Senate
21 May 1952

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1952

The Senate, on the 6th March, 1952, adjourned to a date and hour to be fixed by the President and to be notified to each honorable senator.

TheSenate met pursuant to such notification.

The President( Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 529

REPRESENTATION. OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a certi ficate by His Excellency the Governor of Western Australia stating that, in pursuance of section 15 of the Constitution, Joseph Alfred Cooke was chosen, on the 26th February, 1952, at a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament of “Western Australia, to fill the vacancy in the Senate caused by the death of Senator Richard Harry Nash.

page 529

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Ministers of State Bill 1952.

Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1952.

Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Bill 1952.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1952.

Treaty of Peace (Japan.) Bill 1952.

Security Treaty (Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America) Bill 1952.

Fisheries Bill 1952.

Pearl Fisheries Bill 1952.

page 529

DEATH OF HIS MAJESTY KING GEORGE VI

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to advise the Senate that I have received, through the Ambassador of the United States of America, a copy of the following resolutions, relative to the death of His Majesty King George VI., which were passed by the Senate of the United States of America on the 6th February, 1952: -

Resolution.

Resolved, That the Senate of the United States unites with the American people and the rest of the free world in expressing tothe Government and people of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations their deep sorrow and sympathy in the passing of their beloved monarch King George VI.

Resolved, That the foregoing resolution he communicated through the Department of State to the Government of Great Britain and the; Governments of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Resolved, That as a further mark of respect the Senate, at the conclusion of its business to-day., take a recess until 12 noon to-morrow.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave-. - proposed -

That the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia thanks the Senate of the United States of America most sincerely for its resolution of the6th February, 1952, relating to the death of His Majesty King George VI., and records its appreciation of the feelings of sorrow and sympathy to which the resolution gives expression.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I second the motion. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that this is a very gracious and kindly act on the part of the American Senate. It is fully appreciated by the members of the Opposition in this chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 530

DEATH OF DON STEPHEN SENANAYAKE

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

– by leave - Honorable senators will have heard of. the recent death of the Prime Minister of Ceylon, the Bight Honorable Don Stephen Senanayake, who died on the 22nd March last. Mr. Senanayake was the Prime Minister of what, perhaps, might be called the youngest British dominion. Although from his early life he had devoted himself to farming and the cultivation of his land, he entered politics approximately 30 years ago, when he became a member of the Ceylon Legislative Council. In 1931 he was elected to the Council of State and appointed Minister for Agriculture and Lands, a post which he held for fifteen years. During, that time he was instrumental in carrying out many important irrigation and agricultural schemes. Since 1942 he had been Leader of the State Council and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Ministers. He was a firm believer in the ultimate attainment of self-government for Ceylon and for many years worked to that end. In September, 1947, when Ceylon entered the Commonwealth as a new dominion, he became its first Prime Minister. In a message to the people of Ceylon, he expressed his gratification that independence had been won without bitterness or bloodshed, and declared that the people of Ceylon would always remain grateful for Great Britain’s goodwill and co-operation, which had culminated in their freedom. I move-

That the Senate expresses its sincere regret at the death of the Right Honorable Don Stephen Senanayake, the late ‘Prime Minister of Ceylon, records its sensibility of the great loss sustained by the dominion and the British Commonwealth, and extends its profound sympathy to his widow and members of his family.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · TASMANIA · ALP

– I second the motion. I associate the Opposition with the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and with the terms of his motion. The late Prime Minister of Ceylon was very well and favorably known to the Chifley Labour Government. Australia’s late Prime Minister, Mr. Chifley, was closely associated with the late Prime Minister of Ceylon and entertained for him the utmost admiration and a very keen appreciation of his rectitude, ability and humanitarian outlook. Mr.’ Senanayake played a vital part in winning independence for his people. The members of the Opposition feel that he will have an imperishable monument in the history of his country and in the hearts of his countrymen.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honorable senators standing in their places.

page 530

DEATH OF M. GABRIEL PADOVANI

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

– by leave - With great regret I inform the Senate of the recent death, in Canberra, of the Ambassador of the Republic of ‘ France, M. Gabriel Padovani. who died on the 1st May. M. Padovani was appointed to Canberra as Ambassador in 1949. He joined the diplomatic service in 1924, after serving in ‘World War I. He had represented his country in Switzerland and had attended the Disarmament, Economic and Press Conference of the League of Nations. Few of us had the opportunity to meet him, but he will be remembered in Canberra as the representative of our great ally in two world wars. I move -

That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death of M. Gabriel Padovani, Ambassador of France in Australia, and tenders its sincere sympathy to his widow and members of hia family in their bereavement.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I second the motion, and I support the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan). M. Padovani although not well known to many individual senators, was a very distinct figure in the diplomatic life of Australia. His death is a great loss to his government, and to the people of France, and we in Australia are the poorer for his passing from our midst.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honorable senators standing in their places.

page 531

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP; CP from 1955

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services say whether there is an agreement between Great Britain and Australia providing for the payment of pensions to United Kingdom residents in this country? Does the agreement provide for the reciprocal treatment of Australian pensioners living in Great Britain ? If not will the Minister consider the practicability of such a scheme ?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– In the absence of the Minister for National Development I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Social Services whom he represents in this chamber. I am aware that negotiations have proceeded from time to time with a view to the formulation of some reciprocal arrangement, hut whether they have reached finality I am not in a position to say.

page 531

QUESTION

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– In view of the fears expressed by workers, importers and manufacturers concerning their future because of the Government’s policy in regard to imports, does the Minister for Trade and Customs intend to make a statement concerning this matter? If so, will honorable senators he afforded an opportunity to discuss it?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Since the 8th March, when the import restrictions were announced, frequent statements have been made concerning them by the Prime Minister and myself. If there is any point on which any honorable senator requires information, and it is within my capacity and right to give him that information, I shall do so, but it is not my present intention to make a statement to the Senate on this subject.

page 531

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Transport an answer to a question which I asked on the 26th February concerning the shipment of steel to Queensland?

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

– The representative of the Australian Shipping Board on the Central Traffic Committee has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s question : At Cairns, 1,’339 tons of steel from Newcastle are at present being unloaded from River Norman and Mundalla will commence loading about 2,329 tons of steel at Newcastle on the 22nd May for shipment to Brisbane. The vessel Enfield is at present loading 265 tons of steel at Newcastle for Maryborough and 300 tons for Rockhampton. Mundalla will also lift 556 tons for Mackay and 1,711 tons for Townsville. At Port Kembla, the vessel Babinda has loaded 17 tons of steel for Maryborough and 48 tons for Bundaberg. In addition, 430 tons of steel is awaiting shipment from Port Kembla to Cairns. That shipment is being delayed by some of our “ pink “ friends, who are thriving well under the direction of some members of the Labour party. As soon as that trouble is over, a special effort will be made to have the steel that is so urgently required in Queensland shipped to that State.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate whether it is a fact, as has been reported in the press, that a dock strike in Sydney has cost the Commonwealth and private ship-owners more than £88,000? What action has been taken by the Australian Government to move a passenger liner and two interstate freighters that have been laid up in Sydney for over two months? Is it true that 60 tons of hides are rotting in the hold of Delungra, and polluting other cargo that has been in the hold for more than ten weeks, and that the hold-up of the vessel has cost the Australian Shipping Board more than £250 a day? Is this state of affairs indicative of the improved industrial relationships which have been constantly referred to by the Minister for Labour and National Service ?

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

– Unfortunately, the facts are as stated by the honorable senator. Indeed, the Communists, who control the waterside and seamen’s unions, have cost this country millions of pounds. As is well known, when this Government sought to take appropriate action to rid the trade unions of this country of Communist domination, the honorable senator was not on our side.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport by stating that it is obvious that Tasmania is dependent for its transport facilities on the maintenance of shipping lines. That State grows very little wheat and is dependent upon supplies of wheat from the mainland. Can the Minister state whether it is a fact that the Australian Government owns a shipping line and whether it has assumed financial responsibility for the transport of wheat from the mainland of Australia to Tasmania? Notwithstanding those considerations, is it true that because of the embarrassing influence of two instrumentalities that were inherited from the Chifley Government, namely the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board and the Maritime Industry Commission, the ship Dubbo recently was detained in Adelaide for between six and eight weeks ? Is it also true that because of that delay Tasmania was left in the position where the arrival of a ship load of wheat was topline news for a Tasmanian Minister of the Crown, and that the flour-mills in the State were without supplies of grain for more than eight days?

Senator McLEAY:

– Unfortunately the matters referred to by Senator Wright are correct. This Government pays freight on wheat shipped to Tasmania. The ship Dubbo was delayed. In spite of the fact that the complaints of the seamen involved were placed before a conciliation commissioner, who decided against them, they continued to refuse to offer to man the ship. Of course, the delay that ensued cost this Government a great deal of money. The honorable senator’s references to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board and the Maritime Industry Commission concern matters within the control of the Minister for Labour and National Service, and I shall bring them to his notice.

page 532

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– In the absence of the Minister for National Development, I desire to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he will inform the Senate of the present position in relation to the application by the Queensland Government for financial assistance from the Commonwealth for the development of the Mareeba-Dimbulah tobacco lands in North Queensland. In view of the fact that tobacco imports place a severe strain on Australia’s dollar resources, and because of this country’s heavy withdrawals of deposits with the International Bank, will the Government regard the provision of finance for the Mareeba project as a matter of urgency ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am inclined to agree with Senator Byrne that the Queensland Government could use more money than it has received from the Commonwealth Government by way of assistance for the development of the tobacco industry, but it has received its full share of what finance is available. I am sure that the honorable senator will share the gratification that I experienced after travelling through the MareebaDimbulah area and hearing the satisfaction which the tobacco-growers expressed at the assistance and encouragement that had been given to them by the Australian Government. The quality of Australian tobacco is excellent and the producers are efficient. We hope that the time will come when Australia will produce all the tobacco consumed here, and even have a surplus for export.

page 532

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator WORDSWORTH:
TASMANIA

– Is it a fact, Mr. President, as was reported in a newspaper last Sunday, that you have compiled a list of expressions which may not be used during debates in the Senate ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have read the report referred to, and it is not correct. The newspapers, if they report the proceedings of the Senate, should do so correctly. Since I have had the honour of being President of the Senate honorable senators have conducted themselves with dignity, and I have never had occasion to ask any honorable senator to withdraw a statement on the ground that it was unparliamentary. That is a tribute to the: conduct of honorable senators. The newspaper report mentioned by the honorable senator was headed “ SenatorsCan’t Peddle Piffle “, and it is made to appear that I have compiled a list of expressions which may not be used during debates in the Senate. It seems to me that the writer of the report obtained a copy of rulings given by Senator Givens, who was President of the Senate from 1913 to 1926. The rulings have been printed, and are available for any one to see. There can be no objection to the publication of extracts from the rulings, or to comments upon them, provided the statements are correct. I emphasize that point. However, the writer of the newspaper article in question said that, according to the rulings of Senator Mattner, honorable senators would not be allowed to use the expressions listed. The truth is that I had nothing to do with the preparation of the lists.

Senator Chamberlain:

– So honorable senators may use those expressions?

The PRESIDENT:

– Let the honorable senator try it ! The Senate is under my control. I believe that the writer of the article was guilty of false reporting, and I regard the matter seriously. It is a case of false reporting by a person who has been granted permission to report the proceedings of the Parliament. Perhaps the newspaper in which the article was published will make a correction. Since I have been President of the Senate there has been no need to compile a list of unparliamentary expressions. I have no such list, and it is not my intention to prepare one.

page 533

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence say what is the total cost in money to Australia of its participation in the Korean war? How many Australians have met their deaths, and how many have become casualties, as the result of the war in Korea?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall be very glad to obtain the desired information from the Minister for the Army as soon as possible and furnish it to the honorable senator.

page 533

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the Senate whether the Queensland Government has decided to revoke its legislation to provide for an increase of 2s. a bushel in the price paid for wheat for stock feed ? If so, will this involve the suspension of the Commonwealth’s plan for the payment of a special bounty of 4s. Id. a bushel in respect of wheat for stock feed? What has led to this action by the Queensland Government, and what loss is likely to be sustained by wheatgrowers in consequence?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I understand that the Queensland Government has adopted the policy that has been mentioned by the honorable senator. I shall obtain from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture a detailed answer to the honorable senator’s question, and furnish it to him as soon as possible.

page 533

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator RYAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by pointing out that medical treatment is provided free to age pensioners under the National Health Service Act, and medicine is provided free to them upon approved certification. Many pensioners avail themselves of these benefits. The pain and discomfort of age pensioners suffering from blood pressure, .paralysis, and rheumatoid arthritis could, to a considerable degree, be alleviated by physiotherapy treatment. In many instances, however, they are not able to afford such treatment. Will the Minister inform me whether the Government has considered making available free physiotherapy treatment for age pensioners ? If not, will earnest consideration be given to the introduction of legislation to provide for free physiotherapy attention by registered physiotherapists to he given to age pensioners under the direction of qualified medical practitioners ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I can assure the honorable senator that the Government is constantly considering what additional benefits it can grant to age and invalid pensioners. As the honorable senator has said, it has already provided free medical services for them. He has now asked that these services be extended to include additional treatments such as physiotherapy treatment. I shall bring the question to the notice of the Minister for Health and obtain a considered reply as early as practicable.

Senator COOPER:

– On the 4th March, Senator Wedgwood addressed the following question to me as Minister representing the Minister for Health: -

Can the Minister presenting the Minister for Health say whether it is true that in Victoria life-saving drugs, which are made available free to patients in private hospitals and to those undergoing treatment in their own homes, are not free to public hospitals for the treatment of in-patients? If that be so, and having regard to the difficulties of hospital finance and the great cost of life-saving drugs, will the Minister investigate the possibility of making the drugs available free to public hospitals?

The Minister for Health has supplied the following answer: -

Under the hospital benefits agreements made between the State governments and the Chifley Labour Government, the States are obliged to provide completely free treatment to patients in public ward beds. Thus no charge for drugs and medicines can be made by the State to such persons. The Commonwealth has offered to reimburse the Victorian Government the cost of life-saving drugs supplied to patients in non-public ward beds, but the offer has not yet been accepted.

page 534

QUESTION

TEXT-BOOKS

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question of the Minister for Trade and Customs relates to the importation of educational text-books for use in technical and other schools. I have been approached by the chairman of the Headmasters Association of South Australia, who has pointed out that the headmasters of schools and colleges are concerned at the prospect of an acute shortage of educational textbooks in 1953. The position will bo worsened by the fact that not only is the cost of text-books increasing, but the number of scholars in schools is also increasing. I understand that the importation of such books is to be limited to the value of the 1950-51 imports. In order to avoid considerable hardship, as well as an undesirable loss of efficiency in the schools, will the Minister, if he has not already done so, give further consideration to this, matter, in theinterests of schools all over Australia?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– As I have indicated in press statements, it is not the desire or the intention of the Government to restrict the availability of text-books for students, schools,, ecclesiastical colleges and the like. Certain administrative difficulties, which I am sure the honorable senator can well understand, have arisen as a result of the sudden imposition of import restrictions, but I assure him that the Government has no desire or intention to restrict the supply of books to students.

page 534

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. In the Melbourne Sun of the 10th May, under the heading “ 500,000 are called shirkers by General”, the following statement appears : -

Half a million Australian men between 19 and 26 were shirking their duty by not even attempting to join the Citizen Forces, the Director of Recruiting (Lieutenant-General Sir Horace Robertson) said last night in Sydney.

Was that statement authorized by the Government? If not, does the Government support it, and if it does not do so will it inform Sir Horace Robertson accordingly?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I can only say to the honorable senator that I shall bring his question to the notice of the Minister for the Army, who will furnish a formal reply.

Senator FRASER:
through Senator Willesee

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

  1. Will the Minister have inquiries made into the danger that has arisen at the Swanbourne camp or range where private houses were hit by bullets?
  2. Will he supply details of who was responsible, the nature of the damage to dwellings, and state whether it is intended to pay compensation to the occupants?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. A full inquiry has been conducted into the incident which occurred on the 25th February last at the Swanbourne rifle range, when bullets fired from the area struck houses at City, Beach, a suburb of Perth. The inquiry has established that the bullets were lind from an area north of the rifle range proper during the conduct of a fire and concealment exercise by national service trainees. Similar exercises have been carried out in this area previously, all firing being seawards, hut on this occasion, owing to an error on the part of an instructor, the direction of fire of some members of the detachment under instruction was northwards towards City Beach. Orders have now been issued prohibiting all firing of ball ammunition except on the rifle range proper, thus removing any possibility of a further occurrence of this nature.
  2. Disciplinary action has been taken against the officer responsible for the incident, ir which five houses in the City Beach area were damaged. Damage occasioned consisted of penetration by bullets of asbestos outer sheeting, fibrous plaster inner walls, in two instances, sheet iron roofing in one instance and similar damage to a caravan. In one residence, a wardrobe door was also splintered. All damage is being repaired to the owners’ satisfaction at departmental expense.
Senator WORDSWORTH:

asked tho Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What amount has been expended during the past six months on advertising in daily and weekly newspapers for recruits for the Navy, Army and Air Force?
  2. How many recruits have enlisted during the same period and what is the cost per head of this advertising campaign?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has furnished the following information, which refers to enlistments in the permanent Navy, Army and Air Force and enlistments in the Citizens Forces : -

  1. £217,01!).
  2. 13,813 recruits, at a cost of £15 15s. Id. a head.

page 535

QUESTION

NATIVE WELFARE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories by stating that Australians have a responsibility to look after the interests of 1,500,000 native peoples in New Guinea and also a very big responsibility to safeguard the interest of the Australian a borigines whose forebears were dispossessed of their land in the early years of white settlement in this country. Is the Minister aware that at a recent meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations at Paris, 48 out of 52 member nations voted in favour of a motion to outlaw the flogging of native peoples? Is the Minister aware that the Australian delegate was one of the four delegates who did not support that move to outlaw such barbarism? Is it the policy of the Government to allow its delegate to the United Nations so to disgrace this nation in the eyes of the world? Who instructed the Australian delegate to vote in that manner at the meeting of the General Assembly ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I have no personal knowledge of this matter, and therefore I am unable to say whether the allegations which the honorable senator has made are true or false. If he will place the question on the notice-paper I shall obtain a reply from the Minister concerned.

page 535

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICY

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It ha3 been widely reported that the Prime Minister, either in justification of or as an excuse for the Government’s new economic policy has said that he had been misled and ill advised by his experts. Are those experts still employed by the Government? If not, how many of them have been dismissed? If they are still advising the Government, is that why we are in such a disastrous economic position to-day ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– As usual, the only fault in the honorable senator’s question is that it is based upon false premises. The Prime Minister has never made such a statement.

Senator GRANT:

– The press report of the statement has never been contradicted.

page 535

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 28th February^ Senator Aylett addressed the following question to me as the Minister representing the Postmaster-General: -

Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral say whether the publication of the A.li.C. Weekly has been discontinued in Tasmania? If so, will he say why, and will he, in view of the protests that have been made to me, consider restoring publication in Tasmania for the benefit of Tasmanian listeners?

The Postmi aster-General lias supplied the following answer : -

For reasons of economy, the Australian Broadcasting Commission suspended the Victorian and Tasmanian editions of the A..B.C. Weekly in February, 1951. While the commission was reluctant to take this action, the comparatively small circulation did not justify continuance of the increasing heavy costs of production.

page 536

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator PIESSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to the poor sticking qualities of the blue air mail, stickers which have been available at post offices for some months past. Will he take action to improve the quality of the gum that is used?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be pleased to bring the question asked by the honorable senator to the notice of the Post- i.i.i aster-General.

page 536

EMPLOYMENT

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service is no doubt aware that a statement recently appeared in the press to the effect that the number of unemployed persons in Australia is now lower than it has ever been in our history, r should like to know whether figures which I received from the Commonwealth Employment Service in Sydney a week ago are correct. Those figures indicate that, during the period under review, there were 11,103 unemployed persons registered in Sydney alone, and that the number of persons who had sought relief as a result of unemployment was approximately 1,370.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– Does the honorable senator refer to “ unemployed “ or “ unemployable “ ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The figures do not refer to persons who, like the honorable senator, are unemployable. I point out that many people who are unemployed ure not registered as such with the Commonwealth Employment Service. Most Australians have a good deal of pride, and if they have a few pounds in their pockets when they lose their jobs they do not immediately rush to register as unemployed persons. In addition, clerical workers, shop assistants and others in like employment do not seek engagements through the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I am not surewhether the honorable senator is so amazed by the smallness of the figuresthat he can scarcely believe them, or whether he considers that they should be larger. Whatever the position may ber I shall inquire from the Minister for Labour and National Service and let the honorable senator know.

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact - (ai) that the existing credit conditions have disturbed many industries; (6) that there is a continuing increase in unemployment in States where no defence works are toeing carried out; (o) that the reported vacant positions in industry refer mainly to juniors and professional persons; (<Z) that there are 200 unemployed females in Brisbane in receipt of unemployment benefits, commonly known as the dole, and that local employment officers are unable to obtain employment for them; (e) that the following persons are unemployed in other Queensland centres, for whom employment officers are unable at present to obtain employment: - Maryborough - 400 males and 70 females. Bundaberg - 500 persons, Rockhampton - 600 males and 100 females, Mackay, Townsville, Innisfail, and Cairns - 1,000 persons; (/) that 10 per cent, of the workers engaged in the textile industry in Australia have been dismissed from their employment and that others are only employed part time?
  2. If these are facts, will the Minister ascertain the true employment position in Australia, in order that his immigration officers abroad may pass on to intending migrants all relevant information?
Senator SPICER:

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers : - 1. (a) Some industries may have been affected by existing credit policies, in addition to other factors. (6) Only in Queensland and Now South Wales have the numbers in receipt of unemployment .benefit tended to increase. The following -figures show the position: -

The normal seasonal factors which have been aggravated by severe drought are- the principal reasons for this movement in Queensland. The total number of recipients of unemployment benefit in the other four States have been negligible. There were only 91 at the 16th February, (o) Of the 101,307 unfilled vacancies registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service throughout Australia as at the 25th February, 1952, the latest available date for detailed dissection, 19,009 or about 19 per cent, were for juniors. Vacancies for professional persons are not separately recorded, but if typists, clerical and administrative staff are included, the number at the same date is estimated at 12,000. (d) At the 10th February there were 99 women receiving unemployment benefit in Brisbane. It is true that Commonwealth Employment Offices have experienced some difficulty in obtaining employment for these women commensurate with their experience and aptitude and within reasonable distance from their homes. (e) The number of people receiving unemployment benefit as at the 16th February, 1952, in other Queensland centres were -

The honorable senator will, no doubt, compare these numbers with the large numbers who customarily received unemployment benefit in prewar years. (/) Official statistics that would indicate the total number of -workers dismissed from employment in the textile industry throughout Australia, in the past three months are not yet available. The information available to me suggests that most of these workers have found work in other industries. It is true that some employees in the industry are working short time.

The employment situation in Australia is being continuously studied by the Government and selection officers overseas are briefed about the employment position in Australia.

page 537

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service the following questions: - 1. Is he aware that on the 5th February last, members of the Australian Engineering Unions, and the Boilermakers Union, in Western Australia, went on strike; that on the. 2lst February, approximately 200 members of those unions employed in the railway running sheds stopped work, and that these men, twelve weeks later, are still on. strike? 2. Is he aware that members’ of the two unions concerned^ who are1 engaged in private industry, have, also gone on strike while efforts are being made to induce members of the unions working at power houses to strike ? 3. Is he further aware that the. State Arbitration Court, on the 14th March, fined each of the two unions £500, and that on the 2nd April, the two unions were deregistered ? 4. Is he aware that as a result of the strike, railway services have had to be seriously’ curtailed ; that it has been necessary for the Railway Commissioner to stand down more than 500 of its employees; and that there is a prospect that, more will have to be stood down?- 5. Does he know that efforts made by the Disputes Committee of the Australian Labour party to obtain a settlement of the strike have failed, and that the Australian Labour party has denounced the strike? 6. Has he been asked by the Government of Western Australia to act, either alone or in conjunction with that Government, in taking measures to end this intolerable position? 7. If so, does he intend to take such action? 8. If no, communication has been received from the State Government, will he initiate measures to terminate the strike, either alone or in conjunction with the State Government?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– Having regard to the facts that the. honorable senator ha9 recited, it may be useful to remind honorable senators that not every industrial dispute in this country comes within the province of the Minister for Labour and National Service. From the details that the honorable senator has given, the matter appears to involve the conduct of a Western Australian- union in contravention of an award of the Western Australian Arbitration Court, and therefore the strike does not come within the purview of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. However, if the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper, I shall ascertain just what the position is.

page 537

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate when the new airport at West Beach, Adelaide, will be completed? In view of the bad condition of the Parafield airport, is there any hope of the West Beach field being made available soon as an emergency landing ground?

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

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Civil Aviation.

page 538

QUESTION

MR. J. HEALY

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

– Some months ago, the general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, Mr. J. Healy, was prosecuted for a. breach of the law, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. I understand that Mr. Healy appealed to a higher court. Oan the Attorney-General say when that appeal will be heard?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I understand that an appeal in certain proceedings in which the gentleman referred to is interested is due to be heard in the New South Wales court early next month.

page 538

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, uponnotice -

  1. Has the policy of the Commonwealth Bank changed with regard to financing exsoldiers who enter land ballots?
  2. If so, will the Treasurer give details of such change?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer : -

I am advised by the Commonwealth Bank that the Mortgage Bank Department of the bank has for some years endorsed the ballot applications of selected persons desiring to enter Queensland land ballots, thereby accepting an implied commitment to provide accommodation should the applicant be successful at the ballot and the property provide adequate security. For a brief period only, during February and early March of this year, the department was unable to accept Further commitments in respect of these applications, but the position has since been restored and applications for endorsement are again being considered on the original basis.

page 538

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator CRITCHLEY:

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

  1. Have the negotiations with the British Ministry of Food for pig meat prices for this year been concluded?
  2. If so, what amount of pig meat is involved, and what are the new prices and conditions of the agreement?
  3. If not, when is it expected that these negotiations will be completed?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The negotiations were concluded on the 8th March.
  2. There is no contract to supply any specific quantity nor are there any restrictions in the arrangement with the United Kingdom Government, against Australian pig meats beingsold on other markets. The arrangement is that the Australian Meat Board will purchase, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government any quantities of pig meats which are offered for sale on the basis of a price of 2s. per lb. (Australian currency f.o.b.) for first quality porker carcases and ls. 9Jd. per lb. for first quality baconer carcases.
  3. See answer to 1.
Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization commissioned Mr. Beattie to make a Commonwealthwide survey of the beef cattle industry and that Mr. Beattie has completed his task and submitted his report to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ?
  2. If so, as this report would be of deep interest and considerable value to the leaders of the beef cattle industry, will the Minister make available a copy of this report to thechairman of the Parliamentary Rural Production Committee on Beef and Mutton, Senator McMulIin, for the benefit of the committee, and alSo forward a copy to the Australian president of the United Graziers Association, Mr. W. A. Gunn, c/o United Graziers Association, Brisbane?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has furnished the following information : -

Mr. Beattie has not quite completed his work, but it is hoped that the bulk of his reports will be completed within the next month or two.

As soon as the reports have been edited and roneced the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization will be glad to make a copy available to Senator McMulIin, chairman of the Parliamentary Rural Production Committee on Beef and Mutton, and also to Mr. W. A. Gunn, president of the Graziers Federal Council of Australia. Mr. Gunn will receive the reports in any case since he is a member of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Advisory Council.

page 539

QUESTION

RICE

Senator SEWARD:

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

  1. What quantity of rice was produced in Australia during the years ended 30th June, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
  2. What amount of locally produced rice was (a) exported; (&) consumed in Australia; and (o) processed, during the same periods?
  3. What is the reason for consumers being able to obtain very limited quantities of rice in Western Australia, at irregular periods only?
Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following answers: - 1 and 2. -

  1. The Commonwealth Government does not control the distribution of rice, and it is supplied through ordinary trade channels. Supplies for the past season were adequate, but merchants state that there was difficulty in obtaining shipping space for consignments to Western Australia; further, ;the high freight cost made it more profitable to sell in eastern States.

page 539

QUESTION

ARGENTINE ANT

Senator PIESSE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization -

  1. Is it a fact that a complex organic chemical with the proprietary name of chlordane, stated to be most successful in the eradication of the Argentine ant, is available in the United States of America ?
  2. Is this chemical available in Australia; if not, would it be available if it were not for dollar restrictions?
  3. Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization carried out any investigations in respect to the compound chlordane ?
  4. Have scientists in England, who have been studying the compound of chlordane, isolated certain elements which have proved very effective against insect life?
  5. If so, is it possible to obtain derivatives of the compound from the United Kingdom?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Chlordane is available in the United States of America.
  2. Chlordane is only available on dollars; licences to import small quantities have been issued to pest exterminators in Australia.
  3. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, in co-operation with State departments in New South Wales and Western Australia, has carried out extentive experiments with chlordane in both States for the control of the Argentine ant.
  4. No work on isolating elements from chlordane has been done in England. In the United States of America two very effective insecticides, aldrin and dieldrin, have been derived from chlordane by United. States research workers. Both these materials show promise against the Argentine ant in preliminary experiments.
  5. Chlordane is not being manufactured in England at present, its derivatives could not be obtained from there, nor’ could any effective substitutes.

page 539

QUESTION

STATUS OF WOMEN COMMISSION

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Status of Women Commission has in the past met annually?
  2. Has an instruction been issued by the Social and Economic Council that this commission will now meet biennially?
  3. If so, will the Minister note the opposition of women’s organizations in Australia to the proposed change and make representations to the United Nations’ head-quarters to have the annual meeting maintained?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answer: -

The answer to questions I and 2 is “ Yes “. Regarding question 3, it was decided by a substantial majority at the Sixth Session of the General Assembly which closed on the 5th February, 1952, that the Economic and Social Council should be requested to continue its previous practice of convening the commission each year. There would not seem to be any doubt that the council will accede to this request. In these circumstances there is no need for the Government to make representations to United Nations head-quarters.

page 539

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Senator ASHLEY:

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

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that the price of butter will be considerably increased by next June?
  2. Is the decision of the Agricultural Council in favour of Commonwealth control of t’he ex-factory price of butter the condition imposed for renewal of the butter subsidy by the Minister who claimed that the condition was necessary to regulate the Commonwealth subsidy liability?
  3. If so, is it a fact that the move has two significant implications, viz.: - (a) that, in effect, the Commonwealth Government has reimposed price control which the Chifley Government abandoned four years ago; (6) that it is the first step in a rehabilitation programme of which a cardinal feature will be dearer food for consumers?
  4. Will the Government give consideration to the relief from taxation, or the granting of a tax exemption, for primary producers with a view to encouraging greater production and competition in an endeavour to provide food at a reasonable price?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. If State governments accept the Commonwealth Government’s plan for future stabilization of the dairying industry the price of butter -will be reviewed in accordance with actual cost movements during the current year revealed by investigations of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
  2. The Commonwealth’s offer of a five-year price guarantee to dairy-farmers producing milk and cream for manufacture into butter and cheese is dependent on the States, by appropriate legislation, putting the Commonwealth in a position to determine the exfactory price of butter and cheese for the duration of the guarantee, and upon the States agreeing by price determinations to make appropriate alterations to the prices for processed milk products in line with the Commonwealth’s ea>-factory butter and cheese prices. 3. (a) The Commonwealth proposal does not mean that it will enter the field of wholesale or retail price control. It is however essential that the Commonwealth should be in a position to determine the amount of subsidy and for this purpose it is necessary for the Commonwealth to be in a position to determine the ea;-factory .price. (6) A feature of the plan is that home consumption prices of butter and cheese shall be reviewed periodically. This is in accordance with stated Government policy.
  3. The Government has been and is still giving consideration to this matter and the Prime Minister announced the following decisions on the 28th March, 1952: - (a) In respect of living accommodation for farm employees commenced on or after the 1st April next and before the 30th June, 1955, there will be a special taxation provision (i.e. a deduction for income tax purposes) for depreciation at the rate of 20 per cent, per annum for five years. There will be a condition that, to secure the benefit of this concession, buildings commenced but not completed as at the 30th June, 1955, must bp completed during the financial year 1955-56.

There will be a further condition that any accommodation so built for an employee shall have the benefit of the special depreciation up ito a cost of £2,000. (6) In respect of farm implements, buildings for fodder conservation, and irrigation materials’ such as piping, there will he for a similar period a similar special depreciation allowance of 20 per cent, per annum, (c) The wheat export tax, which is now 2s. 2d. a bushel will not be imposed in respect of the wheat of the next harvest. Wheat exported will therefore attract the full export price without this special tax deduction. It does not indicate any intention or policy decision in respect of wheat stabilization in respect of which our policy of consulting the industry will, of course, be carried out. It is designed solely as a particular concession or benefit for the wheatgrower for the next harvest, (d) A further matter of concern to wheat-growers is the first payment on next season’s wheat. We are prepared to facilitate a first advance of 1.2s. a bushel bulk basis f.o.’r. ports, or alternatively if it is preferred, a sum equal to 85 per cent, of the estimated return on the same basis, (e) The Government is actively investigating, for introduction in conjunction with the budget, new methods of assessing provisional tax which will pay regard to fluctuating incomes. One of the methods under consideration is a system of self-assessment for provisional tax, with ‘ proper safeguards against serious error. Such a system now operates in Canada. Each of these proposals should give material encouragement and assistance to primary producers, while maintaining the Government’s over-all counterinflationary policy.

page 540

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ASHLEY:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. What is the cost of production of coal per ton in the various open-cut mines and districts of New South Wales?’
  2. What is the cost per ton of transporting coal from the northern, southern and western coal-fields to the City of Sydney by rail and road, and what was the cost of transportation during the last Christmas holidays?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– On behalf of the Minister for National Development I furnish the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. The f.o.r: cost of open-cut coal in the various districts of New South Wales is -
  2. The cost of transporting coal from the northern, southern and western districts by rail to Sydney is -

These rates also applied during the Christmas holiday period, but a special siding charge was made by the Department of Railways which, on the tonnage railed, would not have exceeded 2d. a ton. Additional charges, mainly for penalty rates, associated with the Christmas coal lift, other than for transportation, were approximately 2s.6d. a ton. Coal is not normally transported by road from these districts, but the cost of road cartage from the Burragorang Valley is 47s. 3d. a ton.

page 541

HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL 1932

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a hill to amend section 6 of the High Commissioner Act to permit of an increase in the salary of the High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom from £3,000 to £3,500.When the High Commissioner Act was enacted in 1909, it provided that the salary of the High Commissioner should be £3,000, and down the years the salary has remained at that figure. There has never been any attempt to relate the High Commissioner’s salary to changing circumstances and conditions. The rate of salary has remained static during all Kinds of economic crises and vicissitudes and to-day, after more than 40 years, we find the statute still providing a salary of £3,000.

I need hardly draw honorable senators’ attention to a comparison between the value of a salary of £3,000 in 1909 and the same salary nowadays. A comparison is ludicrous. Fluctuations in the basic wage, in the cost of living and in the average wage paid from time to time are so well know n that a mention of them will suffice. The changes in the salaries of heads of departments and departmental officers have increased beyond recognition during the last 40 years.

The office of the High Commissioner if a very onerous and exacting one. He is our representative in the United Kingdom, and holds one of the major diplomatic posts abroad. The difficulties of the war years, and the hardly less troublous period that has followed the war, have added burdens to the already heavy load the High Commissioner has been carrying. The work he is doing for Australia in the United Kingdom in performing the important and delicate duties which have to be undertaken, and in smoothing out difficulties which must necessarily arise, is invaluable. It is, therefore, fitting that some measure of recompense should be embodied in the statute. The bill aims to do this by increasing thesalary to £3,500 to take effect from the 21st June, 1951.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong. )adjourned.

page 541

SPIRITS BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion bySenator O’Sullivan), read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I ask honorable senators to give their consideration to a bill to amend the Spirits Act. Clauses 1 and 2 are drafting provisions. Clause 3 seeks to have incorporated in the Spirits Act a provision whereby the description of potable spirits by words implying considerable age is conditioned by the period of actual maturation in wooden containers. A somewhat similar provision already exists in regulations under the Customs Act relating to imported spirits bottled in bond, but the position is not covered insofar as spirits imported in bottles is concerned. Similar regulations under the Excise Act refer to Australian spirits bottled in bond. The amendment now proposed will make it possible to apply the same conditions regarding the use of. the words “ old “ or “ very old “ to all matured spirits whether imported in bottle or bulk or of Australian origin.

In clause 4 it is proposed to extend the exemptions already provided in the act from the maturation conditions of sections 11 and 12 to include further types of spirits or distilled spirituous liquors, such as arak, aquavit and vodka. As with gin, schnapps and liqueurs these are not normally matured in wood before use for human consumption. Because of the degree of their rectification little, if any, improvement in quality would be derived through storage in wood - a process which is intended to promote beneficial changes in certain secondary ingredients present in some spirits such as brandy, whisky and rum which are distilled at lower strengths.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 542

WHALING INDUSTRY BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend section 29 of the principal act, the Whaling Industry Act 1949, to provide for a financial year commencing on the 1st April and ending on the 31st March. The present financial year of the Australian Whaling Commission extends from the 1st July to the 30th June, and thus ends during the. active whaling season, which for baleen whales commences on the 1st May and extends to the 31st October.

The Acting Auditor-General, in his report on the accounts of the Australian Whaling Commission for 1950-51, pointed out that the prescribed financial year is inappropriate and suggested that, if the financial year were altered to commence on the 1st April, the trading results of each complete season’s operations would be reflected in the accounts for the period. This would also be of assistance in administration by avoiding the necessity for preparing annual accounts during the height of the season. Further, as trading stocks would be at a minimum on the 31st March of each year, the commission could more easily cope with the stocktaking of plant and stores during the “ off season “. The Government has accepted the advice of the Acting AuditorGeneral, and I commend the bill to the consideration of honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 542

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Australian War Memorial Act 1925. The existing legislation provides for a memorial only to the 1914-18 war. Under the bill the scope of the memorial will be extended to cover the part taken by Australian forces in all wars, including the New South Wales contingent in 1885, the Commonwealth contingent to the Boxer Rebellion in 1 900, and the South African War. Other amendments proposed in the bill provide for - (a) the ex officio appointment of the chiefs of staff of the three services as members of the board of management of the memorial. No increase is proposed in the present membership of twelve; (b) the election by members of the board of its chairman - =at present the chairman is appointed by the Governor-General; (c) a casting vote by the chairman in the event of equality of votes; (d) power for the board to authorize the perusal of records and documents not on public exhibition; (e) the prohibition of the sale of, or of the use of, any replica, copy or photograph of any exhibit for purposes of advertising without the permission of the board. All these amendments have been found necessary as a result of experience.

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG) adjourned.

page 543

AIR FORCE BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The Government’s policy for the introduction of national service was enunciated in the National Service Acts passed by the Parliament last year. This has necessitated amendments to the Air Force Act 1923-1950, which is a very short act providing for the establishment, organization and government of the Royal Australian Air Force. It provides for the application to the Air Force of certain sections of the Defence Act and the Imperial Air Force Act, the liability of members of the Air Force to serve outside Australia, and the power of the Governor-General to make regulations. It will be seen, therefore, that very little amendment is necessary consequential to the passing of the National Service Acts last year.

This bill proposes to eliminate references to Parts XII., XIII. and XIV. of the Defence Act - the old compulsory training provisions - the omission of Part V. of the Defence Act relating to compulsory training by junior and senior cadets, and amends section 4 of the Air Force Act 1923-1950 to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the National Service Act 1951. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG) adjourned.

page 543

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the principal act, the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940-1950, in order that it will be in keeping with the position that actually exists to-day in connexion with war pensions and allowances to seamen who sustained war injury in the course of their employment as Australian mariners, and also to make provision for those seamen, and their dependants, to enjoy certain other benefits at the same level as are provided under the Repatriation Act for ex-members of the forces and their dependants. Briefly, the main proposals are - (o) to embody in the act such of the existing provisions contained in National Security (Medical Benefits to Seamen) Regulations that are of a continuing nature; (b) to put on a more permanent basis by embodying them in the act the benefits conferred by Cabinet decisions, which are also of a continuing nature; (c) to make provision for special pensions for totally incapacitated seamen and their dependants, on the same lines as pensions that are provided by the Repatriation Act for ex-members of the forces and their dependants; (d) to provide medical, surgical and hospital treatment for seamen who suffer recrudescence of war injury, and sustenance allowance whilst undergoing treatment; and (e) to make provision for the payment of a gratuity to a widow who is in receipt of a pension in respect of an Australian mariner and who remarries.

The proposed provisions, which are contained in existing National Security Regulations, relate to medical benefits, sustenance allowances and funeral grants. When this bill becomes law the relative National Security Regulations will be repealed. The provisions, conferred by Cabinet decisions, which it is proposed in this bill to continue, bring under the act certain Australian seamen, who, because they signed or re-signed articles of agreement abroad, were outside the scope of the existing act. They also provide for grants of furniture to seamen blinded or totally and permanently incapacitated through war injury, and to widows with children of seamen who died through war injury. Education benefits to children of seamen who died or who were totally and permanently incapacitated or blinded through war injury, are also provided. A further provision, also conferred by Cabinet decision, grants increases of the general pension rates to the same level as are provided for exmembers of the forces under the Repatriation Act. On every occasion that war pensions under the Repatriation Act were increased, the equivalent classes of pensions of mariners and dependants were increased. The latest pension increases under the Repatriation Act are, for these equivalent classes, embodied in the bill. The remaining three main proposals bring the provisions, which I have previously outlined, into line with relative provisions under the Repatriation Act.

A further proposal is the repeal of two parts of the act. These parts relate to payments during detention, and compensation for loss of effects due to enemy action. These parts are not now of any value as all possible claims under them have already been determined.

The bill contains nothing which should give rise to any disagreement with the proposals of the Government. Apart from the proposed inclusion of the last three main proposals, the bill merely provides for the permanent establishment within the act of all those benefits of a continuing nature which have been granted under national security regula- tions or by Cabinet decisions, and to omit unnecessary provisions.

Honorable senators opposite will, I feel sure, be pleased to support this measure.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 544

STATES GRANTS (WAR SERVICE. LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1952

Bill received from- the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The High Court of Australia, by a judgment delivered in December, 1949, in the case Magennis v. Commonwealth, declared invalid the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945 which defined the policy, procedure and responsibility for financial contribution in connexion with the joint CommonwealthState war service land settlement scheme on the ground that the act was one relating to acquisition which did not affirmatively provide for just terms, of compensation for acquisitions. Since that date, the Commonwealth has continued to co-operate with the States while just compensation is paid along the general lines of the original agreements with the States. As the actual settlement is carried out by the States in conformity with their own statutes, the legal advisers of the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, following a conference, recommended that it was necessary for the Commonwealth Parliament to enact a short measure to authorize the Commonwealth to make contributions to the settlement of ex-servicemen under State law. That procedure has been agreed to by all States.

From experience it is considered desirable to retain to the Commonwealth Minister who administers the war service land settlement scheme certain freedom of action in his arrangements with the States to fit the scheme to the practices followed in the individual States while maintaining the overall principles and policy inherent in the scheme since its inception. It is therefore proposed by this bill to authorize the Minister to make payments to the States of the moneys voted by this Parliament for war service land settlement in such amounts and subject to such conditions as he determines.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 545

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Senator McLEAY (South Australia -

Minister for Shipping and Transport) [4.38]. - I move-

That the hill be now read a second time.

This bill is necessary to bring the Naval Defence Act into conformity with the National Service Act and the Defence Act. It also seeks authority to raise a native force for naval service and it provides authority for the constitution of the Naval Reserve Cadets and a Sea Cadet Corps. Parts of the Defence Act, which relate to compulsory service, are repealed, and provision is made to permit national service trainees, who volunteer for service outside Australia, to serve in the Royal Australian Navy.

Under Part V.. of the bill, provision is made for the training and conditions of service of Naval Reserve Cadets and the Australian Sea Cadet Corps to be prescribed by regulations. Youths between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years may enter the Naval Reserve Cadets. The Navy League of Australia has established a Sea Cadet Corps. Boys between fourteen and eighteen years of age are accepted, the policy being generally to restrict the entry to boys between fourteen and sixteen years of age in those areas where naval reserve training estab lishments are located. A very considerable proportion of those eligibleto do so join either the permanent naval forces of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve.

Proposed new section 24a confers authority to raise for naval service a native force consisting mainly of aboriginal inhabitants of a territory of the Commonwealth ; and it provides that service in a native force shall comply with the charter of the United Nations. Similar authority to raise a native force for military service has been conferred by the Defence Act.

In proposed new section 44d provision is made to regulate the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in naval canteens, camps, establishments and ships. The sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to national service trainees under 21 years of age are prohibited. Similar provisions have been made by the Defence Act in relation to trainees in the Army. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 545

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motionby Senator Spider) read a first time.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · VICTORIA · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the statutory deduction allowed to resident land-owners under the provisions of the Land Tax Assessment Act. The amount of the deduction, which has remained unchanged since the inception of the act in 1910, is £5,000. It is proposed to increase the amount of the deduction to £8,750. During the war and post-war years, sales of land were strictly controlled. As a consequence of this control and because of the difficulties of making valuations due to shortages of staff during those years, unimproved values were pegged to the values assessed at the 30th June, 1939. This pegging was achieved by regulations under the National Security. Act, and, on its repeal, was continued by tie annual Defence (Transitional Provisions) Acts up to and including the financial year 1950-51. As land sales control had ceased to apply during the year ended the 30th June, 1951, and as there was then a free market for the sale of land, the Government decided that the pegging of values should no longer continue and that, in future, assessments should be based on the market value of the land at the appropriate 30th June. As a consequence of this decision, land tax assessments for the current financial year are based on the unimproved value of the land at the 30th June, 1951. This value is substantially higher than the pegged values which have been applied since the financial year 1939-40. The average increase has been estimated at approximately 75 per cent., but, in individual cases, the increase may be much greater.

The effect of the increased values has resulted in an estimated increase of revenue from the tax from the 1950-51 amount of £3,500,000 to £7,500,000 for the current year, whilst the full yield in respect of an assessment year is estimated to be approximately £9,100>000. In addition, it is estimated that the increased values would bring within the operation of the tax about 22,000 new taxpayers who had not previously been required to lodge returns. Whilst the Government does not consider that the statutory deduction should be varied from time to time in accordance with the variations in the level of the unimproved values of land, it considers, in the special circumstances which exist, that there should be some alleviation of the greatly increased liability which the increased values impose on land taxpayers. As one means to that end, it is proposed to raise the statutory deduction from £5,000 to £8,750, an increase of 75 per cent., which corresponds with the overall increase in values. This is being done by an appropriate amendment to section 11 of the principal act.

Consequential amendments are necessary to sections 38 (7.) and 38a. which provide for separate statutory deductions where taxpayers hold interests, under wills or settlements operative prior to the commencement of the act in 1910. The effect of these amendments will be to offset the additional revenue by £687,000 and to exclude practically all of the new taxpayers from the taxable field. In addition to increasing the statutory deduction, the Government has decided to remove the super tax of 20 per cent, imposed in cases where the taxable value of the land is in excess of £20,000. This decision is the subject of a separate measure amending the Land Tax Act. “I commend the bill to honorable senators.1

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG’) adjourned.

page 546

LAND TAX BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill before the Senate is, first, to abolish the 20 per cent, super tax which is imposed in all assessments where the taxable value of the land held is in excess of £20,000, and, secondly, to extend the application of the flat rate of Id. in the £1 which is paid by absentees on the first £5,000 of taxable value to £8,750 in conformity with the proposed increase of the statutory deduction which is allowed to resident land-owners.

The super tax was imposed in 1941 as a war-time measure and is an additional amount equal to 20 per cent, of the ordinary tax, or 1 per cent, of the taxable value of the land in excess of £20,000, whichever is the less. As a result of the substantial increase of values applied in land tax assessments for the current financial year, compared with the pegged values applied during the past twelve years, it is estimated that taxpayers will be called upon to pay approximately £4,000,000 tax additional to that paid in the previous year. As the super tax was imposed to assist in financing the war, the Government has decided, as a step towards alleviating the greatly increased liability which the increase of unimproved values has imposed on land taxpayers, that this additional impost should be abolished.

Absentees do not receive any statutory deduction; they pay tax on the full unimproved value of their land. Residents, on the other hand, receive a deduction of £5,000 and pay tax on the unimproved value of their land in excess of that figure. Under the existing law, absentees pay a flat rate of Id. in the £1 on the .first £5,000 of unimproved value of their land. As previously explained, the first £5,000 of the unimproved value in the case of a resident is, by the operation of the statutory deduction, exempt from tax. The taxable value of the land in the case of an absentee is thus the full unimproved value, whereas, in the case of a resident, it is the unimproved value less £5,000. Where the taxable value of the land owned by an absentee exceeds £5,000, the rate of tax on £5,001 is 2d. plus one eighteen thousand seven hundred and fiftieth of a penny, increasing uniformly by one eighteen thousand seven hundred and fiftieth of a penny for each additional £1 of taxable value until the taxable value reaches £80,000, at which point the rate reaches 6d. in the £1. Thereafter the rate of tax is lOd. in the £1. Throughout the scale the rate of tax payable by absentees is Id. greater than the rate payable by residents.

In the bill to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act, which I have just introduced, it is proposed to increase the statutory deduction allowed to residents from £5,000 to £8,750. This increase will involve a consequential amendment of the schedule imposing the rates of tax payable by absentees by extending the flat rate of Id., in the £1 on the taxable value from £5,000 to £8,750.

The schedule has accordingly been recast for this purpose. Where the taxable value of the land exceeds £8,750, the rate will increase in exactly the same ratio as it does at present, reaching 6d. in the £1 at £83.750, instead ‘ of £SO,000 as at present. Under .the amended scale, the absentee rate will continue to be Id. in the £.1 greater than that payable by a resident.

It is estimated that the abolition of the super tax will offset the increased revenue to be obtained from land tax during this year by £1,020,000. The effect of the variation in the tax payable by absentees will be negligible.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 547

NORTHERN” TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · “Victoria · LP

, - I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

This short bill is designed to correct a certain disparity in land-holding in the Northern Territory. When the Northern Territory was transferred from South Australia to the Commonwealth of Australia 42 years ago, it was provided, in section 10 of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act, that all estates and interests held within the Northern Territory, at the time of the acceptance, by any person from the State of South Australia, should continue to be held from the Commonwealth on the same terms and conditions as they were held from the State. Subsequently, the Commonwealth also created rights in land, and to-day the majority of land-holdings in the Northern Territory are held under some form of leasehold granted by the Commonwealth. There are, however, about 2,000 titles in fee simple, originally granted by South Australia, mostly in the Darwin and gulf districts, comprising altogether an area of approximately 675 square miles.

The operative clause of the bill proposes to amend section 10 of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act by inserting words that will place beyond doubt that the land held under these old titles, like the lands subsequently alienated, shall be held subject to the laws of the territory. Section 10 of the principal act will be amended to read as follows : -

All estates and interests held by any person from the State of South Australia within the Northern Territory at the time of the acceptance shall, subject to ordinances in force made under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1949, continue to be held from the Commonwealth on the same terms and conditions as they were held from the State.

From the point of view of this amendment, the relevant words are “ subject to ordinances in force made under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act .1.910-1949 “. There is no reason to suppose that when section 10 was originally framed 42 years ago it was intended to do anything other than to provide for the conversion f rom State tenure to Commonwealth, tenure of the estates and interests to which the section refers. It could not be envisaged that the intention was to give special immunity to these title-holders from the operation of any laws which, in the public interest, it would be necesary to enact from time to time in the Northern Territory. It can hardly have been intended to create one class of land-holders subject to territory laws and another class of landholders who were not subject to them.

The outstanding example of the disparity between the two classes of landholders may be found in relation to mineral rights. One peculiarity of the titles in fee simple issued by South Australia in the 1870’s was that the ownership of minerals went with the title, whereas modern practice in land distribution in Australia, as applied in the land legislation of the Commonwealth and the States, is to reserve minerals rights to the Crown. Although these old titles included ownership of minerals, subsequent South Australian legislation, passed before the days of the transfer, provided for mining on the land by persons other than the owner upon certain conditions. However, the application of territory legislation to the lands held under the old titles in respect of prospecting and mining is not. wholly clear. This situation is regarded as not being in the best public interest nor in conformity with the modern practice, as expressed in the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance and in all

State mining laws to-day. It is therefore proposed to provide means to correct it. and this bill has been introduced for that purpose. We are not making any novel or surprising proposal. If no trans; rv had taken place in 1910, and the lands for which titles were originally issued in South Australia had remained in South Australia, they would to-day be subject to State laws which would have affected 4. mineral rights. As the aim of the Government is to encourage prospecting and mining in the Northern Territory, it is important to clarify the situation. If the bill is passed, it is intended to bring down an ordinance in the Northern Territory Legislative Council that will acquire for the Crown all the rights in the minerals on freehold land in the Northern Territory, and provide for compensation to be made to the present title-holders. This will make all land-holdings in the territory uniform in respect of mineral rights.

This reference to mineral rights illustrates the purposes and the expected effect of the passing of the bill. It is a short and simple measure to make, in the most direct way possible, an improvement that has been found necessary in land administration in the Northern Territory. I commend it to the Senate on the grounds that it is in the public interest, that it will facilitate the development of the resources of the Northern Territory, and that it deals with the rights of the land-holders in a fair and reasonable way.

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG) adjourned.

page 548

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRY BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the Aluminium Industry Act 1944. Honorable senators may remember that, in 1941, the Menzies Government decided to establish an aluminium industry in Australia. That decision was, for the most part, founded upon defence considerations at that time. When that Government relinquished office, its successor endorsed its decision, and, in 1944, the Aluminium Industry Act was passed by this Parliament. Its significant title was “ An act to approve and give effect to an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania with respect to the production for the purposes of defence of ingot aluminium aud for other purposes “. That act was very short, and had as its schedule the agreement just mentioned.

The Government decided to establish the industry at Bell Bay at the mouth of the Tamar River in Tasmania, and consequent negotiations took place between the Government of Tasmania and this Government. It was said at that time that the location of the industry was a desirable one because of the availability of cheap hydro-electric power, which is essential for the production of aluminium, and also because of the suitability of that site as a deep-water port. An agreement was reached between the Australian Government and the Government of Tasmania under which each Government agreed to contribute £1,500,000, at that time, it being estimated that £3,000,000 would be the sum necessary to erect the works and bring aluminium ingots into production. The project was to be operated directly under the control of the Minister for Supply by a commission of four persons, two to be appointed by the Australian Government and two by the Government of Tasmania, with provision for certain deputy members. The Aluminium Industry Act 1944 having been passed, the project went ahead rather slowly.

The original estimate of the amount necessary to complete the project has been found to be quite inadequate. That inadequacy has been partly due to underestimates in the first place, partly to the fact that some time after the project was commenced a decision was made to provide for an increased output from 10,000 tons to 13,000 tons of ingots a year, and partly to the rising cost of labour and material within Australia and from abroad. Not long ago, the Government gave careful consideration to this matter in order to decide what should be done.

The conclusion reached was that it was desirable in the interest of Australia’s defence and also for other reasons, that the project should be pushed ahead and completed as soon as possible, and that the necessary additional money should be provided. When the works are in full production, they should be producing approximately 13,000 tons of ingots a year. As nearly all of our ingot aluminium is at present obtained from Canada, this will mean a saving of about 5,000.000 dollars a year. At the present time, we consume between 10,000 and 15,000 tons a year. Consumption in Australia is bound to increase, as aluminium is in high demand as a substitute for copper, steel and other metals, and is also being used more and more in the building industry. To use a colloquialism, aluminium is a “ natural “ for increased Australian consumption. The annual consumption of aluminium in the United States of America is approximately 15 lb. a head of population, whereas the present Australian consumption is slightly less than 3 lb. a head. All of those considerations persuade the Government that the rapid completion of the project is a work of national importance. The Government of Tasmania is unable to contribute half of the additional £4,250,000 that will be required. The Premier of that State ha9 informed the Minister for Supply that his Government is not in a position to make any additional financial contribution. For the reasons that I have given, the Australian Government has decided that it must provide the whole of the moneys required. That is the reason for the introduction of this bill in the Senate to-day. Because of the new financial position, the Premier of Tasmania and the Minister for Supply have agreed upon amendments of the original agreement and. the original act. The Commonwealth will provide an additional £4,250,000 in accordance with clause 8 of the bill. The representation on the Aluminium Industry Production Commission will be varied. Instead of there being four members, two appointed by this Government and two by the Tasmanian Government, Tasmania will appoint one member and the Commonwealth four. Thus, the new commission will consist of five members. The positions of deputy members, which are considered not to be of any great importance, are being abolished. Several other consequential and minor changes, designed to improve the legislation and the agreement, have been freely agreed upon by the Premier of Tasmania and the Minister for Supply. As in the case of the original act, the Premier has undertaken to introduce corresponding legislation in the State Parliament at an early date. It is hoped that production will start early in 1954, and will reach its maximum of 13,000 tons a year by the end of that year. In commending the bill to the Senate, I submit that it should receive the approval of all honorable senators because it concerns a work of great national importance.

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG) adjourned.

page 550

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POSITION

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

– by leave - During the later months of last year, the Government brought down a series of important measures culminating in the budget, to deal with the serious economic situation that had developed during 1950-51. A number of major economic changes have occurred since then, and it would be appropriate at this early stage in the resumed sittings of the Senate to review the situation as it now stands. The Government intends . to bring down its budget for 1952-53 earlier than is usual, but it cannot, of course, be produced until some time after the middle of the year. The economic and financial outlook will then be surveyed in detail. The statement I am now to make is therefore in the nature of an interim review.

In these matters I am speaking on behalf of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), who occupies the central role and presents the viewpoint of the Government on economic and financial measures. Inevitably, such measures attract criticism. They are bound to affect some people adversely, and, often enough, their drawbacks are much more apparent at the start than are the ultimate benefits. That, I think, is notably true of the measures for which the Treasurer has had to take responsibility during the past year. May I suggest, however, to the critics of the Treasurer that the time may come - I myself firmly believe it will come - when great and well-deserved commendation will clearly be due to him for these actions which so far have brought him nothing but blame and unpopularity. For the sake of comparison, I shall recall the situation that existed about the middle of last year. Upon the strong inflationary pressures which had developed through the war and post-war years, there had supervened a great flood of export income, due mainly to the extraordinary rise in wool prices in the 1950-51 selling season. Other international prices had also risen in response to the world armament boom, and we felt that rise in higher import costs. “Wage rates and earnings generally had taken a sharp upward turn, largely because of the £1 a week added to the basic wage by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and also because costofliving adjustments had assumed an entirely new order of magnitude. As a consequence, the year 1950-51 had seen an extraordinary rise in all the main elements of income and investment demand. The national income rose by £800,000,000 or 35 per cent., farm incomes by £325,000,000 or 65 per cent., and income from wages and salaries by £320,000.000, or 26 per cent. During the year, the C series index of >retail prices rose by 19 per cent., the wholesale price index by 24 per cent, and average wages by 26 per cent. At the middle of the year, those inflationary forces appeared to be moving towards a climax. Pressures in every section of the economy bad become more intense than before. Shortages of labour, materials and power were becoming almost intolerably acute. Many people began to fear major breakdowns in essential services and industries. “We confronted that situation at a time when the necessity to expand our defence programme had become critically urgent.

The fundamental lines of government policy had been laid down some time earlier. “We had rejected the policy, urged upon us in some quarters, of trying to check inflation by freezing prices, wages and other costs, and meeting uncontrollable cost movements by subsidies. The Government came to the basic decision that inflation had to be tackled at the roots by any and every means available to it and to the community at large. The demand for goods and the resources with which to produce goods had to be brought progressively into balance with the supply of goods and resources. The Government recognized at the time, and was completely frank in saying, that no immediate or spectacular results could be expected from this policy. Inflation had reached a high momentum which would inevitably carry it forward a long way whatever might be done to restrain its progress. Price and cost increases which had already occurred would inevitably produce other price and cost increases some time in the future. The great gap between demand and supply could not bo closed at a stroke. Moreover, rising prices in countries abroad would necessarily be transmitted in some measure to our income.

Six or eight months have passed since the period that I have been describing. There are some encouraging signs in the present situation. The rate of increase of both retail and wholesale prices and of wage costs has slowed down. Better supplies of some of the basic materials are available. The acute labour shortages of last year have eased to some degree, and, in particular, there has been a gratifying movement of labour into basic industries such as coal and steel. I believe this to be a genuine result of the action that was taken by the Government, aided by certain other forces which have helped to mitigate the inflationary pressures. “We would not claim, however, that anything approaching a cure of our inflationary troubles has yet been achieved. The problem is still with us in a formidable degree. The Government believes that its policy is fundamentally right and is determined to continue that policy. We take for ourselves, and offer to the community, the encouragement of such gains as have been made. But with them must go a realization that a long and difficult road still lies ahead. Meanwhile, there have been at least two major changes in the basic factors deter mining our economic position and I shall next discuss the implications of these changes and of the steps that have been taken by the Government in consequence of them.

At the opening of the wool sales for the current season the average price was about 25 per cent, below the closing price of the previous season and 60 per cent, below the peak price that was reached in March last year. Later, prices rose appreciably, but they began to fall again, eventually reaching a level somewhat lower than when the market opened. As a result, it appears that wool income’ for 1951-52 will be about half that of 1950-51. That is to say, it will be approximately £300,000,000 compared with £600,000,000 in the boom year. A fall of this magnitude could not but have important economic consequences. Although wool prices may still be regarded as reasonably good by the standards of earlier periods, the level of costs in the industry had to some extent followed prices up in the boom period. Moreover, large areas in the wool-growing districts were severely affected by drought during the summer and also by bush fires, both of these adversities entailing serious loss and expenditures. The net cash income of wool-growers for the current year must therefore be far below their receipts in 1950-51.

This raised an acute taxation problem. Income tax and provisional tax are being levied during this year on the basis of the peak incomes for 1950-51. To meet their tax liabilities, therefore, wool-growers have the greatly reduced cash receipts of the current year. Widespread evidence was soon forthcoming that very many growers simply were not in a position to meet their full tax liabilities. By way of giving a measure of relief, the Government decided upon a deferment of provisional tax, the details of which were announced some time ago. Necessarily, this decision will affect the budget in a quite substantial way. In the estimates of revenue from income tax this year, receipts from, taxation of wool incomes had bulked largely but they will now have to be reduced. It is not intended, at this stage, to make any precise forecast of what the net result of the 1951-52 budget will be. I can, however, say that the Government will fall appreciably short of the surplus for which it budgeted, and the main single reason for this is the probable fall in taxation receipts from wool incomes. Probably the greatest and most immediate effect of the fall in wool prices, however, was the loss of export income, and that was a major element in the great balance of payments problem which developed rapidly at the end of 1951. For some years past, wool prices have been the main determinant of our export “income. Other exports, of course, are important, but experience for some years past has been that the total earnings from them are comparatively stable. Between 194S-49 and 1950-51 the value of exports other than wool fluctuated between £300,000,000 and £350,000,000 and for the current year their value will be somewhere within the same range. “Wool exports, on the other hand, have been as low as £220,000,000 and as high as £620,000,000. The fall in wool prices this year has, in fact, been the main reason why our export earnings are likely to be about £300,000,000 less than they were in 1950-51. In other words, we will have that amount less to spend on goods from overseas.

That is one side of our external account. Other factors were operating still more dramatically on the other side. Beginning about the middle of 1950-51, the monthly rate of importation began to climb in a most extraordinary way. By about November it had reached the level of £110,000,000 f.o.b., which was equal to £1,300,000,000 for a full year. It was obvious at that stage that unless a fall in the rate of imports occurred serious difficulties would lie ahead. But it was impossible to determine with any certainty whether any such fall would occur. Most people whose opinions were obtained - -people in the business and financial worlds who were in a position to know about the volume of orders placed abroad and prospects for delivery - thought that a fall would occur after Christmas. But no one could determine accurately just when the fall would begin or how great it would be. By the middle of February, however, there was sufficient information to indicate that a major fall in the rate of imports could not be expected before April. Meanwhile the trend of wool prices had been downwards and Ave were losing London funds at a rapid rate. It appeared that unless restrained, total imports for 1951-52 were likely to amount to £1,100,000,000 f.o.b. or, “bringing freight and insurance into account, about £1,250,000,000.

Consequently, we realized that our international reserves, which had amounted to over £840,000,000 at the 30th June, 1951, were likely to be well below £300,000,000 by the 30th June next. Thereafter, because the September quarter in any year is always a relatively lean period for export earnings, we could expect to go on losing London funds at a relatively rapid rate. When such a point is reached there is a grave risk that capital movements may begin because of a loss of confidence in the situation. The Government confronted the stark possibility that, unless drastic action were taken, our international reserves would .be exhausted before the end of 1952. The Government bad to act drastically in order to preserve our international solvency. There were Round reasons to expect that in the months ahead the rate of imports would fall, but it seemed improbable that this fall would occur soon enough or be great enough to correct the position in time.

There has been criticism to the effect that the Government need not have acted in the way that it did, because the situation contained its own remedies. That is ill-informed criticism and the information I have just given refutes it. I do not need to carry that argument any further. Strangely, however, we have had the quite opposite criticism that we should have acted earlier than we did, in which case we would not have had to curtail imports so severely. There are various good reasons why we did not act earlier, and I am prepared to state them frankly. The Government was reluctant to curtail imports till it became absolutely necessary. For ten or twelve years past, overseas supplies of very many kinds of goods have been difficult or impossible to obtain. It could hardly be expected that either the Government or the public would be eager to cut off unnecessarily the supply of such goods just as they had again become available in adequate quantities.

As a Government, we are against controls and we will always do our utmost to avoid them. There were very good reasons, up to a fairly late stage, for thinking that import controls might be avoided. It appeared that a large part of the sudden flood of imports was due to transient factors such as the grouped arrival pf ships after long shipping delays mid the sudden fulfilment of large orders for plant and materials. Moreover, the powerful measures that have been taken r.o reduce the inflationary demand for goods could be expected, in the course of time, to cut down the flow of imports. So long as there was a reasonable possibility that import controls might not be needed the Government could hardly be blamed for not rushing to impose them.

Because the Government realized that the inflow of goods from abroad was helping very materially to stem inflation, and, in order to assist development, it has worked steadily ever since it took office to encourage imports of essential goods. It has bargained hard abroad to get supplies and ships to carry them, ft has paid subsidies and remitted customs duties under by-law. It has borrowed money from the International Bank to pay for imports. These actions formed part of a deliberate and considered policy to increase the supply of finished goods, material and equipment, and I venture to say that the great majority of people agreed with that policy. In fact, the Government was even criticized for not buying more imports, for not borrowing from overseas, and for not spending our London funds faster.

Furthermore, Australia’s balance of payments problem was closely connected with the problem of the sterling area, which was a subject of discussion at the London meeting of finance Ministers in January, and the outcome of the London discussions was certain to have pome bearing on our own situation and on the fiction that would be taken here.

These are the reasons why the Government did not act earlier. I have stated them frankly, and I consider that the Government has not the slightest need to apologize for any of them.

Sitting suspended from 5.28 to 8 p.m.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Some are now arguing that the Government should have taken action earlier to restrict what are called luxury imports so as to conserve overseas funds with which to buy essential goods. I think there are two main comments to be made upon that criticism. In the first place, while opinions always differ as to what should be called luxury goods, the truth is that the overwhelming bulk of the imports we received were of an essential or, shall I say, utility kind. It would be easy to get the impression from what is being said that most of the additional imports consisted of expensive motor cars, dress fabrics, jewellery, furs and the like. In fact, however, the great majority of the motor cars that came in were middle-priced models, and by far the greater proportion of the textiles and apparel imports were utility lines of clothing or clothing materials or furnishings. In any case, is it regarded as a bad thing that, after a long period of shortages, people should be able to buy motor cars or glassware or china or carpets or linoleum ? I venture to say that the great majority of people were very glad to have an opportunity to obtain such things, and do not think any worse of themselves for having done so.

I have heard the curious argument that whilst the Government imposed sales tax on. luxuries to conserve local resources, it permitted an unrestrained inflow of luxury goods from abroad. Surely that is a contorted kind of criticism. It is true that, in the last budget, we did increase sales tax on luxury items, but sales tax applies to imported articles as well as to locally produced articles. Therefore, the effect of our action must have been to restain the flow of luxury imports as well as to restrain local output of comparable goods.

It is common enough to say that restriction of imports is a negative way of dealing with the balance of payments, and that is certainly true. The Government, however, has been fully alive to the need for positive action to increase the amount of overseas funds available to us. The Government is taking effective action to encourage exports, particularly of foodstuffs. Borrowing is another possibility and the Government has been exploring this field “most thoroughly. There appears to be little possibility of public borrowing on any worthwhile scale in the United Kingdom at the present time. Internal demands for investible funds in the United Kingdom have increased enormously in recent year3, through nationalization projects, housing, the post-war reconditioning and expansion of private industry and other factors, and only a very restricted amount is now available for investment outside the United Kingdom. There is a long waiting list of would-be borrowers on the London market. At the recent conference of finance Ministers, the official policy was indicated very clearly. It is that insofar as funds may be available for investment abroad, preference would be given to the colonies overseas, and to those semi-independent territories such as Southern Rhodesia, for the development of which the United Kingdom Government has certain responsibilities. With grave balanceofpayment difficulties of their own, the United Kingdom authorities are inclined to keep funds at home rather than to encourage them to move abroad

In the United States of America, also, there seems to be no immediate prospect whatever of raising money on the open market. For the most part, the American investor looks for opportunities within his own country long before he thinks of investment overseas. In addition to this, there is undoubtedly an active prejudice in the market there against almost any kind of foreign bonds except those of Canada. Furthermore, the fact that

Sterling is not freely convertible into dollars puts a further obstacle in the way of borrowing by sterling area countries like Australia. In Switzerland, there appears to be some possibility of borrowing. The Swiss are in a strong external position, and they have been making a number of foreign loans in recent times, including some to South Africa, but the amounts are relatively small, and the terms tend to be rather stiff by our standards. How- ever, the possibility of Swiss borrowing will be further explored by the Commonwealth.

The only other possible source of longterm borrowing is the International Bank, and as honorable senators are aware, we have had lately a mission in Australia from the International Bank and a visit from the president of the bank. When the Prime Minister is in Washington he intends to carry discussions with the International Bank another step forward. As a short-term measure would help our immediate situation, we applied to the International Monetary Fund for a drawing against our quota in the fund, and, as already announced, we shall purchase from the fund against Australian currency an amount of 30,000,000 dollars. This will be of direct assistance, not only to the dollar problem, which I shall discuss presently, but also to our overall balance-of-payments problem. We must have well in mind, however, that currencies purchased from the International Monetary Fund have to be repaid to that institution within a. comparatively short period.

Summed up, therefore, the possibilities of borrowing abroad at the present time do not amount to a great deal. The Government will, however, follow up such possibilities as exist because it is important to obtain overseas funds, not only to meet overseas payments, but also to meet the requirements of our developing economy.

In some quarters, the impression appears to have been formed that the action taken by the Government to restrict imports was a direct result of the conference of finance Ministers held in London during January. This, however, is an erroneous idea. We would have had to reduce imports in the way we did even if the conference had never been held, because the overall balanceofpayments difficulties confronting us would have had to be dealt with in any case. The meeting in London was concerned with the separate though related problem of the sterling area deficit with the nonsterling world, and the running down of the central gold and dollar reserves. At the conference, agreement was reached by the sterling area countries represented there on three principle objectives as follows: -

  1. That the sterling area as a whole should be in balance with the rest of the world, at latest for the second half of 1952.
  2. That within this balance with the non-sterling world there should also be balance with the dollar area at least.
  3. That where any country in the sterling area was likely to be in overall deficit, corrective measures should be taken as soon as possible.

The impression to which I have referred may have arisen from a misunderstanding of the third of these objectives. If a country within the sterling area had a deficit in its overall balance of payments it would in all probability be drawing away from the sterling area countries resources which would go otherwise to earn non-sterling currencies. It would probably be drawing also to an excessive extent upon the reserves of the sterling area topay for non-sterling imports. This was, in fact, the case with Australia. By taking action,’ therefore, to balance our own external accounts we would be helping to remedy the deficit of the sterling area with the rest of the world, and this is what the third objective really proposes. The necessary action implied in the objective, however, was such as we would need to take, and did in fact take, for the maintenance of our own international solvency.

By the restrictions announced on the 8th March, which reduced imports from all countries other than those of the dollar area and Japan, we made a contribution to the task of saving nonsterling currencies. It was necessary, however, that we should also act to reduce our direct call upon the sterling area dollar pool, and that was the purpose of the decision subsequently announced to recall outstanding dollar and other licences. It was also the purpose for which we have now purchased 30,000,000 dollars from the International Monetary Fund. We have taken this action because we have a vital responsibility for the preservation of the sterling area system. There has been since the middle of last year a rapid and progressive call upon the gold and dollar reserves held in the United Kingdom. By the end of the March quarter this year, those reserves had fallen to 1,700,000,000 dollars, equal to £607,000,000 sterling. At this level the reserves must be regarded as dangerously low, and action of a drastic kind to maintain them is fully justified.

Coming back to the internal situation, I propose now to deal with certain branches of anti-inflationary policy which have lately had a great deal of public attention. One of these is the subject of bank credit and capital issues control. Control of bank credit has two major phases. One is concerned with the overall monetary situation as affected by expansion or contraction of bank lending, and its main instrument under existing arrangements is the special account procedure followed out by the central bank. It operates by requiring the trading banks to deposit a certain part of their assets in special accounts with the central bank. Were this not done, additional cash becoming available to the trading banks, as, for example, through a rise in export income, would permit them to lend increasing amounts of money to the community at large, and, in so doing, add to the supply of purchasing power. Naturally, the amounts deposited by the trading banks in the special accounts are varied from time to time according to varying circumstances. During the wool boom in 1950-51, the total amount rose steeply. It reached a peak of £578,000,000 in May last year. The system, however, is not administered rigidly, and that is proved by the figures. When it becomes necessary for the trading banks to increase the amount of their advances to the business community as, for example, to finance imports, releases are made from these special accounts. In fact, these releases have reached very big figures in recent months. From the peak of £578,000,000 in May last, the special accounts have now fallen to about £430,000,000, a fall of about £150,000,000 in a year. This, I think, provides a sufficient answer to those who argue that the Government and the central bank are enforcing a money shortage on the economy, and that they are keeping unduly large resources sterilized in reserves.

The other branch of bank credit control consists of the advance policy instructions issued by the Commonwealth Bank to the private trading banks. Their purpose is to ensure that the volume of bank credit available at any time is channelled to those branches of industry and trade which contribute most to essential production. The instructions are modified from time to time in the light of experience. They are the subject of consultation between the Commonwealth Bank and the Government, and also between the Commonwealth Bank and the trading banks. This ensures that they are adapted as required to the changing needs of the economy as part of the general antiinflationary programme ; but it would be quite wrong to suppose that they prevent expansion of credit in any and every direction. Nothing could be further from the truth. In June last year, the average weekly advances of the private trading banks’ totalled £509,000,000. The average for March this year was £664,000,000. Thus, in the space of nine months, there had been an increase of no less than £155,000,000. A good part of this increase has been used to finance additional imports, but other branches of trade and industry have had a share. Again, it Ls clear that banking policy in this regard is not being applied rigidly or unrealistically.

Capital issues control can be bracketed with advance policy, as they serve similar purposes. Speaking broadly, what hank advance policy does in respect of shortterm hanking finance, capital issues control does in respect of long-term share or mortgage finance. Under the administration of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) the control is exercised by a capable, experienced and representative hoard. Periodically the Cabinet makes a thorough-going review of capital issues policy and confirms or modifies its policy instructions to the Capital Issues Board. We do not have to apologize for the fact that capital issues control has been applied rigorously during the past year. At a time when there was the most urgent need to concentrate resources on essential production, it would not have been expedient to allow a “ free for all “ situation in the capital market with an undue share of funds going in many instances to non-essential activities. Capital issues control was designed to prevent that happening and I think it has achieved a very considerable measure of success in that connexion.

The subject of housing finance was covered by the Prime -Minister (Mr. Menzies) in a statement that he made before the end of the last sessional period of the Parliament. The right honorable gentleman also dealt with housing in his recent public statement following “Cabinet discussions on our economic policy. Therefore, I shall not traverse the subject again in a general way, but will confine myself to one major comment. In some quarters it often appears to be assumed that the Commonwealth ought to make available unlimited finance for housing, irrespective of the circumstances. That is a fantastic idea. It has been pointed, out more than once that during this financial year the Commonwealth and its agencies are making available more than £60,000,000 for housing finance. Of that enormous sum, more t]] an £50,000,000 is being raised by taxation. To those who demand that the Government should do still more, J emphasize that we could not provide a penny more for housing unless we increased taxation or resorted to the use of the central bank credit.

Let me make a further point. The basic reason why many people, especially young couples, are finding it difficult to build or buy homes is that the cost of housing has increased beyond all reason. That is demonstrated by the high and increasing proportion of homes now being built by owners rather than by contractors. I believe the proportion is nowgreater than 30 per cent. When the cost of building comparatively modest cottages rose above £4,000 it was inevitable that many home-seekers would find the proposition beyond their reach, even though relatively liberal finance could be obtained. Costs have risen partly because of some very unsatisfactory conditions within the industry, such as go-slow methods oil the part of labour, and black-marketing of materials, and partly because of excessive competition of public works authorities for labour and materials. The demand for additional Government finance really implies that the Government should finance homes at ever-increasing levels of cost ; or, in other words, that we should provide unlimited funds, by taxation or central bank credit, in order to permit of a continuance of the conditions that have caused housing costs to rise. That is an unthinkable proposition.

The Government fully recognizes the importance of housing as a social requirement and as a factor in the level of economic activity. At all times it watches conditions in the housing field very closely. We are aware that in some areas the number of houses being commenced has declined. On the other hand, we also know that the number of houses now being completed is rising and that, surely, is a good thing. At present I understand that houses are being completed at the rate of between 70,000 and 80,000 a year. Many houses are under construction throughout the country. At the end of last December I believe the number stood at something like 85,000, which represented a total investment of some £290,000,000. Obviously the building industry has plenty of work to do. As I have said, the Government is not oblivious to the need for maintaining a high level of building activity. It does Insist, however, that the industry should reach and maintain a reasonable state of efficiency and an economic level of. costs.

Considerable interest now centres on public works because of the recent meeting of the Loan Council to decide upon borrowing programmes for the financial year 1952-53. In order that honorable senators may follow the issues clearly, I remind them that the Loan Council is a joint Commonwealth-State body, and that in the matter of raising loan moneys the Commonwealth acts only as an agent for the Loan Council. Beyond this no -constitutional responsibility devolves on the Commonweal th. It certainly has no responsibility to ‘provide the State .governments with funds for public “works from it own resources. I wish also to mention another important fact that has a considerable bearing on current issues. It is a fair statement to say that at no stage during the post-war period have the State governments been short .of money for works purposes. Indeed, for several years they were not able to spend the full amounts on works programmes that had been approved by the Loan Council. I mention this fact because a good deal has been said to suggest that the Commonwealth’s financial policy has in some way been responsible for the. slow progress of important developmental works such as power stations, port and harbour improvements, roads, and water and irrigation schemes. If these projects are running behind schedule, there is one factor which cannot possibly be blamed and that is, a shortage of money. If money could have remedied black-outs, transport difficulties, and the like, we should have been rid of them years ago.

Honorable senators will recall the outcome of the meeting of the Loan Council last August, and the measures that were taken subsequently by the Commonwealth. Briefly, the position was that the States brought forward governmental works programmes of £300,000,000, whereas it appeared most unlikely that the loan market in the current financial year would yield as much as the net amount of about £125,000,000 which was obtained in the previous year. The Government was concerned to see that the essential parts of the State programmes should be carried out and, therefore, under-wrote those programmes up to an amount of £225,000,000, which meant that any difference between loan raisings during this year and the cost of guaranteed programmes would be met from Commonwealth resources. The net amount of money raised on the markets during this year for works purposes has been no more than £63,000,000. Therefore, taking account of small domestic raisings by the States, the Commonwealth will have to provide between £150,000,000 and £160,000,000.

Although the State governments knew well enough what had happened to tha loan market, and must have had a good idea of what was likely to happen during 1952-53, they have brought forward loan programmes which totalled £351,000,000. This represented an increase of £126,000,000, or 55 per cent, over the programmes for the current financial year. In addition, they put forward programmes for semigovernmental and local authority borrowing which amounted to £124,000,000. Thus, in total, they asked for no less than £475,000,000 for the year. The amount of £351,000,000 sought by the State governments for their own purposes in 1952-53 compared with the approved programmes of £225,000,000 in 1951-52, £175,000,000 in 1950-51, and £92,000,000 in 1949-50. Thus, the States have asked for twice as much as they received last year, and nearly four times as much as they received in 1949-50.

Of course, there is virtually no limit to the public works that could be undertaken in Australia. The CommonwealthState consultative committees that were set up last year listed projects in the fields of electric power, water conservation and irrigation, road and rail transport, and ports and harbours estimated to involve an expenditure of £606,000,000 between June this year and June, 1954. But there must be some attempt to find a balance between public works and the resources available to carry them out, and also between public works and private investment. The vital matter is to -achieve a programme which can be efficiently carried out within the resources available and to ensure that the right projects receive priorities within that programme. Otherwise there would be chaotic competition for labour and materials, a rapid forcing-up of costs, and widespread waste and delays due to an excessive number of enterprises trying to get ahead all at the one time. Eventually, at the Loan Council meeting, the State ‘ Premiers, acting together, put forward governmental programmes which totalled £247,000,000 as an alternative to their original demands for £350,000,000. The Premiers made it quite clear that they wanted the Commonwealth again to guarantee their programmes as a whole. In view of the loan market prospects the revised States programmes of £247,000,000 would have necessitated the

Commonwealth agreeing to find an amount of almost £200,000,000. Apart from any question of policy or principle, financial prospects are such that the Commonwealth simply could not undertake to provide anything like such a sum and it so advised the States. As an alternative, it offered to provide in 1952-53, by way of special subscriptions to loans, an amount of £125,000,000. The Commonwealth said that if the market were to yield £50,000,000, and if the States could raise a small amount domestically, as they usually do, and were content with rather smaller carry-overs at the end of that financial year, they would have the reasonably firm prospect of obtaining at least £190,000,000 for works purposes. This would have been a rather smaller overall total than that provided in the current year, but under all the circumstances it would have financed a reasonable programme of State works. The States rejected the offer and voted for a borrowing programme for the year of £247,000,000. It is most unlikely that they will get that amount. The Commonwealth has indicated that its offer to the States still stands, and that it will make finance available to them month by month on the basis of the offer.

There is much extravagant talk accurring about the unemployment that will be caused by, and the great projects that will have to be terminated as the result of, the Commonwealth’s decision, but I am convinced that we need not take those predictions too seriously. Much the same forecasts were made nine months ago, and they came to nothing. It is vital, however, that honorable senators should realize what the alternative course of action would entail. If the States were to be given as much money for works as they had asked for, there would either have to be staggering increases of Commonwealth taxation or the Commonwealth would have to call upon the Commonwealth Bank for great amounts of treasury-bill finance. This latter course could not fail to have disastrous consequences. It would add in a major way to the excessive purchasing power now active within our economy, and in so doing would give a strong impulse to inflationary pressure.

All that the Government and other authorities and organizations have done so far to combat inflation would be set at nought. I can conceive of no more irresponsible action for any government to take in present circumstances.

There has been criticism of the stand taken by the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, in my view, some of that criticism has come from people in official positions who ought not to express opinions about the policies of governments. Men who hold administrative as distinct from political positions have a duty to uphold decisions made a$ the political level. “Whatever their private opinions may be, it is not their place to indulge in public comment on the actions of Ministers or governments.

The Government is convinced that its fundamental economic policy is sound and that some beneficial results are already flowing from it. It is watching vigilantly the course of economic events within Australia and abroad, and it will promptly adapt its measures to meet changes of those conditions. Opinions differ a good deal on the likely future course . of economic development. Some persons believe that inflationary forces have partly spent themselves and that we can expect a levelling out of economic activity. Some have even predicted the occurrence of unemployment, at least in certain sections of the economy. We must take account of the fact that rearmament programmes are in full swing throughout the Western world and that they must tend to sustain the demand for goods and so keep an upward pressure on prices and costs. Our defence expenditure is increasing. We also have in hand a great body of public and private investments; and there will undoubtedly be a tendency to try to expand industry in order to replace imports which we can no longer obtain from overseas. All the factors I have just cited are of a kind that will tend to perpetuate inflation unless appropriate counter-measures are employed. On the whole, therefore, the Government sees no immediate reason for believing that its general anti-inflation programme should be relaxed or tapered off. I will continue to watch the situation as a whole and in detail and will make the necessary adjustments to its policies wherever the need to do so is clearly proven. I lay * on the table the following paper : -

Economic Position - Ministerial Statement, 21st May, 1952. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The one comment that I feel I may make in favour of the speech which the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has just concluded is that it is appropriate that a speech on the economic crisis should have been delivered in this chamber. No other commendation can I give it. It is the last of a series of three speeches made by Government spokesmen on this subject. The first of them was the very ill-timed speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the eve of the meeting of the Loan Council early this month, when ‘ he lauded the achievements, real or imaginary, of his Government during the preceding twelve months. The only comment that’ I wish to make upon that speech is that, in the light of the economic crisis that is facing Australia, the continued complacency of the right honorable gentleman is truly alarming and bodes ill for our future. His speech reminded me of the story of the tenant who, upon being upbraided by his landlord for having stood idly by while his house was burnt to the ground, protested that he had not been idle because he had been weeding the garden and sweeping the garden paths. The second of the three speeches was made by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) in another place not long ago, and it was similar to that made by the Minister in this chamber to-night - the third of the series. One most significant factor which is common to all three speeches is that not one of them contained a word about the events that led up to the position that existed at the middle of last year. Each of them dealt with the period that commenced on the 1st July, 1951. There was complete silence about the events that preceded that date. There is a very good reason why these three Government spokesmen avoided a reference to those events. The acuteness of the several crises that, are facing Australia to-day was mainly caused by the unwise, and in some instances panic, actions taken by the Government in the preceding eighteen months.

It is quite clear that Australia is now caught up in several phases of an acute economic crisis. The Treasurer was quite right when he told the Premiers at the Loan Council meeting early this month that the economic outlook was gloomy. That, I suggest, was a masterly piece of understatement on his part. Without attempting to apportion blame to anybody, let us look at the elements that make up the picture that the Treasurer must have seen if he had eyes with which to see. First and foremost is the raging inflation which is inflicting the most grievous hardship upon pensioners and persons on fixed incomes, and is giving rise to a sense of frustration, hopelessness, insecurity and loss of confidence among all members of the community. The next is the collapsed loan market in this country which is jeopardizing seriously the whole of the Australian developmental programme, and causing a loss of tens of millions of pounds to Australian bondholders who had trusted the Government. The third element in the picture is the absolutely irretrievable loss in a period of nine months in this financial year alone of hundreds of millions of pounds in our overseas sterling credits. The fourth element is the existence of the most drastic import restrictions which, for the first time in ow history, have involved repudiation of firm contracts made by Australians. The. next element is the badly depressed share market that, results from drastic and frustrating controls of credit and capital issues. In addition there is the greatly increased taxation and the gross inadequacy of primary production not only for our own needs but also for the requirements nf the export market. Most companies in Australia to-day a’re unable to proceed with capital developmental programmes and to meet their tax assessments. Many f f the most firmly based financial institution* have had to postpone or abandon fire payment of dividends despite the fact that they are making large profits. The last element that I see in the picture is the decided slump in the building industry, particularly in the homebuilding industry. I shall demonstrate to the Senate at a later stage of my speech how dangerous that element is.

I defy any honorable senator to contradict the propositions that I have submitted to the Senate. These salient features of the Australian economy do not present a hopeful picture. How well founded was the Treasurer’s statement that the economic outlook is gloomy! No member of the Opposition experiences any joy because the country has drifted into this position because we know that it means distress, anxiety, frustration, and loss to ‘the people of Australia. Labour clearly saw these crises looming on the horizon and it did its best to warn the Government against their onset and to point out the course which it should take in order to avert them. Unfornately, our advice fell upon deaf ears.

Let me revert to the first element of the picture - the raging internal inflation, which is the most serious of all. The basic and primary cause of inflation in Australia was the war. Inflation began in 1939 with the outbreak of World War II. It continued throughout the war and into- the post-war period. War expenditure in the country enabled the people to accumulate vast savings which gave rise to a colossal demand for every conceivable kind of civil goods after the war had ended. There was a backlog of unsatisfied demand for all the things that the Australian people wanted, from homes and furniture down to all kinds of luxury goods that had of necessity been denied to them while the country was engaged in waging total war. Those who brought about the war are solely to blame for the onset of inflation. I do not ignore contributory factors such as the absence of imports during the war and in the immediate post-war period. Later, the very high prices of imports, the demands made on labour and material in short supply and the requirements of the defence .programme and -our vast developmental programme, all contributed to worsen the position. Labour is not taken hy surprise at the crisis that has developed. Even during the war period wo foresaw the dangers that lay ahead. Tn 3 944 we warned the people that they would have to face an inflationary situation when the war ended. The veriest tyro in economics must have known what would happen. I invite the Senate torecall that warnings of the danger were, issued to the people in 1944 when the demands of the wai- were at their highest level. We asked the people to give to the National Parliament, for the limited period of five years from the conclusion of hostilities, a group of powers, each integrated with the others, that would enable such a situation to be controlled in the vital immediate postwar period, but the political parties that now constitute the Government, in their unwisdom, advised the people to vote against the proposal. How bitterly they now regret that advice is clearly stated by a political correspondent in Canberra who wrote in the Hobart Mercury of the 12 th April as follows: -

It is generally agreed inside the Cabinet to-day that if thu hulk of the Evatt referendum proposals had been carried the Federal Government would not bc dithering around to-day wondering for instance, how much power it has to organize a greater food production drive, or how fa,r lt can go in enforcing industrial laws.

Senator PaLTRIDGE:

– Who said that?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– A political roundsman who wrote an article for the Hobart Mercury. As far as I am concerned, he is anonymous, but I have no doubt of the truth of his statement and of how bitterly the Cabinet regrets that it has not the necessary powers to take the action that should so plainly be taken. I believe that the people of Australia just a.s bitterly regret that fact.

In 1946 the Labour Government placed before the people a proposal which dealt with social services. Proposals to organize marketing, in order to ensure adequate production for export, and to provide for control over terms and conditions of employment in industry were also put forward. Again, the parties which now constitute the Government advised the people to reject those vitally essential proposals. They were in fact rejected, and I lh ink that it is safe to say that l>oth the Government and the people regret that decision to-day. In 1948 the Australian Labour party gave the people one more chance. It proposed that a referendum should be held on the ques tion whether the National Parliament, should be given power to deal with prices, rents and charges. Again the Government parties opposed those proposals, which were defeated. When the Australian Country party and the Liberal party were elected to office, the Opposition continued to warn them in this chamber, where, for a brief period, we had a majority. In October, 1950, we took the somewhat extraordinary course of introducing a bill in the Senate. We could see, as most people must have been able to see, that inflation had gathered so much , momentum that the situation had become explosive. The Opposition therefore presented a bill which proposed that a referendum should be held concerning prices control. Every member of the Government parties voted against it. In fact, they treated the measure almost with contempt. Only eight members of the Government parties spoke in relation to it, one who moved the gag. They thereby demonstrated their utter lack of appreciation of the dangerous situation that then existed. I remind the Senate of the complacency and the lack of understanding of the situation that was displayed by the then Minister for Social Services, Senator Spooner, who acted as spokesman for the Government. In the course of his speech, the honorable senator stated -

The other method of approach is to try in an intelligent way to diagnose the basic cause of the trouble, and so to direct the national effort as to eliminate that cause: in other words, to encourage the efforts of the citizens of Australia, who alone can provide the solution of the problem in so far as it can be solved by any action within Australia. . . Basically, the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Opposition relies on controls, regulations and rules, whereas the Government relies on increasing industrial harmony, goodwill and co-operation.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Does not the honorable senator believe in those objectives?

Senator McKENNA:

– My reply to the honorable senator is that, having heard the Minister for Trade and Customs speaking to-night on behalf of the Government and attempting to justify the imposition of all kinds of controls of the most drastic nature eighteen months later. I am intrigued.

In order to demonstrate how clear was Labour’s point of view at that time, I propose to read to honorable senators a brief extract from the speech which I made the following day, in reply to that of Senator Spooner. I said -

An example of utter helplessness in the face of a tragedy that could be more terrible in its consequences even than World War II. was the statement of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) yesterday, that the problem was one for the people themselves to solve. As a member of the Government, he threw up his hands and said that the people must save themselves. That was an example of abject hopelessness in the face of danger and difficulty. I warn the business people, the primary producers, the salary earners and the wage-earners that a grave crisis is impending. It is of no use for the Government to try to ignore it. Prices must go on rising unless something drastic is done to prevent them from doing so, and if the present trend continues it must result in the bankruptcy and ruin of a great many people, whether they be businessmen or salary earners. There is a cancer in the economy of Australia, born of war, as the Government admits. There is vast spending power opposed to a limited supply of the goods that the people need. The attitude of the Minister for Social Services yesterday is not helpful. Indeed, such hopelessness in the face of impending disaster will only hasten tragedy.

That is clearly what it did.

The truth is that this Government did not see the danger. For almost two years it sat idly by, until rise after rise of the basic wage, culminating in a rise of 13s. a week in August, 1951, forced it to see that there was a vital danger and that something drastic would have to be done. The result was the extraordinary budget which was introduced last year. The Government had no excuse for failing to read the signs aright. Throughout its term of office the basic wage has continued to rise. Surely that was sufficient warning for a cabinet which had any sense at all and which was not filled with complacency such as that displayed by the Minister for Trade and Customs today.

The Government, in that budget, recognized the problem created by a great demand for goods in short supply. Its approach to the problem was arithmetical and completely lacking in human quality and reality. It said, in effect, “ In order to balance demand and shortage of goods, let us take money from the people. Let us tax them and gather in their money so that they will not be able to spend it. It will be very much safer in our hands “. In one year this Government increased taxation and provided for further revenues to yield a total of £472,000,000, which included a prospective surplus of £114,500,000. I recall that outside this chamber the Minister for National Development, who represents the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) in the Senate, stated that not one penny of that sum of £114,500,000 would be expended, except over his dead body. That statement proves how little the members of the Government appreciate the position, because already the Treasurer has pointed out that whatever is left of that prospective surplus is now to be used in support of the underwriting arrangement made with the Australian Loan Council by the Commonwealth last year. That surplus was to be money taken from the people and put away where it would do least harm. After specifically promising that taxation would be reduced, the Government has increased it by £472,000,000 in a year. Honorable senators should contrast that action with that of the Australian Labour party in the immediate post-war period when, in five stages, taxation was reduced by £218,000,000.

If the Minister for Trade and Customs, or any other honorable senator opposite, wishes to know what the Opposition would have done in such circumstances, I say at once that it would never have allowed this inflationary situation to develop. In 1949, and again at the last general elections, the Australian Labour party told the people that if elected to office it would take every step possible in order to halt inflation, and that it would hold a referendum on prices, profits and capital issues. Ample power for the imposition of credit control and imports control, which have now been imposed by the Government, is conferred on the National Parliament by the Constitution. We undertook to stimulate exports and to regulate imports. I emphasize the word “ regulate “. Where necessary, we would subsidize imports. Above all, we undertook to co-operate with the trade union movement, to stabilize wages, to eliminate industrial stoppages, and to outlaw political strikes.

The trade union movement agreed with the Labour movement that it would cooperate on that basis.

Having put all those matters to the Senate, I can only say that the record of this Government in regard to inflation is one of inaction, ill-considered judgment, arrant incompetence, and a complete reversal of its avowed policy.

Senator Scott:

– I think that the honorable senator is a little biased!

Senator McKENNA:

– I may be biased, but at least I am accurate. It is intriguing to see a government which previously screamed against socialism now embracing that philosophy with both arms. Socialism, as the Australian Labour party understands it, is simply action taken in the interests of society at large and not in the interests of particular individuals or particular groups. The Government that professed to hate socialism as I have defined it, and as the Australian Labour party understands it, is now practising it. As an example, I point to capital issues control. Labour retained that control because it was designed to prevent money from finding its way into non-essential industries and activities at a time when so many vital needs in Australia had to be fulfilled. Within a fortnight of taking office, and before it had time to survey the scene, this Government abolished capital issues control. The result was that every entrepreneur in Australia rushed on to the share market. Additional nonessential industries were established without delay.

The Minister for Trade and Customs referred to the need to avoid a “ freeforall” on the investment market of Australia. Yet the Government opened the door to that very occurrence within a fortnight of taking office. Before very long it appreciated the colossal error which it had made. It is interesting to recall that at the time that the Opposition introduced its bill for a referendum on prices control, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) broadcast for half an hour on each of two successive evenings. On the first occasion the theme of his talk was, “Rising prices - why?” On the following night his talk was entitled “Rising prices - the answer “. After nine months of a “ free-for-all “, to adopt the words of the Minister for Trade and Customs, it is interesting to read that the Prime Minister said -

We propose to re-institute capital issues control. We think this should be done so that the absorption of capital and therefore of labour and materials into industries of minor importance at the expense of those of major importance, may be restrained.

That was a complete reversal of policy and a complete conversion.

The new socialists on the Government side of the chamber are the most inexpert that any country has ever seen. One might have been tempted to believe that the Prime Minister had at last seen the light and that immediate action would be taken; but when was capital issues control reimposed? It was not reimposed until five months later, and during that five months there was another free-for-all orgy of investment. That is the record of this Government. It is a record of inaction, incompetence, and bad judgment. In that same speech, delivered in October, 1950, the Prime Minister made this announcement -

We propose to present to Parliament a bill to impose an excess profits tax. This is a novelty, in time of peace.

It is still a novelty. Not only has the Government failed to present any such legislation to the Parliament, but, also, the Prime Minister has announced - I believe very sensibly - that there will be no such bill. Here is another unfulfilled promise made by the Prime Minister in October, 1950 -

We propose to institute a control over basic materials, our plan being that until certain grave shortages in Australia have been repaired vital materials, which many people now need for essential purposes, should not be allowed to be diverted to less important uses.

What has been done about control of vital basic materials? Exactly nothing has been done, except that, in July of last year, the Parliament passed a measure with the grandiose title of the Defence Preparations Act. That measure vested in Ministers power to control by regulation practically every phase of life in Australia. What has happened under the Defence Preparation Act? Once again exactly nothing has happened. We have seen only more inaction and more ill judgment. Now let us look at the danger that Australia faces. “We concede instantly that capital issues control is vitally necessary. The Government found that out after thirteen months of office, and reimposed it; hut capital issues control is in jeopardy to-day. The validity of the capital issues regulations has been challenged in the High Court. Should the High Court rule them to be invalid, the Government will be without a most essential safeguard, and it will rue the day that it failed to take Labour’s advice to buttress its powers with control in that vital matter. The dangers that loom should capital issues control be ended, only add horror to a picture that is already dismal enough.

Let us have a look at further evidence of the new socialism that the Government has embraced. In implementing its credit restriction policy, once again we see members of the Government in the role of the most inexpert socialists of the century. I shall refer to two phases of the matter. The first I have already mentioned briefly. It is the position of companies. When the Government abandoned capital issues control in January, 1950, many large commercial undertakings in this country committed themselves to heavy capital projects involving substantial expenditure over a period of years. They proceeded leisurely with their financial arrangements, believing that, as their financial position was sound, they could raise money at any time on the free market; but, in the meantime, the Government reversed its decision, and reimposed capital issues control, thus denying companies the opportunity to raise capital on the share market, or to obtain loan moneys on the mortgage market.” The result was that many otherwise sound enterprises are to-day in the gravest financial difficulties. They have been caught over their capital commitments, and are overstrained to comply with their contracts. They cannot pay dividends, and as the Treasurer will find to his cost, they cannot pay taxes. At this moment, the taxation offices are being deluged with letters from companies seeking time to pay taxes. I venture to prophesy, knowing all the risks of prophecy, that the Treasurer will meet the greatest difficulties in collecting his anticipated revenue before the 30th June next.

I come now to housing, and frankly I regard this phase of credit restrictions as most alarming. A survey was made by the Department of Secondary Industries and Building Materials in Sydney in the early part of this year. A press report of the finding, headed “ Homes Cut by Half”, says it is completely clear that in Sydney home-building will be only about half of that in the ‘ corresponding period of last year, and that in the first quarter of 1952 approval of brick houses fell by 49 per cent., and of timber houses by 38 per cent. That is unquestionably the official picture in Sydney to-day. Let us look now at the employment position in the building industry, particularly home-building. Here I shall quote one of the Government’s own advisers, Mr. Caldwell, Regional Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service, as reported in the Sydney Sun, on the 7th May -

Mr. Caldwell said that it had become almost impossible to place unemployed builders’ labourers in jobs. “There has been a sharp falling-off in the demand for carpenters, and the number of jobs for bricklayers and plumbers in the building industry has also declined “ he said.

I shall sketch into that picture one more feature. In New South Wales to-day, millions of bricks are accumulating in the brickyards; timber warehouses are packed to the ceilings with timber; yet the need for homes in Australia was never so great. What a completely stupid position - materials galore, labour offering in all categories for the building industry, yet, by some mad trick of finance, people cannot get homes ! I have no doubt that, broadly, that picture is repeated in many other capital cities of Australia. There is one point on which I completely agree with the British Medical Association. The first item in the national health plan of the British Medical Association is “ Housing for the people “. The association points to the tens of thousands of young people who will not marry and have children because they cannot get homes, and, very rightly, cites that deficiency as the greatest social evil in Australia to-day. It is a moral evil. There is no greater need in this country than the need to house our people. I say at once that many of the ills, even in the industrial sphere, flow from the inability of thousands of people to get homes. We cannot expect people to he contented when they cannot look forward to marrying and raising children in a decent environment; and when workers are not happy, we cannot expect the production of commodities to increase.

Senator- Pearson. - The people of Australia will not be housed as long as bricklayers are laying only 250 bricks a day.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is regrettable indeed that not only some workers in industry, but also some professional men of all classes, are not working to their fullest capacity to-day. There is an atmosphere of irresponsibility in various sections of the community, and the surest way to give people a sense of responsibility, is to give them homes and make them feel that they have a stake in the land. I do not justify go-slow tactics in any profession or industry, and I shall not attempt to excuse them.

Senator Pearson:

– That is one of the causes of the housing shortage.

Senator McKENNA:

– That may be. If so, it is unfortunate, but I am not prepared to argue about the rate of laying bricks. I am completely unskilled in that trade. I believe that credit restrictions are necessary in the present situation, but I contend that they have been, administered by this Government with far too much severity and rigidity, particularly in relation to housing loans. I invite the Government to consider, even at this late stage, a system of subsidizing the purchase of homes by members of the lower classes.

Senator Hannaford:

– Advances have never been so high.

Senator McKENNA:

– And prices have never been so high, or the demand so great. The demand is growing year by year, and shows no signs of being overtaken.

I pass now to one more example of this Government’s conversion to socialism. I refer to its import restriction policy. Whilst I welcome the Government to the ranks of the socialists, once again I deplore its lack of skill. The necessity for import restrictions arose, of course, from the free-for-all that .the Government permitted throughout 1950 and 1951. It took no notice of the warning that lay in high wool incomes. Throughout the nine months immediately preceding the imposition of restrictions, luxury goods including expensive foodstuffs, musical boxes and jewellery flooded this country. What was the result? About £300,000.000 of our sterling balances was completely dissipated. The only real value that we received in return was a comparatively small residue of machinery. Now the money has gone, and most of the goods that it purchased have been, consumed. Our London balances fell from £843,000.000 in July, 1951, to £543,000,000 in December of that year- a reduction of £300,000,000 in five months. The Prime Minister announced in March that if the trend continued, £600,000,000 of our balances would have disappeared by June of this year. Did he say anything about it in December when he saw these trends? He did not, as the Minister for Trade and Customs has admitted to-night. He stood idly by through December, January, February, and part of March, with the position going from .bad to worse. The initial error was, of course, the opening of the door to unrestricted importations. If honorable senators opposite must be socialists - and I recommend socialism to them - they should be intelligent socialists. They should have permitted the importation only of goods that were essential for development, defence, immigration and housing. Of course, luxuries are good; but we cannot have luxuries as well as the. goods that are required urgently in this country at the moment. The Government’s intention to impose import restrictions was deliberately withheld from the elected representatives of the people. The preparation of 50 or 60 typed pages must have taken some weeks, but the Government did not announce its plan Until the day after the Parliament had risen in March of this year. That action, I consider, was most reprehensible. Over night, this country was faced with the most arbitary cuts that had ever been imposed on imports. There is- nothing but chaos and confusion in the business world to-day, although the full impact of the restrictions has not yet been felt because considerable stocks of goods were already in this country. As soon as those, stocks get low we shall once again be in the field of shortages. I make one more prophecy: We shall very promptly find ourselves back in the field of uncontrollable black markets.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– When did we have black markets?

Senator McKENNA:

– They existed when commodities were rationed and they will appear again if import controls are continued. One of the worst effects of import controls is their impact on the economy of the United Kingdom. Apparently, all Australia’s trading with the Continent and the United States of America is done on an irrevocable letter of credit basis, but only about half our trade with the United Kingdom is done on that basis. The remaining 50 per cent, is a matter of easy confidence between the seller abroad and the buyer in Australia. That is the method of trading that has received the full impact of the import restrictions. These restrictions have delivered a blow at Australia’s credit to which they have done irreparable harm. The President of the Board of Trade in the United ‘Kingdom said recently -

I yield to no man in my disdain of this method of having to carry on a trading system. If it is carried on for very long it will be the end of all trade between countries.

The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler, said that import cuts of this nature were not contemplated at the London conference of Commonwealth finance Ministers in January. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that he knew of the position of Australia’s overseas balances in December. If the Government was aware of the position in January, not only did it keep other members of the British Commonwealth in the dark but it also failed to inform this Parliament of the trend of events. That is a deplorable position. It is impossible for the Government to police this type of control effectively and without unfairness. Let the Government face reality and give its attention to the four fundamental require ments of this nation - housing, immigration, development and defence. The Government should do what is essential in relation to these four great needs instead of administering import controls. If the Government would simplify its administration and eliminate the chaos that has been caused by import restrictions, the business people of Australia would benefit, considerably. At present, they are in a state of utter confusion and chaos.

Connected with the problem of the balance of payments is the vital question of food production. The Government has called for greater food production so that it might have a surplus for export in order to maintain the balance of payments. But the primary producer has been stunned by the actions of the Government. Very reasonably he asks, “ Why, if the Government wants more production, does it increase taxation? Why does it abolish the subsidy on fertilizers? Why has it interfered with the averaging system that has stood us in good stead? “ The abolition of the averaging system in relation to income tax cost farmers £47,000,000 in one year. They ask, “If the Government wants production, why has it interfered with the Chifley Government’s contract to allow a 40 per cent, depreciation allowance in respect of the mechanization of our farms ? “.

Senator Wright:

– The Government has introduced a better allowance.

Senator McKENNA:

– It has introduced a lower depreciation allowance. The Government has now partially restored what it took away.

Senator Robertson:

– The farmers also ask why the 40-hour week was introduced.

Senator McKENNA:

– They also ask why the Government’s promise of a guaranteed price based on the cost of production, with a reasonable margin of profit, has not been put into effect. They are waiting for that promise and the Government’s promise to put value back into the £1 to be redeemed. Unless the Government honours its promises its pleas will fall on deaf ears.

The loan market has been absolutely wrecked for three reasons. The first is the Government’s failure to halt inflation ; the second is the lack of confidence that lias been induced throughout Australia, not only because the Government has broken its promises but because it has done exactly the reverse of what it promised in many instances; the third reason is the mishandling of the loan market by the Loan Council to which the Australian Government was privy. The Loan Council issued bonds at a discount, increased interest rates and unsettled the whole market. The people of this country do not trust the Government. “When the people trust a government they are prepared to lend money to it. The first sign that a government has lost the trust of the people is that they will not lend it their money. The people have money to lend and the Government should be able to fill loans without difficulty. Why can it not do so? Because it has failed to halt inflation and the people do not trust it.

There is another instance of the incompetence of the Government. Last year, abnormal wool incomes gravely embarrassed the Government and one would have thought that it would recognize that position as abnormal. At least, if the Government considered that the level of wool incomes would be maintained, one might have expected it to be cautious enough to proceed on the basis of the average year in preparing its estimates. The Minister pointed out in his speech that the estimates had to be revised. They had to be “scaled down” because of the fall in wool prices. They should never have been “ scaled up “. The Government’s action in regarding an abnormal year as likely to recur is another instance of its incompetence. The Minister ignored the fact that a government rides inflation. Every rise in prices and wages increases the income of the Australian Government. The taxgatherer rides on top of inflation. In putting the economic position before honorable senators, the Minister completely ignored that phase of the subject.

Another cause for lack of trust in the Government arises out of its expressed intention to implement a policy of desocialization. I wish that the Government would make up its mind. Let it be socialist or non-socialist. It has sold the people’s shares in Amalgamated “Wire less (Australasia) Limited. It has wrecked Glen Davis and endangered research in electronics and radar. It has sabotaged Trans-Australia Airlines by taking away as much of its business as it dares, and I venture to suggest that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) would not deny that he has been doing his best to sell the Commonwealth ships which made a profit of £700,000 this year. “Whilst these processes of desocialization are proceeding, the Government has invested £5,000,000 in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and has, with private enterprise invested money in a Bulolo timber project.

Senator Scott:

– Does the honorable senator favour that action?

Senator McKENNA:

– I only wish that the Government would make up its mind. Is it a socialist government or not ? The Government has no mind of its own and it does not know where it is going. That is completely clear from the story that I have unfolded.

This Government gained office by false pretences. It gained office by making promises that it had no intention to redeem and which it has not redeemed. It is a coalition government, of course, and one can be sorry for coalition governments. A coalition of two parties such as those which support the Government results in weak government. Every action of such a government must result from a compromise. Australia cannot proceed in a direct and vigorous line with a compromise government. It is clear that the Government dropped the reins for the first eighteen months of its term of office. It let the chariot of state run right up to the precipice. Then it made this coldly financial and theoretical approach to the situation. The path of this Government is littered with broken promises, shortages, frustration and inaction followed by panic action, and controls of all kinds. The Government has instituted capital issues controls, credit controls and import restrictions, and has succeeded in destroying all sense of security and confidence in the Australian community. In view, of the fact that the Government has broken the pledges on which it was elected to office and has even taken action which represents a reversal of its promises it is not honorable for it to remain in office whether the promises were broken deliberately or inadvertently. Half the number of honorable senators in this chamber must go before the people within the next twelve months and if the Government has any sense of honour, decency or responsibility, it will also submit its supporters in the House of Representatives to the people.

I conclude on a cheerful note. Despite the chaos into which this Government has steered Australia, Labour has the most unbounded faith in the future of this country. We still believe that any individual can carve for himself a very valuable niche in this country. I believe that the future is so bright that Australia will even triumph over the ineptitude of this Government.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I had jotted down about twelve headings under which I thought that the statement of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) might be dealt with. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) also might have dealt with those subjects, particularly inflation, housing, and the problems of pensioners. As the Leader of the Opposition meandered on, I started to add to my list the subjects that he raised. After he had spoken for 30 minutes I had 48 item’s on my list and had to abandon my effort to find out what he was talking about. He covered every possible facet of government activity. He put himself into the delightful position of being a prophet, but not one who, standing firmly on his feet, said that in 1960 this will occur, and in 1965 that will occur. He placed himself in the month of May. 1952, and, looking back over his shoulder to 1939, he recounted in flowing phrases what had occurred since 1939 up to the present time. Then, striking his breast, he declared to the Australian people that he had forecast every single thine that had happened during that period. He has said, in effect : “ I. the great prophet, prophesied that these things would happen. If the Australian people had only listened to my dulcet voice, and had heeded my ability to project myself into the past,, all would have been well “. During the last 45 minutes we have listened to a. turgid recitation of what the people might have understood if they had possessed the particular kind of hindsight which is the characteristic of thu Leader of the Opposition.

Not only has the honorable gentleman the ability to look back over his shoulder; he has ako the practised ease of the trained pleader to plead special cases, to slur over the things that matter and to emphasize the things that perhaps do not matter. As I listened to him I was reminded of the fable of Little Red Riding Hood who, while going down the path, met a fantastic creature who claimed to be her grandmother, in spite of its big bright eyes and big shining teeth. The Leader of the Opposition, in addition to being a prophet, has also cast himself in the role of the wolf which sought to gain the confidence of Little Red Riding Hood. He says to the Australian people : “ Trust the Labour party. It is true that my teeth are white like a hound’s teeth, but trust yourselves to me, and everything will be well “.

The. people of Australia must understand that the seeds of inflation were sown by the Labour Government that was led by the late Joseph Benedict Chifley. The Leader of the Opposition said that inflation had its genesis in the war. Of course it had,, and it was the duty of the Labour Government to ensure that the seeds of inflation were not allowed to sprout. However, instead of taking that precaution, it encouraged this new admiralissimo, who has taken charge of Sydney Harbour with its fleets of barges - I refer to the former Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr - to introduce legislation into the Parliament of New South Wales to reduce the working week to 40 hours in an attempt to establish a. Utopia in that State. Mr. McGirr chose the period just after the war, when all those economic pressures described by the Leader of the Opposition were making for a condition of inflation, to introduce a 40-hour working week.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, war is a hateful and destructive thing which has to be paid for, and he truly stated that it could be paid for only through the energy of the people. Actually, wars are paid for by mortgaging the future activities of the population, and the mortgage has to be redeemed when it falls due. In time of war we assume that we shall win, and we assume liabilities which must later be discharged. All this was known to the Leader of the Opposition, who was then a member of the Government, yet he stood idly by, and encouraged the present admiral of Sydney Harbour to introduce the 40-hour working week at a time when, as a people, we should have begun to work harder in order to pay for the war. “War is an evil because it destroys the bodies of men. -and the work of men. It must be paid for, and that can be done only if the people work harder. Notwithstanding this, the Labour Government in New South Wales proceeded on the assumption that we were so prosperous that we could afford to work four hours a week less. The Commonwealth Labour Government, not content with the introduction of the 40-hour week in New South Wales, supported the claim for a 40-hour week over the whole of Australia. It also supported the claim for a higher basic wage on the ground, presumably, that Australia was so prosperous that it could afford the luxury of higher wages and a shorter working week.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his long, meandering speech, admitted that the Labour Government knew that inflation was just around the corner, yet it acted in such a way as to unleash the forces of inflation which are now threatening to engulf the Australian economy. Mining engineers, when conducting blasting operations, put down a series of charges, and then a base charge. When they explode the base charge it sets off the other charges by what is called sympathetic detonation. The Labour Government, by applying its mistaken economic policy, set off a base charge which by sympathetic detonation, . has set off a series of secondary charges throughout the whole of the Australian economy, with the result that the present Government is now faced with the problem of inflation. What fills me with grave concern is the fact that in this chamber and in the House of Representatives there are men who believe that inflation is a good thing. They believe that through inflation will be attained the desirable state of society which they seek. There are men in this Parliament, perhaps fewer in the Senate than in the House of Representatives, who deliberately blow on the flames of inflation in the hope that those flames will ultimately consume the society which they wish to destroy, so that they may replace it by a socialist, Marxist society.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is untrue.

Senator CORMACK:

– It is not. Thi object of those persons is the destruction of capitalist society. Communists have declared that currency inflation is one of the most effective methods of destroying capitalist society, and there are those in this chamber and elsewhere which take their cue from the Communists. All the activities of the Government in the last two and a half years have been directed towards damping down the flame of inflation, but it has received no help from the Opposition. Indeed, the Opposition had obstructed the Government in every possible way.

It is true that in this condition of half -cold war, which might at any time develop into a general war, we are confronted with problems that are not peculiar to the economy of Australia. Economic factors which exist outside Australia are subjecting our economy to enormous pressures. For instance, no Australian government is able to control the prices of rubber, copper, oil and petrol. Inflation is a world-wide phenomenon, which is afflicting all the victor nations in the last war. Those nations poured out blood and treasure in defence of freedom, and they are now struggling to maintain and improve the living standards of their people. In this they are following a different course from that of the totalitarian countries, the Governments of which seek to solve their economic problems by crushing their people into a stern and narrow mould. That policy was echoed in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to-night. The burden of his argument was that it is necessary to crush the Australian people into a hard, stern mould, that they must be deprived of the comforts to which they rightly believe they are entitled.

The policy of the Government is based on the necessity to maintain our standard of living and expand the economy at the same time. All the efforts of the Government are directed towards achieving those ends. It is quite true that there has been destruction of elements of the Australian community. Other elements are now bearing the pressure as a direct result of the activities of the Australian Labour party. I refer to the people who save and who want to own their own homes. They comprise the middle income group. Labour has no interest in those people. Some, but not all, members of the Australian Labour party opposite consider them inimical to the interests of the Marxist state. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition and some of his supporters still agree that they are important elements in the community. But other members of the Opposition are cynical towards the middle income group of the Australian people.

We now come to the other fantastic situation that, having gone through a war, this nation has to make up its mind what form of society it supports. The Government believes fundamentally that this country can progress only by establishing conditions which encourage private enterprise. The Government’s activities have therefore been directed towards the support of private enterprise. When this Government came to office it found itself saddled with half a hundred socialist enterprises, into which the savings of the people had been diverted. Private enterprise had made this country in the past, and it will be the chief means of maintaining it in the future. The money of the people was being sucked off in taxation in order that governments, not the people, could expend their money. Finally, we arrived at the fantastic situation that occurred at the recent meeting of the Loan Council. It is well to remember what occurred. The State Premiers came to Canberra and asked for £351,000,000 to be taken out of the national income in one year for governments to expend. It is quite true, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, that private enterprise is starved for capital and money. Of course it is, because the greedy socialist enterprises of one hue and another that were fostered by the previous

Labour Government have absorbed all of the available money. When the Premiers were challenged they said “ Well, on consideration, we will reduce our demands to £247,000,000”, notwithstanding that all the evidence disclosed quite clearly that there was available in terms of publicmoneys that could be raised from the Australian people, only from £50,000,000 to £60,000,000. The reason that .the Australian people will not lend money tothe Government is that they have littlemoney to lend.

I want to deal with a matter that theLeader of the Opposition touched upon lightly. It was almost like thistledown coming from afar, wafted on some vagrant breeze. He did not dare to touch the problem, of central bank credit,, although that was obviously what he had in mind. He would not occupy his present position in the Australian Labour party if he did not believe, fundamentally, that there is some untouched source of wealth which the Government could, use. Of course he hinted at it. We may beable to obtain some money by following Senator Cameron’s oft-reiterated economicpanacea, namely, the imposition of a capital levy. That idea was advanced by a couple of State Premiers.

Senator MCCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– It was advanced by Mr. Cain and Mr. McDonald.

Senator CORMACK:

– Let us consider where the money has gone. The wealth of the Australian people is already committed. The anonymous reporter, upon whom the Leader of the Opposition relies so much for his information, apparently believes that there is another £500,000,000 of money available to the Australian Government. I have made some investigations in this connexion. So that my source of information will not be described as anonymous, I inform honorable senators that it is the Commonwealth Treasury. Life assurance companies are the custodians of great wealth on behalf of the Australian people. They have liabilities, in terms of statutory funds, which are the policies of the middle income group and wage and salary earners, amounting to £501,800,000. It is interesting to consider how these funds have been employed. Advances on policies amount to £22,900,000. They hold Australian Government securities to the value of £236,000,000; other Government securities, £42,800,000; securities of local and semi-governmental bodies, £80,400,000 ; debentures, preference shares and other investments, £29,200,000. Loans on mortgage total £79,400,000. With the exception of £19,000,000 of fixed assets, and other assets amounting to £9,200,000, the whole of the assets of the life assurance companies of Australia are already committed. I do not see how it can be claimed by implication that there is available to the Australian Government a vast sum of money in terms of savings and investments, loosely described as central bank credit. The Labour party claims frequently that the trading banks have the money. It is well to have a look at that aspect of the matter. The deposits of the major trading banks not bearing interest amount to £1,006,400,000; deposits bearing interest total £234,900,000; bills payable and all other liabilities, £15,900,000; balances due to other banks, £54,900,000. Their total liabilities amount to £1,312,100,000. Their assets include coin, bullion, and Australian notes, £32,700,000; cash with the Commonwealth Bank £31,600,000; special accounts with the Commonwealth Bank, £436,500,000; Australian public securities, £105,400,000; loans, advances and bills discounted, £664,100,000; bills receivable and other assets, £26,900,000. The Australian trading banks have no money available for investment, and the only funds available to the Government are in special accounts.

Senator Cameron:

– What is the value of their capital holdings?

Senator CORMACK:

– It is well known that the honorable senator who has just interjected believes that the trading banks have immense assets and that a capital levy should be imposed on them. Let us consider the financial position of the Commonwealth Savings Bank. At the 30th June, 1951, depositors’ balances and accrued interest totalled £533,000,000. The bank’s assets included Australian Government securities to a value of £437,900,000 ; cash balances and money at short call, £54,000,000; securities of other governments and of local and semigovernmental bodies, £39,200,000. In other words the people’s deposits in the Commonwealth Savings Bank are already fully committed in terms of Government securities. The balance-sheet of the Central Bank as at the 14th May, 1952, shows that the bank has total liabilities of £999,300,000. Its assets include gold balances held abroad, £315,600,000; Australian coin, £2,300,000 ; cheques and bills of other banks, £7,800,000; Government and other securities, including treasurybills, £545,200,000. It is therefore clear that the assets of the Australian people are already fully committed. To repeat the oft repeated definitions and diatribes and rhetoric of the Australian Labour party, wealth is the creation of the people’s efforts.

Senator Cameron:

– Not all of them.

Senator CORMACK:

– Senator Cameron may be in touch with some divine and miraculous power that I do’ not know about.

Senator Maher:

– Black magic.

Senator CORMACK:

– Yes. Wealth is produced by the efforts of the people. The wealth of a nation is based upon the investment and energy of the people, and there is no magic way to prosperity in this country. Wealth can only be produced in concrete terms, that is in goods. The wealth of the Australian people can only be increased by the production of more goods, although the Labour party supports no economic theory of that kind. Rather do honorable senators opposite believe in the restriction of the production of goods. Now, however, they are brought face to face with the. fundamental problem that this Government is facing, that is, that we cannot again become solvent until we produce more goods for our own people and for export. The whole of the efforts of the Labour party have been directed to the production of goods for consumption in Australia and not for export. I shall conclude by quoting what must be the grossest understatement that has ever been contained in a report issued by a government in the history of the Englishspeaking race. Having invited Australians to keep their eyes on the light on the hill - which apparently only he could see - the late Mr. Chifley issued a report which embodied a blueprint of full employment in Australia. It contained a very significant paragraph which relates to the problem that now faces us - that of being able to export a sufficient volume of primary products to enable our standards of living to be maintained. The paragraph reads as follows: -

The rural industries present a series of problems which the Rural Reconstruction Commission is at present examining. When the Commission’s work is complete, the Government will publish a detailed statement of its policy in relation to primary producers in a full employment economy, and set out the measures by which it is proposed to improve and stabilize their standards of living.

The plain and blunt truth of the matter is that the Labour Government was in no way interested in the primary producer, whom it regarded as the hewer of wood and the drawer of water, and it formulated and gave effect to a policy which brought Australia to the verge of bankruptcy. We are now paying the penalty for that policy. The only way out of our present difficulties is for every person in the community to work more assiduously. I support the Government in its determination to obtain more work from the people.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- If the situation that confronts Australia were not so tragic we might have smiled, or even laughed, at the efforts of SenatorCormack to defend the economic policy of the Government. That situation, however, is too tragic to be laughed about. When responsible supporters of the Government rise in their places to defend its economic policy in the circumstances that exist in Australia to-day. we expect them to survey our problems and indicate what the Government is doing to overcome them. Senator Cormack did not follow that course. On the contrary, until he began to cite myriads of figures relative to the activities of banks and insurance companies, he repeated the old, old story, which comes so easily to his tongue, about the alleged sin? of the Labour Government. If, by some extraordinary chance, this Government remains in office for another 50 years, its supporters will undoubtedly repeatedly talk about the alleged sins of the Curtin andChifley Governments. Surely honorable senators opposite realize that it is not the policy of the Labour party that is under criticism. They know that the Government must answer the criticism, not only of Opposition senators, but also of the generality of the Australian people for misdeeds which have brought about the present economic crisis. When SenatorCormack rose to continue the debate on behalf of the Government, after the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) had replied to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), the best he could say was that Mr. McGirr, the Premier of New South Wales, had been responsible for the introduction of the 40-hour week, and that that innovation was at the root of all the evils that now confront us. The honorable senator also said that then the seeds of inflation grew like weeds around our feet. The 40-hour week was introduced, not by Mr. McGirr, but as the result of a determination of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Who among us works a 40-hour week? It seems to me that the man who works the longest hours is invariably the man who has to work hardest. Lot us consider the countless thousands of persons who work in the Commonwealth Public Service in the great cities of this continent. None of them has worked a 44- hour week during the last 25 years. When the 40-hour week was introduced at the result of the judgment of the court, public servants were working from 36 to 40 hours a week under awards which dated back to the period of World War I. Expressed in its simplest possible terms, the position is that the man who gets out of bed during the winter months in the hours of darkness, commences work at 7.30 a.m. and does hard physical work till 5.30 p.m., is apparently the only worker who, in the view of honorable senators opposite, should work longer hours. If those who work in less arduous occupations set an example by agreeing to work longer hours, there may be something to be said for increasing the hours of labour of hard-working men. How many honorable senators opposite work a 40-hour week?

Senator Paltridge:

– Many of us work 56 hours a week.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Very few honorable senators opposite work even a 40-hour week. Senator Cormack followed the line that he usually follows in the Senate. He is a specialist in the sort of dirt in which honorable senators opposite indulge when they say that Labour wants inflation to bring our society to ruin. He knows that the statement is absolutely untrue, and that the representatives of the Labour party and their supporters have as much to lose as has any other person in the community if society crashes to ruin, and that they have as much to gain from economic stability as has any other section of the community. The honorable senator has said that inflation is world wide. Of course it is! But if honorable senators opposite will compare statistics relating to the progress of inflation in Australia with those relating to inflation in other countries, they will realize that the flame of inflation has burned much more rapidly here, because of the incompetence of this Government, than it has elsewhere. They will learn that inflation in Australia is four times as severe as it has been in the United States of America during the last two years, and is twice as severe as it has been in the United Kingdom during that period.

To-night, we expected to hear honorable senators opposite offer some solution of the many problems that are besetting the people of Australia. Those who normally would never vote for Labour candidates are disturbed at the manner in which the economy of this country has been destroyed as the result of the maladministration of the Government. They do not know where to turn. If they have listened to Senator Cormack in the expectation of gleaning some hope for the future, they have listened in vain. No one can disguise the gravity of the situation,, and no excuses can exonerate this Government from blame. Those who have led Australia to the verge of economic bankruptcy are the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) and other members of the present Government. Unfortunately, the same incompetent men have the task of trying to lead us back from the verge of the abyss. Man-power and management are equally as important in successful government as they are in the realm of business and industry. Unfortunately, the quality of the man-power in the -present Government is not of the kind, that will save Australia from the crisis that now confronts us.- It is of no use to turn back to what has happened in the past. What matters most is that, in such a short time>. an extraordinary adverse change should have occurred in the Australian scene..’

After the Labour Government left office, the seeds of inflation were rapidly sown. Labour bequeathed to “the incoming government a tight economy that had no equal for stability elsewhere in the world. That fact was made clear in. reports of the United Nations, which described Australia at that time as tnt most solid country in the world in which inflation had made but little inroad. After December, 1949, the downward trend began. The vast overseas balances which had been accumulated by the Labour Government to finance the purchase of capital equipment that was needed for our development, were rapidly dissipated. The greatest harm was done in the first year of office of the MenziesGovernment. When the parties opposite took control of the treasury-bench, and Ministers accepted their portfolios and seated themselves comfortably on the luxurious upholstery of ministerial motor cars, they did not realize the difficult task that lay ahead of them in administering the affairs of this country. Indeed, they thought that the country could run itself, and they allowed the wheels of administration to slow down. As a result of their inertia, inflation was unchecked. When Ministers were asked” what they proposed to do to honour theirpreelection promises to the people, they said, “Wait until we introduce our first budget. You will find that it will contain the remedies for inflation “. They eliminated capital issues control, and’ allowed investments amounting to no less than £100,000,000 to flow into production of all kinds without restraint, thus giving a fillip to inflation, from the effects of which we shall not recover for many years. They opened wide the gate, and” permitted money to be invested, without hindrance, in all sorts of enterprises. That has always been the history of conservative governments.

When the damage “was done, the Government re-introduced capital issues control. If that control “were abolished to-day, not £5,000,000 worth of new capital would be issued by Australian companies and firms in the next twelve months. The money market has dried up because, during the two and a half years of administration of this Government, the confidence of the investing public has been destroyed. Public loans are now under-subscribed. Even those companies and concerns which have been given permission to raise new capital are unable to obtain their limited requirements. Some of them have written to the Capital Issues Board for permission to defer an approach to the market, because they know that the source has dried up. A Government spokesman promised to introduce an excess profits tax. Nobody knows what has happened about that proposal. One would need to be a blacktracker in order to keep track of this Government’s forgotten promises.

When the Treasurer introduced his second budget, we saw clearly what had happened in the intervening period of twelve months. Indeed, the Labour Government’s budget of 1949 was almost doubled in the second year of office of the Menzies Government. These are matters for which the Government must answer to the people. The Government must explain to them why it has changed the whole economic picture of this country. When Labour left office, the basic wage, weighted over all Australian capital cities, was £6 9s. a week; to-day it is £11 3s. a week. Even a child in the political kindergarten can understand the pressure that such an increase must exert upon those in receipt of fixed incomes, the recipients of age and invalid pensions, and the struggling parents of large families. As each month passes, the position worsens, and each shilling in the family pay envelope buys progressively fewer of the necessaries of life. The Government was confused when it finally came to look at the situation which had galloped away from it; the forest fire of inflation had obviously got out of control. The Government then deliberately encouraged a policy of importation. In this chamber, Minister after Minister rose to defend that policy.

They said that it was deflationary. When members of the Opposition warned them of the effect that it was having on Australian industry, they replied, “ That is good. Of course, there are men out of employment in various industries, but goods are now easier to obtain “. Men came to Canberra, waited on the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, and showed them facts and figures in order to prove what was happening in the community. They were laughed at. Then, all of a sudden the Government appreciated the nature of the plight in which it had placed the country.

Honorable senators will remember that exotic foodstuffs were among the goods imported into the country. They are still being advertised for sale. They include such commodities as mushrooms in champagne fine, which can be bought in city stores today for 25s. 6d. a jar. The importation of commodities such as that used up our overseas credits. However, the importation of luxury foods did not throw Australians out of employment. During the nine months that ended in March of this year, when import .restrictions were imposed, the importation of men’s outerwear increased in value from £400,000 to £2,750,000; heating and cooking appliances from £722,000 to £1,388,000; vacuum cleaners from £740,000 to £1,700,000; washing machines from £1,600,000 to £4,000,000 ; refrigerating appliances from £1,500,000 to £2,750,000; and towels and towelling from less than £1,000,000 to £2,600,000.

Senator Wright:

– Are all of those items luxuries?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; ALP (N-C) 1941-42

– Of course they are not. My point is that every article to which I have referred could be efficiently manufactured in this country. For instance, there are sufficient facilities in this country to manufacture our complete requirements of towelling. Yet the importation of towels and towelling increased from £1,000,000 to £2,600,000 . in nine months. The result was that Australian towelling mills were closed down. For a long time the Government has been talking of the importance of production.

Now it has discovered that many commodities that are used in everyday life have been overproduced. The days have gone when it was necessary to place one’s name on a list for certain aricles Australian labour has been thrown out of employment because of a short-sighted policy which, in a few months, frittered away our overseas assets and flooded our markets with imported goods. Like prodigal sons, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have squandered our national reserves by allowing the importation of commodities which could have been manufactured here. The whole situation reeks of incompetence. If the Government believes that it possesses the confidence of the people it should go to the country and ask them to support its policy.

The decentralized factories, such as textile factories .’which a Labour government started throughout Australia in the early days after the war, have closed down in hundreds.

Senator Robertson:

– Has the honorable senator any figures in connexion with business firms which have gone bankrupt?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Mr. Thornycroft, the President of the British Board of Trade, recently stated that of Great Britain’s exportable surpluses Australia took 36 per cent, of textile goods, 29 per cent, of motor cars, but only 13 per cent, of machinery. I point out to honorable senators that throughout Australia the basic shortage is that of manpower. British manufacturers had been taking big orders from Australian firms for machinery and were promising delivery in three, four or five years. I suggest that if Australian importers were good enough to take such a large percentage of certain British exportable goods, the British firms should have given us a greater share of those capital goods upon which the basic development of this country depends. Perhaps the truth is that we did not try to get a larger share because the Australian Government did not know what was really coming into the country.

Having squandered the national reserves overseas, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are now trying to raise little loans in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and they obtained 30,000,000 dollars from the United States of America which has to be repaid in September. Truly, our leading political figures are waltzing matilda around the world, trying to borrow back a few pounds of the money which they dissipated in nine months. In that time our overseas balances fell from approximately £800,000,000 to £300,000,000. We. are led to believe that when the figures to the end of June are made known it will be found that very little is left. The Government has earmarked £100,000,000 of that £300,000,000 foi1 expenditure on oil and oil products.

Senator Vincent:

– So what ?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– If the honorable senator does not know what that means I shall have to tell him. It means that as a result of import restrictions and the loss of our overseas wealth, Commonwealth and State public works must be reduced; that there must be reduction of expenditure on defence and immigration; that our standard of living must be lowered; and that a policy of retrenchment must be followed, lt will be found that after all the efforts, to achieve deflation, the effect of import restrictions is inflationary.

When Labour was in office, the Australian £1 was so valuable that it was strongly suggested that it should be appreciated. The only possible action that can now be taken is to devalue it against sterling. Thus, in approximately two and a half years the Government has almost ruined the economy of the, country. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has stated, the country and its man-power are too good for us to allow them to be ruined.

Senator Grant:

– This Government has ignored the fact that the value of the British £1 also is decreasing.

Senator Cormack:

– What about the need to support the British £1?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The effect of this Government’s action has been to weaken the British £1. If we had conducted our trade with the United Kingdom in a reasonable manner, we should not have geared their production to uch a pitch that unemployment would he automatically created throughout thai country when we imposed import restrictions. Reverting to an interjection made by Senator Robertson, I should like to see figures dealing with the bankruptcy of English firms because of the import restrictions imposed by the Australian Government. Is this Government hippy about its record?

Senator Cormack:

– Yes.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– One would not gain that impression from listening to Senator Cormack, because he ignored the position completely. Unless this Government can do a little better, the people of Australia will be greatly disappointed.

The sole achievement of the Government has been to solve the housing problem. In the suburbs of Sydney hundreds of completed houses are available, but buyers for them cannot be found. The Government has cured the disease by killing the patient. It has clamped down credit restrictions so that people who want houses, and whose future is sufficiently bright to entitle them to borrow money to buy them, are now walking past them because the Government has allowed homes to be priced out of their reach. It has permitted the basic wage to be almost doubled in two and a half years. The fact that the basie wage has increased from £6 9s. to £11 3s. in that time points to maladministration. The Government has ignored the pleas of the Opposition to attempt to hold the basic wage structure, which is the most important element in costs to-day- Seventeen brick yards have closed down in Sydney. Roof tilers, who a few months ago were producing a most important item in home construction, are now out of work. Supplies which were almost unobtainable a short time ago are now piling up on the factory floors.

Senator Wright:

– Is not the honorable senator appalled by his own previous insanity ?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Apparently the truth which has emerged from all of the matters to which I have referred has not penetrated the honorable senator’s head. Perhaps it is because his head has stronger protection around it than most people have.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator should not be jealous of my hair.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am not concerned with that part of the honorable senator’s head. I am worried about his brain. The record of the Government during the last two and a half years proves that Australia had a great government when the Australian Labour party was in office. This Government lied itself to power in one of the most shameful episodes in our political history. That of course will be forgotten. We are here but a short time; the Australian nation will continue for long after we have gone. When we compare the eight years of Labour rule in war and peace, with the disgraceful, hopeless, condition of this country after two and a half years of administration by this coalition Liberal’ party-Australian Country party Government, it becomes quite clear that only the Labour party is capable of keeping the economy of this country on an even keel. Honorable senators opposite promised in 1949 to restore the Liberal-Country party £1 of 1939 ; to-day housewives are praying for the return of the Chifley £1 of only two and a half years ago. The problem that besets the family man whose wages have been far outstripped by prices, who hopes to educate his children, and who has to stand up to commitments such as insurance policies in order that his future -may be protected, is tremendous. I am sure that honorable senators opposite have no conception of the financial plight of working people to-day. This Government has ruined the Australian economy, and to me it seems a miracle that any Administration could have done so much harm in such a short time.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– It is regrettable that the statement on economic policy that we are now debating was treated by Senator Armstrong with what is called on the stage “ complete ignore “. He did not mention one feature of the statement. He merely raised a minatory finger, and with the tragic air of a manufacturer, torn from the mushrooms in champagne that he apparently buys in large quantities, complained bitterly about the importation of goods that the people of Australia badly needed and the presence of which, in this country did much to reduce inflation. Undoubtedly, if we were to follow the course that he openly and implicity advocated, we should impose a huge tariff on all imports, and thus place in a privileged position a few large manufacturers who would be able to make fortunes by charging consumers unnecessarily high prices for goods. The voice that came to us across the chamber was the voice of Armstrong, but the larynx was the larynx of Latham Withall. The honorable senator confined his attention largely to import restrictions. If the British Government was unwilling to allow this country to become a debtor instead of a creditor, the Australian Government had no choice but to impose import restrictions. No government could be expected to know in advance that a British government would refuse to allow Australia to run into debt to the United Kingdom because, after all we have been a debtor nation in the past. I do not criticize the British Government’s attitude, because the British economy too must be safeguarded, but it was a surprising attitude to take, and, as I have said, no Australian government could have been expected to anticipate it. However, if that was the British Government’s view, then the Australian Government took the correct, and the only action, quickly. I trust that the Government of the United Kingdom will allow us to run into debt as the United Kingdom has run into debt with us in past years, so that import restrictions may be liberalized.

Senator Benn:

– We still have about £300,000,000, in Great Britain.

Senator GORTON:

– That is quite true but, in the absence of import restrictions, that balance too would have been exhausted in a matter of months. If our London funds had been completely exhausted, and the Government of the United Kingdom had adhered to its decision not to permit Australia to run into debt, all trade between Australia and Great Britain would automatically have stopped. Both the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senator Armstrong indulged in destructive criticism and only the Leader of the Opposition attempted to make any constructive suggestions. He opened his speech by quoting a journalist, unwept, unhonoured, un- sung and unnamed, and upon that shaky criticism of the Government he based a substantial part of his speech. He spoke of the raging inflation that we were experiencing to-day. That is not true. I do not think that any person in this Parliament or out of it will agree that inflation is progressing to-day as fast as it was some time ago. Reference has been made to the cost of living increases of the basic wage, but strangely enough no mention was made of the last basic wage increase which was the lowest for many years and which in Victoria was only 3s. a week.

Senator Hendrickson:

– It was not a “ fair dinkum “ adjustment.

Senator GORTON:

– I do not propose to argue that matter. The fact remains that it was a cost-of-living adjustment made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court as were the other adjustments referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. As Senator Cormack has said, to suggest that raging inflation is still being experienced, is to express the wish rather than the thought. Senator Armstrong himself will agree that not only has the pace of the basic wage rises slackened, but also that building costs are coming down. Vegetable prices, too, are falling in Victoria. I submit this Government’s economic policy has done much to reduce inflation.

I come now to the reasons why it has been necessary for this Government to take stringent action which many Government supporters, .both in and out of the Cabinet, dislike, but which they regard as the lesser of two evils. The Leader of the Opposition said that the seeds of inflation were sown during the war. That was a perfectly fair and correct statement. The Labour Government was not responsible for sowing those seeds; but unquestionably their growth was greatly assisted by the introduction of the 4’0-hour week which, in New South Wales, was inaugurated not by the arbitration authorities, but by legislation passed by the Labour Government of that State. As one who has worked with his hands for a. 4S-hour week, a 44-hour week, and a 40-hour week, I say without hesitation that a 40-hour week is much pleasanter; but it does not produce as many goods as a 44-hour week produces. Any alteration of working hours that reduces the volume of goods, must inevitably assist the growth of the seeds of inflation. It may be that some people are prepared, for the sake of the extra leisure permitted by the 40-hour week, to put up with the consequential increase of inflation, but it is of no use shutting our eyes to the fact that the reduction of working hours is definitely inflationary.

Senator Armstrong said that this Government had allowed successive basic wage rises. I remind the Senate that, soon after the 1949 general election, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court increased the basic wage by £1 a week. Can this Government be blamed for that? Should we have intervened and attempted to prevent the court from granting the increase? To say that an adjustment of the basic wage made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has beer “ allowed “ by the Government suggests irresponsibility on the part of Senator Armstrong, or a complete ignorance of the true history of the £l-a-week rise. As I have said, the seeds of inflation were sown during World War II. In 1950, another war burst upon this country, and once again an impetus was given to inflation, but honorable senators opposite failed to mention that. Why did they fail to mention it if the purpose of this .debate is to get a clear picture of the situation, and to plot a course that will take us out of our difficulties? Participation of this country in the war in Korea as a member of the United Nations had the full support of the Opposition in this Parliament, with the exception of one or two Tasmanian representatives. We have agreed to back up the United Nations police action which is a war action in Korea. That conflict has contributed substantially to the spiral of inflation, not only in Australia, but also in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The prices of essential war materials such at copper, oil, rubber, and cotton have soared and we could not help importing into this country some of the inflationary pressures that have accumulated throughout the world. The great Labour Government about which Senator Armstrong has been prating never had to face a problem of inflation as great as that confronting this Government; yet we are being accused on all sides of stopping developmental projects. The truth is that expenditure on public works, including water supply and electricity undertakings, is at a record level. We are told how the Chifley Government’s loans were always filled. That is not so. The Chifley Government’s loans were not always filled unless the use of bank credit can be regarded as a normal means of filling a loan. In any case, by comparison with the loan programme that the Commonwealth is expected to fulfil to-day, the loans raised by the Chifley Government were, very small. During the financial year 1949-50 the Labour Government tried to raise £92,000,000. Since then the present Government has given great assistance to the States. It has enabled them to install electric generating plants and build dams and roads. These are all works which will help to defeat inflation .because they will make possible the production of more goods. In the financial year 1950-51 instead of £92,000,000, the Government raised £175,000,000 for the States and in the current year it raised £225,000,000. Yet the Government was assailed by all the Premiers and by Mr. McDonald and Mr. Cain in particular for not supplying finance for electrical undertakings. Last year the Government provided three times as much money for expenditure on electrical undertakings in Victoria as had been spent on those undertakings during the twenty years up to 1945. The expenditure of the previous year was also a record. The number of men employed on public works last year was greater than the number that had ever been employed on them before. If the Opposition alleges that the Government should not have financed such developmental works as this-

Senator Armstrong:

– We do not say that.

Senator GORTON:

– I am glad that the Opposition does not make that allegation. Faced with inflationary pressures and the need for the production of more goods, the Government has had to take certain unpleasant action. It raised taxes, but not to the terrific extent that the

Leader of the Opposition mentioned. It raised the rate of income taxation by 10 per cent. not by £450,000,000. The Government took the classic action of budgetting for a surplus, an action which was attacked violently at the time by honorable senators opposite. Do those honorable senators agree with that action now, or do they contend that the money should have been left in circulation in order to add to the country’s purchasing power and increase the high prices which they deprecate so much 1 I believe that it was right to budget for a surplus and I thank God that the Government did so. The works programmes of the States would be in a parlous position if it had not. For the first time in the history of Australia the Government under-wrote the loan programmes of the States and bore the full brunt of public objection to taxation while the States tried to take the full credit for spending the money that the Commonwealth had raised.

The Government had to take other unpleasant action for which it was attacked by the Leader of the Opposition. It had to impose credit control and capital issues control. If a government is to embark on a huge programme of public works in order to defeat inflation it must provide capital for those works and it cannot allow millions of pounds to be invested privately unless .they are invested in essential industry. Consequently the Government imposed capital issues control and credit controls. In its desire to defeat inflation, the Government has steadily increased the output of basic materials which are absolutely necessary for this purpose. Coal production has increased, steel production has increased, and the price of steel has come down. Production of all basic commodities has risen in accordance with the promise that the Government made in 1949. These results have been achieved partly because Australia has had more industrial peace than it has experienced for a long time. This, in turn, has been due to the fact that the Government introduced legislation to enable the unions to enlist the assistance of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in rejecting those Communist officers whose job it was to stop production. Senator Sheehan and

Opposition senators from Victoria objected to that legislation at the time, but at least 30 unions and branches of unions have already taken advantage of it.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What rot !

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! I mUst ask Senator Hendrickson to refrain from interjecting. The remark that he has just passed is a classical example of his interjections, which must cease.

Senator GORTON:

– If Opposition senators do not believe that the Government’s legislation has enabled the unions to relieve Communists of their posts I invite their attention to the case of Mr. Short who took advantage of this legislation, and to the Communist Mr. J. J. Brown, who now has his tail between his legs. Mr. Brown tried to prevent elections in the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union because he knew that this legislation would enable him to be defeated. The positive action on the part of the Government to which I have referred has contributed to the slowing down of inflation.

The Leader of the Opposition said that this is a socialist Government because it has used credit control and capital issues control. He stated his conception of socialism as the adoption of a course of action for the good of the community instead of for the advantage of a particular person or industry. That conception does not accord with my definition of socialism. I define socialism as State action to prevent any person from earning his living in a particular industry or enterprise. That is what the Labour Government tried to do when it tried to drive Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited out of competition with Trans- Australia Airlines, and when it tried to prevent the private banks from competing with the Commonwealth Bank. It cannot be said that this is a socialist administration because it believes in the government supply of electricity or in the operation of government airlines in competition with private enterprise. The socialism in which the Opposition believes involves the prohibition of private people from engaging in some field of enterprise. Although the Government may use some of the implements which the Opposition has used it will not use them for the same end. It will not prohibit people from earning their living and, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, carving out a niche for themselves in the future of this country. The Government has made use of controls in order to check inflation which it has already slowed down.

The Government has been most unfairly criticized in connexion with circumstances which arose out of a recent meeting of the Loan Council. The Loan Council was established because when all the States were competing on the loan markets without any controlling authority they forced interest rates and underwriting rates up, brought out one loan before another was finished, and got into a state of chaos which led the Labour Government of New South Wales to repudiate its debts. Consequently, the Loan Council was set up in order to co-ordinate borrowing, with the Commonwealth as the sole borrowing agent. When the Loan Council met it was within its competence to try to borrow any amount that it considered that the market would yield. It is completely untrue that the Commonwealth has prevented the States from borrowing money. Under the terms of the Financial Agreement the Commonwealth cannot prevent the States from borrowing money but it has to act as agent for the States. Indeed, the Commonwealth promised to help the States to raise finance. In effect, at the meeting of the Loan Council, the Premiers said, “ To stop public works or slow them down would be a tragedy “. We must agree with that statement. They said also, “ But we know that the loan market will not yield enough to continue them “. That is correct. Then they said to the Australian Government, “ Why don’t you raise taxes in order to obtain the money that we require?” Such a course of action would defeat its own object by drying up revenue, but if the Premiers consider that it is the proper way to raise more money they are fully at liberty to collect taxes within their own States. They would be able to retain all the moneys so collected while they receive only a proportion of the moneys collected under the uniform taxation scheme. By refusing to impose taxes in their States the Premiers admitted that the increase in taxation would be worse than a reduction of loan programmes. Then the Premiers said, in effect, “ Issue unlimited quantities of bank credit. Loan works have already risen from £72,000,000 to £475,000,000. Issue unlimited quantities of bank credit so that loan works costing £800,000,000 may be financed next year, and the year after that you can issue another £1,000,000,000 and drive every body into a state of misery without increasing production or, indeed, getting the works completed “ The Commonwealth Government refused to do that and it has given an assurance that there will be no unemployment as a result of its policy, because if unemployment does develop it will review the position.

The results of the Government’s policy have become apparent in the last basic wage adjustment. So far as the Opposition’s proposal to fix prices is concerned, I should be glad if the Leader of the Opposition would explain how it is possible to issue an unlimited quantity of bank credit, raise pensions, raise wages, reduce working hours, not increase supplies of goods and in those circumstances pass a law fixing prices and expect it to thus prevent any further price rises. The Government prefers the harder and only effective way.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– It is refreshing to hear somebody speak a good word about the Government. It is a long time since J have heard anybody who has spoken so enthusiastically in support of the Government as Senator Gorton has done. The consensus of opinion amongst the public is that this Government is lacking in leadership, and that its policy has discouraged industry and brought confusion in business circles. The people believe that the sooner that the Government vacates office the better.

Debate interrupted.

page 580

ADJOURNMENT

ARGENTINE ANT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PIESSE:
Western Australia

– On the 5th March last, in the early hours of the morning, I spoke on the subject of the Argentine ant. Out of consideration for honorable senators I r.hen spoke for only four minutes, and I take this opportunity to expand my remarks. Since I last spoke I have had an opportunity to visit Melbourne., parts of which are badly infested with Argentine ants. Thanks to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (Mr. Casey), [ have been enabled to discuss the matter with Dr. Nicholson, of that organization, and have interviewed an entomologist in Victoria. I have written to municipal authorities in every area throughout Australia which is known to be infested with Argentine ants in order to learn whether the pest is being controlled, or whether it is still spreading. I found that in no case was the ant being eradicated, but it was continuing to spread. T have asked the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to see whether it is possible to discover a more effective agent than DDT with which to destroy the ant and, as a result of that inquiry, I found that they are experimenting with chlordane and dieldrin with success. I know that in come of the States entomologists have been working on the problem for a number of years. When answering a question the Minister stated in the House of Representatives that the Argentine ant is a recent importation into this country. That may be true of New South Wales, but the ant has been in Western Australia and Victoria for more than ten years. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is working in co-operation with the State Agricultural Departments in an effort to control the pest. I hope that this co-operation will be continued and extended. I understand that a conference of State officials is to be held next month in Canberra at which the problem will be discussed, and I trust that their discussions will be fruitful. So far, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania are free of the Argentine ant. We should endeavour to prevent it from spreading to these States, and at the same time try to eliminate it from the others.

Senator O’flaherty:

– The Argentine ant is on the border of South Australia now.

Senator PIESSE:

– Then we should try to keep it from going any further. The ant is a menace to householders, and also to agriculture. In the United States of America the ant, by its destruction of aphids and mealy bugs, has been responsible for much damage in sugar cane plantations. Imagine the damage that would result to the cane-fields of Queensland if the ant were to spread to that State. The Argentine ant is active only in the summer time; in the winter it goes to sleep. I hope that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the State Departments of Agriculture will not go to sleep this winter, but will make active preparations for an attack on this problem in the coming summer. In response to an inquiry, the Town Clerk of Sydney has informed me that Argentine ants now infest an area bounded by McEvoy, Harley, Belmont and Fountain streets, within the. City of Sydney. His letter contains the following paragraph : -

Advice was later received from Hie Department that the ants hud infested a second area in the Alexandria district and also an area covering about two hundred (200) acres in the vicinity of Observatory Hill, Miller’s Point, Sydney. It is understood that the second area in Alexandria, which is bounded by Beasonsfield Street, Beaconsfield Lane, Collins Street, and Queens Lane, is lightly infested.

In the metropolitan area in Western Australia, Argentine ants formerly infested only a few places, but the infestation now extends from. Fremantle to Midlands Junction over an area of 15,000 acres. It is also prevalent in Albany and Bunbury. In the Melbourne metropolitan area the infestation is widespread. I have received a lot of help on the subject of the ant from Mr. Delanyen, inspector in Camberwell, a district in which, I understand, one of the Ministers in this Senate lives. I was informed by this inspector that DDT spray had been found fairly effective, and that TC15 was being used with effect as a dusting powder outside houses.

Some people may wonder how the ants spread so quickly. They are usually carried in earth around the roots of plants sent from nurseries, or taken from one private garden to another. They are also carried in firewood. In that way areas which have been cleared can become infested again. For the benefit of those who have never seen an Argentine ant I have brought some into the Senate chamber in a bottle. They are honey brown in colour, and any honorable senator who wishes to do so may inspect them afterwards. The Argentine ant constitutes a national problem, and should be treated as a national enemy. I understand that 20 tons of chlordane has been ordered from the United States of America for use in the campaign against Argentine ants in “Western Australia. I hope that this order will not be held up by dollar restrictions. It is generally recognized as being better than DDT. The campaign against the ants must be directed and controlled. Money must be found to finance it, and as this is a national problem the money should come from the national purse. At the present time, local authorities have to find the money that is needed, and we know that local authorities are always short of money. The ants spread slowly at first, and it may be some years before the infestation is large enough to be noticed. Then they spread very rapidly and eventually drive out all other kinds of ants. In some areas they are practically driving the people out, too, and property values are falling.

It was stated in a recent radio talk that Argentine ants had now become a serious problem in Spain. They have spread throughout many parts of Europe, and we know that they are in South Africa, Australia and in North and South America. They constitute a very real danger. One honorable senator who is in this chamber tonight has a lemon tree which Argentine ants are killing by stripping the bark off the roots. If they get into orange groves they will do an enormous amount of damage. There are no Argentine ants within 100 miles of my own home, but I am concerned to see that the spread of this pest is checked as I realize the worry it can become as a household pest. Because the ants go underground during the winter, many people tend to be indifferent to them. In an infested area some people are willing to spray their houses, while others are not. One lady, who asked for help to get rid of the ants, refused to put down poison bait because she said that it might constitute a danger to her cat. “Where the ants are present in large numbers they are very destructive. I know one man who proposed to make his friend a present of a fowl. He killed and dressed it, then tied it in a hag and hung it to a rafter. Next morning when he went for it there was nothing in the bag but the bones. The ants had travelled down the rope, found their way into the bag, and eaten the flesh off the bones. I hope that the Government will make dollars available for the purchase of chlordane. “With the use of this chemical, it is expected to reduce the number of Argentine ants by 95 per cent. I suggest to the Minister that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization should conduct demonstrations in affected areas in the three States affected in order to show the effectiveness of control measures. Although the Argentine ants have gone to sleep for the coming winter, I assure honorable senators that I have no intention to sleep on this matter, because I consider that this pest constitutes a real menace to Australia. Prompt steps should be taken to eradicate it. We need co-ordinated co-operative action in dealing with this pest.

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

– I, and I am sure all other honorable senators, am indebted to Senator Piesse for bringing to our notice the menace of Argentine ants in our midst. I shall bring the honorable senator’s speech to the notice of the responsible Minister, and I am quite sure that all possible assistance will be given by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to combat this scourge.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 582

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Air Force Act - Regulations - Statutory

Rules 1952, Nos. 14, 34.

Air Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory

Rules 1952, No. 30.

Audit Act - Finance - Treasurer’s Statement . of Receipts and Expenditure for year 1950-51, accompanied by the Report of the Auditor-General.

Banking Act - Regulations - StatutoryRules 1952, No. 15.

Bankruptcy Act - Twenty-third Annual Report by the Attorney-General, for year ended 31st July, 1951.

Broadcasting Act -

Australian Broadcasting Control Board - Third Annual Report, for year 1950-51.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952. No. 13.

Commonwealth Bank Act-

Appointment - A. Borland.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 16.

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 26.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act- Regulations - Statutory’ Rules 1952, No. 12.

Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, Nos. 29, 31.

Defence Act and Naval Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. . 17.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act -

National Security (Industrial Property)

Regulations - Order - Inventions and designs (6).

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, Nos. 10, 27, 28.

Fifteen-year Meat Agreement with the United Kingdom.

High Commissioner Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 21.

Hospital Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 11.

Judiciary Act - Rules of Court, dated 12th April, 1952 (Statutory Rules 1952, No. 23).

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for -

Banking purposes - Melbourne, Victoria.

Defence purposes -

Amberley, Queensland.

Bullsbrook (Pearce Aerodrome), Western Australia.

Byford, Western Australia.

Dutson, Victoria.

Lara, Victoria.

Department of Civil Aviation purposes -

Benalla, Victoria.

Casino, New South Wales.

Cooktown, Queensland.

Postal purposes -

Bingara, New South Wales.

Bureen, New South Wales.

Glenorchy, Tasmania.

Lyrup, South Australia.

Noonbinna, New South Wales.

Ranceby, Victoria.

Ridgley West, Tasmania.

Salisbury, Queensland.

Southport, Queensland.

Nauru - Ordinances - 1951 -

No.6 - Lands (Validating).

No. 7 - Compulsory Education.

No. 9 - Capitation Tax Repeal (No. 2).

Naval Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 25.

Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Ordinances - 1951 - No. 5 - Lottery and Gaming. 1952-

No. 1 - State Children.

No. 2- Oaths.

No. 3 - Prisons.

No. 4 - Jurors and Witnesses Payment.

No.5 - Nurses and Midwives Registration.

No. 6 - Mining.

No. 7 - Interpretation.

No. 8 - Pharmacy.

No. 9 - Local Courts.

No. 10- Health.

No. 11 - Marine.

No. 12 - Alice Springs Administration.

No. 13 - Darwin Administration.

No. 14 - Traffic.

No.15 - Jury.

No. 16 - Lottery and Gaming.

Regulations - 1951 - No. 9 (Darwin Administration Ordinance) .

Pharmaceutical Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 22.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1952 -

No. 1 - Postal Telecommunication Technicians’ Association (Australia).

No. 2 - Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia.

No. 3. - Transport Workers Union of Australia.

No. 4 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 5 - Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association.

No. 6 - Boilermakers’ Society of Australia.

No. 7 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 8- - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia.

No. 9 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 10 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

Public Service Act -

Appointments - Department -

Air - J. P. Jost, B. G. Newman.

Army - T. W. N. Doreian.

Attorney-General’s- M. Bram.

Commerce and Agriculture - T. G. Fay, C. A. Hartmann-Smith, E. L. Jenkins, W. W. Stenning, D. B. Williams..

Defence - A.L. Greenwood.

Defence Production - H. F. A. Hergt, C. E. Newbery, D. J. Nichols.

Health-R. C. Baddeley, P. M.Brown, G. G. Burniston, M. R. Hinton, D.O. Longmuir, Q. E. Schwab,W. F. Tomlinson.

Interior - R. D. Johnston, P. E. Rayment, M. E. Redman, J. W. Sleep.

Postmaster-General’s- G. B. Dellora, A. H. Faulkner, T. C. Fry, K. W. Hamilton, A. Johnson, O. F. Lobert, S. B. Roberts, R. E. Slutzkin, J. H. Ward.

Repatriation - F. Catariuich.

Shipping and Transport - J. R. Hay.

Supply - J. E. Allan, H. C. Baghurst, C. H. Bain, W. S. Blake, D. J. Butler,

Trade and Customs - J. L. de Teliga, P. Matheson.

Works and Housing - F. P. Ashby, C. Bailey, A. G. Bowrey, J. L. Chittleborough, J. B. Crawford, D. B. Creevey, E. W. Foster, L. Griffiths, R. C. Ivery, R. C. Mallinson, A. R. McAlpin, L. A. Pocook, T. Ramsay, K. R. Staple ton, P. A. Thomas, W. F. Thrupp, G. S. Williams.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, Nos. 9, 19.

Re-establishment and Employment Act -

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, Nos. 32, 33.

Repatriation Act - Repatriation Commission - Report for year 1950-51.

Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos. 1-9) -

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 18.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Australian Capital Territory Soil Conservation Council - Fourth Annual Report and Statement of Receipts and Expenditure, for year 1950-51.

Superannuation Act -Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 20.

Trading with the Enemy Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 24.

Whaling Industry Act - Second Annual Report of the Australian Whaling Commission, for year 1950-51.

Senate adjourned at 11.17 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 May 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1952/19520521_senate_20_217/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant