated spirits in the manufacture of medicines. The principal act prohibits the use of methylated spirits in compounding medicines for internal or external use other than such veterinary medicines and such liniments as may from time to time be prescribed under departmental by-laws. The control has been exercised in order to guard against any possible harmful effects to human beings, but with the advance of medical science it is apparent that methylated spirits can, with safety, be used in the preparations of some medicines for external application, and the amendment is designed to permit of this being done in prescribed cases. It is not proposed to alter the law in any way as regards the use of such spirits in medicines for internal use, and the liniments and medicines for external application in which methylated spirits will be permitted will still be subject to strict control, being confined to those prescribed by departmental by-laws. Another aspect is that with the advent of the contemplated free medicine scheme under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act the proposed amendment will provide the authority to permit the use of methylated spirits in certain formulas for medicines for external application prescribed in the pharmaceutical formulary under that act.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The Opposition has no desire to delay the passage of this measure. However, I should like to know at whose request these amendments are being made. Did representatives of the medical profession make a request to this effect?

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

. - in reply - These amendments are being effected at the request of the medical profession, which made representation with respect to necessity for these provisions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3197

EXCISE BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

, - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Certain amendments to the principal act are considered to be necessary. As regards section 12, it is desirable on occasions for administrative purposes to place portion of a State under the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs for an adjoining State so far as excise matters are concerned. A similar provision already exists under the Customs Act and the amendment will provide for such a procedure so far as the Excise Act is concerned. Section 42 deals with the currency of licences issued to manufacturers and it is considered that, in its present form, it is not clearly drafted insofar as it relates to the renewal of licences. The amendment suggested by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) will clarify the position in this respect.

Regarding the proposed amendment to section 58 which concerns entries, the act now requires the manufacturer to make the entries covering the removal of excisable goods. Such goods are frequently removed from a manufacturer’s premises under bond and further entries are necessary when the goods are dealt with at their destination. In these circumstances it is impracticable to require the manufacturer to make these subsequent entries, and the amendment as proposed will permit either the. manufacturer or the owner to do so. Sections 70, 71 and 72 of the present act deal with the marking of packages containing tobacco, cigars and cigarettes. Section 70 requires the manufacturer to mark every package of manufactured tobacco with his name and address, while section 71 provides that every package of cigars or cigarettes shall be marked with the factory and State numbers allotted by the Collector of Customs. In either case themarkings are required solely as a meansof identification and the amendment is designed to permit of regulations beingpromulgated at a later stage to allow a manufacturer to use either of the methods mentioned at his discretion. The proposed provision will permit of uniform markings for all tobacco products and will facilitate the business of the manufacturer and the administration of the act by the Department of Trade and Customs. Section 72 in its present form requires the markings to be effected by cutting, burning or oil paint. Such methods are in many instances impracticable having regard to modern types of packages and methods of packing and it is proposed to permit of the markings being applied by any method approved by the Collector of Customs for the State concerned. The desired changes will be effected by repealing sections 71 and 72 and embodying the provisions in a new section 70.

Section 116 of the act defines the goods which are liable to forfeiture but in its present form makes no provision for the forfeiture of articles or machinery used in the illicit manufacture of excisable goods. Neither is there any power to seize a stationary vehicle containing forfeited goods. The lack of the powers referred to has prevented the Department of Trade and Customs from taking appropriate action in some instances and the amendment will strengthen administration and act as a further deterrent to illicit practices.

As regards section 119, it is an offence for She master of a ship to use or permit his ship to be used in the unlawful conveyance of illicit excisable goods, and the amendment is for the purpose of extending the provisions of the act to cover aircraft in addition to ships. The amendment to the form of licence prescribed in Schedule VII. of the act is consequent on the amendment to section 42 dealt with earlier. The proposed form specifically provides for the renewal of the licence from time to time.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– 1 have no doubt that these amendments are being effected at the request of departmental officers in order to enable them to meet changed conditions brought about principally owing to faster modes of transport. The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3198

AIR NAVIGATION BILL (No. 2) 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cameron) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAMERON:
Pos f - master-General · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill lie now read a second time.

In March last the Air Navigation Act 1920-1936 wilh amended for the purpose of approving the ratification of the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago in 1944 and authorizing the making of regulations to give effect to the convention and for other purposes. Honorable senators will recall that the subject-matter and scope of the Chicago convention was fully explained to Parliament during the discussions on the legislation introduced in March. Briefly, it concerns all aspects of international civil aviation and replaces the Paris convention of 1919, which, in view of the immense developments of aviation during the war, was considered by the nations which assembled at Chicago to be inadequate for post-war conditions.

In order to give effect to the convention by the 10th August, .1947, the date on which Australia officially became bound by the convention it, was necessary to promulgate an entirely new set ofregulat ions. These regulations, like those which they replaced, make provision for the. control of domestic air navigation in relation to matters on which the Commonwealth has power to legislate, as well as the control of international air navigation within Australian territory. Those provisions of a domestic nature are as closely in accord as practicable, having regard to Australian conditions, with the principles recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization for adoption by all contracting States.

The primary purpose of the bill is to amplify the Commonwealth’s power to make regulations in respect of air navigation and in particular to expressly authorize regulations covering certain subject-matters which at present are authorized only in general terms.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:

– I draw attention to the main features of the bill.

  1. The existing act authorizes the making of regulations to provide for the control of air navigation in relation to certain enumerated subject-matter?, such as trade and commerce with other countries and among the State.-“, naval and military defence of the Commonwealth, and postal and other like services. It is considered thai this enumeration of powers doe.-‘ not exhaust the Commonwealth’s inherent power to make regulations in relation to air navigation and, therefore, clause 3 amplifies the existing provisions by authorizing regulations in respect of air navigation which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed in relation to any matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws.
  2. A new provision has been added to override expressly the effect, of section .1.0 of the. Northern Territory Act, which provides that trade and commerce between the territory and the .States shall be absolutely free. Under regulation 1.99 of tinAir Navigation Regulations, the Director-General ina.y issue licences, other than interstate licences, upon such conditions ashe considers necessary, or he may, in his discretion, refuse to issue a licence. It is considered desirable to vest in the Director-General a similar discretion in regard to airline licences to and from the Northern Territory as he now exercises in relation to all other Commonwealth territories.
  3. The bill also expressly authorizes the imposition of charges and conditions for the use of aerodromes, air routes and airway facilities, and other services established, maintained and operated by the Commonwealth. These powers are analogous to powers exercised by civil aviation authorities in all countries of major importancein civil aviation, including the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
  4. Another clause authorizes regulations to make provision for the removal or marking of objects which constitute potential hazards to air navigation, and such other measures as are necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft. The areas within the vicinity of aerodromes affected have been defined in the regulations - regulation 92 - strictly in accordance with the standards specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization. It is considered essential for the safety of air navigation to be able effectively to require the marking or removal of dangerous obstacles where practicable and necessary. If the owner of any such object is directed to remove or light the object, the regulations provide that he will be reimbursed reasonable expenses incurred in complying with such a direction. However, there may be some legal doubt whether the general words of the existing act authorizes the regulations providing for such action, which again accords with practice in all countries with extensive air services, and the bill, therefore, expressly authorizes regulations covering this subject matter.
  5. Finally, clause 4 provides that the existing regulations shall be deemed to be as valid and effectual as if the act, as amended, had been in operation when the regulations were made. As, by clause 3, the section in the present act which authorizes the making of regulations is repealed, it be comes desirable to obviate the necessity for the re-making of the regulations and, if those regulations are not to be re-made, it is necessary to validate them as from the date of their malting.

Honorable senators will realize that the bill contains no new principles, but that: for legal reasons it amplifies the power to make regulations in respect of the matters that I have outlined, and which it was considered the Parliament had granted in more general terms earlier in the year. In the circumstances I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– This is an important measure, and members of the Opposition would have liked more time to consider its provisions. I received a copy of the bill only a short time ago and have not yet had time to study it thoroughly. However, a quick examination shows that one purpose of the measure is to give effect to the Chicago convention, which was attended by Australian delegates. Naturally, decisions arrived at there must be ratified by the Parliament before they become law. I notice, too, that power is given to the Director-General to exercise a discretion in a matter of granting licences in respect of air services of the Northern Territory. I assume that this matter has been carefully considered and that the additional power is necessary.

Proposed new section 5 appears to the Opposition to be dangerous. It authorizes the imposition of charges and conditions for the use of aerodromes, air route and airway facilities, and other services which are provided and maintained by the Commonwealth. I admit that the Australian Government is entitled to make a charge for any facilities provided at the expense of the taxpayers, but this provision leaves the way open to make the charges so excessive that private airlines will not be able to operate. The power conferred by the proposed new section could be used to drive private airlines which compete with Government airlines entirely out of business. Some idea as to how the charges proposed to be levied compare with the charges for similar facilities and services in other parts of the world should have been given by the Minister. . The Opposition would appreciate . a statement by him in this connexion, especially a comparison of the proposed rates with the charges now in operation in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Such information would indicate whether there is any reason to believe that it is intended to impose such heavy charges on private airways as to drive them out of business.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I support the remarks of my Leader (Senator Cooper). A statement giving the information sought by him would do much to remove any doubts and misgivings which we may have. I draw attention to paragraph a of sub-section 3 of the proposed new section 5 -

The power to make regulations under this section shall include power to make provision for -

the establishment, maintenance, operation and use of aerodromes and air route and airway facilities, including the imposition of charges and conditions for their use.

I agree that those are powers which any controlling authority must have, but in the light of recent happenings I should like the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) to set our minds at rest by giving an assurance that there will be no discrimination in the fixation of charges against any particular operating company, and that the power will not be used to dictate to any operating company, or force on it a policy contrary to its wishes and traditions. An assurance along those lines would help to allay any fears in the minds of the public that no unfair discrimination will be shown in the exercise of this power.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– in reply- -I shall endeavour to obtain the information sought by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) relating to charges for similar services in Great Britain, and the United States of America. The charges to be levied will be comparable with charges levied overseas. I point out, however, that in matters of this kind the Government must be allowed to exercise some discretion. Governments, like individuals, stand or fall by the consequences of their acts. I assure Senator O’Sullivan that there will be no dis crimination whatsoever, provided that the private operating companies comply with the regulations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3200

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES’ BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cameron) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this bill is to authorize the Australian National Airlines Commission to undertake and develop intra-state air services. Under the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 the commission may engage in intrastate services only to the extent that such services are incidental to the safe, efficient and economical operation of interstate territorial and international services. As one step towards the development of intra-state services, it is proposed that section 19 of that act he amplified so as to authorize expressly the transport of mail within any State. While section 22 of the act refers to the promotion of the carriage of mails, that section is not expressly linked with section 19. The Commonwealth Parliament has unquestionable power to provide air transport, whether interstate or intra-state, for postal purposes, .and it is now considered desirable that the commission should be clearly authorized to carry mails intrastate in order that it may be able to implement any agreement for the carriage of mails authorized by section 22 of the act. The commission will then be able to carry passengers and freight within any State incidental to the postal service, provided that the primary purpose of a particular service is the carriage of mail. It is also proposed to adopt the powers in relation to air transport which were referred to the

Commonwealth in 1943 by Commonwealth powers acts passed by all States except Victoria and Tasmania. Queensland and New South Wales have referred to this Parliament the matter of air transport, and South Australia and Western Australia have assigned to this Parliament power to regulate air transport. Those references remain effective, and cannot be revoked by ordinary legislative process until the 2nd September, L950, so that until that date the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws in respect of air transport within the States which have made the references. As yet the special, and additional, powers referred by the States have not been invoked.

During the recent conference of Commonwealth and ‘State Ministers the Premier of Queensland indicated that his Government desired the Commonwealth to authorize the Australian National Airlines Commission to establish and operate intra-state services in Queensland, on condition that the commission pays the same rate of tax as that imposed by that State on privately operated airlines. The Government considers that it will be of direct benefit, ,not only to Queensland but also to the Commonwealth as a whole, for the commission to develop intra-state services in Queensland and other States, even though it is possible that such services, in view of their developmental nature, may be unprofitable at the beginning. It has, therefore, decided to accept the invitation of the Queensland Government to engage in this new sphere of air service operations. The vesting in the commission of the necessary authority with respect to Queensland requires an amendment of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945. Reliance is placed on the powers vested in this Parliament by virtue of the reference of the matter- of air transport by the Commonwealth Powers Act of 1943 of that .State.

The provision contained in the bill to implement State references authorizes the establishment, maintenance and operation of air services within any State which has made the necessary reference, so that fresh legislation will not be necessary, if and when it is decided to take advantage of reference by any par ticular State. Although there is no legal necessity to impose any limitation, the bill provides that the Commission shall not establish any service unless the premier of the State in which the service is to be established has notified the Prime Minister in writing that he consents to the establishment of the service. This will ensure that the powers which have already been referred to the Commonwealth by four States shall not he exercised without the express consent of the State concerned. In addition, a’ further sub-clause imposes an obligation on the commission to pay from time to time amounts equivalent to the licence-fees which would be payable under the law of the State if the service were operated by a person other than the commission. This provision has the effect of requiring the Commission to pay the same licence fees as private operators, and complies with the condition stipulated by the Premier of Queensland at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers.

Another clause amends section 48 of the present act, which provides that the Commission must give 30 days’ notice of intention to establish a service. It is proposed that this requirement should in future be limited to territorial airline licences applied for by Tran- Australia Airlines in circumstances which will bring into operation section 46 of the act, and thereby render inoperative any airline licence held by any other person by reason of the fact that the commission is providing an adequate service. The original purpose of section 48 was to give reasonable notice to operators whose airline licences might be affected by the operation of section 46 of the act. In view of the decision of the High Court in the Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited case, the holders of interstate airline licences are not affected by section 46, and, as the commission has found in practice that those requirements unnecessarily delay the establishment or operation of new services at short notice, it is now proposed to limit the requirements of notice to cases where some other licence holders may be affected by the operation of the act.

The remaining clauses are mainly concerned with matters of drafting, and, in particular, they repeal those sections of the act declared invalid by the High Court in the Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited case.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill is more far-reaching in its intention than the Air Navigation Bill (No. 2) 1947, which we have just passed. For that reason I consider that it should have been introduced earlier in the session, so that we might have had an opportunity to consider it thoroughly and to take advice from interests concerned. However, although it has been introduced in the dying hours of the sessional period, some of its features cannot escape notice. Apparently the Commonwealth Parliament already has the constitutional power to authorize the carriage of mails intrastate by air, and because it possesses that power the Government proposes to authorize the Australian National Airlines Commission to engage in the carriage of passengers and freight intrastate. Apparently the Government is relying on the Parliament’s constitutional power to authorize the intra-state carriage of mails by air to empower it to engage, through its agency, the Australian National Airlines Commission, in the carriage of passengers and freight.

The Postmaster-General (SenatoT Cameron) stated that the Premier of Queensland has requested the Government to develop certain air routes in that State, although he admits that the operation of air services over those routes may prove unprofitable from the beginning. Paragraph a of sub-clause (2.) of clause 5 of the bill provides that before an intrastate service is introduced by the National Government in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by State Parliaments, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) must receive from the State concerned a formal request to operate an air service in that State. That seems a reasonable provision. The Minister admitted, as I have mentioned, that the new air services may prove unprofitable to operate, which recalls to my mind the information contained in the balancesheet of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year ended the 30th June, 1947, which has just been published. The balance-sheet shows a loss of slightly over £500,000 for that period. It is quite true that that sum includes establishment costs, which would be considerable. Against that, however, £2,700,000 was advanced to the commission, and on that it pays no interest. Therefore, a large sum of money has, in effect, been handed to the commission because it does not have to pay the interest that a private company operating in the same manner would have had to pay had it been operating these services.

It must be realized that Trans-Australia Airlines has been operating on routes which are thickly populated and which are considered by the private companies to be good paying routes. It has been operating between the capital cities, and thus has had the biggest centres of population from which to draw its passengers. For the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1947, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited showed a profit, and that company has been running on practically parallel lineswith Trans-Australia Airlines. Tran- Australia Airlines spent approximately £1 for every 10s. it earned. There is much food for thought in the question of what pricethe country would have to pay if Trans-Australia Airlines became a monopoly company. At first competition with the private companies led to a reduction in fares, but quite recently the government airline company has been the leader in a move to increase fares. One of the private companies, Ansett Airways Limited, has evidently been able to operate parallel routes at a lower cost. There is, therefore, cause to fear for the future if the competing private airlines are put completely out of business and the air transport services of Australia left in the hands of a monopoly government concern which can charge whatever prices it thinks fit. Yesterday and today the Senate discussed price control. Here is an instance of a government company increasing its fares and of a private company insisting upon charging lower fares. Such events give rise to the feeling that at some future date the prices charged may bc considerably higher.

The Minister mentioned that the bill would render inoperative certain airline licences held by any person other than the commission if the commission was providing an adequate service. I should like the Minister to enlarge upon that. Does that mean that if the Commonwealth airline conducts an interstate service upon a route which a private airline is operating, the licence of that private airline will not be renewed ? Does it mean that once Trans-Australia Airlines begins to operate upon a new route no private airline will be granted a licence to operate in competition with it? The experience of the past has shown that competition between private airlines and TransAustralia Airlines is a healthy thing. If a private company considers that it can make a paying concern of running a service between certain towns, then it should be able to do so in competition with the Commonwealth airlines. Private airlines are taxed upon their profits and they pay interest upon any capital they may have to borrow, so they run an efficient service because they have at least to cover their costs of operation. It is to be hoped that when the next balance sheet, of Trans-Australia Airlines is presented at the end of the J.947-4S period it will be seen that not only has the heavy loss incurred in the initial period been made good but that some profit at least has been made!

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I arn rather apprehensive about some of the implications of this bill. If it is the intention of the Government to use this as a means of bringing greater amenities and greater conveniences to the outlying parts of various States - and I have in mind particularly the State of Queensland - I commend that, thought. There are parts of Queensland that are very ill-served at the present time - parts in which some of the best of our people are living under very difficult conditions, far removed from the amenities and conveniences of the cities and suffering that feel of isolation which at times must be very harrowing to them. If it is the intention of the Government to bring those people closer to the amenities of the cities and to annihilate the time and distance separating them from the metropolis, then I commend it. If, however, the powers envisaged here are to be used for the purpose of competing un fairly with the companies already providing an excellent service, then 1 condemn that aspect of it.

We have recently seen the result of the first period of the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines. I am not complaining of the quality of the service provided by that organization, but we must all view with apprehension the colossal price we are paying for it. A loss of over £500,000 has been incurred. In Queensland there arc some excellent, intra-state services. Aircraft Proprietary Limited is one of the oldest Australian airlines running at the present time, at any rate in the eastern States. It operates an excellent service between Brisbane and the provincial towns. It. would he shameful if the pioneering spirit of that company were to be rewarded only by the Government stepping in and crushing its operations and activities by unfair competition. The service provided by that company at the present, time is a very economical and efficient, one; it is greatly appreciated by the people of Brisbane and by the people of the provincial towns and cities who are connected to Brisbane by it.

I arn not. quite clear as to the meaning of the remark of the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron), in his second-reading speech, when he said -

On condition that the commission pays the same rate of tax as that imposed by that State on privately operated airlines.

Sub-section 3 of the proposed new section 19a, which deals with the payment of fees, makes no reference at all to the payment of tax. It reads -

The commission shall, in respect of any service operated by it in pursuance of consent under the last preceding sub-section by the Premier of a State, pay to the State from time to time amounts equivalent to the licence-fees (if any) which would bc payable under the law of the State if the service were operated by a person other than the commission.

That deals exclusively with licence-fees and not with taxes. I arn sure the Minist,nr will be able to enlighten the Senate as to precisely what is intended there. Is the commission to pay only the ordinary licence- fees peculiar to aircraft operations? Or will it also pay full tax along lines similar to those on which the privately owned companies are taxed?

There is a further provision which I view with some apprehension. I refer to clause S, which contemplates an amendment of section 48 of the principal act. I am not clear in .my mind about what is intended. Incidentally, while I am on that point, I protest very strongly at a measure which may be fraught with such great consequences to the States being thrust upon the Senate at such short notice. This is a matter that I feel I should have had much more time to consider. I should be much better informed and advised on the full implications of this bill, but, as it is, I feel I can do but scant justice to it. I do not blame myself for that. I’ blame whoever is responsible for the presentation of these bills. I consider that it is quite wrong that the Senate should be treated in such a fashion. These matters are of vital importance to the States, and we are here to represent the States. I do not know how honorable senators opposite feel ; they may have had an opportunity to ascertain what was in the Minister’s mind and what was contemplated by the bill. We on this side of the chamber, however, have had it only in the last few minutes, and we are expected to give a considered, reasoned and sensible exposition of our views upon it.

From clause S, it appears that power is contemplated whereby it will be competent for the Government to take over even a thoroughly efficient service - not to acquire the business or the good-will of the existing line, but to conduct its own service, not in competition with, but in substitution for, that line. If this is intended, I object most strongly to it. If the Government is anxious literally to spread its wings, let it do so into the far out-back parts of the Commonwealth which have no air services at present. I assure the Minister that I should not complain if such a service were nin at a loss. In the earlier days of this Commonwealth, the railways carried out largely developmental work. They were not intended originally to bc profit-making concerns, although that is no reason why they should he operated at such colossal losses to-day. If a loss were incurred by the

Sena Joi- O’Sullivan. operation of an air service in sparselysettled areas, I do not think that any reasonable Australian would complain provided the services were carried out efficiently. I trust that we shall have further information from the Minister in regard to the points that I have raised.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I have listened with interest to the points that have been raised by Opposition members. It appears that in their opinion, private enterprise should be permitted to operate the payable airlines, while the non-.profitable developmental services are conducted by the Government. Reference has been made to the manner in which the railways have developed this country while operating at a loss. Do honorable senators opposite suggest that government air services should be inaugurated on the same principle? The public of this country has a huge capital debt in respect of the railways, and heavy interest commitments, but I point out that the railways, although their operations have been unremunerative, have rendered valuable service. The Commonwealth has carried out most of the aviation pioneering work in this country by providing landing facilities, navigational aids, &c, and it is high time that the Government, operating its own services in competition with private enterprise, utilized these facilities to the fullest, thus safeguarding this huge public investment. I see no reason why the Government should operate nonprofitable lines and leave the lucrative services to private enterprise. In regard to Western Australia and South Australia, authority to regulate air transport has been conferred upon the Commonwealth up to the 2nd September, 1950. I trust that the Australian National Airlines Commission will continue its present good services, operating in fair competition with private airlines, but not neglecting the desirability of opening up new territory.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– in reply - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) has made some reference to the right of the Postal Department to carry air mails to any part of Australia.

I hope that the time is not far distant when we shall be able to carry out this work to a far greater degree than at present. Personally, I shall endeavour to ensure that this shall be done. I believe that there is an obligation on the department to take full advantage of all facilities that are offering to improve its mail services. The department will do that, consistent with its resources and the opportunities offering.

The Leader of the Opposition referred also to the losses incurred by TransAustralia Airlines. Whilst this matter is not relevant to the bill, I point out in reply that the Sydney Daily Telegraph, which cannot by any process of reasoning be regarded as a pro-Labour journal, referred to the so-called losses in the following terms: -

Taking into account the heavy inescapable expenditure involved in promoting the new air transport services, the loss is not surprising or excessive.

  1. agree entirely with that view. In inaugurating a big new enterprise of any kind, certain heavy capital charges have to be met, and initial apparent losses may pave the way to ultimate gains.

Senator O’Sullivan and Senator Cooke referred to the railways. I point out that the railways are not actually run at a loss at all, because in respect of Victoria and New South Wales at least, two-thirds of their revenue is appropriated as interest, although their capital cost has been repaid at least twice in interest payments. So, actually, the railways are run at a substantial profit. Two-thirds of their revenue is paid to private bond-holders. That state of affairs must be adjusted ultimately. The interest payments that have been made in the past have, in effect, determined the policy of the various railway commissioners. Had the commissioners received all the revenue earned by the railways, rail transport to-day would have been much more up to date than it is. During the war, as the result of this system of finance, the railways lagged very far behind the times, and the cost of operating them was far more than it would have been had all the revenue that they produced been devoted to improving the services.

Permanent ways, rolling-stock, and all other equipment fell into disrepair. 1 repeat that the apparent losses incurred by the railways are due to the system of finance that Ls adopted. Actually, there is a substantial gain from their operation, but instead of being used for the benefit of the people who utilize rail services, this money goes to private bondholders, who probably contribute little or nothing to railway revenue.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to section 46 of the principal act. This section provides that where the commission establishes an air service that is adequate to meet the needs of traffic, any airline licence held by any other person, authorizing the carriage of passengers and goods between the same points, shall become inoperative. It was therefore appropriate for the commission to give 30 days’ notice of its intention to establish a new service so that the other operator should know that his licence would soon be inoperative. The High Court has declared that section 46 cannot be applied to interstate services. Therefore, the 30 days’ notice is unnecessary, except where a territorial airline licence is affected. The amendment provides accordingly. The Government is under an obligation to provide efficient and economical services of all kinds, particularly in connexion with transport. It is not under an obligation to keep private enterprise in commission if it can improve the service provided by private enterprise. I say in parenthesis that had it not been for the subsidies provided to companies such as Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, the possibilities are that they would not be operating to-day. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has depended on the subsidies paid to it by the Government for services rendered. So it is dependent on the Government to the same degree as any other company is. If the Government can see a service that, can be improved it should improve it. The railway services could be improved were governments not under the obligation to pay a crippling amount of interest.

Senator O’Sullivan referred to the efforts of Aircraft Proprietary Limited. The pioneering efforts of that company will be borne in mind by the Queensland Government and the Australian Government in reaching an agreement for the establishment of the Trans- Australia Airlines service. The Government will provide a better or more efficient service than that provided by private enterprise, but it, will not be unmindful of what private enterprise has done. Private enterprise will be compensated for any loss that it will be subject to as the result of the Government’s action in providing an improved service. There is hardly any need for me to repeat that the Government is under an obligation to make improvements wherever they can be provided in services necessary for the wellbeing of the people or for national development. The Government is under no obligation, in my judgment, to keep in commission any service, whether it is owned by the Government or private enterprise, that is inadequate to meet the needs of the people. In making the change that is to be made the Government will keep in mind the work done by the companies that are to be replaced by a commission authorized to provide the services required.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. la committee:

The bill.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– 1. welcome the provision in clause 4 for the transport of mails by air between any places in Australia. The living conditions of people in the outback country will be greatly improved by adequate airmail services. I hope that that provision will be made as soon as possible.

The Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) said that certain airline licences at present operative would be withdrawn gradually and that the services operated under those licences would be taken over by Trans- Australia Airlines. I object to a monopoly. Airlines that are giving efficient service should be allowed to continue. If the Government wishes to conduct services on routes already catered for, it should do so in competition with the existing ser vices. Queensland is to be the first State in which Trans-Australia Airlines will operate intra-state services. I welcome the creation of new services in the great State of Queensland. I hope that the new lines will operate to the far outback parts of the State so that the people who are carrying on the pioneering work of Australia will be supplied with rapid and. clean transport to Brisbane or to other coastal cities.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– Where the Government can provide better services it is obliged to do so.

Senator Cooper:

– Could the peoplenot be the judge of that.

Senator CAMERON:

– If private enteprise is providing a better service than the Government could, I cannot imagine that the Government would interfere with that service. Services that will be replaced are mainly territorial ones. I emphasize that the Government is not putting private enterprise out of commission merely for the sake of doing so. The Government will compete with, or replace, a service where, obviously, it is under an obligation to provide a better service. In a general way that policy was implemented during the war. Many services which met their obligations in time of peace were found wanting in time of war, and the Government had to step into the breach. It had not only to provide additional services, but also to subsidize private airways. When I was Minister for Aircraft Production, we provided private enterprise with new factories, machine tools and trained personnel in order to enable private enterprise to meet the demands of war. We are now at peace; but there must be progress. We must provide the very best services we possibly can. For that reason, the Government steps into the breach and provides an improved airway service compared with the service previously operating. That is all that is involved in this matter.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3207

INTERN ATION AL LABOUR ORGANIZATION BILL 1947

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales-

Minister for Supply and Shipping) [9.8].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for the constitution of the International Labour Organization as amended by the instrument of amendment which was adopted by the general conference of the International Labour Organization on the 9th October, 1946. Some minor amendments to the original constitution contained in Part XIII. of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, were adopted by the International Labour Organization conference at sessions in 1922 and 1945, and in the latter year the conference appointed a. delegation on constitutional questions to review the past record of the organization’s work and to make proposals for remodelling and reequipping the organization to enable it to discharge its duties with enhanced efficiency.

As honorable senators have not previously had the amendments of 1922 and 1945 brought to their notice, I shall briefly outline the main provisions. By the Instrument of Amendment 1922, the membership of the governing body was increased from 24 to 32. However, there was no alteration made in the proportion of representatives of governments, employers’ organizations and. workers’ organizations, which gave governments 50 per cent. of the votes. In 1945, the conference adopted a further instrument which was designed to deal with questions of immediate urgency in view of the liquidation of the League of Nations. All reference to the league was deleted and the article relating to finance was amended to provide that financial and budgetary arrangements could be made with the United Nations, and that in the absence of such arrangements, the organization should have its own budgetary facilities. The third amendment dealing with the ratification of amendments to the constitution was altered by deleting the requirement that amendments should be ratified by the League of Nations.

In 1946, a delegation on constitutional questions carried out a generalrevision of the constitution and recommended numerous amendments to remodel the organization and establish close relationships with the United Nations. A new text was prepared and this was approved by the conference in September, 1946. Probably the most important effect of this revision is to strengthen the position in regard to the adoption and implementation of conventions and recommendations which are agreed to at annual sessions of the conference. Whilst this is not so important in the case of advanced countries like Australia, it is of particular importance to less developed countries. The amendments agreed upon by the 1946 conference have three main purposes: First, entirely to dissociate the constitution of the International Labour Organization from the Treaty of Versailles; secondly, to revise procedures in the light of 30 years’ experience ; and thirdly, to restate certain functions and procedures to bring the International Labour Organization into line with the Charter of the United Nations.

As the number of amendments adopted by the conference in 1946 was very large, a memorandum has been prepared for honorable senators setting out the new constitution and the text in force prior to the revision. One amendment of particular interest is the restatement of the aims of the organization to include the Declaration of Philadelphia. This brings in such new matters as consideration of high employment policies which have been persistently advocated by Australian delegates to the international conferences since 1943. A change has also been made in relation to dependent territories which is designed to clarify the obligations of such countries as Australia.

This alteration deals with the procedure laid down for ratification of conventions by members having trust territories and the submissions of reports on labour conditions in these territories. Other questions relate to the seat of the organization, the meeting place of the conference, determination of the eight States of general industrial importance which have permanent seats in the governing body, and the establishment of regional agencies. The remaining amendments deal mainly with procedural questions and the internal administration of the organization. Such things are included as the transfer of chancery functions from the League of Nations to the International Labour Organization, the registration of ratified conventions to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the making of rules for the expeditious determination of disputes relating to interpretation of conventions. Several member nations have already ratified the new constitution and the remainder have been urged by the International Labour Organization to give the matter urgent consideration so that the organization can bring the new constitution into force as soon as possible. The purpose of the bill is to obtain this Government’s approval of the constitution as adopted at the 1946 session of the conference.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– If the Government regards this as an important and serious matter, it gives scant evidence of it by expecting the Senate, at such short notice, to consider, let alone debate, the measure. I have no doubt that the bill has received the expert consideration of the departmental advisers. I am prepared to concede that the amendments suggested are probably quite sound, solid and acceptable; but I believe that it is entirely incompetent for the Senate to give serious thought to the measure, and reach an informed and considered opinion on it at such short notice.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– in reply - Since I have been a member of the Senate, I have never known an occasion in the closing hours of the sessional period when it has not been necessary to introduce new legislation for the consideration of honorable senators, and the Opposition has not complained about the measure being rushed through the Parliament. I am prepared to debate the bill at length if Senator

O’Sullivan wishes to do so. The honorable senator complained about the short time given for the consideration of the bill. I well remember 4 government of the same political complexion as the honorable senator introducing in the closing hours of a sessional period some 29 or 30 bills and “gagging” them through this chamber. I remind the honorable senator that it is difficult to synchronize the work of the two chambers. With the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper), I have endeavoured, as far as I have been able, to make the Senate function as smoothly as possible. I assure Senator O’Sullivan that it is no fault of mine or of the House of Representatives that the bill is introduced at this time, and no discourtesy is intended.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3208

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment : -

Quarantine Bill (No. 2) 1947.

World Health Organization Bill 1947.

page 3208

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by Mr. D. Lovegrove, organizing secretary of the Australian Labour party, and allegedly a former Communist, that Communists were paid agents of the Soviet Government?
  2. Has he seen Mr. Lovegrove’s further statement that there is a well-organized Communist party in Australia, and that behind it is an organization which is the underground apparatus of a foreign government f
  3. In view of this statement by a prominent member of the Labour party, will he inform the Senate what specific action the Government has taken to investigate the position disclosed by Mr. Lovegrove; also why it has repeatedly refused to declare the Communist party an illegal organization?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I have asked the Prime Minister to examine these questions and to have prepared appropriate replies, which will be forwarded to the honorable senator as soon as practicable.

page 3209

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator AYLETT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the local sporting bodies have to raise funds to help defray the expenses of the athletes in their particular line of sport who are to represent Australia at the Olympic Games to be held in England?
  2. ls it a fact that the United States of America, Italy and other countries propose to pay the whole of the expenses of their athletes representing their countries at the Olympic Gaines?
  3. Is it a fact that much resentment is felt amongst the sporting bodies in Australia owing to the small grant promised to assist athletes who are to represent Australia at the Olympic Games?
  4. Is it a fact that sporting bodies, such as football, cricket, tennis, boxing, cycling, wrestling and others, do more to develop physical fitness in Australia than the Government physical fitness schemes?
  5. In view of the fact that the athletes who will go from Australia will represent Australia at the Olympic Games, will the Treasurer give consideration to granting sufficient financial assistance to defray all their expenses in the same manner as expenses of Australian diplomats are defrayed when they are representing Australia at world conferences held overseas?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : - 1 to 5. On each occasion on which Australia has been represented at the Olympic Games, the various athletic organizations concerned have raised funds from the public towards the expenses of the athletes competing. On five occasions since 1920, previous Commonwealth governments have made a proportionate contribution to those expenses. Several months ago, I received from the Australian Olympic Federation a request in general terms that the Commonwealth Government should provide a subsidy for the Australian team to compete in London next year. The deputy president of the federation discussed the matter with me in July. I gave no undertaking on behalf of the Government that assistance would be granted, but promised that, if it were decided to send a team abroad, I would make a recommendation to the Government that a grant of up to £3,000 be made. I then received a promise that details of the federation’s proposals would be forwarded to me when they wore available. I have heard nothing of the matter since, but I assume that further approach to the Commonwealth has been deferred until the composition of the team is determined and financial aspects clarified. Any representations made will then be carefully considered by me. I am not aware what contributions are made by other governments to their Olympic teams, but I may say that there is no prospect of the Commonwealth meeting all the costs of the Australian team and that the major portion must come, as in the past, from con tributions by the public and the athletic bodies concerned.

page 3209

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Suit Lengths

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

asked the Min ister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Brisbane Courier-Mail of the 20th November, in which Mr. Marriott, a Queensland M.L.A., is reported as having said that while Brisbane’s shelves werepractically bare of suiting material, large quantities of cloth had gone to the black market of Hong Kong and Singapore and that it was the easiest thing in the world to pick up suit-lengths in those places?
  2. In view of the serious charge made by Mr. Marriott and the difficulties being experienced by Australians in obtaining suits of good quality, will the Minister have an immediate investigation made and make a statement on the subject?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

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

  1. I have not seen the statement in the Brisbane Courier-Mail attributed to Mr. Marriott, M.L.A.
  2. Shipments of worsted material to Hong Kong during 1.947 amounted to 38,243 lineal yards and to Malaya 2,456 lineal yards. These shipments formed” part of the total export allocation of worsted cloth and are being permitted in order that manufacturers can establish overseas markets for their products. The quantity of worsted material being exported amounts to approximately 4 per cent. of the total Australian production. The Government does not exercise any control over the distribution of worsted cloth in Australia, but the small percentage being exported cannot have any vital effect on local availability.

page 3209

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports in the Queensland press that the harvesting of Queensland’s Tecord wheat crop is at a standstill because of the failure of the State Wheat Board to deliver sacks to farmers?
  2. In view of the importance from a Commonwealth viewpoint of doing everything possible to assist wheatgrowers and to ensure that Australia makes its maximum contribution towards feeding the people of other countries, will the Minister have this position investigated immediately, take whatever federal action he can, and inform the Senator of the result?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes. I am informed also that80 per rent. of the crophas now been harvested, and that; the chief impediment at present is the Queensland weather.
  2. Every action practicable to assist wheat- g rowers is being taken.

page 3210

QUESTION

BANKING

TradingBankRestrictions - Loan Subscriptions.

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. On what date were the trading banks prohibited from subscribing to war loans or buying bonds without the Commonwealth Bank’s consent?
  2. On what date was the “ Special Account “ procedure inaugurated, and when was it made compulsory ?
  3. What were thepercentages subscribed to all loans during the war (each loan separitely) by the following: - (a) Commonwealth Savings Bank; (b) other savings banks; (c) trading banks; (d) insurance companies; and (e) the public?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. . The 26th November, 1941.
  2. The 26th November, 1941. Certain voluntary undertakings were given by the trading banks in September, 1941, but no special deposits were lodged with the Commonwealth Bank under this arrangement. 3.It is not the practiceto make public the information sought, as this could disclose the financial affairs of the institutions concerned.

page 3210

VALEDICTORY

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

- by leave - I take this opportunity to express to my colleagues and to honorable senators opposite my appreciation of the assistance which they have given to me as Leader of the Government in the Senate. I pay a tribute to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) for his cooperation and the manner in which he has always been willing to assist in the passage of legislation. I also express my appreciation of the services rendered by the officers and attendants of the Senate staff, and members of the Hansard staff. All have been courteous and, at all times, ready to give of their best. As this sitting terminates the last sessional period for this year, and is within a short time of the festive season, I take this opportunity to wish all honorable senators a happy Christmas, and express the hope that they will enjoy continued prosperity during the new year.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– by leave - Although the Opposition in this chamberhas only three members, we extend our thanks and appreciation to the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) for the courtesy which he has shown to us during these sittings. I realize that the Minister is busily occupied with his many duties, and that at times, he must have some difficulty in keeping his numerous followers in order. Sometimes we have had little differences, and heat may have been caused ; but. throughout the sittings, there has been a common appreciation on the part of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber of each other’s point of view. I express to you, Mr. President, my appreciation of the manner in which you have conducted the proceedings in this chamber. Although your task may not have been difficult, I am sure I express the feelings of all honorable senators when I say that you have invariably held our esteem. I also express my thanks and appreciation to the officers and staff of the Senate. The Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Edwards, and the Clerk-Assistant, Mr. Loof, have always been most helpful with their advice and guidance. To the Hansard staff I also tender my thanks. Whether the day be long or short, the. members of that staff carry on their good work.

The staff of the Parliament is at our disposal whenever we want it, and we are grateful for its assistance. I also express my thanks to those who are responsible for the broadcasting of our speeches, and for seeing that our voices go over the air satisfactorily. They, too, are doing an excellent job. To you, Mr. President, to the Leader of the Government in this chamber, and to all honorable senators, I offer the best wishes of the Opposition for a happy Christmas and New Year. Most of all I wish every one good health, because without good health the other good things of life are of little value.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) for the kind words that he has said about me, and honorable senators generally for their agreement with them. My job as President has been easy. When I was a private member of the Senate and took my part in debates I fear that I did not always set h good example. My memory goes back to one or two occasions on which I was suspended, but that was in the day9 of my youth and enthusiasm. As I have grown older I have possibly learnt to bc more decorous. It is a comparatively easy job to preside over the Senate, but that job is made much easier by the splendid work done by the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk Assistant. I express my thanks to all who assist in the work of the Parliament, from the chief officers at the (able to the men at the doors. I have, thought that it would he a capital idea if we could give to Australia the story of the work that is done behind the Parliament; not the talking and the legistlative work of the Parliament, which is arduous at times, but the work of the men and women connected with the Parliament which is little understood by he people of Australia. “We could, for instance, let the people know of the invaluable, work done by the. Librarian and his staff, ft has grown over the years and is of immense value, but very little is known of it. The public knows little of the fine work performed by the. Howard staff, f do not know what would happen if Mansard were abolished, because. Hansard is rendering a great service by giving to the community a faithful record of what is said and done within these, walls. On a number of occasions people have spoken to me of the excellent way the Hansard staff reports the speeches of members of the Parliament by improving on what members have actually said. I do not say that Hansard always improved my speeches when I was a private member, because 1 was in the habit of using certain phrases which, while perhaps dramatic, were not always decorous. The reporters, of course, altered them, hu; sometimes I thought that the result was rather prosy. When I look back, I realize that it was well that they did not report what I actually said ou those occasions. As President of the Senate, and as one who has authority over many men in this Parliament, I thank one and all for the services that they have rendered. I say to the people of Australia who are listening that the officers and staff of the Parliament render to their country a service that is not fully known or appreciated.

At this time of the year I wish all well. I hope that honorable senators, officers and staff will have a happy time. This morning one member of the Parliament said to me, “ Mr. President, I am going home to work “. I do not know what he has been doing here, but I know that many men after they leave Canberra do far more work for their country than they do here. It is not always realized by the public that members of the Parliament have a great deal of work to do outside this building. When people read that the Senate met at. three o’clock and finished at, ray, half-past ten, they think that the work of honorable senators has finished, hut in these modern days the work of the parliamentarian is most onerous. Even when Parliament is not in session that work continues.

  1. fear that I have not yet got out of the habit of speaking longer than 1 should. I wish one and all the best that is possible, and I hope that we shall all return renewed in vigour to continue the good work that has been done during the year.

page 3211

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to lie fixed by the President, which time of meeting sholl be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 3211

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator Ashley - by !mv” - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to ever.v member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets,

page 3211

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Air Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No. 102.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1947 -

No. 101 - Commonwealth Temporary Clerks’ Association and Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

No. 102 - Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia.

Nos. 103 and 104 - Hospital Employees’ Federation of Australasia.

No. 105. - Commonwealth Legal Profes sional Officers’ Association.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Appointment - J. Dyer.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of the Interior - G. H. N. Smith, N. L. G. Williams.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Rationing) Regulations - Order - No. 151.

Papua-New Guinea Provisional Administration Act - Ordinance - 1947, No. 12 - Australian Lutheran Mission Property.

Postmaster-General’s Department- Thirtysixth Annual Report, for year 1945-46.

Senate adjourned at 9.30 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 December 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1947/19471204_senate_18_195/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant