Senate
24 October 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1187

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950 [No. 8]

Assent reported.

page 1187

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that, for many years, units of His Majesty’s Australian Fleet have visited southern Tasmanian waters for their annual summer training cruises during the months of January and February, and have also provided a flagship for the Royal Hobart Regatta each year, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy whether he will ensure that, when fleet movements are being planned for next year, arrangements will be made for units of the Navy to be present at the Royal Hobart Regatta in February, particularly in view of the fact that such visits increase interest and stimulate recruiting in a navy-minded State?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall convey the honorable senator’s representations to’ the Minister for the Navy with a request that the established practice be followed in the coming year.

page 1187

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Oan the Minister representing the Treasurer say whether radio batteries fall within that portion of the sales tax schedule covering radio receivers and musical instruments, and thus become subject to an increase of tax from per cent, to 25 per cent. ? If so, will the Treasurer’ reconsider the proposal which, if given effect, will penalize particularly residents of outback areas, who have no electricity supplies, by increasing the cost of one of their few amenities?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I believe that the position is as the honorable senator has stated, and I shall convey her representations to the Treasurer.

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs, with the object of maintaining the beauty and comfort of the women of Australia and preserving their earnings and income, confer with the Treasurer regarding the remission forthwith of the sales tax and customs duties applicable to baby powder, face cream, face powder, lipstick and rouge!.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am certain that the Treasurer and I have just as keen an appreciation of the beauty and charm of the women of Australia as has any honorable senator opposite. Although that appreciation is not a determining factor .in framing a budget, it is one that is not entirely lost sight of.

page 1188

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Repatriation consider amending the provisions of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act to provide for .the payment of war pensions to the children of ex-servicemen who served in World War I., but who were born subsequent to 1938? This matter has been frequently raised by the persons affected, upon whom the existing law inflicts a distinct injustice.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I understand the honorable senator to ask that the act be amended by the restoration of the provision that was deleted in 1938 under which pensions were paid to new wives and new children of ex-servicemen who served in World War I. I assure the honorable senator that provision for such payments will be included in legislation which is shortly to be introduced into the Parliament.

page 1188

SHIPPING

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Earlier _ in the year the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport visited Western Australian centres including the ports of Albany and Bunbury where it was pointed out to him then that those outports could be utilized more extensively than they have been in the past for the purposes for which they had been developed, namely, for the handling of imports to and exports from the adjacent rural areas.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! What is the question!

Senator VINCENT:

– Has the Minister given consideration to the ways and means whereby a better use can be made of the outports of Esperance, Albany, Bunbury and Geraldton? If the Minister has come to the conclusion that these outports can be utilized to better advantage than they are at present, will he indicate the methods whereby it is proposed to achieve that end?

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

– This matter has been considered by the General Manager of the Australian Shipping Board, Mr. Cyril Dewey. . I have indicated to Mr. Dewey that the Government desires that at the earliest possible date a shipping service be established to outports in Western Australia and Queensland. The chief obstacle to the institution of such services has been the shortage of suitable ships and of shipping generally. Unfortunately the present shipping hold-up is making the position more difficult. During my discussions with Mr. Dewey at the week-end he informed me that he was hopeful of being able soon to announce the provision of regular shipping services to the outports of Western Australia and Queensland,’ the provision of which, as everybody knows, is most desirable.

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the. fact that seven ships have been held up in Newcastle for several weeks while heavy goods have been piling up on the wharfs awaiting shipment, will the Minister for Shipping, Fuel and Transport inform the Senate what he proposes to do to get the cargo to its destination?

Senator McLEAY:

– Efforts are being made to persuade the seamen to man the ships and work them instead of taking their instructions from the Communists.

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister read an article by Phillip Knightly, headed, “ These Deserters Don’t Care “, which appeared in the magazine section of the Melbourne Herald of Saturday, the 21st October, 1950. It relates to desertion by crews of vessels trading to Australia? If the Minister has read the article, did he notice that Mr. Knightly suggests that , such desertion has become a serious problem in Australia and is one of the factors contributing to the notoriously slow turn-round of shipping in Australian ports Did the honorable gentleman also notice that the article stated that of the 60 seamen who deserted in July only 21 had been located, and that generally the proportion of deserters located is less than that? I also ask the Minister whether, in view of such an article being published by a newspaper of the standing of the Melbourne Herald, will he never withdraw the statement which he has so often made in the Senate that wharf labourers are solely responsible for the hold-up of shipping in Australian ports?

Senator McLEAY:

– I have not read the article mentioned by the honorable senator, nor have I ever made a statement that wharf labourers are solely responsible for the hold-up of shipping. The statement I have repeatedly made in this chamber is that from our investigations it has been proved that the output per man-hour on the wharfs of Australia is 50 per cent, less than it was in 1939. As to that part of the question relating to seamen deserting, I shall be pleased to take up the matter with my department and furnish the honorable senator with a reply at a later date.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport read a press report relating to the shipping strike at Newcastle which states that, with the exercise of a little common sense and tolerance ‘by both sides, the dispute could be settled immediately? Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the strike, 16,000 tons of coal, 10,000 tons of steel and many thousands of tons of other commodities awaiting shipment from Newcastle are held up? Will he take steps to implement his ten point programme, to which so much publicity was given when he was appointed to his present office?

Senator McLEAY:

– The shipping strike at Newcastle was inspired by Mr. Elliott, the general secretary of the Seamen’s Union, who is a Communist. If the Leader of the Opposition had agreed to the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill six months ago, Mr. Elliott would not now be holding his present position in the Seamen’s Union and shipping would not be delayed.

page 1189

QUESTION

COAL

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Now that the red light has gone out of this chamber, I ask the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport whether he is aware that ten coal mines are idle to-day? If so, what does the Government intend to do about it ? When the Minister was on this side of the Senate he frequently told us what he would do if he were on the other side. Now that he is on the other side, what does he propose to do about this matter ?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Now that the federal executive of the party to which the honorable senator belongs has insisted on the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill he is well aware that the bill has been assented to and that appropriate action is being taken by the Government to remove the red menace from key industries.

page 1189

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that considerable time is lost in the transport of passengers and goods by the Commonwealth railways between Port Pirie and Kalgoorlie, is the Minister for Fuel Shipping and Transport able to say, following on his recent visit to Western Australia, what steps he has taken in order to speed up this service?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– Thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister in. securing a further quota of dollars, the Commissioner for Railways has been authorized to purchase in the United States of America eleven of the latest diesel locomotives, and three modern rail cars for the section of railway from Port Pirie to Kalgoorlie. I understand that delivery of that equipment will be prompt and I feel sure that when it is in operation the service will improve considerably.

page 1189

QUESTION

ARCHBISHOP OE CANTERBURY

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– Did the Minister for Trade and Customs listen to a recent broadcast to the people of Australia by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which the Archbishop stated that the people of England greatly appreciated the financial and economic assistance that they had received from Australia? Does the Minister believe that the reason why the Australian press failed to publish a report of that portion of the Archbishop’s address was that it reflected great credit on the Chifley Government?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I did not listen to the address delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I have heard it discussed. I believe that it was an excellent and inspiring address. I do not know why, or indeed whether, the press failed to give full publicity to it.

page 1190

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport been directed to a large advertisement issued by the United Farmers Association of 374 George-street, Sydney, that appeared in yesterday’s Sydney newspapers? In the advertisement, the association advised its members and all woolgrowers to sell only enough wool to enable them to meet their current expenses. Does the Government intend to proceed with the proposed sectional tax on woolgrowers? Is the United Farmers Association a Communist organization ? Does the Government intend to permit it to continue to advocate sabotage? If not, when and how does the Government intend to deal with the organization?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I have seen the advertisement to which the honorable senator has referred. The Government has made it perfectly clear that the proceeds of the 1 per cent, levy upon woolgrowers’ incomes will be ear-marked for a stabilization scheme. The Government has also stated that if Australian woolgrowers indicate, at a ballot, that they are not prepared to agree to a stabilization scheme, the proceeds of the levy will be refunded to them. A bill providing for the prior payment of income tax by wool-growers has been introduced into the House of Representatives, and as far as I know, the Government intends to proceed with it. If wool prices fall, woolgrowers will be helped by the fact that they have already paid a portion of their income tax. I am convinced that, having regard to the extraordinarily high prices that are being obtained for wool this year, the great majority of Australian woolgrowers will be prepared to make those contributions.

Senator Grant:

– What about the sabotage to which I have referred?

Senator McLEAY:

– I do not think that there will be any sabotage at all. The wool-growers have always proved themselves to be perhaps the most loyal section of the community.

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the Senate whether he has received a telegram from the United Farmers Association stating that, if necessary, in view of the Government’s proposal to impose a tax of 20 per cent, on their income, in addition to a levy of 1 per cent., they are prepared to hold back portion of their wool clip? Is the Government prepared to submit its proposals to a vote of the wool-growers?

Senator McLEAY:

– The answer to the first question is “ No “. The answer .to the second question, also, i3 “ No. “.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– In view of the Treasurer’s recent statement that 20 per cent, of the proceeds from the sale of the present wool clip, amounting to £103,000,000, is to be retained by the Taxation Branch, will the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether the wool-brokers will be acquainted with the procedure to be followed, and whether they will be compensated by the Government for their services in this connexion?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Legislation in connexion with this matter has now been introduced in another place. I understand that preliminary advice has been given to the wool-brokers. Offhand, I am unable to say whether the Government contemplates remunerating the woolbrokers for performing this service., My understanding of the matter is that they will be asked to do a little work in connexion with this matter, just as employers have been required to deduct tax instalments from the wages and salaries of their employees.

Senator FRASER:

– In view of the Minister’s assurance that the imposition of the levy is subject to the concurrence of the wool-growers, is the Government prepared to delay its legislation in order that the wool-growers may express an opinion on it?

Senator McLEAY:

– 1 can only say that the Government intends to push on with the legislation that has already been introduced into the House of Representatives.

Senator FRASER:

– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer say what rate of interest the Government intends to pay to wool-growers on the money that it will withhold from them?

Senator SPOONER:

– So far as I am aware, the Government does not intend to pay interest to the wool-growers. No great hardship will be imposed. All that the wool-grower will be asked to do will he to pre-pay his income tax as all wage and salary earners, including honorable senators themselves, already do. I believe that, generally speaking, woolgrowers are little concerned about the proposal. Their industry is prosperous and they are willing to make their contribution to the national welfare.

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

A* there is a home-consumption price for wl mat which enables the Australian people to purchase bread at a reasonable price, can action he taken by the Government to secure a home-consumption price for wool which will wimble the public to purchase suits and other clothes at a reasonable costs

Senator McLEAY:

– The Government has given consideration to the practicability of a home-consumption price for wool and other means of reducing the cost of woollen goods to the public. As the honorable senator no doubt is aware, the Treasurer announced in his recent, budget speech that a sum of £20,000.000 would he paid by way of subsidy on the domestic consumption of woollen goods. The details of the subsidy plan will be announced shortly.

page 1191

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator ROBERTSON:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior inform the Senate whether it is a fact that fuel stoves that have been installed in new houses at the Canberra suburb of Turner are not satisfactory, and that the Department of’ the Interior has received numerous complaints from housewives to that effect? If the stoves are faulty, will steps be taken to cancel outstanding orders, in order to protect Common wealth funds?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall refer this matter to the Acting Minister for the Interior and request him to furnish the honorable senator with a reply as soon as possible.

page 1191

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRA TION

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport in connexion with the current railways 3tri.ke in Victoria. In accordance with the policy of the present Government that industrial disputes should be settled by conciliation and arbitration, some time ago representatives of the Australian Railways Union discussed the grievances of its members with the Railways Commissioners, who, considering that the men have just cause for complaint, agreed to rectify matters. However, conciliation commissioners subsequently refused to ratify the agreement. That refusal led to the present strike. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government will notify the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration of the repudiation -by the conciliation commissioner of the principles of conciliation and arbitration?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– Conciliation commissioners were appointed by the Chifley Government. Altogether this matter does not come within the .jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, it appears that the conciliation commissioners were perfectly justified in taking the stand that they did. and I do not think that any good purpose would be rendered to the community by honorable senators persuading the men to remain on strike.

page 1191

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITY

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer give favorable consideration to the request of the Australian- Legion of ex-Service Men and Women that war gratuities to be paid in March, 1951, be increased by 50 per cent, so as to make them equal in value to those that have already been pa id ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I can give no such undertaking on behalf of the Treasurer. The principle embodied in the honorable senator’s request could not be applied to war gratuities without applying it also to maturing Commonwealth loans.

page 1192

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator MURRAY:

– Is the Minister for Social Services aware of the sad plight of age, invalid and widowed pensioners as a result of the rapid rise of the cost of living due to inflation ? Are we to regard the recent increase of pensions by 7s. 6d. a week as final although the cost of living continues to rise ? In order to bridge the wide gap that now exists .between pensions and prices will the Minister consider making the recent pensions increase retrospective to the beginning of the current financial year, that is, to the 1st July last ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have some knowledge of the conditions under which pensioners are living, and of their financial arrangements. I am very pleased to state that I am aware of the satisfaction with which the various associations of pensioners have greeted the Government’s announcements that pensions are to be increased by 7s. 6d. a week. It is very pleasing to the Government to receive so many tributes from those who are to benefit from the increase. I am not prepared to agree that the increases should be retrospective. In accordance with the usual procedure they will come into force as soon as the necessary legislation is passed through both Houses of the Parliament.

Senator KATZ:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Social Services aware that in the period in which the basic wage has been increased by £2 2s. 6d. a week, the age pension has been increased by only 7s. 6d. a week?

Senator SPOONER:

– As I have already pointed out, whatever the present increase of age pensions may be, it is that much more than the amount by which they were increased -by the Chifley Government between 1948 and December, 1949, when the basic wage increased hy 15s. a week. Senator Katz apparently believes that the increase of the age pension is not sufficient in relation to basic wage increases. With respect, I contend that the honorable senator is wrong. I understand that the increase of 7s. 6d. a week in the age pension brings it to a substantially higher level in relation to the ! basic wage than it waspreviously. When I say that, of course, I am making no allowance for the furtherincrease of the basic wage recently announced by the Arbitration Court.

page 1192

QUESTION

IRON AND STEEL

Senator AYLETT:

– The Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport has on several occasions pointed out that Communists were holding up the transport of iron and steel which is vital to the defence preparations of the country. If that be so, will the Minister representing the Attorney-General ask his colleague to invoke the Crimes Act or the Defence Act, if the Communist Party Dissolution Act will not serve, to prevent the Communists from continuing to prevent the transport of urgently needed defence materials?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– In the absence of the Attorney-General, I express appreciation on his behalf for the interest that the honorable senator is talking in the Attorney-General’s Department. I assure the honorable senator that the AttorneyGeneral is quite capable of continuing his able and efficient administration of his department.

page 1192

QUESTION

RICE

Senator FINLAY:

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

When can the .public expect rice to be distributed for sale through ordinary trade channels, and will all States receive their fair quota when releases are made?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

Bice is now being distributed by the trade. The Commonwealth has no control over distribution and the method of distribution is a matter for the merchants concerned.

I understand that rice is already available in most parts of the Commonwealth.

page 1192

QUESTION

KANGAROO ISLAND

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. . Is it practicable to have a separate weather forecast prepared in respect of Kangaroo Island?
  2. If so, will arrangements be made to have this forecast included in the daily weather reports issued by the Australian Broadcasting -Commission ?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. While it is practicable for the Meteorological Office at Adelaide to prepare a separate forecast for Kangaroo Island, it would create a precedent which would make it difficult to refuse similar requests by other comparatively small areas. The granting of such requests could quickly result in having separate forecasts daily for a large number of small districts instead of forecasts for the present twelve larger and reasonably homogeneous districts. The increased number of forecasts in the majority of occasions would provide much unnecessary repetition and would make the matter of broadcasting the increased number of advices impracticable. It is considered that retention of the present system of forecasts for the larger districts is adequate and preferable, with the provision that when one particular part of the district is likely to experience weather different to that of other parts of the same district, special mention would be made of it. Instructions have been issued that in forecasts for the central district of South Australia of which Kangaroo Island forma a part, special reference will be made to the island when conditions there are expected to differ materially from conditions over the remainder of the district.

page 1193

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Senator SCOTT:

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

  1. Is it a fact that, owing to transport difficulties, many farmers in Western Australia who had ordered superphosphate for delivery before the 30th June were unable to obtain delivery before that date?
  2. If so, will the Acting Minister consider granting the subsidy on this superphosphate in order that all superphosphate ordered prior to the 30th June, 1950, will receive the same subsidy ?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. There seems no reason to disbelieve the statement, which has been made concerning several States.
  2. It is not practicable to apply the subsidy to deliveries after the 30th June, 1950.

page 1193

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator MORROW:

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

Will the Minister supply the Senate with a statement showing the estimated decline in the Victorian and Tasmanian waters of crayfish, shark and the fish known as flathead, for the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and to the 30th September, 1950?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

Statistics are not available for period after the 30th June, 1950.

page 1193

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Senator MURRAY:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the Honorable J. McEwen, has failed to induce the British Ministry of Food to purchase next season’s apple crop from Tasmania and Western Australia?
  2. If so, has the Government an alternative plan by which the growers will receive some guarantee of a reasonable return for their efforts?
  3. If there is no plan, does this mean that the industry will again pass into the hands of the big exporting and retailing firms?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

The continuance or otherwise of the system of bulk purchasing of imported foodstuffs by the British Ministry of Food is a matter of policy for determination by the United Kingdom Government. Recently the Ministry decided that it would not continue the bulk purchase of apples into 1951, which is in lino with its policy of returning the trade in some commodities to commercial channels on a trailer basis. I understand that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture had some discussions regarding future marketing arrangements for apples and pears during his visit to the United Kingdom. There is no arrangement by which the Government will guarantee specific minimum returns to growers in 1951 in respect of their apple production. The Australian Apple and Pear Board which is a statutory authority with a majority of grower representatives on it, will supervise the orderly marketing of apples and pears in 1951 through a system of export licences and permits which will be administered in the general interests of the industry.

page 1194

IMMIGRATION

Senator MAHER (through Senator

Kendall) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement made by Mr. Bruce Pie, a member of the Legislative Assembly in Queensland, to the effect that “Queensland was not receiving a fair share of British and European migrants sent in the last few years”?

How many British and European migrants arrived in Australia during the years ended the 30th June, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, and what numbers were allocated to the different Australian States?

How many British and European migrants are expected to arrive in Australia during the current year and what proportion of such total will be drafted to Queensland?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answers : -

  1. . My attention has not been drawn to the statement referred to by the honorable senator, but I can assure him that the Government is most anxious to promote the greatest possible increase in population through immigration in the less populous States, including Queensland.
  2. The numbers of British and European migrants who arrived in Australia during the years ended the 30th June, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 are as follows: -

The Commonwealth has no power to “ allocate “ migrants, except former displaced persons who are placed in approved occupa- tions. Other migrants are free to go where they choose. On the 25th August, 1950, the distribution of displaced person workers serving their two-year period of contract was as follows : -

A further 8,168 had completed their contract by that date. In addition, there is a large number of dependants of displaced person workers in the various States. From time to time a considerable number of displaced persons has been made available for seasonal work in Queensland. For example, in one season over 1,000 displaced persons were employed during the cane season and the sugar industry estimates that they cut cane worth £1,500,000 and helped enable mills to operate almost without exception at 100 per cent, of their capacity. Displaced persons were also employed in sugar refineries. 3. (a) It is not possible to furnish precise information about the number of migrants who will enter Australia in the year 1950-51. It is, however, the Government’s aim to increase the population of Australia by at least 2,000,000 people within the next ten years by large-scale immigration, and every effort is being made to ensure that the contribution during 1950-51 towards this objective will be at the required scale. With the termination of the International Refugee Organization next year, there will, however, be a transitional period in migration to Australia, in which it will be necessary to look to new sources of supply of migrants. Detailed negotiations will be necessary to open up these sources, and a full flow of migrants from them cannot be expected immediately. However, it it anticipated that any deficiency in the flow of migrants during the early part of 1951 will be made good subsequently.

  1. It is not possible to state precisely how many migrants can be expected to go to Queensland during 1950-51 and subsequent years. The flow of British migrants to Queensland under the system of personal and group nominations is in large part a responsibility of the Queensland State authorities and of individuals, private firms and public authorities within that State. The allocation of displaced person migrants to essential employment in Queensland and all other States is made by the Commonwealth Employment Service in response to requests by State instrumentalities and private employers. The various States’ shares in the displaced persons labour pool, therefore, depend upon the number of requests received for the employment of these migrants and the accommodation available. Accommodation is provided either by the employer or in hostels erected by the Commonwealth Government. One such hostel with a capacity of 500 beds is already in operation near Brisbane. Three additional hostels, principally for British migrants, with a total capacity of 1 ,000 beds are being built at Toowoomba, in the Ipswich district and in Brisbane respectively. Provision will be made in the Government’s hostel programme for additional projects in Queensland.

page 1195

QUESTION

HIDES

Senator BENN:

asked trie Minister acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the Brisbane press of the 7th October, that 100 men employed in Brisbane tanneries will become unemployed because of the number of hides exported from Australia?
  2. If so, will the Minister take administrative action to ensure that sufficient hides are made available to tanneries in Brisbane to keep all employees engaged therein fully employed ?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I have seen the press article referred to by. the honorable senator, but I have no information regarding the employment position in Brisbane tanneries. The quantities of hides available to tanners are greatest during the Queensland beef killing season and always decline in between killing seasons. There has been a. regular reservation for export of only 1.2£ per cent, of heavy hides, not 25 per cent, as stated in the press article. This reservation has been essential to the successful operation of the hide and leather marketing scheme and is of direct interest to cattle producers. If it were terminated the additional quotas that could be allocated to Brisbane tanneries as a result could not possibly have the offset on employment suggested in the press article.

page 1195

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that Tasmania is the only Statu in the Commonwealth which produces insufficient wheat for its own consumption, and is obligated to obtain supplies from outside its own borders?
  2. If so, will the Acting Minister inform the Senate if the Government has reached a decision on the request for the payment of a subsidy on wheat shipped to Tasmania, in order to place consumers in that State on an equivalent footing with consumers in other States?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Following the discussion which took place at the recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, this matter is under consideration by the Government.

page 1195

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

What progress has been made in the construction of the West Beach Aerodrome in South Australia, and when is it anticipated that this airfield will be in operation?

The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answer: -

Progress in the construction of the new Adelaide airport near West Beach is considerably behind the original schedule. One runway suitable for use by aircraft in an emergency will have been completed by the end of this present year. The requisition has been placed with- the Department of Works and Housing for the erection of a hangar and will also serve as a temporary passenger terminal, until the permanent passenger building can be erected. This building will not be completed before 1052. When this aerodrome is completed, it will be one of the finest in the southern hemisphere and being within a close tramway connexion with the city will make Adelaide an Australian capital city better catered for than most others.

page 1195

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Senator BENN:

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

  1. Is it intended to terminate the operations of the Joint Dairying Industry Advisory Committee?
  2. If not, will the Acting Minister arrange, in the event of a decision to disband the committee being made in the future, to give the general secretary, Queensland Dairymen’s State Council, three months’ notice of any such intention ?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– It is the declared policy of the Government to establish a completely independent cost-finding tribunal for basic, primary industries, and it is the Government’s intention that legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable to give effect to that policy. It is proposed that this tribunal will replace the Joint Dairying Industry Advisory Committee in due course, but only when it is able to take over completely the work of that committee. I shall discuss with the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture on his return the possibility of prior notice of any change being given to the Queensland Dairymen’s State Council.

page 1196

SUPPLY PILL (No. 2) 1950-51

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Ashley) adjourned.

page 1196

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would ,-prevent the resumption of the debate upon Government Business, Order of the Day No. 1, Commonwealth Bank Bill, 1950 [No. 2] being called on forthwith.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– In proposing the motion, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) did not see fit to give any reason to the Senate in support of his proposal that the order of business be altered. The Opposition takes the view that the Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill 1950,- which is listed as Order of the Day No. 1 under the heading “General Business “, is of such major importance to the people of Australia that it should retain the precedence which the Senate, by its vote, has already accorded to it. If anything, the prior importance of that measure has been heightened by the denial of the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), as reported in the press of Sunday last, that the leaders of the Government parties in their election speeches had pledged themselves to put value back into the fi. The right honorable gentleman has claimed that what was said in the joint policy speeches of the leaders of the antiLabour parties was that that was the greatest task ahead and that no specific promise was made that value would be put back into the fi. In view of the clear statement in the joint policy of the present Government parties, and the definite promise published in express and emphatic terms in advertisements inserted in the newspapers, not only by bodies allied with or supporting the Liberal and’ Australian Country parties, but by theLiberal party itself, that the Menzies Government would put value back intothe fi and that living costs would bereduced, it is a most urgent matter that after ten months this Parliament should be given an opportunity to pass judgment on the Government for its failure toimplement its promise. So that there will be no doubt about the promises that were clearly made by the members of the Liberal party, let me refer to two advertisements

Senator Scott:

– What about the policy speech?

Senator McKENNA:

– The policy speech is also perfectly clear. I refer to an advertisement that appeared in the Hobart Mercury of Monday, December 5th, 1949 headed “This is our policy” and containing photographs of all the anti-Labour Tasmanian candidates for election, some of whom are now in the. Senate. The advertisement states -

Vote Liberal. Reduced living costs and increased living standards.

Senator Wright:

– Has not the honorable senator any more recent edition of the Hobart Mercury than that of the 5th December, 1949?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I also wish to refer to an advertisement in the Hobart Mercury of Tuesday, the 29th Novermber, 1949, which stated -

A Liberal Government will get Petrol and Coal, keep industry in full production and bring costs down.

Both advertisements were authorized by V. L. Ockerby, 50 Elizabeth-street Hobart. That was a specific promise that the Treasurer of this Government is now completely repudiating. If for no other reason than to highlight that specific promise and the failure of the Government to touch upon a matter that is most vital to every person in this community, the Opposition strongly feels that the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill should proceed immediately.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. - in reply - After the debacle which we witnessed last week - that extraordinary change of attitude by the Opposition in regard to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill - I thought it wouldbe more or less common ground that normality would be restored and that we should be able to get on with the business of government. The members of the Opposition must appreciate that the people of Australia know that there is no sincerity in its attitude. It introduced and debated a bill purely for the purpose of delaying the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill which has now been passed. It has been explained on many occasions that even if the bill introduced by Senator McKenna were passed, the very earliest time at which a referendum could be held would be some time next year. In the meantime, the Government desires to place on the statute-book the legislation contemplated in the mandate given to it so overwhelmingly by the people on the 10th December last. Senator McKenna has gone back to advertisements of eleven months ago. If it is necessary for him to do that, I am sorry that he has such a poor foundation on which to base his claims for this bill, and it seems to me that the matters raised by him were more than adequately answered by the two broadcasts recently made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). I am sure that the honorable senator understands well that value will not be put back into the £l merely by legislation. If the Government had not been met with the wilful, wanton and arbitrary obstruction and delaying tactics to which it was subjected, it would be much further along the road than it is at the present time.

Question put -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debateupon Government Business, Order of the Day No. 1, Commonwealth Bank Bill 1950 [No. 2], being called on forthwith.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Major ity. . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1197

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PRICES) BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 12th October (vide page 707), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– When the debate was adjourned recently I was painting out that advertisements issued by the opponents of the Labour party continually stated that it was necessary to increase production and so reduce prices, and that their policy was to reduce prices and stabilize the economy. I took the trouble to prepare figures for the purposes of this debate, but somehow or another they have disappeared. I do not know whether whoever took them had the idea that I would not be able to speak without them, but I am able to remember some of them.

Members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties have declared that increased production will reduce prices. I shall cite figures which prove that increased production of some primary products has not been followed by reduced prices. Doubtless honorable senators opposite will say that factors other than increased production must be taken into consideration, but at the last general election they made the bald statement that increased production would result in lower prices. According to figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician, approximately 1,173,000,000 gallons of whole milk was produced in Australia in 1948, compared with approximately 1,253,000,000 gallons in 1950. Between 1948 and 1950, the quantity of whole milk produced in this country increased, but the price of milk increased also. Increased production of milk has not been followed by decreased prices.

Let us examine what has occurred in relation to butter. “We are producing more butter than ever before. Butter production this year is 7,000 tons more than last year, but the price of butter has been increased by 3d. per lb. I am speaking of the retail price. Primary producers are not getting an additional 3d. per lb. for the butter that they supply to the factories. Some persons are getting an extra 3d. for each pound of butter that they handle. Exports of butter this year are not as great as they were last year. Therefore, more butter is available for distribution in Australia than was available previously. The restrictions that were imposed upon the sale of butter in this country to enable us to export butter to Great Britain have been removed, and the price of butter has increased by 3d. per lb. Similar remarks apply to cheese. According to figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician, the production of cheese in Australia this year is 1,700 tons greater than last year, despite the fact that the number of men. working in cheese factories has decreased, but the retail price of cheese lias increased by an average of l£d. per lb. Some persons are receiving more money because we have produced more cheese. That refutes the argument advanced by members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party that greater production means lower prices.

Probably the most outstanding example of an increase of the price of a primary product is meat. There has been an mormons increase of meat production throughout Australia, but it seems that, no matter what the States do in their attempts to control the price of meat, it is not effective. Throughout Australia working people and ‘ persons with fixed incomes are unable to buy the quantities of meat that they require, because the price is beyond their reach. According to press reports, at the last conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers there was a quarrel between the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia. Apparently the statements that Mr. Playford made then were supported by the Premiers of other States. One of his statements was that attempts by the States to fix the price of meat would be futile unless the Commonwealth took some action to control exports of meat from this country. There is obviously a necessity for some ‘action to be taken to ensure that the Australian people get a fair share of the commodities that are produced in this, country. The point I wish to make is that, although wo have produced much more meat than we produced last year, the price of meat has risen considerably - so much so that in .Sydney people ask for one chop instead of asking for a pound of chops. They pay ls. for a chop, irrespective of whether it is a little one or a big one. They buy just a chop. The position in some of the other capital cities is nearly as bad as it is in Sydney. It is an established practice for Australian housewives to buy a joint for the family Sunday dinner. People who, to a large degree, go without meat for most of the week like to have a joint on Sunday, but housewives are finding it almost impossible to buy week-end joints because prices are so high. They buy smaller joints than they bought formerly. Consequently, our people are going short of a very essential commodity. Yet. to-day we are producing more mutton, lamb, beef and pig-meats than ever before. According to the Commonwealth Statistician, the prices of the various meats have now risen to such a degree that many people in the community cannot afford to buy meat regularly. It is therefore evident that increased production does not of itself result in reduced prices of commodities, as has been claimed by the opponents of Labour. I point out that not all primary producers are so fortunately placed as are the wool-growers at present. As honorable senators are aware, enormous quantities of wool are now being produced in this country, and extraordinarily high prices are being obtained from overseas buyers. However, the Government proposes to mulct the woolgrowers by withholding 20 per cent, of the proceeds of the sale of this commodity against future taxes, and to impose a levy of 1 per cent.

Senator Hannaford:

– Would not Labour have had to take similar action if it was in office?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I am relating my remarks only to prices, and I am endeavouring to show that the primary producers do not always receive the full benefits flowing from increased prices received for the commodities that they produce. I am not at the moment considering the ethics of the matter. Perhaps in the near future this chamber may be afforded an opportunity to debate that aspect of the matter. As I pointed out at the beginning of my address, during the last election campaign supporters of the present Government asserted that greater production would result in decreased prices. Advertisements to that effect appeared in the South Australian newspapers worded similarly to those that appeared in the Tasmanian newspapers, to which Senator McKenna. has already referred. It is now quite obvious to the people of Australia that reduced prices did not follow the election to office of the present anti-Labour Government.

Prior to the referendum on rents and prices several years ago, people who were opposed to what was termed bureaucratic control by the Commonwealth, advanced many reasons why the Commonwealth should not be empowered to continue to control prices, asserting that the States would be better able to do so. As a result of that propaganda, the proposal of the government of the day to amend the Constitution in relation to prices control was defeated. But the States have not been able to control prices so efficiently as was done formerly by the Commonwealth. At the recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, Mr. Playford, Premier of South Australia, referred to the over-all prices of commodities in the several States. Last week I drew the attention of honorable senators to the position that had arisen in South Australia in connexion with potatoes. v Growers in the

Mount Gambier area are reluctant to send specified quotas of potatoes to Adelaide, because they are able to obtain as much as £4 a ton more for them from Victorian buyers just across the border. The fact that higher prices can be obtained for foodstuffs and other commodities in States other than where they are produced, proves the necessity for an over-all Commonwealth control.

It has been stated that certain subsidies are to be restored. I point out that if that were done, the Commonwealth should he empowered to control the price factor, otherwise traders would so manipulate the market that, in effect, the subsidies would become excess profits. If, for instance, textiles were subsidized, in the absence of Commonwealth control of prices the manufacturers would be able to make exorbitant profits from sales, in addition to collecting the subsidy. Under State control, it is inevitable that higher prices are obtained for certain commodities in one State than in another. In addition to the example of potatoes that I have already mentioned, I bring to the notice of honorable senators the fact that large quantities of peas grown in Mildura have been taken to Sydney for sale, because higher prices were obtainable there than in Melbourne. I stress that there must be an over-all control of the prices structure. That can be accomplished only by an amendment of the Constitution, approved by the people at a referendum. Of course, it may not be necessary to control the prices of all commodities. Although we endeavoured to make this aspect of the matter clear to the people prior to the referendum in 1948, the opponents of Labour kicked up such a hullabaloo that many people were convinced that the Commonwealth wished to obtain power to control the prices of everything. That was never the intention. It is only necessary that the prices of essential everyday commodities should be controlled. Honorable senators opposite have claimed that small secondary industries may be ruthlessly closed down, and that the people engaged in those industries would be forced to enter other industries. There is no necessity for that. I remind honorable senators that the Tariff Board, in its recent report, warned the Parliament that there should not be any ruthless destruction of factories and manufacturing businesses in Australia merely because the Government was endeavouring to establish a stable economy by means of a spread of all kinds of manufactures in this country. Notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said that there was going to be ruthless control of the manufacture of certain luxury goods. The alternative is to control the prices of the luxury goods themselves. In discussions on this subject, it is customary to refer to such articles as lipstick and face powder, but I am sure that the ladies would not regard them as luxuries. Even if the factories engaged in the manufacture of luxury items were closed down, it would still be necessary to control the prices of similar goods imported from overseas. The tariff has been used as a method of preserving the relation between the prices of imported and locally manufactured goods, and to reduce the effect of overseas competition upon local industries. Only through a system of Commonwealth control of prices would it be possible, under present conditions, to control the prices of imported goods classed as luxuries. We know that certain luxury goods manufactured in Australia are being sold at exorbitant prices. The Commonwealth can do nothing about it. The price of such goods is controlled in some States, but not in others, with the result that the goods are sent to the States where there is no control so that the highest price may be obtained. That could be stopped under a system of Commonwealth control which would ensure, first, that the manufacturers obtained a fair profit and no more, and, secondly, that the retail price to the public was reasonable. As I said before, it is difficult to agree upon a definition of luxury goods. What one person may regard as a luxury, another may deem to be a necessary. I have been chidden for expressing the opinion that beer and tobacco are luxuries. Many people declare that they are necessaries.

The State Premiers, at their recent conference in Canberra, admitted that the States could not control prices effectively, and asked the Commonwealth to come to their assistance. So heated did the debate on the matter ‘become that when it was resumed the following day the press was not admitted, and the discussion was continued in camera. The State Prices Ministers meet from time to time in an attempt to reach general agreement about prices, but they have not been able to make State control of prices effective.

We recognize that the institution of a system of prices control cannot, of itself, solve the problem. The Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, Dr. Coombs, in his annual report for the year ended the 30th June, 1950, points out that a definite economic plan must be put into effect if the desired end is to be achieved - and this despite the odium that has been cast upon the economic planners in recent years. It is not enough to fix wages and prices. We must attempt to stabilize the economy of the country by controlling costs and prices from the manufacturer and the primary producer right through to the public. I have been reminded of the fact that the Prime Minister said that we must import more if costs in Australia are to be reduced. I have not found that imported goods are particularly cheap in the shops. Indeed, I have sometimes found that the price of imported articles puts them ‘beyond my reach, even on my respectable “ screw “. I quote the following from the report of Dr. Coombs : -

However, the cost of imports has only a comparatively small direct effect on items included in the cost of living index and hence on wage costs, and, after allowing for the effect, on Australian costs, of higher prices for exportable products like wool, it is still necessary to look further for an explanation of the continued increase in prices and costs generally. Although the supply position during the year improved as production increased and more imports became available, the improvement was offset at least in part by the growth in the demand for investment and consumption goods.

I commend the report to honorable senators; it is worth reading. The last issue of the journal published by the Institute of Public Affairs contains an article by a professor of economics in the United States of America in which he discusses various stabilization schemes elaborated by Lord Keynes. The article makes it plain that stabilization depends upon no single factor. We on this side of the chamber agree with Lord Keynes and everybody else who has studied the matter that prices control is necessary to a stabilized economy. Therefore, I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill, the object of which is to give to the people of this country an opportunity, at the earliest possible moment, to decide at a referendum whether prices control, exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament, should be reintroduced as a cornerstone of a sound economic structure for this country.

Senator NASH (Western Australia) [4.31L - I support the proposal that a referendum of the people should be held to determine whether the Commonwealth Parliament should “ once again exercise control of prices. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), in his attempt to prevent further discussion of this most important measure, claimed that a referendum could not possibly be taken until next year. We do not dispute that. We realize that certain constitutional procedure must be observed in the holding of referendums, but we know too that no step in this direction has yet been taken by the Government. At least this bill is an attempt to provide the machinery for the holding of a referendum at the earliest possible date. Obviously the Government and its supporters are not at least interested in the welfare of the Australian people. Throughout this debate honorable senators opposite, with a few exceptions, have remained dumb. Clearly the Government is piqued because the Opposition, by virtue of its majority, has been able to bring forcibly to the notice of the people the urgent need for the re-introduction of Commonwealth prices control.

What has the Government done since it assumed office to stem the rapid rise in the cost of living? I shall give figures later in my speech to show the actual increases that have occurred in the prices of commodities. It was significant that, when Senator McKenna introduced this bill into the Senate, the Prime Minister could not get on the air quickly enough to tell the people of the Commonwealth the Government’s views on the rising cost of living. Up to that time, the right honorable gentleman had not taken any interest in the fulfilment of the election promises of the combined Government parties. The Prime Minister did not hesitate to tell us that there would be no revaluation of Australian currency.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The Australian Country party would not let him revalue it.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– That is so. The tail is wagging the dog very strongly in the currency appreciation issue. The Prime Minister said some rather amazing things in his broadcasts. For instance, he announced the re-introduction of certain economic measures which, prior to the 1 0th December last, he and his colleagues had described as reprehensible, bureaucratic and socialistic.

They include an excess profits tax, an increase of the sales tax on luxuries, capital issues control, as well as control of basic materials, and the maintenance of subsidies. All those things were ruthlessly condemned when the Chifley Government was in office-, and were declared by the then Opposition to be anathema to the people of this country. The Labour Administration desired to retain certain economic controls, including the control of prices, .so that the economy of this country could be kept stable, but the people of Australia were told by the antiLabour parties that Commonwealth controls were unnecessary, and that all necessary measures could be administered more efficiently by the States. During the election campaign, press advertisements depicted the Labour Government as a bureaucracy, hungry for power to direct the lives of the people of this country. There was frequent use of the phrase “ power-hungry Canberra “. I am sure that some honorable senators opposite themselves used such expressions during their election speeches ; yet the Prime Minister admits that it has been necessary for him to copy part of the platform of the Labour party. His broadcasts to the Australian people were a lamentable admission of the failure of his Government.

The Australian £1, which, during Labour’s term of administration was estimated to be worth about 10s., is now worth considerably less than that and is continuing to lose its purchasing power.

The time is rapidly approaching when this country will be faced by an economic situation immeasurably worse than that of the depression years of 1930 to 1933, when 300,000 Australians were out of work. Most of them were living on the dole, and were only too glad to supplement their meagre rations by visiting soup kitchens and participating in distributions of free milk. There was abundance of food in the country and ample work of a national character to be done. Work could have been provided for all those who sought it, but the money interests said, “ No “. Under their direction, Australia participated in a worldwide deflationary movement. -We were advised by Sir Otto Niemeyer that the standard of living of the Australian people was too high and that we should tighten our ‘belts. We tightened our belts all right. Children were undernourished and inadequately clad. Resistance to disease was lowered, and hundreds of thousands of people were unable to afford medical attention. The birth-rate declined to such n degree that to-day there is a notable scarcity of adolescent labour.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Why did the Labour Government not hold a prices referendum then ?

Senator NASH:

– The Labour Government was in office, but had to face a hostile Senate, otherwise the sufferings of the Australian people in those days would not have ‘been nearly so great. Every attempt by the Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, to improve economic conditions was frustrated by the Senate which was safeguarding the money interests. The Senate was ruthless. It was not concerned with the interests of the people of Australia as a whole. That cannot be said of the present Senate. We shall be quite satisfied to accept the verdict of the people when the time comes. We have no worries about that. It has been truly said that the Government is staggering from one internal crisis to another over inflation and the soaring cost of living. Nothing has been done to curb inflation. Not long ago, a Sydney Sunday newspaper reported that many Sydney housewives could not afford to buy enough fresh meat and vegetables for the weekend and for the ensuing holiday. In an editorial recently one journal stated that it had become obvious that the Government had so far failed to produce an over-all plan to combat inflation. Another stated that, in the previous month, for the second time in two years, Australians had drawn more out of the savings banks than they had put into them.

As an ordinary citizen, and one who has not to face the obligation of rearing a family as many hundreds of thousands of people have to do, I am appalled by the prices of some of the goods that I see in shop windows in this city. For instance, an apple costs 6d., and even a small cauliflower, 2s. 6d. Very high prices are charged for vegetables and fruit of the poorest quality. I understand that under the system of Commonwealth prices control the prices of perishable commodities were not controlled. Consequently although prices control is still in operation in this city vegetables and fruit are not brought within its ambit. Those who lm ve the responsibility of rearing families have to pay extortionate prices for all their needs. In spite of our alleged condition of prosperity high prices prevent many mothers from purchasing the bodybuilding foods required by their growing families. In the earlier years of my married life the week-end joint of meat purchased by the average housewife was sufficient for two or more meals. A stew or a tasty dish of some other kind was usually made from’ the left-over portion of the joint. To-day the smallest joint costs from 10s. to 12s. and even up to 16s. and the whole of it is usually consumed by the family in one meal. In spite of these conditions the Government sits leisurely back and does nothing.

Ministers have pointed out that if this bill is passed a referendum, of the people could not be held for some considerable time. That may be true, but that does not prevent the Government from taking at least some immediate action to deal with rising prices. Our economy is now completely out of control. Inflation has run mad in this country. The Government says, “ Lea ve prices control to the States “, but the States have already admitted that they are no longer able effectively to control prices. Neither I nor the party to which I belong claims that Commonwealth prices control of itself will provide a panacea for the ills of inflation, hut we do maintain that if the Commonwealth adopted a system of prices control the rise in prices would he halted. Under the Constitution there must be no restriction of trade between the States. No State may impose an embargo on the import of goods and commodities from another State nor may any State prevent the free flow of trade and commerce between the States. Under the system of State control of prices the various S Sta te price-fixing authorities have fixed, different prices for the same commodities and as a result producers and manufacturers sell their commodities on the most profitable market. Commodities which are plentiful in one State are unavailable in. others. To-day, ample supplies of potatoes are available in Victoria but few potatoes can be bought in New South Wales except on the black market.

In their joint statement of policy the leaders of the anti-Labour parties told the people during the general election campaign that the greatest task ahead was to put value back into the £1 and to keep prices down. What evidence is there that they have made any attempt to tackle that task? The Government has not formulated any plan to protect the economy of this country and to save the people from the evils of inflation. The members of the parties that now form the Government cannot agree among themselves about the relevant importance of the problems that confront it. The leaders of the anti-Labour parties have said that the defence and security of this country are of the first importance. More recently the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) said that the most pressing problem is inflation and that defence is of second importance. Despite the fact that the leaders of the Government parties have said that inflation is of first importance the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has announced a defence programme which envisages the military training for very lengthy periods of tens of thousands of young Australians who are now engaged in production. How does the Government hope to overtake the lag in the supply of the essential requirements of the people and at the same time withdraw from production tens of thousands of young men ? The new defence policy of the Government will further aggravate the problem.

Since the resumption of the sittings of the Parliament questions have been constantly directed to the members of the Government, including the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), who is in charge of the Senate, in relation to the ever-increasing cost of living. All that the Ministers have said in reply is, “Wait a little while. The Government has a formula for the solution of this problem.” What formula has it devised? I and other honorable senators have pressed for details of it but we have been given no information. If the Government really has evolved a formula we hope that it will be put into operation without delay. The Government has demonstrated that it lacks the courage to tackle the problems that confront it. We have heard of how Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The people of this country are filled with indignation at the manner in which the Government has fiddled with the problems that confront it. Having regard to the degree of inflation that exists in this country who can say that our economy is sound? Who can say that if the increase of prices is not curbed we shall not experience a period of chaos which will eclipse the chaos of the depression years? The more the purchasing power of money depreciates the more likely is the onset of a period of unemployment, and once a period of unemployment begins who can say where it will end ? The reduction of the cost of living is not a matter of passing importance”, it concerns every person in this country.

It is not true, as the Minister for Trade and Customs has suggested, that the Opposition is not in earnest in submitting this measure. The Opposition is in deadly earnest. It believes that our economic security has been threatened for too long and that the Government should have taken steps months ago to halt inflation and restore the purchasing power of the £1. Ministers have said that the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill would enable the Government to get on with the work of increasing production and that the Opposition by obstructing the passage of that measure in this chamber had hampered it in its task. That is a “deliberately untrue statement. They know that months ago, the Opposition agreed to the first four clauses of the bill which would have given the Government all the power it needed to deal with those who seek to disrupt industry and threaten our security. When Ministers spoke of delay they conveniently overlooked the fact that this Government had been in office for six months before the measure was introduced in the Parliament. The Government itself must accept the blame for any delay that has occurred.

Some time ago the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) informed us that the Government would not make any provision in the budget for a system of Commonwealth prices control. That statement, which closely followed a statement of the Prime Minister that the Government did not intend to revalue the Australian £1, has left the people bewildered. They do not know how the Government proposes to tackle the problem of inflation. Members of the Government have talked very much, but they have taken no action except to introduce a bill under the provisions of which an innocent person may be declared to be a disrupter and an enemy of this country without first having been given an opportunity to prove his innocence.

In view of the statement the Minister for Trade and Customs that in any event it would not be possible to hold a referendum until some time next year, I should like to ask the honorable gentleman what the Government proposes to do immediately, in the near future or at some distant date to control prices. To date, the Government has adopted a nebulous outlook and it is hard to understand what it has in mind, other than the re-introduction of Some of the socialism which it has repeatedly deplored. In the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 7th October last, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that the Government proposes to re-introduce capital issues control. I would remind the right honorable gentleman that that is one of the phases of socialism to which he paid so much attention when the Australian Labour party was in office.

Let us examine the results of the Government’s action in withdrawing controls over capital issues. While those controls were operating, a person could get a price based on a certain formula, for a property offered for sale. If, for instance, a man valued his house at £850, it was quite possible that a panel of reputable and reliable real-estate agents would decide that the value of it, having regard to all aspects of the property, was only £800. Naturally, the vendor would be annoyed because he could not get that additional £50 for his house, but that control did have an effect on prices. To-day, when there is no control, it is simply a matter of a sale between the vendor and the buyer, with the result that persons who would receive, say, £1,000 on a fair valuation of property, are now not. only expecting, but actually receiving, over £3,000 for their property. In my opinion that state of affairs constitutes one of the biggest factors in our economic distress at the present time. Some sections of the community should not be allowed to do as they please. There must be a system of control, because otherwise we shall return to the law of the jungle. A great deal has been said about the law of the jungle as applied to the working man, and there is no hesitation in proclaiming him an outcast of society because he is not prepared to have his destiny determined by a court of arbitration, when he believes that he may be able to achieve better results in some other way. Because he does that he is immediately ostracized and condemned. But not so the profiteers, the people in this country who are making excess profits by exploitation ! By “ exploitation “ I mean charging exorbitant prices for goods that are in short supply. We all know that not only are people charged two or three times the value of property offered for sale, but that they are also asked to’ pay an additional £1,000 for vacant possession. Very often they are told that -before they may enter the property it will be necessary to pay £100 for the key. I ask honorable senators is that a state of society which is admirable and which they should tolerate? To my way of thinking, one of the prime evils in Australia to-day is the inaction of the Government concerning such matters.

I anticipate that honorable senators opposite will say that controls lead to black markets, but I remind them that black markets oan be defeated if the people will have the courage to stand up to their obligations and see that the black marketeer is not allowed to determine the economic standards of the country. As I frequently stated during the war, those black marketeers who were apprehended should have been dealt with in only one way. ‘ They should not have been fined a paltry 10s. for the first offence, £1 for the second offence, £5 for the third offence, and so on up to £100. What is £100 to a man who is making inordinate profits? He does not care if he is fined £1,000, because he knows he will be able to recover it. But if the law provided for punishment by imprisonment, he would be more afraid of being sent to gaol than of being fined £1,000. Had the judiciary of Australia said, as its members did in Great Britain, that there would be no palliatives and that people who committed such offences would be sent to gaol, black marketing and offences of a similar nature would have been prevented.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honorable senator believe that that is the only penalty for breaches of prices control?

Senator NASH:

– If it is a deliberate and a malicious breach, yes. Those who deliberately exploit the people of this country should be imprisoned. If they are not, it means simply that the Government is allowing some people to become affluent, to run very high-priced motor cars, to have summer residences at the beach, and to enjoy other luxuries at the expense of the majority of the people. I have no doubt that that is what some people refer to as good business and the democratic way of life, but we all know what happens in that great democracy, the United States of America, where some people are able to -become millionaires. The outlook of the people of Australia is different from that of the people of many other parts of the world, including the United States of America, because in those countries socialism is not so well founded as it is in this country. In those countries they believe in monopolies and cartels. I think all political parties in this country are agreed that we should not have monopolies or cartels, but that we should have a system of government which will encourage private ownership of the means of production so that the welfare of the people will be preserved to the best of our ability.

It has been persistently stated that the only remedy for the ills of this country is increased production. In regard to agricultural production, I suppose that Australia to-day is exporting more agricultural products than ever before. Admittedly, high prices are being received for wool and wheat, but apart from that there has been a very great increase in the production of agricultural commodities in this country within recent years. Even so, because of the increase of population, we are beginning to realize that we must pay still more attention to agricultural production. In respect of secondary industries, statistical reports reveal that within recent years the development has been large, and that there are many more secondary industries established in Australia to-day than there were a few years ago. We know, too, that there are other industries awaiting establishment in this country, but there are not sufficient people of the working class - the people who do the work - available to fill the requirements of existing industries, let alone those of industries still to be developed. Viewed from that angle, it is obvious that some corrective action is necessary. While there is a shortage of commodities, of necessity there will he a willingness, and even a desire, on the part of some people to pay exorbitant prices for those commodities. We therefore return to the old situation that some one must be made responsible to determine, first, what is the cost of manufacture of an article, secondly what is a reasonable profit to he made on the manufacture of it and, thirdly, what should he the maximum price to be charged for that article when it is sold. The State governments have tried to do the joh, but have admitted their inability to do so. At the last conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers a suggestion was made that control of prices should again revert to the Australian Government. The State governments have now reached a cul-de-sac.

Honorable senators have heard a great deal of debate in this chamber concerning the 40-hour week, and the suggestion has often been made that the introduction of the 40-hour week was responsible, in the main, for the economic difficulties which now confront the country. I think that that is a matter that requires some consideration. We have been told that the worker must work harder and that he is not giving a fair return for what he is paid. By and large, the Communists have been blamed for the industrial unrest, ‘but it must be remembered that Communists are not in control of .every industry in this country. They are not to be found in many of the manufacturing enterprises. It cannot be claimed that in other than certain key industries they have very much influence at all, but notwithstanding that fact, the workers are taken as a. whole and are accused by the Government of failing to maintain the economic standards. They are told that they must work harder. My answer to that is that we cannot take out of a vessel more than we put into it. I believe that every Australian worker should give a fair day’s work in return for a fair day’s pay. I have no time for loafers. Having listened to some of the arguments that have been advanced by Government supporters, one could be pardoned for coming to the conclusion that the 40-hour week was instituted by a Commonwealth Labour government; but that is not so. It was given to the workers of Australia by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. I shall read some extracts from the judgment of that court in the 40-hour week case. It was delivered on the Sth September, 1947. The first extract to which I direct the attention of the Senate reads as follows r -

On the 30th October, 194C, this Court having hoard and considered the cases for the applicant unions, the Commonwealth and the States, and the attitude of the employer respondents, as disclosed in their opening address, made the following declaration: - “ The Court feels that the time is opportune for an announcement that the four Judges now sitting declare their approval of the principle of a 40-hour week.”

That statement was made by the judges of a legally constituted court. Later in the judgment, the judges said -

No Government, State or Federal, cither in its capacity as Government or as employer respondent opposed the claim for shorter hours; no Government has denied the Court’s 30th October, 1946, declaration above quoted.

I ask honorable senators to note that statement. The judges also said -

The Court does not give up its function of settling industrial disputes, and in particular of fixing standards of wages and hours, nor does it fail “to act *a** a just arbiter endowed with sound business sense and economic knowledge, with justice and balance to the community as a whole “, .because it attaches very substantial weight to the support of the claim’s by the four States and the Commonwealth, who as Sovereign bodies, must be assumed to have deliberately chosen their course in the light of their responsibilities to their citizens.

The more one reads the judgment, the more enlightened one becomes. The next extract to which I wish to refer reads as follows : -

Most, if not all, of the opponents to the granting of the 40 hours immediately, base, their opposition on these “ shortages “. Employers do not fear the increased prices - they will be passed on - as for the investor, he will get his dividends, so says business manager Mr. Warner.

Later in the judgment the following passage occurs : -

At worst the 4.0-hour week will postpone for sonic period - not long we think - the final overtaking of this demand, and perhaps it is not altogether just that to-day’s workers should he required to make good an accumulated shortage the roots of which go far deeper than the recent war, and bc refused this claim for more leisure which a future generation may win.

Dealing with production, the judges made the following remarks : -

In estimating thu loss of production which might be expected to follow from reduced hours, we should not lose sight of the fuel that our decision will not affect production in many .industries; will not affect, e.g., imported articles, coal, steel, pig iron, electric power, rural industry nml many industries already enjoying 40 hours by agreement of the parties, by awards of tribunals and by State law. I; will, we think, be mitigated by the elimination of this claim as a cause of industrial unrest. As realists with past experience as a guide, we know that production would suffer quite substantially by such unrest and thus the difference between what might have been produced in a 44-hour week on a rejection of these claims, and what will be produced in a 40-hour week if they bo granted, is likely, on this ground alone, to bc substantially lessened.

Estimates of tin; loss of production have varied from the optimistic trade unionist wlm expressed the belief that there will be no reduction at all, other factors to which he referred taking care of the loss in working hours, to a figure in excess of the percentage of the reduction in weekly hours made hy some of the more pessimistic of employers. The statisticians 6:,cl their own method, and using the same basic figures they nevertheless arrived at different conclusions. This evidence was the most impressive of it all.

The final passage from the judgment that I wish to read is as follows : -

Employers have urged that the time for thi” admittedly desirable social change is not now: no alternative time was suggested unless we recall that some of their witnesses suggested that a time of depression and unemployment would be the most advisable time and then as a device for spreading employment - an idea already exploded - or again not until shortages were overtaken, which obviously could noi occur if full employment is maintained, or again until international disparities of hour-:. wages and conditions no longer exist, which i never likely to occur. So that their “ not now might mean “not ever”.

All criteria of an active virile progressive economy are present to-day. Our .population has increased and all ure working. Our sources of power are taxed to their limit and that limit higher than ever before. Business is showing a continuous unsatisfied demand for products nf nil kinds. Orders sufficient to maintain activity at the highest levels are booked for yours ahead over a wide range of industry. Jinny industrial undertakings are expanding their capital to a total extent of millions of pounds and prospectuses indicated very good prospects. Overseas companies arc finding in Australia increasing opportunity for further extension and development of their enter prises, while the reports of local companies are generally optimistic. The profit rate continues at high levels and substantially above the relation to gilt-edge securities usually expected.

Those passages from the judgment of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in the 40-hour week case answer any allegations that may be made about the efforts of Australian workers, and the value of the 40-1 1 our week to industry.

On the hustings, members of the present Government parties told the people that, if they were returned to power, they would reduce the number of public servants. They endeavoured to persuade the Australian people that Labour administrations had increased the number of public servants to such a degree that the Public Service was overstaffed and that some public servants were being paid for doing nothing. The figures that I am about to cite are contained in the Monthly Bulletin of Employment Statistics, published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in July, 1950. Their accuracy cannot be disputed. Table I. of the document is headed : -

Governmental, Private and Total Employees: Australia. (.Excluding wage earners in rural industries, females in private .domestic service and Defence Forces.)

One column of the table states the number of persons in the employ of governmental authorities. According to footnotes to the table, employees of governmental authorities include -

Employees of governmental bodies (Commonwealth, State, Local and Semigovernmental) on services such as railways, tramways, post office, education, police, public works. &<:.. as well as administrative employees.

New Australians employed by Commonwealth Defence authorities pending placement in private employment.

The table shows that in May, 1949. there were in the employ of governmental authorities in Australia 518,900 males and 99,200 females, a total of 618,100 persons. In July, .1950, the numbers were 554,400 males and 108,200 females, a total of 662,600 persons. Between May, 1949, and July, 1950, the number of persons in the employ of governmental authorities in this country increased by 44,500. Government spokesmen talk continually of the need for greater production, but I assume that many persons employed by governmental authorities are not employed in productive capacities. Therefore, the increase to which I have referred calls for some explanation from the Government.

The second table in the bulletin is headed -

Civilian Employees of GOVERNMENTAL Authorities, July, 1950: States. (Including administration, transport services, factories and workshops, postal services, education, public works, and other services, &c.)

According to the table, in July, 1950, there were in the employ of Commonwealth governmental authorities in all the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, 155,400 males and 45,500 females. The total for that month was lower than the figures for the preceding month, which were 156,300 and 45,000 respectively. During the general election campaign members of the present Government parties said that, if returned, they would dismiss unnecessary public employees, but the figures that I have cited show that the number of public employees has increased, not decreased. Probably the increase is justified, but my point is that it is not cricket for members of the Government parties to promise that they will do certain things and to do the exact opposite.

A most serious matter to which attention should he given is the increases of basic wages, both Commonwealth and State, that have been granted during the last few months. Doubtless it will be admitted that the recent increases of the basic wage in Western Australia, due to cost of living adjustments, have been greater than ever before. Under the laws of Western Australia, the arbitration court is bound, if the cost of living increases by ls. or more a week, to make a declaration adjusting the basic wage to meet the increase. If the increase is under ls. a week, no declaration is made. Several declarations have been made in recent months. In my opinion, prices are out of control. Workers’ wages are chasing costs all the time. By the time an arbitration court makes a declaration granting an increase of the basic wage, the increased costs upon which the declaration is based have been in operation for three months. I believe that increases of the basic wage are not effective as a method of solving the problem of the effect of rising costs upon wageearners. In my opinion continual increases of wages will result, ultimately, in a complete smash. If that is to be averted, employers, workers, and governments must co-operate in order to stabilize the economy. [Extension of time granted.] ,1 contend that although increases of wages have been necessary in view of changing circumstances, the situation has gradually worsened. We must adopt a realistic approach to this problem by taking steps to bring about definite control in relation to the prices of foodstuffs, clothing, and all of the other essential elements in the computation of the base wage. Having done so, that wage should be declared to be the wage necessary to permit a worker and his family to live in the degree of comfort that we say that they should enjoy. Wages, profits, interests, and other relevant factors should then be pegged. Those figures should be stabilized in all sections until it is found that a complete review is necessary. It is only by such means that we can place this country on a sound economic footing. Under the existing system the position is going from bad to worse. I have before me comparative particulars concerning variations in retail prices, as measured by the “ C “ series index. In figures that have been compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician, 1,000 represents the 1923-27 base period. The index covers items of food, groceries, house rents, clothing and miscellaneous household expenditure. As the following table shows, the weighted average index figures for the five towns in each State for the year ended September, 1950, show considerable increases compared ‘with the corresponding index figures for the September quarter of last year : -

In each instance there has been a substantial increase, brought about by determinations by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration during the last twelve months. The figures that I have cited prove conclusively that the Government must do something, in the interests of the people, if not in its own interests. This matter is crying out for attention. The following article appeared in the Melbourne Herald on the 5th October : -

page 1208

QUESTION

FEDERAL PRICE CONTROL WANTED

Six out of ten people think the Federal Government should again control prices . . . a Gallup poll just completed shows . . . The Australia-wide vote is: - 57 per cent, in favour, 35 per cent, opposed, and 8 per cent, undecided.

Generally speaking, Gallup polls provide a. fairly accurate assessment of the position. That 57 per cent, of the people are in favour of prices control again being vested in the Commonwealth is proof that the Government has a job to do, if it is to honour its responsibility to the people to protect their interests and the economy of the country generally.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– Although the measure before the chamber has been introduced by the Opposition, it is nevertheless very important. Not until several days ago did any supporter of the Government speak on this bill. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) stated that each member of the Senate was receiving an allowance of £1,500 a year, apart from income from outside sources. He wondered whether some honorable senators were earning their allowance. I wonder how much supporters of the Government are earning in connexion with this measure? Although there are three lady senators on the Government benches, not one has spoken to this bill, which is the very crux of the economic position of this country to-day. After this measure had been introduced in this chamber the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) hastened to broadcast a speech to the Australian people about inflationary tendencies. He adopted the unprecedented procedure of forecasting imposts that would be contained in the budget. That should not have been done. The right honorable gentleman mentioned that there was likely to be an increase of the price of motor tyres. The result was that before the budget had been brought down in the House of Representatives, the price of tyres was increased. In consequence, supporters of the Government are raising a defence in connexion with this bill. The Prime Minister himself wanted to do certain things in connexion with the economic and financial position of this country, and indeed one of his Ministers said that this problem was uppermost in the minds of the Government. Yet not one supporter of the Government in thi3 chamber has spoken on the measure to-day.

Senator O’flaherty:

– Honorable senators opposite are on strike.

Senator Kendall:

– What is the use of wasting time?

Senator FRASER:

– The Government sought the co-operation of the Opposition, and therefore the Opposition introduced this measure. During the regime of the Curtin and Chifley Administrations, in war-time, the economy of this country was extolled throughout the world. Admittedly the Commonwealth was then able to exercise certain defence powers, which, had it not been for the propaganda of the non-Labour parties, could have been continued by an affirmative vote of the people on the rents and prices referendum. I recall that financial experts who visited Australia during that period stated publicly that the economy of this country was being maintained better than was the economy of any other country.

Earlier to-day I asked questions relative to the proposed deductions from wool cheques. Speaking personally - not on behalf of the party that I support - I have yet to learn of any greater impost. Of course I realize that the overseas prices of wool, wheat, and other primary products have increased far beyond the imagination of any person in this country several years ago. But what has the Government done in connexion with the profits of large public companies? Nothing! It has picked out the export trade, from which to gain £103,000,000, to be treated as revenue. Although the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) has stated that treasury-bills will not be used, the budget estimate of revenue will be increased by the proposed deductions, as a result of which there are bound to be repercussions. I have just received the following telegram from Mr. K. Hicks on behalf of fifteen branches of the Merredin Zone Council Farmers Union: -

Meeting of delegates representing fifteen branches Merredin Zone Council Farmers Union Saturday last instructed me telegraph all Western Australian Federal Members to vote against wool tax proposal in Budget and will do utmost defeat next election any member supporting the proposal.

The questions that I asked earlier to-day were framed before I had received this telegram.

Senator Scott:

– Did not the honorable senator arrange for that telegram to be rent to him?

Senator FRASER:

– I am pleased that at last 1 have managed to stir honorable senators opposite to a small degree of enthusiasm. I point out that no State possesses powers to control the prices of interstate commodities. Western Australia exports a considerable quantity of timber to the eastern States, and imports galvanized iron from those States. There is no interstate control of prices of those commodities. Even if the State government wished to control prices it could not do so because of constitutional limitations. Members of the Labour party pointed that out during the referendum campaign, but in spite of the arguments we advanced, economic controls were abandoned, including even that over capital issues. Now, the Prime Minister has had to eat his words, and announce that it is proposed to re-impose capital issues control.

Senator Wright:

– Would the honorable senator control the price of wool?

Senator FRASER:

– The Fisher Government imposed a federal land tax payable by those who owned land, the unimproved value of which was £5,000 or more. That has not been mentioned before in this debate, but it was the proper way in which to raise revenue.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Let the honorable senator he candid. Would he control the price of wool?

Senator FRASER:

– This is a very important issue. I do not speak on every subject that comes before the Senate, but I feel very strongly on this matter of prices. I suggested some time ago that action should he taken at the last Premiers conference to refer power to the Commonwealth to control prices, but nothing was done, and the situation has been allowed to drift. This afternoon, the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) claimed credit for the Government because it had increased pensions, and had introduced legislation to endow the first child of a family. Already, the endowment provision has been more than offset by increasing prices.

I quote the following comment on Liberal party propaganda: -

News Review, a Liberal party ami Employers’ Federation sponsored journal, published an article in its issue of the 11th September, 1950. The article states: “It has become a. popular catch-cry that the Government is not putting value back in the pound. But just what does putting value back in the pound mea:i? It is nonsense if it means restoring the pound to the value it had in 1939 To do that, for a start, wheat would have to come back to about (is. a bushel and wool to about lOd. a lb.” It would have been more refreshing, of course, if News Review had possessed sufficient moral courage to have published the article during the federal election campaign of last year.

The Labour party agreed then, as it agrees now, that it would be impracticable to restore the £1 to its 1939 value. High prices for our exports, the expansion of our secondary industries, full employment, and a vigorous immigration policy make it impossible for us to retrace our steps. However, the present Prime Minister, and other Liberal candidates, solemnly assured the people during the election campaign that their first task, if returned to power, would be to restore value to the £1. They also said that they would reduce the army of bureaucrats in Canberra, but figures have been cited to show that, since this Government took office, the number of public servants has increased by 40,000. Anti-Labour candidates claimed that tin1 Chifley Government had reduced the value of the £1 to 10s. That is an example of the vicious propaganda in which they indulged.

Senator Aylett:

– What is the £1 worth to-day?

Senator FRASER:

– Even the statisticians cannot agree about it. The people are now demanding that the Government fulfil its promise to restore value to the £1. The Government must accept responsibility for the present situation. It has become clear that the statements made by Liberal party candidates during the election campaign were just so much nonsense. The Government now realizes that it is utterly impossible to restore the £1 to its 1939 value, and members of the Cabinet cannot even agree upon measures to arrest inflation, and hold prices at their present level.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

Senator FRASER:

– The gem of the article from News Review to which I have referred is found in the concluding passages. After expressing the belief that the public is most uneasy about the present position and that it cannot continue unchecked, the article states -

We must, each of us individually and sectionally, agree to some limitations being placed on the community.

That is what the Labour Government did in this country during the war, and what it asked the electors of Australia for power to continue to do in the transitional period. However, supporters of the present Government parties spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in their ultimately successful attempt to defeat the Chifley Government. I remind the Senate that Labour assumed office in 1941, after the Menzies and Fadden administrations had failed this country in its hour of greatest peril. The first Curtin Government did not have a majority either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. The ultimate defeat of the Fadden Government was due to dissension within its own ranks. It illbehoves honorable senators opposite .to tell us what a happy family members of the Government parties are to-day when, as Senator Sandford, has pointed out, we all know that although twelve members of Cabinet favoured revaluation of the Australian currency seven opposed it and had their way. In 1941, the United Australia party and the Australian Country party could not agree on a policy of any kind.

Senator Scott:

– What about the division of the Labour party on the Communist issue?

Senator FRASER:

Senator Scott reminds me of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. I thank him for his interjection. While that bill was under discussion, the Government did everything in its power to link the Labour party with the Communists in the eyes of the people. However, now that the bill has been passed, the Government seeks . the co-operation of Labour in securing increased production. One frequently hears the allegation that Australian workers to-day are not giving of their best, and that the cost of living could be reduced by increased production. I have before me an opinion expressed by a judge of the Commonwealth Court of ‘Conciliation and Arbitration on the recent basic wage case. I remind honorable senators that the hearing of the application for an increased basic wage occupied many months, and that the fullest possible evidence was heard, not only from the unions, but also from the employers. This is what the judge said -

As the Court has expressly accepted the productivity basis when favorably considering claims for basic increases it should have long been obvious to workers that increased productivity is a pre-requisite to their getting a greater share of notional prosperity, and any restriction upon output or opposition to increased production is a betrayal of the interests of the workers.

Although at times sweeping allegations are made that the Australian worker as a class is not putting forth his best efforts during his shortened working hours, there has been no substantial evidence during the hearing to support such a proposition, except insofar as the coal-miners are concerned. In fact, a substantial proportion of employers’ witnesses who were interrogated on this point were not prepared to support such an allegation, and almost without exception those who had introduced incentive payment schemes certified to the happy result, both from the employers’ and the workers’ point of view.

Again I remind honorable senators that those are not my opinions, but those of a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. That quotation shows clearly that allegations about go-slow tactics on the part of Australian workers are without foundation. I have been associated with industry all my life, and I am prepared to stand by the opinion expressed by that judge.

It is of no use honorable senators opposite blaming the ‘Communists for inflation. I have nothing to say about the Communist Party Dissolution Bill at this stage. That has gone. We must face the future. We on this side of the chamber are endeavouring to suggest to this inept Government some means by which the people of Australia may be given security for the future. Not only News Review, but also many people and organizations in the community who were merely concerned with political advantage and profits contributed to the defeat of’ the Labour Government. The people of the Commonwealth were told about the Labour bureaucracy at Canberra. The Chifley Administration was described as a power-drunk government, employing thousands of public servants unnecessarily. Earlier to-day, Senator Nash cited figures showing that since the present Administration has been in office, the

Public Service had increased by approximately 42,000. I wonder what .the people think of this action by a government which, less than a year ago, claimed that the Chifley Government was a bureaucratic administration? The Prime Minister has had to eat his words and admit to the people of this country that the re-introduction of certain controls, previously exercised by the Labour Government, is necessary. T have no doubt that many electors are now regretting their rejection of the honest approach made to them by the Labour Government. “ Labour cannot govern in war-time “ was the cry in 1941. We proved that assertion to be far astray. Apparently now that the Australian economy has to he stabilized again, Labour will once more have to occupy the treasury benches.

I propose to quote to honorable senators portion of a statement made recently by Mr. BT. Hearn, a member of the Legislative ‘Council of Western Australia, a private employer of some standing and, I believe, one-time president of the Employers Federation of Western Australia. He said -

In days when the inflationary spiral is just around the corner, it may well pay private enterprise to pause a little and he prepared to sacrifice in order that it may continue, because I believe that private enterprise is on trial at the moment.

Mr. Hearn is not a Labour supporter; he is the representative of the employers, and was at one time president of the Employers Federation. It is a pity that he and his political friends did not express similar views prior to the holding of the referendum on rents and prices. It is a great pity that the Prime Minister did not share Mr. Hearn’s views when, at the behest of private enterprise, he was forced to relinquish the control of capital issues. To-day, private enterprise and this Government are on trial. Recently, the Prime Minister in a broadcast address outlined certain measures which the Government proposes to adopt to curb inflation. Many of them are unprecedented in the history of the Commonwealth and had similar proposals been announced by a Labour Prime Minister, I have no doubt what those who support the present Government would say about them.

During the discussion of an earlier measure honorable senators opposite claimed that the Government had obtained a mandate from the people of this country to carry out the policy enunciated by the leaders of the anti- / Labour parties during the general electioncampaign. What steps has the Government taken to carry out the mandate which it claims to have received? So far it has attempted only to ban the Communist party.

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · LP

– It also abolished petrol rationing.

Senator FRASER:

– That is true, and it has also provided child endowment of 5s. for the first child in each family. The mothers of Australia know what that amount represents in terms of purchasing power. It is scarcely sufficient to purchase an additional daily pint of milk. Let us examine the votes cast at the last general election in order to discover what justification there is for the Government’s claim to have received a mandate from the people to give effect to its policy. Of a total poll of 4,714,363 votes Labour candidates gained 2,124,214 votes. Thus nearly 50 per cent, of the electors voted for Labour candidates. Liberal party candidates polled only 1,816,292 votes. The Liberal party was able to take office only with the support of the Australian Country party, the candidates of which polled 500,000 votes.

Senator Scott:

– Those 500,000 votes represented the dominant factor.

Senator FRASER:

– It is undoubtedly true that the members of the Australian Country party who are now in the Ministry dominate the decisions of the Government. What occurred in 1941 when this country was governed by a coalition government will undoubtedly occur again. Sooner or later, there is bound to he a serious cleavage of opinion among the members of the Cabinet. Already one member of the Australian Country party has resigned from the party because of differences with his leader on matters of policy. Honorable senators opposite have said that we are dominated by the federal executive of the Australian Labour party. That is completely untrue. All members of the Australian Labour party are free to vote in accordance with their views. I challenge honorable senators opposite to buck the party rule and vote against it on any matter in respect of which they disagree with its decisions. I remind them of the fate of one of their political friends who had the courage of his convictions and crossed the floor to vote against his Government. I refer to the fate of the former honorable member for Perth, Mr. E. A. Mann. Honorable senators will recall that he was refused endorsement at the following general elections, and as a result was cast into political oblivion. If Senator Scott is opposed to the wool tax, will he be courageous enough to say so, or will he sink his principles and vote for it?

Senator Scott:

– In order to set the honorable senator’s mind at rest, I can tell him now that I favour the imposition of the wool tax.

Senator FRASER:

– Only the war in Korea will save this Government from the wrath of the electors. How many tens of thousands of young men will be taken out of production in order to meet the requirements of the Government’s defence programme? Undoubtedly, in the future the Government will use its defence programme as an excuse for its failure to implement its promise to increase production.

I listened with interest to the broadcast speech made by the Prime Minister after Senator McKenna had introduced this measure. He had but recently returned from the United States of America, where he enjoyed a great reputation as a statesman and I hoped to hear some statesmanlike utterances fall from his lips. I was astonished to hear him tell the people- that the high prices of vegetables and other commodities had resulted from floods and drought conditions. The right honorable gentleman was well aware that in Western Australia, which has not suffered from either floods or droughts,, the prices of many commodities are higher than those ruling in other States. Once again, the right honorable gentleman was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people: The Government should make a real endeavour to tackle the problem of rising prices. The Prime Minister should im mediately summon a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers and ask the States to give to the Commonwealth temporary power to control prices, Every Opposition honorable senator who. has taken part in this debate has amply demonstrated that the States cannot effectively control prices. It has been said by honorable senators opposite that if this measure is passed, months must elapse before the people can be given an opportunity to express their opinion on the proposal contained in it. If that, is so why should the Government remain inactive in the meantime? I offer this, suggestion because honorable senators opposite have asked for the co-operation of the Opposition in meeting the problems that confront the Government.

Some time ago, in asking a question in the Senate I pointed out that, although Western Australian meat is exported to. Singapore and Malaya from the far north, of the State to as far south as Geraldton, the people of Kalgoorlie and Carnarvon were without meat for weeks on end. I have referred to the export of large quantities of meat on several occasions because of its influence on prices on the local market. Recently I visited Sydney, and made some comparisons between mead prices in that city and in Western Aus. tralian cities and towns. In some quarters it. is contended that meat prices in Sydney are slightly higher than in Western Australia. I very much doubt whether that is so.- I appeal to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) to take the necessary action to ensure that local markets shall be provided with sufficient commodities to meet the needs of the people at prices which the people can afford to pay.

Honorable senators opposite have asked what responsibilities the Opposition carries in respect of this matter. 1 remind them that we are just as responsible to the people as they are, and that if the Government does not take steps to deal with the vexed question of rising prices, we- shall, do so in its stead. If the Government continues to neglect its responsibilities, the people themselves, particularly those on fixed incomes,, including invalid and age pensioners, those living on superannuation and annuities, who are hardest hit by rising prices, will compel it to do so. There will come a time when the people will revolt against this Government. The Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 28th September, 1950, stated that Labour would certainly not hesitate to use any of the methods available to it, but this Government has not the courage to face thu problem because it is afraid of those who have put it here. “We all know of the lobbying that occurs and of the conflict in the Cabinet. We hear quite a lot about the wool tax and bank nationalization. Why cannot there be a referendum on the wool tax so that we may see where we stand on that matter? The Sydney Daily Telegraph article also states -

There are 3 points essential . . . That is why we say the greatest problem facing Mr. Menzies, and Australia, at this moment is the bisk of stabilizing the £1.

The Government promised to put value back in the fi. The article continues -

He and his Government must stand or fall by what he does in the next few weeks to halt the swift wastage in the value of your money. We are not trying to sell any special brand of remedy; we merely point out - what everybody knows-

Even the housewife, to her regret - that any plan, to be effective, must give the Australian £1 more realistic value in relation to sterling. That is a necessary point . . . cut unnecessary Government spending.

The Government also promised to do that, but my colleague from Western Australia tells me that there are some 4.0,000 more employees in the government service to-day than there were when this Government assumed office. The article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph also stated that it was necessary to raise the nation’s output. The Government said that if it could ban the Communist party it would be able to do that. It has the legislation now, and the task is before it. The Government asked for the cooperation of the Opposition and we are endeavouring to co-operate by presenting this bill. I do not say that prices control will get the Government out of its difficulties, because I fully appreciate, having been a mem ber of -the Curtin and Chifley Governments, the difficulties associated with thu problem, but I would remind honorable senators opposite that those difficulties are not insurmountable. Perhaps it will take. as the Daily Telegraph says, “ a Labour government to attack these problems “. The article proceeds -

These three points are fundamental, essential. Unless the coming Budget proposes positive means to achieve them by immediate action the days of the Menzies-Fadden Government are numbered. It will collapse in the worst economic confusion and misery this country has known.

I compliment the Daily Telegraph on its outspoken comments. Its editors understand, as we understand, that the time is fast arriving when the spiral of inflation will go right through the roof. During the war there was only one occasion on which prices got out of hand, but the Government of the day met the position by the use of powers provided by the Defence Act. I feel sure that the Labour governments in New South Wales and Queensland will be only too pleased to transfer prices control powers to the Australian Government. It is all very well to talk about the 100,000,000-dolla’r loan, but that will not prevent inflation in this country, and it may even make it worse. I am no prophet, but I did say at the time that the United Kingdom received its loan from America that in less than six months it would he worth about half the amount at which it wa.« negotiated, and this Government will find that as time goes on the American loan to this country will be worth much less than it is to-day.

I feel very keenly on this subject, and I believe that something must be done in the interests of the country. It cannot be denied that although pensions have been increased it will be very difficult for pensioners and for people on fixed incomes to manage unless action is taken to control prices. The Daily Telegraph article continues -

The heaviest fall in the value of the £1 in recent years was in the six months from May, 1948, to November, 1948, when it came down by 8.9 .per cent. Over the period from May, 1948, to May, 19S0, the decline has averaged about 6.2 per cent, every six months. The 8.9 per cent, decline occurred in the six months when wool prices took their first big boost - to 15 per cent. The recent boost has raised wool prices 50 per cent, higher than they were in June, 1950. Those figures should help to give you some idea of the undisciplined pressure which is forcing the value of your £1 down at this moment. And let us repeat - in the May- November, 11)48, period, when your £1 lost 8.9 per cent, of its value compared with the previous six months, the whole of industry was devoting its man-power and materials to supplying the goods you need. Now We are preparing to cut the output of consumer goods and increase the output nf military goods and the non-productive - though essen tin! - m i 1 i itary se r v ices .

If the Government intends to take manpower and woman-power away from industry for the armed services, there is only one conclusion to which we can come. The article in the Daily Telegraph goes on to say -

The situation is verY ugly. Last year the Federal Government spent £(»0(i.000.000 compared with £554,000,000 in 1948-49-

That was under a Labour government. [.Extension of time gra.nl.ed.] I say to the members of the Government, that when they talk about the workers of this country not giving of their best, they should also mention the professional men who are not giving of their best. I have heard it stated that even medical men, in effect, say, “ What is the good of giving six or seven days of professional services when taxes are so heavy ? “ We never hear that aspect mentioned in this Parliament by members of the Government. It is always the worker who is attacked. I know that that is a very sore point with honorable senators opposite. When the waterside workers, coal miners and other classes of workers are criticized, let us remind ourselves of the great profits that are made by some organizations. We read of dividends of 15 and 20 per cent, being declared. The wool-growers are asking, “ Why have we been singled out for special treatment ? “ This afternoon I asked the Minister representing the Treasurer what interest the Government proposed to pay on the money that will be taken from the woolgrowers this year in the form of prior payments of income tax. The Minister said, in reply, that I was paid no interest on the amounts deducted from my senatorial salary in respect of income tax. My salary is paid monthly, but when a wool-grower receives his cheque, he banks it, draws interest on the money and then pays his taxes. The Minister did not answer my question.

At the next general election the people will remember the unfulfilled promises that were made during the last general election campaign by the present Government parties. All the money that the Government parties may spend i” another campaign will not overcome their difficulties. The people will remember this Government’s lack of policy and the conflict in Cabinet. That the rot has already set in is shown by the fact that, within ten months of the general election, one Government supporter, the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Charles Russell), has resigned from the Australian Country party. The Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) has said that he will never be admitted to the party again. This Government of bits and pieces is already in the process of disintegration and will meet its end at the next general election. In conclusion, I say to honorable senators opposite thai although they can fool some of the people all the time, they cannot fool all r people all the time.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

.– This is the first occasion on which I have been privileged to address the Senate. It is also the first occasion on which I have been present’ in the chamber when the bill under discussion is one that was presented to the Parliament since I took my seat in the Senate. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the second-reading speech of Senator McKenna and the subsequent debate on this measure. Some of the speeches made by honorable senators opposite remind me of the boatman’s cry, “All round the bay for a shilling”. I believe that this bill was presented to the Senate originally to enable the Opposition to postpone the debate on a bill that it did not, at the time, wish to discuss. It appears that it is now being used again, in similar circumstances, to enable the Oppostion to postpone the debate on another bill with which the Government wishes to proceed but which, for some reason as yet undisclosed, the Opposition wishes to delay. Once again, the business of the Senate has been taken from the hands of the Government and parliamentary practice broken.

I oppose this measure because it is designed to secure a permanent transfer from the States to the Commonwealth of power to control prices. That point has been evaded by honorable senators opposite. Arguments that the States could transfer to the Commonwealth temporarily some of their powers in relation to prices and that’ only some basic materials would be controlled are not applicable to this measure. Once again, we see the federal octopus stretching out its tentacles and trying to take from the States another sovereign power. I am always highly suspicious of any attempt to tamper with the Constitution, but when a bill is introduced into the Parliament by a private member, when it is couched in such simple terms and when its sponsor is a member of the legal profession, I am doubly suspicious. A proposal for an alteration of the Constitution similar to that envisaged by this bill was rejected by the people of Australia two years ago. The only difference between the referendum for which provision is sought to he made in this measure and that which was rejected two years ago is that on that occasion the Commonwealth asked for power to control rents and charges in addition to prices. With somewhat disarming frankness, Senator McKenna said that this hill referred to prices only and that the other two points had been dropped. When a layman talks of prices, he refers to what he pays for a pound of butter, a packet of tobacco, a glass of beer or something that he requires for his household, but what interpretation would constitutional lawyers and the courts place upon that simple word? I believe that in this connexion the word “prices “ is as wide as the words “ prices, rents and charges “.

I do not subscribe to the opinion that has been freely expressed during this debate that State prices control has been a failure. I believe that State prices control has been no more of a failure than federal prices control would have been if the Commonwealth had had power to control only prices. Senator McKenna, in his second-reading speech, made it quite clear that power to control prices only is not sufficient. He said -

The Opposition does not suggest that the establishment of Commonwealth prices control will have the effect of restoring prices to their normal level, nor does it suggest that prices control, standing alone, will prevent prices from rising.

In the Sydney Daily Mirror of the 19th October, the Minister in charge of prices control in the New South Wales Government, Mr. Finnan, is reported to have said that the main influences affecting prices were subsidies, excise duties, arbitration decisions and the devaluation of the Australian £1. If that be so, how could the Commonwealth control prices more effectively than the States have done? If prices control is to he effective, other steps must be taken.

In the course of this debate many references have been made to the prices of vegetables, and at one stage I began to think that I had heard quoted the prices of cauliflowers in every town from Brisbane to Melbourne. I observed recently the prices charged for cauliflowers in Perth and Adelaide. In Perth, T saw very fine cauliflowers offered for sale at 7d. each, or at three for ls. 6d. Honorable senators opposite did not mention prices in those cities. Surely it is not fair, when seeking to establish an argument, to quote prices prevailing in one-half of the Commonwealth and ignore those prevailing in the other half. Some honorable senators opposite compared the prices of beans and tomatoes in December, 1949, and June, 1950, but I submit that no argument can be sustained that is based upon a comparison of the prices of tomatoes in December, when supplies are plentiful, and prices in June, when the only tomatoes available are those grown in hothouses. Reference has been made to 2s. 9d. being charged for a quarter of a cauliflower. I would not buy a quarter of a cauliflower at that price. In that connexion, an article that appeared recently in the Melbourne Argus is of interest. After stating that there were hints of sales tax being increased on luxury goods, the article stated -

It will not worry most people, since there are few of us in the market for mink coats, steam yachts and diamond tiaras. But nearly all of us are making ourselves liable for such attacks by buying luxury goods at the greengrocers, the butchers, or, perhaps, at the show. The housewife who pays ls. for a 3d. cabbage is, .perforce, a luxury spender, because she is paying money for value that she does not receive. If she were to refuse luxury spending of that kind prices would fall. The volume of money that has passed out of a consumer’s hands for such purchases is far greater than the annual bill for some yachts. and it is far more serious because of inflation. After all, control of prices should start at home.

Members of the public who considered that they were being exploited in this way could, in the good old way, roll up their sleeves and get out into their gardens once again. By so doing they would greatly reduce the existing prices. Much reference has been made to “ hot “ money in Australia. Of course during the regime of the previous Government it was claimed that that money was representative of the confidence of overseas investors in the Labour Government. I agree with those honorable senators who have said that gambling on the exchange is the worst type of profiteering. In this instance it did not come off. How could the States overcome the matter of overseas money in this country awaiting the revaluation of the £1 ? What effect could prices control have on that? It is entirely irrelevant. There are two types of “ hot money “, one that previous speakers have referred to, and the blackmarket money that is in this country. Black-markets developed because of control of prices and they flourish while those controls continue. In his secondreading speech Senator McKenna said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated in his policy speech -

The greatest task, therefore, is to get value back into the £1, that is to get prices down.

What a pity that the sponsor did not go another line and finish the little paragraph. I shall do so for him. The right honorable gentleman said -

The greatest task, therefore, is to get value back into the £1, that is to get prices down. That is the only effective way of increasing veal wages. … A production policy, which I have already described, is therefore of the essence of price control.

The first point in that production policy was to outlaw communism and destroy its control of the unions.

Frequent reference has been made in this chamber to the fact that it is impossible to fix prices for a product proceeding from one State to another, under State prices control. As honorable senators are aware, in Tasmania we know something about potatoes. It was due to the fixing of the price of potatoes in New South Wales that the potato industry in Tasmania was practically destroyed. I should like to make brief reference to some of the remarks that were made in the Tasmanian Legislative Council by the honorable Mr. Alex Lillico, who is the “ father “ of the country where the potatoes are grown. The following report appeared in the Tasmanian Examiner of the 6th October : - “ I can see absolute collapse of the potato industry under prevailing conditions “, Mr. Alex Lillico said in the Legislative Council last night. This year only 70,000 tons were exported, whereas CO years ago, when tens of thousands of acres of the best land on the North-West Coast was virgin bush, nearly that quantity was produced. “ There should have been no necessity for potatoes to be imported from New Zealand to New South Wales “ he said. “ Tasmania could have supplied the whole of Sydney’s needs if it had been given a fair deal by those in authority “. The New South Wales Prices Minister (Mr. Finnan) was the arch-enemy of this State, Mr. Lillico said. He proclaimed a price for New Zealand potatoes £2 a ton in excess of that paid for Tasmanian produce.

In normal times Tasmanian potatoes commanded from £2 to £4 a ton premium over the imported article. Prices control is another very serious factor which could destroy whole industries, as it is destroying the potato industry in Tasmania. Plantings this season to date are fully 25 per cent, less than during the corresponding period of last year. The potato famine that has existed in Sydney this year will be nothing to what it will be in the coming year. The price of potatoes was fixed in New South Wales to pander to the city workers by trying to keep their food prices down. We saw that over and over again during the period of federal prices control. Although the Prices Branch did a great job during the war period, politics frequently interfered with its decisions. Whenever there was an election in the offing it was impossible to get a direct answer from the authorities until after the election had been held. I consider that political intervention in prices control constitutes a severe danger. That is a further reason why I oppose the control of prices.

The days when the producers, their wives and families, slaved for long hours to produce cheap food for the cities has gone forever. Furthermore, prices control is inevitably accompanied by wages control, direction of man-power, and control of capital issues, in order to make it effective. Senator Hendrickson lias said that the present inflationary tendency is due not to the 40-hour week but to the fact that too many men are working in useless industries. That statement implied that man-power direction must accompany prices control in order to get those men into other industries. I consider that inflation should be tackled on a level above party politics, because if it is allowed to go unchecked it will leave a wicked mark on every section of the community. I thank the Senate for its courteous reception of my remarks.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I. congratulate Senator Henty on his maiden speech. From the point of view of the Opposition, it was not a bad speech, because, during the course of his remarks the honorable senator referred to the position in the potato industry in Tasmania. I am convinced that, upon reflection, he will agree that the proposal that is now before the chamber to establish a uniform system of prices control throughout Australia would remove the difficulties that now confront Tasmania. The honorable senator stated that one means by which the prices of vegetables could be reduced would be for the householders to take off their coats, roll up their sleeves, and grow vegetables in their backyards. From his remarks I do not think he comes from the intensely populated part of a capital city in Tasmania. The population of the cities in Tasmania is not so dense as that of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and other places. Imagine a worker residing in an industrial suburb of one of the big mainland cities, on a Saturday afternoon, after his work for the week is finished, looking around to see where he could grow vegetables for his wife and family in his backyard ! Perhaps, when the honorable senator has had a little more political experience, he will realize the futility of such an argument.

This is a simple bill of only two clauses. It provides for the holding of a referendum on the proposal that the Commonwealth Parliament should have power to legislate for the purpose of controlling prices. On previous occasions, the people have been invited to confer additional powers upon this Parliament, but it is an unfortunate fact that the various political parties rarely find themselves able to agree upon the issues placed before the people. Honorable senators who support the Government have not had much to say on this bill, but some of them have indicated that they are prepared to allow it to pass the Senate. However, I have detected a reservation in their attitude which suggests to me that, should a referendum be held on the prices issue, they will ask the people to vote “ No “. In that, they would he running true to form. I have a clear recollection of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) suggesting that the Constitution should be altered so as to confer more power on the Commonwealth Parliament, but when specific proposals were put before the people he opposed them. In his quiet moments outside the Parliament, the Prime Minister appreciates the difficulties under which the Commonwealth Parliament operates because of the limitations of a written Constitution. Not long ago, when I was supporting the motion for an extension of time to allow a select committee to prepare its report on the method of electing the Senate, I pointed out that one of the great federalists, Mr. Justice Higgins, a member of the convention which had framed the Constitution, eventually advised the people to vote “ No “ when the draft Constitution was submitted to them for their approval. His principal reason for doing so was that lie realized how difficult it would be to enlarge the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament when the increasing complexity of government required that to be done. He recognized that, at the time of federation, Australia was only embarking upon its career of nationhood, and that it was destined to play an increasingly important part as time went on. He believed that, in the circumstances, a written Constitution might well hamper the nation’s development. Now, 50 years after federation, the National Parliament lacks the powers necessary to legislate effectively in the interests of the people.

It is true that, under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has a’ reserve power which can be exercised in a national emergency, such as war. During the last war, when Australia was on the brink of destruction, the government of the day acted under that power to institute a system of prices control, with the result that Australia’s economy was, in the opinion of many eminent persons, more stable than that of any other belligerent country. After the war, however, when Australia entered upon a period of great prosperity because of the accumulated spending power of the people, certain interests recognized the opportunity for profit-making if the control of prices were removed. Senator Henty said that the primary producers could not he expected to return to the conditions under which they worked for a miserable pittance, and we agree with him. It was a Labour Government that took the first practical steps to improve the lot of the primary producers. By controlling prices, and paying subsidies on primary products such as butter, potatoes, blue peas, &c, the Labour Government ensured that primary producers received a reasonable return for their labour. That was in conformity with the principles of the Labour party. “We do not want any one to be sweated. We recognized that when prices were uncontrolled the middle men were able to exploit the primary producers. We saw how the dairy-farmers had been sweated, so that they could eke out an existence only by exploiting the labour of their wives and children. We knew that the wheatfarmers had been forced to accept for their product whatever price the merchants offered them. Therefore, the Labour Government subsidized the primary industries, and gave them security. We believe that a man, whether he sells his labour in the workshop, in the factory, or in the field through the produce he grows, is entitled to a proper living standard. Unfortunately, there were certain greedy persons who thought that the Labour Government, by continuing to control prices after the war, was preventing them from growing rich at the expense of the rest of the community. Those were the people who had exploited the primary producers in the years gone by, and they now set about attacking the system of prices control.

One of the first points of attack was the control of the apple and pear industry.

The Government had appointed the Australian Apple and Pear Board which guaranteed to the growers a reasonable price for their product. Later, when any one complained of the price of apples or pears, those persons who were working for the abolition of controls said that the Australian Apple and Pear Board was to blame for high prices. Eventually, the board was abolished, but have apples and pears become cheaper? No ! Immediately control was lifted, prices skyrocketed, until to-day the ordinary person cannot afford to buy apples. Commonwealth control of prices was also challenged in the courts. The tragedy of our federal system of government is that the simplest Commonwealth law is subject to challenge in the High Court. In that, the Australian system differs from those in operation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, where a law enacted by the national parliament becomes effective immediately it has received the Royal Assent. It is not so in Australia. Every measure that we pass is open to challenge in the High Court. The Government is, of course, well aware of that now, because the bill that it was so anxious to have passed by the Senate last week has now to run the gamut of legal arguments in the High Court.

Senator Critchley:

– And with a Communist lawyer appearing for the appellants !

Senator SHEEHAN:

– That is so. The Communist lawyer may put up a terrific battle against the bill, but he cannot be declared. That is the fundamental difference between the powers of the Australian Parliament, and those of the parliaments of other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. As I have said, the validity of war-time controls was tested from time to time in the High Court, but most of them withstood all such challenges. However, it was clear that the war-time powers could not last indefinitely. It will be recalled that the Curtin Government, forseeing the difficulties that would confront the Parliament in the transition period, had sought an alteration of the Constitution, but had failed. Therefore, in 1948, in expectation of an adverse

High Court decision, the Chifley Government asked the people to confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament constitutional power to control prices. Unfortunately, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and his confederates were able to induce the people to reject the Chifley Government’s proposals. It was not that Mr. Menzies or his associates really believed what they were telling the people, because, on the 19th August, 1941, when the right honorable gentleman was Prime Minister of this country, he told a meeting of business men -

In the last two years you have seen the introduction of profits control and prices regulations. You have seen new departments of Government lay their hands on private enterprise, and policies pursued which are designed to affect the cost of living and interest rates.

I hope that none of you will imagine that these just and equitable things that have been done during the war will cease when peace has been won. They will not. This country has been learning new things during the war - new things about human relations, the responsibilities, of government, the responsibilities of those who are masters of men and who have capital to invest.

Those things will not, I hope, come to an end when the war is ended. What we have been doing, however imperfectly, is laying the foundations of this New Order here and now, while the war is going on.

Those were the opinions of the present Prime Minister in 1941. It will be recalled also, that, about that time, the right honorable gentleman suggested an amendment of the Constitution to widen the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament; but what happened when the Chifley Government sought to do that very thing? Far from supporting the proposal, Mr. Menzies, then Leader of the Opposition, urged the people to record a negative vote. He claimed that the Labour Administration’s proposals meant the centralization of power in Canberra. He spoke as if Canberra were some city remote from the rest of Australia, and the Commonwealth Parliament an institution of men and women who did not have the interests of the Australian people at heart. That is the type of fear-producing propaganda in which the right honorable gentleman excels. “We have had an example of it in recent weeks. The result of the prices referendum was that prices control, instead of being administered, by one central authority, passed into the hands of six separate authorities. Once again the exploiter revelled, and the .people of the Commonwealth were plundered. The present Government parties had led them to believe that the State governments would be ‘able to protect them against price increases. Have they succeeded in doing that? Clearly they have not. We made it abundantly clear to the people during the referendum campaign that it would be impossible for six State governments, each with its own separate machinery, to administer prices control adequately. To-day, some of the State governments, realizing! the futility of their efforts, are suggesting that prices control should be handed back to the Commonwealth for the protection of the Australian people. However, I am not sure that all the State administrations, particularly those with anti-Labour leanings, will be prepared to permit the Commonwealth to exercise prices control In fact, I do not know that even Labour administrations in the States will be willing to relinquish their control of prices, because, after all, State parliamentarians, to say nothing of State governments, are jealous of any intrusion on their administrative field, and are not anxious to see State rights whittled away

Senator McLeay:

– Is the honorable senator stone-walling?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– No. I have found such colossal ignorance amongst honorable senators opposite that I believe the time of the Senate will not be wasted if I endeavour to penetrate their minds and induce them at least to be practical. Honorable senators opposite say that we can have this bill, hut I want the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who is a responsible member of the National Parliament, to give us an assurance that, when this measure has been passed, he and his colleagues will go out into the electorate and advise the people of Australia that it is to this Parliament that they must look for protection against the rising cost of living. Honorable senators opposite are in duty bound to do that in the interests of the Australian people because, during the last election campaign, they promised the electors that, if returned to power, they would put value back into the £1, curb inflation and so on. The Government which has been in office for ten months, has done practically nothing. On the slightest provocation it has blamed the Senate for having delayed legislation. Looking through the Journals of the Senate to ascertain just what delay has been occasioned by the Opposition, I have found that the Government has introduced remarkably few measures into the Parliament, and that there has been no real delay. In the last ten months, the people of Australia have been looking to honorable senators opposite to fulfil some of the promises made on the election platforms. The Opposition has been obliged to introduce this measure, and we have had to speak on it in order that the people of Australia may know something about it. I should like to hear an assurance from a Government spokesman that, if the Opposition refrains from debating this measure further, the Government will support the proposed referendum. So far, we have had no such assurance. The reason for the silence of honorable senators opposite is obvious. Rising prices are making fortunes for many people.

Recently, I found some interesting information on the financial page of the Melbourne Argus. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Daily Telegraph the position that exists in Sydney is similar to that in Melbourne, and the shares of all the companies listed on the Sydney stock exchange are rising sky high. Even the little flutter in the dovecotes caused by the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of his proposals to curb inflation has not affected the position. Honorable senators will recall that the Prime Minister, anticipating the Treasurer, recently announced over the radio to the waiting public of Australia that the Government had the remedy for inflation. They were advised to listen the next evening to the continuation of the serial when they would receive wonderful news of the cure for inflation. Investors were naturally apprehensive. They thought that the Government at last intended to do something to honour the promises it made to the people of Australia that it would halt the rise in prices and put value back into the £1. They realized that if the Government intended to take positive steps to honour its promises their profits would be taxed. They heard with dismay the statement of the Prime Minister that he would reinstitute control of capital issues. Immediately following that announcement shares dropped in value a little. The wary investor began to unload his holdings; he wanted to get from under while the going was good. He wanted to rake off his profit as quickly as possible and leave it to the other fellow to carry any loss that might result from the Prime Minister’s threats.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorable senator has been reading Communist newspapers.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– On the contrary, I have been reading the capitalist press. What happened? After the Treasurer had introduced the budget the investors lost their fear and the price of shares began to skyrocket. The press stated that some of the timid investors had 3old out too soon. Obviously they did not know the Prime Minister as we know him. In place of the roaring lion who intended to sally forth, and attack those who were destroying the economy of this country and those who were responsible for keeping needed foodstuffs off the tables of the great hulk of the community they now see a weakling from whom no harm will come to them.

We have asked the Government to assist us in obtaining from the people agreement to the re-imposition of Commonwealth prices control. We do not need to quote statistical records in order to prove the soundness of our arguments for the imposition of such a control. Honorable senators have only to converse with the housewives in order to learn for themselves the plight in which the people now find themselves as the result of rising prices. If honorable senators opposite were to purchase the week-end supply of meat and other commodities required by the average household they would learn much more about the cost of living than they know to-day. The mere fact, that during the last week the basic wage has been increased by a quarterly cost-of-living adjustment of 3s. or 4s. is a clear indication of the increase of the cost of commodities generally. It has been said that wage increases have been responsible for the increase of the cost of living. Those who have a very elementary knowledge of economics know that wages always follow prices and that under the system of wage adjustment in operation in this country the Commonwealth Arbitration Court adjusts the basic wage on the basis of statistics relating to certain commodities that have been furnished to it by the Commonwealth Statistician. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Statistician’s figures are computed on the basis of a regimen which does not include all of the commodities that are used in the average household. It is well known that to-day the foodbasket of the average housewife is invariably short of many essential commodities. The financial columns of the daily press show clearly the result of the spiralling of prices. I brought to the Senate to-night some extracts from the Melbourne metropolitan press relating to the profits made by well-known companies. I shall not need to read them all in order to show what is happening. They indicate that during the last month share prices have remained buoyant and that heavy share sales have been effected. ‘Strachan and Company Limited of Geelong also made a record profit of £32,905 and a dividend of 25 per cent, will be paid to its shareholders. The newspapers of the following day carried the head-line, “Buoyant tone in industrials. Manton’s profit up “. On the following day they carried the head-line, “ Industrials rise again. Hume Pipe Company (Australia) Limited profit £243,327 after providing £142,768 for taxation “. The press reported that William Haughton and Company Proprietary Limited, which had been converted to a public company in November also made a profit of £209,853 and that that result had been arrived at after the company had provided £161,769 for taxes and £9,846 for depreciation. The report in relation to that company reads -

The directors will recommend to the annual meeting on the 4th October an ordinary divi- dend of 12 J per cent., which will absorb’ £6 1,5)55. They will also submit for approval a preference dividend requiring £7,500 for the half year ending the 31st October. The company issued in November £300,000 of 5 per cent, fixed cumulative preference shares at par and made a replacement of 136,300 £1 ordinary shares at 35s. 6d.

The directors of the company stated that they expected to pay an ordinary dividend of not less than 12-j per cent. Not a bad little profit! I fear that a good deal of it was made at the expense of the primary producers. The financial columns reveal a continuous rise in share values. Mayne Nickless Limited has issued one bonus share for each two shares held as a method of watering down its capital. Obviously that company was afraid to declare a dividend on its issued shares. The newspapers also carried an announcement that Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited is floating a debenture issue. On the following day the newspapers reported that there had been a strong market on the stock exchange, that Kelly and Lewis Limited had made a new issue, that Sutex Limited had had a good year, that James Hardie and Company Proprietary Limited had earned more than in the previous year and that Smith Wylie Limited had paid a 5 per cent, dividend. On the following day the head-lines read, “ Strong buying in industrials “. It was reported that Argus and Australasian Limited had made a profit of £20,380 and that Glazebrooks (Australia) Proprietary Limited had made a profit of a bare £53,000, which represented an increase of £24,89,1 by comparison with the previous year. The Minister for Fuel, Snipping and Transport and supporters of the Government who think like him frequently rise in their places in this Parliament and say that the Australian worker is not pulling his weight. They call for increased production.

Senator Cameron:

– And still more profits !

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I suggest that the workers, who have earned the exorbitant profits for the companies I have mentioned, have at least pulled their weight. If the worker, who has only his labour to sell, did not apply himself to his job, his employers would not make profits. I have heard the Australian worker being derided by people who have never done a hard day’s work in their lives. They come into their offices to see how the hands are working, and then hurry off for a game of golf or to some other pastime. If those people were to do a little real work, we might be able to get out of our present economic difficulty.

Senator CAMERON:

– Put them in dungarees, and set them to work.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Yes, or fit them with bowyangs, and put them on the roads. The days of the bowyangs were the days that Government supporters, who now call for increased production, liked so much. They yearn for the restoration of the conditions under which ten men waited outside the gates of a. factory for one job inside it. The workers of Australia will never return to the bad conditions that existed in bygone days. If we are to have increased production, we m list have a new era in industry. If increased production is the panacea for all our economic ills, the Government will have to recognize that the worker is worthy of his hire, and the exploitation which was practised in the past must be abolished forever. The proposal is contained in this bill constitutes one of the means whereby increased- production may be accomplished. If the Government accepts the measure it will enable the National Parliament, to which every one looks in time of peril, to function in the interests of the people. It is necessary for the Government to set up machinery to examine profits and every aspect of production in order to see whether there is lack of proper technique in production and to remove bottlenecks, and so on. That would be doing- something worthwhile towards the development of this country, but if chairmen of directors, at annual meetings, continue to read speeches, already printed for the press, deriding the workers fo-r not producing sufficient goods, progress will indeed be difficult to make. I commend this measure to the Senate and I trust that it will be supported by honorable senators on the Government benches.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– At the outset, 1 should like to offer my sincere congratulations to Senator Henty who made his maiden speech to-night.

I am opposed to this measure because ‘ I think it is insincere and a shallow attempt at window-dressing hy the members of the Opposition. Ever since the Australian Labour party went into opposition it has attempted to present itself to the people as their champion. In doing so the members of the Opposition have been guilty of pretence and of withholding the full story from the people of Australia. I say, also, that they have been guilty of shallow political stratagems, which I believe will be condemned by the people of this country. Nothing is more indicative of the hollow sham of their political subterfuges than this bill, which is deliberately delaying very important Government business on the notice-paper. In support of my charge of insincerity on the part of the Opposition T shall examine the ostensible reasons for the presentation of this bill. lt has been stated that the measure is designed to reduce the present cost of living. ! have no doubt that all honorable senators are most certainly inter.ested in and concerned with the cost of living in this country. Indeed, every one is. But the claim that this bill will reduce the cost of living is a ridiculous one, because price fixing alone will not - and I stress that point - appreciatively reduce it. The present high cost of living in this country is due to many causes, but there are two very important ones which I should like to discuss to-night. There is the high cost of raw materials, which is a point that should not be overlooked by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. The high cost of raw materials imported from overseas is beyond our control, and yet items such as cotton, rubber, silk and woven materials generally enter largely into our local manufacturing processes. They must be imported to provide for our day-by-day needs. Similarly, overseas purchasers are prepared to pay high prices for our export surpluses, which means that the producer expects to receive high prices for products which are consumed locally. Prices control will not affect prices charged by overseas nations on imported goods, nor will it affect prices overseas buyers are prepared to pay for our products.

There are other ways of dealing with this problem. For these I refer honorable senators to the budget, which will be brought before this chamber shortly. No amount of price fixing will deal effectively with the problem, nor will any power derived from writing pricefixing provisions permanently into the Commonwealth Constitution do so. That is another point which it would be well for use to remember. It is a waste of the time of this chamber and of the taxpayers’ money to discuss price fixing unless we take into consideration how prices are influenced by overseas markets.

One of the prime causes of the high cost of living to-day and of rising prices generally is the inflationary method that was used by the Labour Government to finance the war and the immediate postwar period. That Government issued treasury-bills to bridge the gap between actual expenditure and the amount raised to finance the war and post-war operations.

Senator Ashley:

– That is much preferable to a wool tax.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Despite the high rate of taxation at the time and great pressure on the public to subscribe to this loan and that loan, the plain inescapable fact remains that treasury-bills to the amount of many hundreds of millions of pounds were issued. That money was spent, and it is that spending which has given rise to the inflationary spiral as it is to-day. No amount of price-fixing will cure that, nor are additional powers necessary, because the Commonwealth already has the requisite powers. But the amounts are large, and patience and long-term planning in this matter are necessary. On this aspect, also, I should like to refer honorable senators to the budget which will soon be before this chamber. There are other causes which have contributed to this state of affairs, such as production losses, brought about by adverse weather conditions. Floods, for instance, have caused a shortage of vegetables and other commodities in everyday household use.’ There are also high transport costs. We have heard much in this chamber of the slow turn-round of ships, and a reduction of the number of trips for each ship, resulting in higher costs of transporting commodities from one place to another. These problems will not be remedied by a price-fixing referendum. They are outside the scope of it. I repeat that the Opposition is obviously insincere in introducing this measure, because it will not and cannot help to control overseas prices or deal with the inflationary methods used to help to finance the war and the post-war period when the Australian Labour party was in office.

Senator Grant:

– What does the Government propose to do about it?

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN.Why not tell the people the truth ? Why not tell them that this piece of proposed legislation is purposeless except as a means of regimenting the people, of moulding them all to one pattern and of making them live according to a Commonwealth pattern of planned economy? That is what I see in this measure. It affects, very little, if at all, the cost of commodities to-day, but it may affect our freedoms in the future. It must be very well known to the members of the Australian Labour party who fought the last referendum, when a similar power was sought, that the next step associated with prices control is the pegging of wages. They know that, yet there has been complete silence from them on the subject of the pegging of wages.

Senator Grant:

– That is not so.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– If this bill is a real proposal, I invite the members of the Opposition, who have spoken so much about it, to go to their electorates, to the branches of the Australian Labour party, to the trade unions and to their supporters generally and commence the work of advocating the pegging of wages as a check to rising prices. Let them do that if they are sincere in what they are putting forward. I suggest, too, that they go first to the people who were granted an increase of 20s. a week by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court recently, and to say to them, “We have introduced a bill to give the Australian Government permanent price-fixing powers “. They should also tell them that concealed in the dark background of that bill, indistinguishable, but nevertheless lurking in the dim shadows, there is a proposal to peg wages. The. people of Australia have already rejected this proposal, and I believe that they would overwhelmingly do so again. In the meantime, honorable senators opposite go on with what I call the very worst kind of window dressing. They talk about price fixing as a remedy for the rising cost of living, but they are silent about wage pegging and a planned economy for this country. Working men and their families know the value of their freedoms and rightly distrust the so-called planned economy and its controls. I believe that they would reject this proposed referendum, as they did the previous one. During this debate honorable senators opposite have asked, not once but several times, “ What has the Government done?”

Senator Fraser:

– Nothing.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I contradict Senator Fraser flatly. I am proud to be associated with this Govern- ment. Since it assumed office, it has honoured its promises to remove controls and restore freedoms. It has abolished butter rationing, petrol rationing, tea rationing and rice rationing. Despite the dire prophecies of the Labour party, those controls have been abolished and the people are enjoying the freedoms that this Government promised them and has restored to them. I do not wish to see more controls rivetted on the people of this country. I do not wish permanent price fixing control to be vested in the Commonwealth, because within its framework the planned economy would be possible.

I repeat that I am proud of what this Government has accomplished and of what it has given to the Australian people. During its brief period of office since the 10th December of last year, it has abolished controls and restored freecdoms. I am opposed to this measure because I believe that of itself it would be ineffectual and in addition that it would constitute a danger to our newly regained freedoms.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

.- I support the bill. I see no reason for the outburst by Senator Annabelle Rankin to which we have just listened. This is not the first occasion on which she and I have crossed swords verbally in relation to the way in which she has expressed her views to the Senate. If there is one thing that I detest, it is for an individual, however much he or she may differ from me politically, to doubt my sincerity. Phrases such as “shallow political strategy” and “hollow sham “, coupled with accusations of insincerity, make any person who has honesty of purpose and tries to apply it to the game of politics a little ashamed that such things should be said. Honorable senators on both sides of the chamber incur unnecessary risks by accusing their opponents pf insincerity. In discussing a measure before the Senate, I express my conscientious beliefs. I do not think it right that we should be subjected to tirades of cheap abuse of the kind to which Senator Annabelle Rankin gave expression.

Honorable senators opposite have argued that this measure is of no importance. They have said that it will not solve the problem of rising prices. Has Senator McKenna or any other honorable senator on this side of the chamber said that it will do so? Senator McKenna, in his second-reading speech, said that the Government’s difficulty would be to maintain prices at their present level, let alone to reduce them.

I know the value that the Government attaches to gallup polls. It has a great belief in their accuracy. Therefore, honorable senators opposite will doubtless be interested in the results of a gallup poll published in the Adelaide Advertiser - an anti-Labour organ - on the 5th October of this year. According to that poll, which was Conducted just prior to that date, six of every ten people in Australia believe that the Commonwealth should again control prices, at least temporarily.

Senator Wright:

– Was not a similar gallup poll conducted prior to the last referendum ?

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– That is so.. The anti-Labour parties believed that those who conducted that poll had accurately assessed the opinion of the people, and events proved that they were fairly accurate. The poll to which I am referring now was taken just prior to the 5th October, and the result purports to show that 57 per cent, of the Australian people are in favour of Commonwealth control of prices and that8 per cent, are undecided.

Senator Henty delivered a very able maiden speech this evening, butI agree with Senator Sheehan that a casual observer who did not understand that Senator Henty was a member of the Government parties could be pardoned for believing thathe was a member of the Opposition. One thing that the honorable senator made very clear was that for the momenthe had forgotten that he was a member of the National Parliament, because his speech was the speech of a “ StateRighter”.I do not deny that at the present time Tasmania is suffering as a result of the federal system, but so are other smaller States.

Despite the accusations of insincerity that honorable senators opposite have hurled at us on this side of the chamber, I say that this measure is of the utmost importance to the Australian people. Before I proceed to deal with the arguments that have been advanced for and against it, I shall direct the attention of the Senate to an oft-repeated accusation that the Opposition has taken the business of the Senate out of the Government’s hands. We believe that the problem presented by increasing prices is of the utmost importance to all sections of the Australian community. This bill relates to a matter that affects the bread and butter of the people, while the measure with which the Government wishes the Senate to proceed affects bank balances. We believe that any time devoted by the National Parliament to a discussion of ways and means of softening the impact of spiralling prices upon the people is time well spent. Even if the Government were correct in saying that we have taken the business of the Senate out of its hands, we have done so for the same reason as a Liberal party Opposition in this chamber took the business of the Senate out of the hands of the Scullin Government. That Opposition acted in the way in which it did because as it said, it believed that the Scullin Government was not acting in the best interests of Australia. The Liberal party Opposition in this chamber took the business of the Senate out of the hands of the Scullin Government on 30 or 40 occasions.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Not on one occasion. It voted against the Government, but it never took the business of the Senate out of the Government’s hands.

SenatorCRIT CHLE Y . -It had its way on 50 or 40 occasions. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) should not split hairs. If he does not get his own way, then God help us! We have had more than one experience of that. I repeat that the antiLabour Opposition in the Senate when the Scullin Government was in office had its way on 30 or 40 occasions.

Before I deal with the proposed referendum, I want to say how much I regret that in all matters affecting the national welfare there is a line-up of vested interests and pressure groups. Although I do not like this Government, and believe that it is not in the best interests of Australia that it should continue in office, I say it is not right that it should be subjected to the activities of pressure groups which attempt to influence it in deciding the course it should take. It is high time that the National Parliament took steps to ensure that such things shall not occur in future.

I want to direct the attention of the Senate to the position of retail butchers, especially in South Australia. In many parts of that State, owing to high wool prices and the unwillingness of primary producers to dispose of sheep or lambs at prices that will enable butchers to be assured at least of getting their money back, many butchers are going out of business.

Debate interrupted.

page 1226

QUESTION

ADJOURNMENT:

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1227

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Air Force Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 66.

Commonwealth Public Service ActAppointments - Department -

Labour and National Service - L. L. Forbes, V. C.Routley.

Supply - C. L. Alchin, B. H. Arndt, D. R. L. Callow, I. B. Campbell, J. J. Charles, D. P. Melrose, J. D. Robinson.

Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, Nos. 57, 64.

Income Tax Assessment Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950,No. 63.

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

Pharmaceutical Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 62.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act -Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for year 1949-50.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 October 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19501024_senate_19_209/>.