/
19630404_reps_24_hor38.xml
6412 lines (6412 loc) · 641 KB
/
19630404_reps_24_hor38.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1963-04-04</date>
<parliament.no>24</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>3</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>369</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<business.start>
<day.start>1963-04-04</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay)</inline>took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>369</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION</title>
<page.no>369</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from 3rd April (vide page 367), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Calwell</inline> - </para>
<quote>
<para>That this Government no longer possesses the confidence of this House. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DQF</name.id>
<electorate>Bruce</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SNEDDEN, Billy</name>
<name role="display">Mr SNEDDEN</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Speaker,</inline>we come to the second annual censure motion. This is becoming an annual event. We can look forward in the future, year after year, to the Opposition putting forward a censure motion, because we shall be here in government while honorable members opposite are still in Opposition. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell)</inline> brought forward a censure motion which was entitled in grand language " The Seventeen Points ". Each of them failed. By the time he reached the stage of reciting the tenth point the people had forgotten what the first ones were. This year, apparently, he has decided not to fall into that trap, and he has not put up any points at all. He has not given any reasons for the censure motion. The real reason, of course, is unsaid. It is his realization that the tide has moved and that if he is to have any chance at all something must be done immediately. But even that hope will be frustrated. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>One should compare the solidity of the Government and of the back bench people who support the Ministry, with the pitiful spectacle on the other side of the House. Honorable members opposite have faction fights. This fellow does not speak to that fellow, and that fellow does not speak to somebody else. They dislike each other. They do not believe each other. They do not trust each other, either within their caucus or in the Parliament. They have constantly before them the unity ticket question. They would like to avoid it but they cannot do so. It is always with them. It is a very severe running sore. The difficulty is that not only can they do nothing about it, but they do not want to do anything about it, because they are being held to ransom by those very people who organize the unity tickets. </para>
<para>Apart from the eternal unity ticket there is the infernal leftism that constantly pervades the Labour Party, in the party sense and also in the organizational sense. There is nothing that the members of the party can do about it. Recently, we had an exhibition of the external control of the party. We have heard of the 36 faceless men. Perhaps " faceless " is not quite the right word. I am sure that the honorable member for Bass <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Barnard)</inline> has a face. Often, he turns the other cheek, and his face often has a wry smile on it when he is speaking of unemployment; but he is one of the 36 men. Compare that background with the background of the parties on this side of the House. They are solid parties. We are in government with a majority of one, but we are just as much in control of this House as we were with a majority of 31. We know what we are doing. We know what the Government is doing, and the Government has our confidence and our trust. Furthermore, day by day the electoral appeal that we are making to the people of Australia grows greater. We have confidence. We have loyalty. </para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition has had his difficulties, and they are very great. They have been manifested over a period of years, both inside the House and outside it. He is greatly assisted by his Deputy Leader, the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam),</inline> who is a very clever man. He will follow me in the debate and I am sure that he will display great cleverness. He will display to the people of Australia how he can put an argument, how he can turn a phrase- </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'BRIEN, Reginald</name>
<name role="display">Mr O'Brien</name>
</talker>
<para>- Professional jealousy! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DQF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SNEDDEN, Billy</name>
<name role="display">Mr SNEDDEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, not professional jealousy. He is a Silk of the New South Wales Bar. I have no jealousy whatever. I merely was pointing out the capacity that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has. It is a pity that he will not use it for the benefit of his party, but he will not so use it because his interests are in direct conflict with those of his leader and with that group of the Opposition which has as its leader the honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Ward)</inline> and the other group which has as its leader the honorable member for Griffith <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Coutts)</inline> who now sits on the back bench. He formerly was the Opposition Whip but his views were in conflict with those of the left wing of the party and when the left wing took over out went the honorable member. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The conflict for leadership is demonstrated at every point. The honorable member for East Sydney is constantly inciting riot. We had the spectacle one night of the Leader of the Opposition leading some members of his party in one door while the honorable member for East Sydney was leading others out another door. The honorable member for East Sydney gives no loyalty whatever to his leader or his deputy leader because, make no mistake, the honorable member still regards himself as a highly-favoured colt in the leadership stakes. </para>
<para>But the Leader of the Opposition can call upon others in the party. For instance, there is the honorable member for Hindmarsh <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Clyde Cameron)</inline> who is a great help. Do honorable members remember his speech on New Guinea two years ago? At that time he said, in effect, "If I were an indigenous inhabitant of New Guinea I would take up arms against Australia to force independence". That statement did not have a very favorable reception and the honorable member was quiet for a couple of years; but only this year he announced what he thought was Labour policy on New Guinea. The Leader of the Opposition ran hot foot into the chamber and said: "That is not my view. The honorable member is speaking for himself". So the honorable member for Hindmarsh can be a great help but he was not a help on that occasion. </para>
<para>You cannot really blame him for acting as he did because the Leader of the Opposition wanted to declare war on Indonesia about a year ago. I recall the headlines in the press telling us what the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do to New Guinea. I wonder what the 36 men would have thought if the Leader of the Opposition had asked the Government to declare war on Indonesia. They would not have liked it a little bit. They are pacifists. They are people who believe in the integrity of Australia and they think every one else does so, too. But we are Australians who stand on our own feet and are prepared to face up to our own responsibilities. </para>
<para>If you compare the reality and the loyalty on this side of the House with the factions and internecine warfare which exists in the Labour Party, how can you believe that this want of confidence motion has the slightest chance of success? Measure the Labour faction fights against this Government's achievements. You can point to a number of things. For one thing, we have stability in very fine measure. The consumer price index has scarcely moved for two or three years. So stable has it been that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has not found it necessary to alter the basic wage. Then there is the matter of savings. Never have the savings of the Australian people been at such a high level as they are to-day. There have been tremendous increases in production. I suppose there is no simpler way to point to the incredible increase in production than to refer to the fact that 41,502 motor cars were registered in January and February, 1961. In January and February, 1963, there was an increase of almost 11,000, the number registered being 52,325. We have had a comprehensive legislative programme. We have had realism in defence and we have had development in our foreign affairs. Over the period of this Government we have moved into the field of Asian relations. We have demonstrated that we are a country whose views ought to be sought, a country capable of putting sound and reasoned views. </para>
<para>Now let me come to the speech which launched all this - the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable gentleman did not merely confine himself to the sixteen months of this Government's present term. He cast his net wide to drag in all the little sprats, or minnows perhaps, that he could find. He said - and I think this is one of the most important aspects of his speech - that he hoped that the House would carry the motion. It is a very scant hope. We have the numbers to oppose the motion and there is nobody on this side of the House who will use his vote in any other way. I am sure that the Leader of tha </para>
<para class="block">Opposition would like to be as confident about the people on his side of the House. </para>
<para>It is worth examining the honorable gentleman's speech in some detail to see the errors and fallacies that crept into it. The honorable gentleman said, for instance, that deposits with the trading banks had risen by £221,000,000 and that savings in the savings banks had risen by £220,000,000 in twelve months. He also pointed to the fact that the loan market had produced £206,000,000 after only two of the usual three flotations. This is a mere £647,000,000 in total. If you divide that amount by the number of people in the work force you find that in two years every member of the work force in Australia, has on average increased his savings by £150. </para>
<para>It is only a matter of two or three years ago that we were pointing to the fact that the average savings of the people amounted to £112 each. The figure moved up and up, and we were very proud of that. Even the Opposition did not seek to detract from it. So, in this period of stability, the amount of savings of every member of the work force has increased by £150. The Leader of the Opposition uses this as a vehicle to criticize. What nonsense that is! He said that there must be lack of confidence if the people are saving. This is just a non sequitur - a complete non sequitur. Simply because people are anxious to save, and have never been so well-equipped to save, is not a demonstration of lack of confidence. For years, Government policy, guided by economists, was directed to asking people to save. The message got through and they are saving, because economic conditions are such that they can save. </para>
<para>The honorable gentleman said that there is lack of confidence. According to him, the people are not spending because they are saving. Yet personal consumption over the last two years has risen by £244,000,000 a year. This is something to be inordinately proud of as a government. The honorable gentleman also said - </para>
<quote>
<para>A year after I had proposed a budgetary deficit of £100,000,000, the Treasurer, without blinking an eyelid, actually budgeted for a deficit of £118,000,000. </para>
</quote>
<para>The honorable gentleman forgets completely the time factor involved. He has no advisers, and apparently he cannot do the job himself. He is not able to look at the critical economic indicators that exist at the time and make a decision on those economic indicators as they are. What is true to-day cannot be thought to be necessarily true in a year's time. </para>
<para>The Opposition works on a very simple theory. That is, that if you keep saying the same thing, ultimately it is going to be the right thing. Then you can look back, with the benefit of hindsight, and say, "I was right". Having established that you must have been right you then go round assiduously saying: " I am infallible because I was right. If I had been able to do then what somebody else did later, and which proved to be right, everybody would admit I was infallible ". This is the sort of theory on which the honorable gentleman works. </para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition referred to banking proposals, but he merely said that they would be dealt with later by others. He spoke about interest rates and used the same cyclic argument. That is: If you say what you believe often enough conditions will change and you will be proved to have been right. He said that in August last year the Opposition asked the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> to reduce interest rates. In fact, interest rates were reduced in March of this year, seven or eight months later. One cannot assume that because it was right to do that in March, 1963, it would have been equally right to do it in August, 1962. Indeed, the reverse is the case. The Opposition in general, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, have adopted a rigid, doctrinaire approach to economic matters. The rigidity is such that the honorable gentleman cannot make adjustments to meet specific subjects. The consequence is that he preaches his own infallibility. </para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition spoke about low interest rates. Let us compare interest rates in Australia with those in other countries. The yield on the longterm market in Australia is 4.9 per cent., in New Zealand 5.2 per cent., in Canada 5.1 per cent, in France 5 per cent., in West Germany 6.2 per cent, and in Italy 5.5 per cent. I have been able to learn of only two countries which have a lower interest rate than that in Australia. I refer to the </para>
<para class="block">United States of America and Belgium. In the United States of America the rate is 3.9 per cent. Would honorable members opposite like to swap interest yield on the long-term bond market amounting to 1 per cent, for the degree of unemployment that exists in the United States of America? Of course, they would not. The level of unemployment in that country is approximately 5 per cent. In fact, the President has appointed an economic advisory committee which is dedicated to finding a means of reducing the level of unemployment in that country to 4 per cent. I would sooner have a higher interest rate than have America's unemployment problem. In Belgium the interest rate is 4.1 per cent. Let honorable members opposite think of the troubles that Belgium has experienced recently. I should not like to swap interest yield amounting to .8 per cent, for those troubles. </para>
<para>Then the Leader of the Opposition came to the subjects of education and housing and made this remarkable statement: "I shall not deal with these. I rely on the debates of last week." My recollection of the debates we had last week is that the Opposition was tarred. Speakers on this side of the House wiped the floor with honorable members opposite. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition said that he relied on the performance of the Opposition in those debates. In relation to housing, we rely on our performance as a government. Ninety thousand commencements is not a bad performance. Although the Leader of the Opposition said he would leave it to his colleagues to deal with the subject, he did make one little foray into the field of housing and spoke about the adoption by the Government of the fallacious premise of the free market. If the free market is a fallacious premise, what is not fallacious? What is certainly fallacious is the socialist, doctrinaire rigidity of controls that the Opposition believes in. We on this side of the House do not believe in such controls. Two great things separate us on this side of the House from honorable members opposite - first, the socialist control and subjugation of the individual and, secondly, the preparedness of honorable members opposite to walk hand in hand with the party's left wing and, indeed, with those who espouse Communist policy. We do not believe in those things, and we never will. </para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition dealt with three other matters - foreign investment, the development of the north, and defence. He said, "You might not see a string connecting them all, but I assure you that they are connected ". He said that the Government had refused to regulate the volume, the direction and the nature of foreign investment. That is a blanket criticism. He did not tell the House, the nation or the world what the Opposition would do. What would it do - control the direction? What is the direction to which he objects? He has not told us. What is the volume to which he objects? What level would he fix it at? He has not told us. He has not told us the nature of the investment that he would permit. He makes a blanket accusation and leaves the matter unexplained, expecting that to be accepted as the basis of an argument on a censure motion. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BUCHANAN, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Mr Buchanan</name>
</talker>
<para>- He has not been told himself. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DQF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SNEDDEN, Billy</name>
<name role="display">MR SNEDDEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is true. He says that we must have foreign investment because of our trade situation. Has he not looked at the statistics? Does he not know of the tremendous advances we have made in export action? Is he not aware of the business community's reaction to the export incentives introduced by the Government? Australia is making good progress in the export field. As far as foreign investment in Australia is concerned, I for one welcome it. I am sure that all honorable members on this side of the House and the great Australian public welcome overseas investment in this country. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition sought support for his argument from a statement by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Staniforth</inline> Ricketson. That statement is certainly no support for the opposition's censure motion. </para>
<para>The statement was - </para>
<quote>
<para>In some quarters there has been a tendency to suggest that we in Australia should be grateful for the good things they have provided - </para>
</quote>
<para>That is referring to foreign investments - as indeed we are. However, no one can justifiably claim that the entry of overseas capital into this country has been due to any factor other than the desire to take advantage of Australian conditions and markets for the purpose of making profits. </para>
<para>In other words, the person quoted by the Leader of the Opposition has pointed to the state of the Australian economy and has claimed that it attracts people from all over the world. Is that the basis for a censure motion? I will not have anything to do with objections to the word " profit " because I hold that the profit motive is a perfectly respectable motive. It is a motive that encourages the dynamic activity that is so necessary for the development of Australia. What does the Australian Labour Party propose? Have the 36 men given an answer? If noi, why does not the parliamentary party be bold and brave, and say what it thinks, or are honorable members opposite afraid of being disciplined and expelled? </para>
<para>The next matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition was the development of the north. This was a magnificent part of his speech. I thoroughly recommend it for close scrutiny. He said that we must have great development in the north. He proposed two things - a separate ministry to deal with the north and taking the Snowy Mountains team to the north. He did not tell us what that team would do when it got there. Where is the magic in a ministry or in a team of men if you do not know what they will do? Nothing in this regard has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The facts are that the Government has been developing the north. The north is growing. The Government has taken a great many steps to increase the development of the north. </para>
<para>Next the Leader of the Opposition dealt with defence. This was the best joke of the lot. In effect, the honorable gentleman said: "There have been rumours that the Government will not attack us on economic matters but will attack us on our defence policy. I want to get in early and stifle all this. If the Government attacks us on our defence policy, that will be a nasty thing to do because it will injure Australian relations with the United States. It would be wrong to introduce the slogans of the cold war into the debate". Having said that, and thinking he had protected his flank, he told us what Labour's defence policy was. Do you know what that policy was as revealed by the Leader of the Opposition? He told us that it was the same policy as Labour held in the darkest days of 1943 - that is, the defence and the inviolability of Australian territory. What does that mean? Not a single thing! The point is that the Leader of the Opposition did not have the courage or the authority to extend further into the defence field; he did not have the authority of the 36 men. They are the people who determine Labour's defence policy and to say that it is a defence policy is meaningless. The honorable gentleman was in difficulty there because this is the help he received from the honorable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Beazley)</inline> during the debate on the Estimates, on 5th October, 1961 - </para>
<quote>
<para>The nuclear-powered submarine is a capital ship and is a major weapon for the country that has it. I recognize that very great difficulties confront any government in this matter. If a country is entirely equipped with nuclear weapons, every military action that it found itself involved in would tend to become a global nuclear war. If such a country had no conventional weapons, it would have to turn every action into a major war or be comparatively defenceless. So I am not making the criticism that there should be no conventional weapons; I am making the criticism that to have no nuclear weapons at all is really, in modern circumstances, to have no defence. </para>
</quote>
<para>That is the view of another honorable member who is on the executive of the Opposition. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate>HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr Clyde Cameron</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> I wish to make a personal explanation in respect of a charge made against me by the honorable member for Bruce. It is quite untrue and seriously reflects on me. A few minutes ago the honorable member stated that I had said in this Parliament that if I were a New-Guinean I would take up arms and fight against Australia. He said that I had made that statement in the Parliament, but I refer to " Hansard ", page 2841, volume 29, of 15th November, 1960, and not 1959, as the honorable member said. I was speaking to the bill to amend the Crimes Act. I said - </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<quote>
<para>I point out that if agreed to this legislation will apply to the natives in the trusteeship Territory of New Guinea who have no right to vote, and therefore cannot remedy their grievances by constitutional means. . . . They have to remain in complete subjection, politically, socially and industrially until such time as this Government chooses, out of the goodness of its heart, to free them from the situation in which they now find themselves. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I want the House to remember what follows, and I place emphasis on this part of my statement - </para>
<quote>
<para class="block">I say now, and have always said, that there is absolutely no justification for overthrowing an established government by force provided the people of the country concerned have the right to remove a government constitutionally. But where the people of a country have not the constitutional right to remove a government, they have every justification for overthrowing that government by force, because there is no other way of removing it. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6V</name.id>
<electorate>Darebin</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COURTNAY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr COURTNAY</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Speaker,</inline>I suppose honorable members on the other side of the House will be disappointed to know that I propose to vote for the motion now before the House. I have watched the techniques they have employed, particularly since yesterday afternoon. There was, for a while, no defence against charges laid by the Opposition, not only on the occasion when the motion was moved, but on prior occasions. That was particularly so last night when the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> clowned, because that was the only alternative left to him. Insofar as the Government has a defence policy, its supporters, in order to defend it against the Opposition, must perforce claim that the situation is all that it ought to be. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>On the question of unemployment, the Prime Minister went on record as saying, " It is not bad ". The honorable member for New England <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Drummond)</inline> went on record as saying, " It is the best situation in the world ". And Government supporters applauded him for saying that. </para>
<para>When honorable members opposite attempt to defend themselves on the question of education, they mainly repeat what the Prime Minister said in his White Paper in order to show what they have done. This looks formidable, until it is measured against the actual requirements of education. <inline font-style="italic">All</inline> the White Papers in the world will fail to alter the facts, and the facts will be analysed by the people and their representatives at a meeting to be held in the Exhibition Building, Melbourne, during May. Representatives of all the education authorities will meet and I know that they will condemn the Government, not for what it has done but for doing too little. The honorable member for Barton <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Reynolds)</inline> had the temerity to ask a question about Commonwealth aid for education. The Prime Minister laid down flatly that this was the concern, not of the Commonwealth, but of the State governments. He said, "There it is, and a hundred speeches will not alter it ". </para>
<para>Every time Government supporters try to defend their record, they must say something that will react against them. They speak about defence and about the solidarity of members of their party on this matter. I have not seen evidence of this solidarity-, but I do know that when a Minister, almost a newly appointed Minister, had the temerity to say what he thought about the European Common Market, although subsequent events proved that he was more accurate than were the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McEwen),</inline> he was given the order of the boot and the Prime Minister was given the order of the noxious weed. </para>
<para>Government supporters are supposed to be completely united on the question of defence. I have here the March issue of the " Australian Liberal ", the official organ of the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales Division, and I refer to page 8. I note that a conference was held. The honorable member for Higinbotham <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Chipp)</inline> said that honorable members opposite do not receive instructions from outside; they are given advice. I suggest to him that he should always take that advice, because if he does not something will happen to him. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>3V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHIPP, Don</name>
<name role="display">Mr Chipp</name>
</talker>
<para>- Are you speaking from experience? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6V</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COURTNAY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr COURTNAY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not had the experience yet. I joined the Australian Labour Party well knowing what the rules pa the constitution were. If our federal conference, our policy-making body, makes a decision, I follow that decision. I make no excuse for that. The report in the "Australian Liberal" under the heading " State Council " had this to say - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>Concern with recent developments in SouthEast Asia and with some recent criticisms of defence policy appeared to be underlying factors in a lively debate in State Council on February 25 on a motion by Wakehurst Federal Divisional Conference that the defence vote " should at least be doubled". </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I ask honorable members to note that this refers to a lively debate. If such a debate took place during a meeting of our policymaking body, it would be referred to by honorable members opposite as a shocking shambles. Let us read about what went on. </para>
<para>The report continued - </para>
<quote>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. W.</inline>C. Wentworth said he had been shocked by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir William's</inline> speech and by the fact that he was pleased. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">We all know who <inline font-weight="bold">Sir William</inline> was. He was <inline font-weight="bold">Sir William</inline> Spooner. </para>
<para>The report continued - </para>
<quote>
<para>It is not a healthy situation. You cannot double a defence vote overnight. It takes time. But the Government has been in office for thirteen years and now caught " with its pants down "... </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The picture of the Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Townley)</inline> being caught with his pants down - presumably his striped pants - is not very edifying. However, we have it on the authority of the honorable member for Mackellar <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Wentworth)</inline> that, after thirteen years, the Government has been caught with its pants down. The article continued - </para>
<list type="lowerroman-dotted">
<item label=".">
<para>. we are not spending per head one-half of what Britain is spending, or one-sixth of what the United States is spending . . . </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">Then, the Minister for the Army <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Cramer)</inline> was reported as follows: - " Even if I were given £50,000,000 more now, I would not have the people to spend it on," <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cramer</inline> said. "You can trust the Government to do what is possible and proper." </para>
<para>As with education, as with unemployment and as with housing, the Government is so satisfied on defence that even if it had another £50,000,000 to spend it could not spend it. That is the general attitude that has been maintained by the Government throughout. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COCKLE, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Cockle</name>
</talker>
<para>- What rubbish! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6V</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COURTNAY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr COURTNAY</name>
</talker>
<para>- A certain amount of rubbish would be contained in anything I read in the official organ of the Liberal Party. However, these facts were quoted by one of your colleagues. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Honorable members opposite have claimed that the Labour Party lacks solidarity. I have pointed out before that their technique is to attack where they cannot defend. Government supporters prefer not to defend because, each time they defend, they are bound to make more statements which will not square up with the facts. The solidarity of the Labour Party is immensely superior to that of the Liberal Party. One Minister was sacked. He got the order of the boot for exercising the privilege of free expression which honorable members opposite claim they all enjoy. That privilege, apparently, does not extend even to a Minister. </para>
<para>Another sample of the attitude of the Government to which I have referred exists in connexion with the Common Market. In 1957 <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hendrickson</inline> raised a serious question concerning the implications of the Common Market negotiations that were going on in that year. The question that he asked is reported at page 760 of the Senate "Hansard" of May, 1957, and a part of the report reads as follows: - </para>
<quote>
<para>I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the calling of a meeting in Canberra, during the parliamentary recess, of representatives of the organizations mentioned . . . </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">They were rural, industrial and other organizations likely to be affected - so that Australia's position can be thoroughly examined and the full impact on Australian exports of meat, wheat, wool and butter can receive the closest examination. In view of the necessity to maintain a favorable trade balance, this matter is of serious importance to every section of the Australian community. </para>
<para class="block">What did the Government do? The then Acting Leader of the Government said - </para>
<quote>
<para>If I were the Minister for Trade, I would not call a conference . . . </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">And the Government did not. It let the situation go along and deteriorate. Not only did the Government do that - this shows the differences of opinion that exist among members and supporters of the Government - but many members of the Government parties supported Great Britain's entry to the European Common Market. I will quote one honorable member opposite. On page 66 of " Hansard " of 8th March, 1961, the honorable member for Fawkner <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Howson)</inline> is reported as saying - </para>
<quote>
<para>I believe that it is in the interests of everybody that the United Kingdom should join the European Common Market and that we should encourage everybody who can do so to try to move the United Kingdom towards that end. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">So honorable members opposite do not always have a unanimous opinion. </para>
<para>Yesterday somebody - I think it was the honorable member for Higinbotham <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Chipp)</inline> invited us to have a look at, and invited at least some of us to say something about, our attitude to foreign relations and foreign policy. The Government has not a very proud record in that respect. There are 1,700,000,000 people to the north of Australia. Many of them go to bed hungry each night. Their problems and their relationships with this Commonwealth are very important to us, but the Government rates them as being worth only a part of the time of the eleventh senior Minister in the Cabinet. At one time the Government gave them a part of the time of a heavyweight Minister - I refer to the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> - but now, when, as the House will agree, the situation is more serious, the Government has got down to giving them a part of the time of a bantamweight Minister. </para>
<para>I happen to know something of the Asian mind, having lived and worked with the Asians. My knowledge does not come from being on conducted tours or in prison camps. After all, one does not get to know the mind of the Asian peoples in prison camps any more than one gets to know the mind of the Australian people in the Goulburn prison. The Asian peoples have a newly found dignity and sensitivity. Their dignity has been outraged over hundreds of years. When we send a part-time Minister to those people, the first thing that happens is that they ask themselves, " Who is this Barwick? ". When they have a look - as they do, because they are a thorough people - they find that this Government has affronted them by considering them and their affairs worth only the part-time consideration of the Attorney-General. They also find that he docs not know much about Asia; that he was an eminent company lawyer; and that among his achievements is the Crimes Bill. They are a freedomloving people and they are fighting for their freedom, so they would not be greatly impressed by his activities in that direction. They also find that his mighty achievement was the family destroying Matrimonial Causes Bill. Asians do not like that sort of thing. </para>
<para>In their newly found liberties and their newly found dignities, they would feel that the Government could have done better; that at least it could have considered their problems so important as to be worth fulltime consideration; and that it could have sent somebody who was really worth while. What the Government has done, in my view, understanding their minds, is to convey to them a deep insult. They know well enough that the Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> is a close friend of a Prime Minister who has never befriended them in any of their struggles and who, if he did not actually support apartheid, was very prominent among those who did not oppose it very vigorously. They know that the Prime Minister interfered in the Suez crisis. They also know that he torpedoed what they were attempting to do at the summit conference in New York. I believe that if the Government considers the friendship of the Asian people to be really worth while it should give more consideration to their dignity and their aspirations than it is giving now. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JTP</name.id>
<electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
<name role="display">Mr BURY</name>
</talker>
<para>.- The honorable member for Darebin <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Courtnay),</inline> who has just sat down, rambled on and left the impression that whether he sits at the back over there or whether he sits at the back over here is a matter of complete indifference to him. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The extraordinary feature of this debate has been that speaker after speaker, including the honorable member for Grayndler <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Daly),</inline> who sits next to the honorable member for Darebin, has referred to my recent experience with the Government, trying to convey the impression that I encountered some great dictator who quickly chopped off my head. Honorable members opposite talk of independence of thought. Let me suggest to you, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> that there is such a thing as independence of thought and that there is also another thing which is important, and that is Cabinet solidarity. It so happened that I took a view which differed from that of the Cabinet on something which I thought at that time was very important. I still think it is important, although conditions have changed. In those circumstances the importance of Cabinet solidarity was recognized, but to suggest that there was a one-man type of dictatorship that organized this affair is completely misguided. </para>
<para>While I am on this subject let me refer to the silly myth about the great wisdom of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hendrickson,</inline> who, it is suggested, showed himself to be a great prophet when he referred to the European Common Market in a statement on, I think, 16th May, 1957. This issue has been around for years. Anybody who took any interest in what was going on in the world would have known and appreciated that issues involved in the development of the European Common Market arose long before 1957. Since we are talking in this way for the record, let me say that even I, in my maiden speech in this House, mentioned the European Common Market as a great issue that would cause us in Australia increasing concern. That statement pre-dated the one made by this great prophet. However, that is neither here nor there. Every thinking person outside the Parliament would have appreciated what was happening. The members of the Labour Party may not have understood the developments that were taking place, but to most of the world they had been obvious for a very considerable time. </para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell)</inline> made a reference to me in his speech. It is not that I am important, of course; it is simply that the honorable gentleman dragged me in because my difference with the Cabinet may have been considered useful as something with which to embarrass the Government. The Leader of the Opposition said that I had stated that the economy was moving sideways. Then he made a most intruiging addition to my statement. He said I had stated that the economy was moving sideways like a crab. I never mentioned the word " crab ", but I suppose he is preoccupied with crabs because they have been biting him for years. What I did say - and I repeat the general import of what I have been saying, as distinct from odd bits which may have been lifted and exploited in various directions - was that the economy was in basically good shape for further advance; that in some cases there was a certain lack of confidence, and that a large part of the business community was in the position of being liquid but reluctant. To suggest that the present atmosphere was primarily due to the Government's actions would be quite contrary to the main tenor of much of what I have said. </para>
<para>The unfortunate fact is that the Labour Party can never understand anything happening anywhere in the economy for which the Government is not responsible. This is a pitiful outlook, that the only group of people who count in economic considerations are the members of the Government. Of course the stage has now been set for economic improvement. Even the Leader of the Opposition referred to the amount of money that was available, although he went on to talk about confidence. If we really wanted to dampen confidence the most effective step we could take would be to carry this motion of want of confidence in the Government. Where would confidence be then? What would happen to this foreign investment which the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party so strongly dislike? Again he called to his aid <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ricketson,</inline> who is always interesting. Certainly he is often right, but he is also often wrong. Be that as it may, what the Labour Party is singularly silent about is what it would do with foreign investment. Would it stop foreign investment? Would it impose irksome conditions on foreign investment? Would it say that 50 per cent, or 55 per cent, of every company in which foreign capital is invested should be owned by Australians? Would it in fact move a finger to do anything about the position? We are entitled to know that, and foreign investors are entitled to know it because accidents can always happen. Sometimes the worst occurs and, by accident, a Labour government could come into office and it would probably be three years before the people woke up to what was going on. </para>
<para>The business community is entitled to know just what a Labour Government would do, what its policy would be and what its policy means. The Labour Party talks about foreign investment, but what in fact would its policy be about foreign investment? All this chatter goes on, but we have only to look at the record of Labour governments to see what could happen. When Labour was in office in a most tricky period of our foreign exchange crisis during the war and shortly afterwards, it always permitted the remittance of profits and dividends, with only une small and rather curious exception. Why did it do that? It did so because it was put to the then government that if it interfered with the process the stream of foreign investment would dry up. What has the New South Wales Labour Government done? It has established an office in New York to encourage the flow of foreign capital to the State. What does every responsible government do? It adds what resources it can to Australia's development. What is this useless chatter of the Labour Party designed for? It is designed to deter foreign investment. Until the Opposition comes forward and, instead of merely saytog that it just does not like foreign investment, instead of just snarling at foreign investment and so forth, says what it will do, its criticism of the Government is all just so much useless, idle chatter. </para>
<para>I have not risen to talk mainly about economic matters because the area of dispute is small. The Leader of the Opposition refers to an essay he read out six months ago advising the Government to do something, then he says that the Government has done it, and, because it has done what he says he advised it to do, he blames the Government. Then he reads another essay and says the Government has to do something else. If you stripped him of his essays and asked him a few questions about the economy, he would be a very puzzled man. Economic policy, which is certainly an area of conflict, and which we normally discuss in this House, is very small stuff compared with foreign policy, defence and security. They are fundamentals, and there are certain things that should be put straight in the record. One relates to the great days of 1943 and the war effort of the Labour Party. Among the members of the Labour Party - indeed, the prevailing majority of that Party, and certainly its rank and file members and those who are in this House - are patriotic men who are on Australia's side. But look at the history of the war effort of the Labour Party. At the beginning of hostilities, many of the members of the Labour Party were right in the war effort, but a large section of its members - the Communist influenced section - endeavoured to sabotage the war effort. They only started to give support when Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in 1941. I was in the Army with some of them in 1941. They were roped in and did not like it very much, but with the entry of the Soviet into the war we heard a different story. Of course, the enemy position was greatly reinforced in December, 1941, when Japan came into the war. Many people did not feel very secure in December, 1941. </para>
<para>The Labour Party came to office and was then in charge of the war machine. I do not want to detract from what the Labour Government did during the war years, except to say that the war effort' of Australia was made by the nation, by the armed forces and by the people in industry. Certainly, a large number of able men in the Labour Party worked very hard; but do not let us exaggerate. Whichever party was in office at that time would have done its very best. The industrial-based war machine was very largely built up before Labour came to office, because industry cannot be re-organized to fight a war in a year or eighteen months. Many of the foundations were laid beforehand. In fact, when Japan came into the war the military direction was handed over, very largely, to the Americans, and sensibly so. The Government of the day was sitting in a prominent position, with a marvellous publicity machine at its disposal. The present Leader of the Opposition then had at his hand a very ready instrument. The members of the Labour Government during the war years all played their part and gave good leadership. Do not let us detract from that, but so, one would hope, would any substantial group from the Australian Parliament, at any time and in similar circumstances. </para>
<para>Now let me come to events which happened after the war. During the war Labour was only too pleased to call the Americans in. They were our friends then. But what happened afterwards? The Americans said, " We would like to establish a permanent base at Manus ". The Labour Government said: " No, you can clear off now. Your work is done. You saved our skins, but there is no more need of you, and what is more, we do not trust you ". That is what the policy at that time amounted to. But what is the defence policy of the Labour Party now? The Government's policy is clear enough. We want to see to the north of Australia, between us and Communist barbarism, a belt of nations, peaceful and friendly, enjoying economic progress and with a rising standard of living. We are giving economic aid to those countries, and we are helping to educate their people on a large scale. An essential point is that we should put in our military forces to help the situation there. The standing edict of Labour Party policy, the edict of these 36 people from outside, is to pull back our troops. Do they want the United States of America to pull out of that area? Do they want the United Kingdom to abandon Singapore and Malaysia? Do they want the American and British armed forces to be removed from those areas, or only our forces? Do they want somebody else to do our work? </para>
<para>We want to hear about these things and to have them made clear. Apparently, Labour Party opinion on the defence position varies. At one stage we are attacked for not providing sufficient defence, and at another stage for wasting money. It is said that we should not spend so much money on defence, but should devote some of it to the construction of roads, or to some other purpose. In fact, the Government's policy is, within the scope of our resources, to build up the most efficient conventional arms that it can. Of course, under modern conditions our total forces could be only a modicum of what would be required for Australian defence in the event of a major world conflict. In such circumstances, what would be our position? The Americans have come along and said, "We need for our forces a radio communications centre in Western Australia ". Certain elements in the Labour Party - not all of it, of course - have said: "We have been misled. Things are being hidden from us". When the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> repeated the various announcements that he had made on the matter it was said that he had not mentioned the word " submarine ". </para>
<para>Any one who followed <inline font-style="italic">modem</inline> naval affairs to-day surely would not think of a naval communications centre from which submarines were excluded. With what types of vessel would such a station communicate - fishing smacks? What would anybody think that the station was intended to do? The suggestion concerning submarines may come quite genuinely from some honorable gentlemen opposite, but not from others. Many were aware of the implication from the first. For instance, the honorable members for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Cairns)</inline> and Reid <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Uren)</inline> were alert to it; and certainly the honorable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Beazley),</inline> who takes a great interest in naval matters, would have indicated, if he had been asked, that he had a very clear idea, in general terms, of what it was about. There is this constant hostility to the United States of America which runs through such a large part of the Labour Party and which could be disastrous for Australia. </para>
<para>This radio communications centre is ons of the essential things in the defence of the free world, because there will lie nuclear submarines with atomic warheads and hydrogen warheads stationed all over the world at strategic places. If Australia could not avoid the front line in 1914 - I think in World War II. we declared war on Nazi Germany even before France did - and if we were in Korea right at the beginning, how could we expect, as the countries of the world get closer and closer, to escape the next catastrophe, should one occur? To speak of a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere is to try to cut the world in half, to put your head in the sand and forget what is going on. I heard on the radio only this morning about the latest device - satellites cruising around in space within measurable distance. Nuclear bombs may be delivered from satellites circling the globe. How absurd it would be to suggest that a satellite 700 miles up in the sky would be used only to look at the Equator. When it reached the Equator, would it reverse gear? The sooner Australians, particularly those in the ranks of the Labour Party, realize that we are part of the free world and in the front line, and that we will survive or perish with the rest of the world, the better. </para>
<para>Right through this fantastic attitude of the Labour Party to the naval communications station runs mistrust of the United States of America and hostility towards it. </para>
<para class="block">Cannot any one opposite believe in the good faith and good sense of a friend? I happen to have spent five of the best years of my life closely watching the United States colossus at its centre, in Washington, and I have no hesitation in saying that by and large the American people are the most generous in the world. There are more people in America who think not in the nationalist terms but of saving the whole world and of the future of man and civilization than anywhere else. That thinking runs right through their schools. Of course, any one could pick out, say, a general from the Pentagon who was inclined to shoot off his mouth to the press and make the kind of silly headlines which rapidly get around the world and alarm some people. But what about the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament? However misguided we may think him, we certainly like and respect him; but if we were to judge him by his daily press statements - this constant shooting off of the mouth - what would we think? We do him the credit of believing that he did not gain the office he holds by being quite so silly as that. </para>
<para>The broad stream of our policy runs on. Suppose nuclear war is let loose and these submarines are in the Pacific, forming an essential part of the defence force of the free world. What will we do? The missiles are already in the air. Everything possible was fired when the war commenced. What will happen? In Canberra the Labour Prime Minister will blow a whistle and summon his 36. He has the whole of Australia to choose from, so where will the 36 go? They will go to the nearest possible spot to the Soviet Embassy. There, running around the bushes in the night, will be the Labour Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. At least wc can take comfort from this: The Leader of the Opposition, aged and ailing, is still a man with a certain courage; he is prepared to take risks and to run in the bushes in the dark of the night with the crown prince close at his heels. </para>
<para>However, the Leader of the Opposition did venture one serious challenge. He claimed that there should be a general election. In certain circumstances, this challenge must be taken seriously. The proposed United States base will be a vital link in the defences of the free world. You cannot have 100 or 200 people in complete agreement. We know from long experience that any agreement which is reached by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet certainly will preserve all reasonable Australian rights and sovereignty. Of that we can be sure. In the end, we can take only one of two positions on this. Either we go along with it or we adopt the attitude which has been taken by the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Cairns).</inline> In the final analysis, you are either in it or you are not. There is serious equivocation on this matter by the representatives of one-half of the nation. They can only be sure of narrow support for this base from the party generally, and an accident could bring that party to power. Ii. is only reasonable for Australia to say where it stands on this issue. If there is any serious equivocation, in the end the issue should be decided by the people of Australia at a ballot. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRF</name.id>
<electorate>Cowper</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGUREN, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGUREN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I support this motion because the Opposition is attempting to give Australia something it has not had in the last thirteen years, that is, government by the Australian Labour Party. We hope that it will not be very long before we are in office. The honorable member for Wentworth <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bury),</inline> in keeping with the general attitude of Government supporters to the debate, has treated the matter with levity. Honorable members opposite have smeared every member of the Labour Party and every Australian who voted for the Labour Party. Let me remind the House that 300,000 more people voted for Labour than for the Government parties, so in insulting us honorable members opposite are insulting the Australian people. There seems to be an outcry coming from the Government side of the House. I do not know why this should be, because honorable members opposite have done nothing to deserve even the privilege of interjecting. This Government has been in office for thirteen years but it has nothing to its credit. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The honorable member for Wentworth did mention something about the defence system that was built up prior to 1939. I remember only too well the conditions which existed between 1939 and October, 1941, when the Curtin Government took office. I was one of the unfortunate people who lived in the vicinity of the Brisbane line at the time arrangements were being made to shift cattle inland from the coast to feed the armed forces. I was one of the people who were given wooden guns to defend certain important projects. Those wooden guns sometimes created little disturbances. One night a soldier on guard challenged someone who was in a restricted area. He challenged him three times and finally said, " Stand or I will fill you full of white ants ". That was the kind of defence system we had in 1939. Then, thank God, we had an election and Curtin took the reins of office. In February, 1942, bombs were dropped on Darwin. Then Curtin sent his clarion call around the world, but directed it particularly to America because we had been more or less given away by every other country. The Liberals opposed that action. During the Budget debate in 1942 it was criticized by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Abbott,</inline> the then honorable member for New England, who wanted to know what right the Australian Prime Minister had to ask America for assistance. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Abbott</inline> wanted to know why <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtin</inline> had not approached personally the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of the United States and - this rather intrigues me - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stalin.</inline></para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDI</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EINFELD, Sydney</name>
<name role="display">Mr Einfeld</name>
</talker>
<para>- Uncle Joe! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGUREN, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Mr MCGUREN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes, Uncle Joe. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Abbott</inline> decried the Labour Government of the day because <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtin</inline> did not go to see Uncle Joe before approaching America for assistance. He claimed that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtin</inline> had done the wrong thing by not interviewing those world leaders. Another strange thing happened at about the same time. The then honorable member for Richmond attacked the Labour Government for not telling the people and the then Opposition in advance that the Prime Minister intended to seek aid from America. Any honorable member can read these things for himself in " Hansard " if he wants to learn the true record of the present Government parties. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Something like £2,000,000,000 has been spent on defence in the last ten years but still we are short of submarines, destroyers and aircraft of various kinds. We still are using Canberra bombers which probably were obsolete when we obtained them. We still are waiting for delivery of the Mirage fighters which were ordered two years ago. That is all we have to show for the expenditure of £2,000,000,000. We have reverted to the days of 1939 when the person who is now the Prime Minister told the world what a great man he thought Hitler was and told us in Australia that we should adopt some of Hitler's ideas. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DUTHIE, Gilbert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Duthie</name>
</talker>
<para>- That was 1938. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGUREN, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGUREN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is right, 1938. Our defence system to-day is practically in the same white ant stage as it was in 1939 when men were given wooden guns to defend Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWV</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Chaney</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is not true and you know it. That is just an attempt to decry the armed services, which did a magnificent job. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>381</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGUREN, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGUREN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The present Government's magnificence seems to be in its use of words. There is nothing magnificent about its record. There is nothing magnificent about the wave of prosperity about which we have been reading and about which we have heard so much from the Prime Minister. I am giving a few facts. The other night the Minister - I nearly said the " Minister for Unemployment ", but honorable members know his title - gave out certain figures and said that in a matter of a month or so we would have very few people unemployed in Australia. He neglected to tell the House that a special grant had already been made which will last about a month and will have a definite effect on the next month's unemployment figures. He did not say that people given work as a result of that grant would be back on the books again inside six or seven weeks. I am attacking the honorable gentleman because I feel that he plays an important part in the economics of this country. The Minister also did not mention the very tough pockets of unemployment that were created by the Government's recession ideas of a couple of years ago, although these hard cores of unemployment remain. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>I gathered some informative figures for the district between Taree and Murwillumbah, in New South Wales, which suggest that people who were thrown out of work in the timber industry during the recession, and have not returned to the same jobs, will continue to be a problem for the Government unless something is done about them. In November, 1962, Kempsey had 289 unemployed, in January, 1963, 340 unemployed, in February, 338, and in March, 315. In November, 1962, Lismore had 404 unemployed; in January, 1963, it had 498 unemployed, in February, 548, and in March, 502. At Murwillumbah in November, 1962, there were 177 unemployed; there were 209 in January, 1963, and in February, 251. The March figure was 239. You can see from these figures, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> that the position has remained consistent. </para>
<para>I have not the figures for Taree for November, 1962, but in January, 1963, the unemployed there numbered 307. In February in Taree there were 340 people unemployed and in March there were 315. This shows a 30 per cent, rise on the figures for 1961, in the worst part of the recession, but this has been very smoothly ignored by members on the Government side. </para>
<para>It is only a month or so ago that the Deputy Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McEwen)</inline> attended a conference in that district, and was careful to avoid any reference to the unemployment difficulties there. Perhaps the people attending the conference were too polite to mention unemployment to him, but in any case the problem was not mentioned. I cite the figures for this area merely as an instance, but the area has its counterpart almost anywhere in Australia. It is no good saying that things are different up there from anywhere else. We have the same picture all over Australia. The pattern of unemployment is the same everywhere, but the Government has done nothing whatsoever about the problem. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>382</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>BU4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANTHONY, Doug</name>
<name role="display">Mr Anthony</name>
</talker>
<para>- What about the money that the Commonwealth made available to New South Wales for the relief of unemployment and which the New South Wales Government paid into its Consolidated Revenue Fund instead of using it in the way intended? ?»Ir. McGUREN.- I will tell you where that question came from - the Grafton branch of the Australian Country Party. Our friend has raised a very interesting point, and I am glad to be reminded of it. I have a letter here from the Grafton branch of the Australian Country Party which says - t </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">At a recent <inline font-style="italic">meeting</inline> of this Branch- j </para>
<para class="block">This is from a branch of the Country Party. We are debating this motion now, because honorable gentlemen opposite are playing the game of two tongues, and I will prove that to the House. Honorable gentlemen ask why this censure motion has been moved. I repeat that the motion has been brought about by the fact that members on the Government side talk with two tongues to the people of Australia. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> on 8th September, 1962, 1 received a letter from the Grafton branch of the Australian Country Party which stated - </para>
<quote>
<para>Now that Flood Mitigation Councils are operating on several of the North Coast Rivers, the value of the jobs they are doing is becoming more clear. </para>
<para>The nation stands to gain much from the money invested in such works and the Branch resolved to approach the Federal Government with a request that they contribute on a £ for £ basis with the State Government to give the councils sufficient finance to expedite their programmes. </para>
<para>We therefore ask your asistance in placing this request before the Federal Government. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">On 4th October last I moved that the Government, as a matter of urgency, do something along the lines suggested by the Australian Country Party's Grafton branch. We all know the story. The motion was defeated by one vote. It was defeated because the honorable member for Lyne <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lucock),</inline> who was in the Chair at the time, voted against it, as did the honorable member for Richmond. </para>
<para>The Grafton City Council later asked the honorable member for Richmond what his approach to flood relief was. Now we have an example of the double meaning, double-tongued approach that members of the Government are using. As I say, the Grafton City Council wrote to the honorable member for Richmond and asked him for his opinion on the question of Federal aid for flood mitigation. The honorable member's reply was reported in the press under the heading " <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anthony</inline> Replies to Council Query " in the following terms: - </para>
<quote>
<para>Over the years he had consistently fought for the highest possible Commonwealth allocation to N.S.W. so that Commonwealth money could be used to carry out vital work such as flood mitigation. _ </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Now I will show the House the kind of representation we have in our area. The honorable members whom I have mentioned have their counterparts all through the Government side, and it is no wonder that the people object to them. I have here an extract from the report of the 1962 Flood Mitigation Conference, which was held from 29th to 31st May, 1962. The honorable member for Lyne attended this conference and had this to say - . . the reduced production costs attributed to flood mitigation work could be used in argument for Federal Aid. </para>
<para class="block">The same honorable gentleman moved out of the chair and voted against such a proposal in this chamber. These honorable members are typical of members on the Government side. Unfortunately, they and their colleagues have the running of the nation in their hands. I have given instances of the kind of double talk in which they indulge and of which the people are sick. That is the reason for this motion. </para>
<para>I want to give the House some facts on certain industries and with your permission, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> I will revert to the subject of unemployment. One of the industries I mentioned earlier was the timber industry. The 3/ 16th ply industry in Australia is absolutely finished because it cannot compete with Japanese imports. The Australian Plywood Board Limited, and various other organizations associated with the manufacture of plywood, have repeatedly asked for protection against imports. However, this has been of no avail, and the result is that our figures of production have fallen to about 30 per cent, of what they were. No assistance has been given by the Government to the people employed in semi-skilled occupations in the manufacture of plywood, timber-getting and various other jobs associated with the timber industry. </para>
<para>This Government was responsible for the introduction of a number of horror budgets which have produced an unfortunate state of mind in many people of Australia who, unfortunately, have not the capital to carry them over bad times. This is one of the prime reasons why we on this side of the House have moved the motion, which I support. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>383</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MB</name.id>
<electorate>Murray</electorate>
<party>CP</party>
<role>Minister for Trade</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr McEWEN</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline>I listened with interest to what the honorable member for Cowper <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McGuren)</inline> said, but it seemed to me to be a purely parochial speech about his own electorate. It is, indeed, an important electorate. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>383</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGUREN, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGuren</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was important enough for you to go up there to help the Australian Country Party candidate to try to win the seat. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>383</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr McEWEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is a very important electorate indeed, but the honorable member's speech had little to do with a general want of confidence motion against the Government. I listened with more interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell),</inline> who seemed to me to be completely engrossed in what has occurred in Australia over only the last sixteen months. That takes us back to a time that is rather significant for him. It was then that he failed to win an election against a government which had been in office for some twelve years. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition confined all he had to say to the period of 16 months since he failed to win an election against a government which had been in office for a record period. He had nothing to say about the general development of this great country of ours over the last decade or so. He made wild charges. I have read his speech and failed to find anything constructive that he had said in criticism of the functions of government for which I have carried a particular responsibility. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>In the normal political scene an attack is expected to be met, and indeed is met, by a counterattack. In my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of the whole House, when the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> spoke last night and took the Australian Labour Party's record and policy to pieces he did so with such effect that the Labour Party was left without a feather to fly with. Consequently, there is little need for the rest of us on this side of the House to dissect Labour's record, Labour's proposals, Labour's failures, and the outside control of Labour. It is against the background of the Prime Minister's devastating analysis of Labour's record and policies that I turn to treat the censure motion in a different manner and to bring to the attention of the House and the country as a whole the advancement of this great nation predominantly as the result of policies adopted by the Government. I do not intend to confine myself, as the Leader of the Opposition doubtless would wish me and other Government speakers to do, to dealing with the last sixteen months. </para>
<para>The growing strength and development of Australia during this Government's term of office has been phenomenal. The facts speak for themselves. That development is exhibited in our great rural, mining and manufacturing industries. Usually we associate development with new projects. Speaking in those terms, I point out to the House that never has any other Australian government attempted to undertake the gigantic projects which this Government has initiated or aided. Let us consider, for example, the development of the north. This Government has provided £16,000,000 for the construction of beef roads in the Northern Territory and north Queensland. No other Commonwealth government has ever helped to convert the extensive fertile brigalow areas of the north from their primitive state to rich agricultural country. This Government has undertaken to find £7,500,000 for that project. No other Commonwealth government has accepted responsibility for the provision of coal ports with adequate loading facilities. We have not been content with a limitation of the export earnings of our great coal-mining industry because of neglect to establish coal ports. We have adopted a novel policy by providing approximately £3,000,000 for such facilities. Moreover, we have assisted in the conservation of water. This Government has undertaken the construction of a great dam on the Ord River which will soon result in the surrounding country becoming really productive. The Government's undertaking to find funds for the great Chowilla Dam on the Murray River is further evidence of its record of achievement. </para>
<para>In addition to the projects I have mentioned, we have undertaken to provide £55,000,000 for the reconstruction of the Mount Isa railway line and the standardization of the rail gauge from Kalgoorlie to Kwinana. For the standardization of the rail gauge between Sydney and Melbourne we provided a sum of £15,000,000. All these projects are part of the record of a government which is determined to develop this country in our day. Over the past few years it has provided £6,500,000 to aid the search for oil in Australia. The construction or sealing of hundreds of miles of roads in the north form part of the story of real development. A sum of £20,000,000 has been found for the reconstruction of the Mount Isa railway, and the Mary Kathleen road in Queensland has been constructed with Commonwealth funds. </para>
<para>Let me turn now to our industries. I am proud to be able to recount that the tobacco industry in the Mareeba-Dimbulah area in the north, which was in a pitiful state - indeed it was a peasant industry when we inherited responsibility from Labour - this year will earn more than £8,000,000 for the growers. In other words, one small agricultural community in northern Australia will receive more than the whole annual pay-roll of the great Mount Isa mining complex. I am recounting a record of policies which have produced results. When Labour was in office <inline font-style="italic">2i</inline> per cent, of the content of our cigarettes was Australian leaf, but to-day the proportion is upwards of 40 per cent. In the mumbled, jumbled criticisms which the Labour Party has levelled against the Government, we have not heard of a record like this. Let me remind honorable members opposite, too, of the development of the great Rum Jungle uranium complex and the encouragement this Government has given to the discovery and exploitation of our bauxite deposits, and to the production of aluminium principally in Tasmania but now pardy in Western Australia and Victoria. Developments of this kind have transformed our prospects for the future. Let the Queenslanders opposite who prate so much about the north listen to what I have to say about the sugar industry. When Labour was in office the sugar industry could not export 500,000 tons of sugar a year, but this year, consequent upon the adoption by this Government of policies of encouragement, the industry will export 1,250,000 tons. Honorable members opposite say that the north has been neglected, but just let us compare that achievement with Labour's record. </para>
<para>I now wish to touch upon developmental projects which really merit individual consideration but which constitute part of the development of our manufacturing, mining and rural industries. A spectacular advance has been made in this sphere since this Government assumed office. Over the past thirteen years the production of pig iron and ingot steel in Australia has more than trebled, cement production has become two and one-half times as great, the production of sulphuric acid has doubled, superphosphate output has nearly doubled, and great new industries for the manufacture of petrochemicals, synthetic rubber, plastic materials, television apparatus, nylon yarn and tinplate have been established. This is all the result of a climate for expansion and confidence which has been established by this Government. This is the real story. The production of the coal-mining industry, which was a withered, fumbling, troubled, pitiful idustry when Labour was in office, has risen by 64 per cent. Lead production has increased by 29 per cent. Zinc production has increased by 77 per cent. Copper production has increased from 13,000 tons a year to 96,000 tons a year. What is the Opposition criticizing? Is this increased production wrong and to be condemned? I am not telling a fairy-story; these are cold facts flowing from this Government's policies - from its determination to establish in Australia and in the minds of Australians confidence in the Government and create a climate that encourages and leads to individual and company decisions to do things in this country. In the field of manufacturing industry there is a greater degree of confidence in our protectionist system than existed before. The Tariff Board and its procedures have been streamlined. No longer is it necessary for an industry to wait until Parliament assembles before it can obtain a decision from the Tariff Board. Now this may be done when the industry needs protection irrespective of whether the Parliament is in session. This is a big thing for industry. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>385</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PETERS, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Peters</name>
</talker>
<para>- It should have been done ten years ago. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>385</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr McEWEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why did not Labour do it years ago? The Labour Party never thought it was unsatisfactory for an industry to wait one, two and sometimes three years for a Tariff Board hearing to conclude and a decision to be taken, but under this Government an industry that has real prob lems knows that it can get a decision within 30 days. The Government's policies- are one of the basic things that give confidence to Australian industry. Industry knows that the Government is genuine when it says that it wants industry to expand. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The latest innovation in this field is that, having regard to commercial and technological circumstances, an industry may, upon the recommendation of the Tariff Board, be protected by quantitative restrictions. There was no such thing until this Government introduced the system. No wonder employment in this field has increased from 900,000 persons in 1949 to 1,200,000 today. Never before were job opportunities of that character created at that pace. </para>
<para>Look at Australia's record in the export of manufactured goods. In 1948-49 the value of these exports was £29,000,000. I concede that the value of money has changed since that time, but the cold statistical fact is that last year we exported, not £29,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, but £134,000,000 worth. Manufacturers know that we want them to export. We do not plead with them to export, but we point out that this country needs export income. The Government is establishing all along the line conditions that make it attractive for manufacturers to do the things that are desirable in Australia's interests. That is why the Government introduced the investment allowance scheme which has encouraged the installation of the newest kind of plant for manufacture. To encourage exports the Government has introduced tax incentive systems. The Government filled a gap in the insurance field by establishing the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. The Government has subsidized shipping so that we may have adequate services to South America and the West Indies ports. There is no stagnation here. Surely this is a story of an active government doing things designed in this instance to encourage manufacturing industry in Australia. </para>
<para>There is no lack of enterprise in devising new policies. As I speak we are recounting great new policies at the rate of several a minute - something Labour could not boast of and never will think of. All this has been done in the closest partnership with industry, commerce and finance in this country. This is what we want. We do not want government managing the affairs of free individuals. We want government offering to work in harmony, partnership and mutual confidence with individuals. This is a story of which we are proud. It is a story of which all Australians may be proud. It is a story envied overseas. </para>
<para>Our record so far as the rural industries are concerned is comparable with our record in the manufacturing field. Largely as a result of research and tax incentives wool production has increased during this Government's term of office by 61 per cent. That is a tremendous increase. Sugar production has risen by 96 per cent. - almost double in the life of this Government. Wheat production has increased by 30 per cent, notwithstanding the problems associated with the international marketing of wheat. The beef and veal industry has always been slow to expand. It is an industry that endured many hard times before this Government came to office but to-day beef and veal production has risen by 37 per cent. The production of mutton and lamb has risen by 83 per cent, and milk production has increased by 20 per cent. Such expansion does not take place unless the industries concerned have confidence. The expansion in those industries is an indication of their confidence in the Government. They are willing to invest and investment has produced results. </para>
<para>It is well known that we converted the mean stabilization schemes that we inherited from the Labour Government into fair stabilization schemes and that we will continue to sustain them. We have assured a fair home price for sugar. We have pursued policies of assistance to the tobacco industry which have produced the phenomenal results at Mareeba and Dimbulah to which I referred earlier, as well as in Victoria and New South Wales. To encourage cotton production the Government has introduced tax concessions and a 20 per cent, depreciation allowance. It has abolished federal land tax and provided money for research and extension services. It has assured security in the home market and entered into interminable negotiations to improve our access to overseas markets. </para>
<para>In its comparatively short period in office the Government has concluded nine major commercial agreements in four continents, protecting our existing markets, opening up new markets and diversifying our outlets. To-day more than half our total exports are protected under some form of negotiated, beneficial access to overseas markets. We have entered into trade agreements with the United Kingdom and Japan. We have flour agreements with Ceylon and Malaya. Arising out of the Japanese Trade Agreement our exports to Japan have increased by £100,000,000 a year. What has Labour to say about that? I hear nothing. Honorable members opposite are silent. But I remember what the Opposition said when the Japanese Trade Agreement was debated in this House. On that occasion the honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Ward),</inline> speaking for the Labour Party, said - </para>
<quote>
<para>This agreement constitutes the greatest betrayal of Australian interests that has been perpetrated by this Government. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That is a measure of Labour's imagination. Was the Opposition playing for Australia or was it playing for votes? It was playing for votes and the motion now under discussion is not related to the good of Australia; it is related to the good of the Australian Labour Party. The two matters are by no means synonymous. </para>
<para>As a result of that the Japanese Trade Agreement, which was opposed by every Labour supporter in both Houses, Japan has become our best customer for wool, coal, copper ores and concentrates and cattle hides and skins. Japan has become a very important customer for wheat, sugar, tallow and lead ores and concentrates. Japan is our second best customer, second only to the United Kingdom. Just as we negotiated the agreement with Japan, so we have continued to negotiate wherever there has been an avenue wherein the Australian voice could be heard with a hope of success - in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in the British commercial conferences, in Montreal, in the European economic centres, in Brussels and in Washington. As honorable members know, in a few days I will leave Australia to resume negotiations of that kind. I say, as I have said many times in this House, that our country, with its great programmes and needs, is under a disadvantage because we get less than fair prices for our bulk commodities on world markets. I have said before, and I repeat, that if last year the prices that obtained had been the same as in 1953 we would have had the equivalent of £540,000,000 more overseas income and this country would have had no problem at all in that regard. I now argue for this country - not for this Government - that we want a fair go in prices; and this is an enormous disability which Australia carries. But what am I possibly going to encounter? It will be retorted: " No, it is not your problem, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McEwen.</inline> Your problem in Australia is not inadequate prices. The alternative Prime Minister of Australia has explained that if your Government pursued different policies at home there would be no problem at all for Australia." He has already discounted the whole of the arguments upon which I will rely overseas. His words can be quoted effectively against me when I fight for Australia overseas; and that is not good enough. I can only hope that no great weight will be attached to what he has said and that a proper evaluation - that it is a political stunt - will be placed upon his action. I have cited the facts of our growth and development and of our policy of employment. Honorable members opposite may sneer if they like, but there have been 300,000 more jobs in factories created in our days in office. </para>
<para>Here is the background against which the Leader of the Opposition claims that our trade policy has been a gigantic failure: There is now 61 per cent, more wool produced and sold and 96 per cent, more sugar produced and sold. What a gigantic failure! What nonsense! Where does Labour stand in regard to the European Economic Community? I have heard a lot of speeches from honorable members opposite and have studied them, but I cannot untangle their policies from those speeches. We have made our contribution in converting this country into a great and growing country. It is a prosperous country, by any world comparison, with a rising standard of living. In 1947, 59 per cent, of the houses in Australia were either owned or being bought by their occupants. I repeat that at that time 59 per cent, of the occupants were either owners or in the course of buying their homes. But in 1961 - my figures are a little out of date - of all houses occupied in this country 77 per cent, were either owned or in the course of being bought. No other coun try on earth has a record like that. This is a conversion of life for the ordinary people of Australia in our day. Whereas a few years ago one in every seven Australians owned a motor vehicle, to-day the average is one for every four people. The same position applies in regard to television sets, washing machines, refrigerators and all the other household appliances that are used. " Wrong-headedness in policy ", says the Leader of the Opposition. Well, what this country needs is more of the same kind of wrong-headedness if it produces results of that kind. </para>
<para>Never before in the history of this country have such giant strides forward been made in growth, development, security and stability. Yet the Leader of the Opposition calls this political incompetence. I think he made a very ill-considered speech. It was torn to pieces by the Prime Minister last night, and the statistical facts of the Australian scene deny every criticism that has been made. This motion will kick back in Labour's face. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>387</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDV</name.id>
<electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JONES, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr JONES</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline>the Minister for Trade <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McEwen)</inline> has endeavoured to bring before the Parliament some facts and figures with regard to Australia's exports under this Government. What a complete contrast that was to the clowning by the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> last night, when he clowned for the best part of twenty minutes of the 45 minutes for which he spoke. The Minister for Trade endeavoured to bring facts and figures to the Parliament to substantiate what he said. Before he leaves the chamber I would like him to explain the difference between what he said here this morning and what he said at the Country Party conference on Tuesday of this week - not last week or two or three years ago, but two days ago. There, he said - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>This country, with its empty and neglected north and inland is the most urbanized nation on earth. The tempo of concentration of population in a few cities grows at a rising rate. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Where do we go from there? This is the calamity howling that went on at the Country Party conference. This is what was said by the Minister for Trade, who has just resumed his seat after telling the House what this Government has done. I ask him to try to explain away the difference between what he said here to-day and what he said two days ago. Those are the facts. </para>
<para>The Minister gave us a great list of exports and of the increased production that has taken place during the reign of his Government. Let us look at the facts with regard to overseas trade. Is it not true that this Government incurred a trade deficit of £1,600,000,000 up to last year, and that already this year it is £150,000,000 behind? What does that mean? Is that not a clear indication of the lack of business administration on the part of the Government and particularly on the part of the Minister for Trade, as one of the leaders of the Government? The Minister referred to the export of wheat. I shall deal with that question and the Government's trade policy together, as well as the attacks that have been made on the Labour Party whose sympathies, it is alleged - 1 emphasize " alleged " - lie with the Communist Party and Communistcontrolled nations. Let us examine our trade with Communist-controlled countries under this Government. In 1961 exports to those countries totalled £68,626,000. In the last trade year, 1962, £95,992,000 worth of goods was exported to Communist-controlled countries. The figures were: China £65,942,000, Czechoslovakia £4,877,000, North Korea £854,000, Poland £9,498,000, the Soviet Union £11,767,000 and Yugoslavia £3,054,000. </para>
<para>China to-day is our fourth best customer. We have only three customers better than China. They are the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States of America. Yet supporters of the Government have the temerity to stand up in this Parliament and attack Labour for its alleged sympathy towards the Communist Party. Members of the Country Party have assisted in what the Government has done. I defy any member of the Country Party to rise in this chamber and criticize the export of wheat to China. What has been the effect of that trade? Everybody in this Parliament and throughout the world knows that China has had a series of crop failures. This Government has exported upwards of £50,000,000 worth of wheat to China to help it out of the jamb it is in. If honorable members opposite really wanted to embarrass China and the Communist Party, what would they do? They would not export wheat to Com munist countries. Honorable members opposite criticize us because we say that we should trade with every one; but they are willing to accept all the money they can get from Communist countries, as has been clearly disclosed. The three principal exports from Australia to Communist countries are wheat, wool and steel; and no one can tell me for a second that those commodities cannot be classified as strategic commodities. The Government is prepared to trade with those countries to assist in their development, yet honorable members opposite stand up and criticize us and claim that our policy is wrong and that we sympathize with the Communist Party. We are the only party that can ever destroy communism, because we believe in lifting the standards of the people. We do not believe in excess profits, as honorable members opposite do. To me, " excess profits " is a dirty expression. </para>
<para>This morning, the honorable member for Bruce <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Snedden)</inline> said that " profit " is not an unclean word, that he considered it a clean word. We, on the other hand, believe that the exorbitant profits made by the capitalistic system throughout the world have created communism and will continue to create communism. There is only one way to destroy communism and that is by lifting the standards of the people in the under-developed countries. We have campaigns such as the " Freedom from Hunger Campaign ", but that is sheer hypocrisy. The United States of America, Great Britain and the other major countries should pay decent prices for the raw materials that they buy from the underdeveloped countries. If the people in the under-developed countries had decent incomes, communism would be destroyed. However, we have a lot of humbug and suggestions that the way to suppress communism is by resolutions and by acts of Parliament. As I have said, the only way to suppress communism is by lifting the standards of the people. </para>
<para>Honorable members opposite criticize men like the honorable member for Reid <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Uren),</inline> who has expressed the desire for world peace. He is criticized because he has the intestinal fortitude to express bis opinions on communism. He has made an effort to understand these people and to make friends with them, but he is criticized for doing so. </para>
<para>The Deputy Prime Minister also referred to subsidies paid to rural industries by this Government. However, whenever we on this side of the House suggest the payment of a subsidy to assist the development of Australian industries, such as the shipbuilding industry, we are criticized. We have suggested that subsidies be paid to the shipbuilding industry and the shipping industry so that we can compete with the Government's friends who have monopoly interests in the shipping combines. We are told that it would be wrong to pay such subsidies and honorable members opposite deplore the payment of a little over £1,000,000 a year in subsidy to the shipbuilding industry. </para>
<para>Approximately six months ago the honorable member for Wakefield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Kelly)</inline> opposed every attempt we made to have subsidies paid to Australian industries. The position is that the Deputy Prime Minister is willing to pay subsidies to rural industries but is completely opposed to the payment of subsidies to secondary industries, which provide the greatest amount of employment for the Australian people. </para>
<para>I have referred to the conflicting statements of the Deputy Prime Minister. On Tuesday, he said that there is no development of the north, that the north is completely neglected. Then he gave a few figures which show that £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 is being spent on the development of this large tract of Australia. But let us look at the statement made in the middle of last year by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Foots,</inline> the general manager of Mount Isa Mines Limited. In referring to development of the north he said that £35,000,000 was just a drop. A newspaper report had this to say - </para>
<quote>
<para>Recent spending of £35 million on the development of North Queensland was a drop in the ocean compared to what was needed, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Isa</inline> Mines 0-td.), general manager <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. J. W. Foots)</inline> said yesterday. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I ask honorable members to bear in mind that of this £35,000,000, £30,000,000 will be spent on the <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Isa</inline> railway. When we examine what the Government has done to develop the north we find that it has done practically nothing. The amount it has spent is only a drop in the ocean. What has the Government done to develop the Fitzroy basin, which is one of the largest basins in the Commonwealth? About 90,000 people reside there. It has a great potential. Water is available and the Government should provide for the storage of the water so that it can be used for irrigation and for the production of hydro-electric power. The Government should also encourage the development of the coal-fields and other natural resources there. But the Government is not prepared to provide the money for this development. </para>
<para>The time has long since passed when the Commonwealth should have commenced to take a part in the development of industry in this area by the provision of Australian money. The Government should invest in development in this area. When I was in the Fitzroy basin recently, I was sickened to see a huge drag-line crane with three names written along the side in letters about two feet high. The names were Thiess, Peabody and Mitsui. Any Australian would have been sickened at that sight. The resources of this country have been sold out to overseas monopoly interests. No one could convince me that the Peabody organization, which is one of the largest exporters of coal in the United States of America, is not out here to tie up the world market in coal, just as Vestey's has done with the beef market. No one could convince me that the Mitsui organization, with all its interests in Japan, is not out here to destroy our export of coal or to tie it up so that it can make the arrangements best suited to it. </para>
<para>About six months ago, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would take action to ensure that the coal-fields in Queensland and New South Wales would not cut one another's throats in the export trade. It is obvious that the Peabody and Mitsui organizations have come into Queensland to force down the price of coal. If they do force down the price in Australia, certainly their Queensland venture will lose money, but so will all the other Australian coal-fields and the organizations will more than make up their losses in the increased profits they will make in Japan. I ask the Government to examine these facts and to invest Australian money in this development. </para>
<para>The Fitzroy basin lends itself to development. But what has the Government done about it? It is spending a few thousand pounds on brigalow clearance. But who will be helped by this? The minimum amount needed to occupy one block in the brigalow country is £40,000. The blocks vary in size from 7,000 to 10,000 acres. A successful applicant must have a minimum of £40,000 for development before he will be eligible to enter the ballot. Does the Government consider that that is developing the area? Who will be the real people to develop the area? The big combines will put stooges into the ballots; they will be the only ones with sufficient money to develop the blocks. </para>
<para>No matter how Government supporters try to distort the facts that emerge from the present economic crisis, it is clear that the people no longer have confidence in the Government. I believe that the only way to test this assertion is to accept the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell)</inline> and to give the people the opportunity at the ballot-box to express their opposition to the Government. During this debate, honorable members opposite have attempted to deride the Australian Labour Party and to imply that Labour would not be able to carry out its responsibilities as a government. I want to quote a statement that was made twelve months ago by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Staniforth</inline> Ricketson when he addressed a meeting of an investment company. He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>Tn any case, previous Federal Labour Governments have never done anything to undermine confidence in the soundness of the Australian currency, and have acted in strict accord with British principles of honour and integrity. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
<name role="display">Mr Curtin</name>
</talker>
<para>- Who said that? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDV</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JONES, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr JONES</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is what <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Staniforth</inline> Ricketson had to say on 19th March, 1962, when presenting his financial report to one of the investment companies of J. B. Were and Son, which is one of the largest firms of its type in Australia. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ricketson</inline> is one of the leaders of the Australian business community, and that is what he thinks of the Australian Labour Party. Honorable members should also read his recent statement that the Government can claim no credit for investment in this country. It was a natural flow of credit into this country. I shall deal with this subject briefly. The Prime Minister said last night that overseas investors had confidence in </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">Australia and in this Government and that they would continue to invest in Australia, but if you examine the figures released this week you will find that the amount of investment in this country during the last twelve months has dropped by £100,000,000. The figure in 1961 was higher than that in 1960 and this year it is down completely. </para>
<para>Regarding employment, this Government has a shocking record. The figures clearly disclose that the Government does not know where it is going. Statement after statement has been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and National Service <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McMahon)</inline> but the fact remains that there is to-day a great amount of. unemployment. The spread of unemployment, at least over the last two years, has been the greatest that this country has had since the end of the depression of the 1930's. </para>
<para>The figures for youth employment are shocking. In my district where there is a better break-up of figures, the position is this: In Cessnock, Maitland and Newcastle, there are 1,136 unemployed junior males and 1,468 unemployed junior females. The Minister for Labour and National Service said on Tuesday night in this chamber that jobs were coming forward at an extraordinarily good rate and that within a very short time employment would be found for all our unemployed juniors. What is the real position? In a bulletin issued by ons of his officers, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Smee,</inline> the regional director for New South Wales said that these three centres in the Newcastle area had fifteen vacancies for junior males and fifteen for junior females. Yet the unemployment figures are 1,136 for males and 1,468 for females! That indicates the real unemployment position. The jobs are just not there. </para>
<para>Let us examine the number of apprentices being employed by the Government - a factor which could assist in reducing the number of unemployed. The Minister for Labour and National Service recently went to great lengths in this House to emphasize what the Government was doing to try to obtain employment for young people, particularly apprentices. The Government should apply the same principle to its own departments. For example, in the Department of Works 3,157 tradesmen are employed, but only 320 apprentices although the quota is 1,358. That means that they are 1,038 under the quota. In the Department of Supply 2,312 tradesmen are employed and only 682 apprentices, the quota being 867. So that department is 185 under the quota. From information supplied by the Minister for Shipping and Transport <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Opperman),</inline> who is at the table, the Commonwealth Railways employ 273 tradesmen and only 61 apprentices. The quota is 107, which means that the Commonwealth Railways are 46 under the quota. In the Postmaster-General's Department 1,524 tradesmen are employed and 224 apprentices. The quota is 638 which means that the department is 414 under quota. So, in those four departments there are 1,683 apprentices fewer than should be employed. Where is the Government's sincerity? These figures clearly disclose that the Government is not facing up to its responsibilities in providing employment for apprentices. In those four departments work should be given to 1,683 boys. </para>
<para>Why does the Government not get on with the job of providing employment for the young people? If Government supporters reply that more people are in employment to-day than there were two years ago I suggest that they examine the statistical information. They will find that notwithstanding the fact that the work force has increased by 150,000 in the last two years, whereas in November, 1960, there were 3,088,000 civilians in employment, at present there are 3,118,000 in employment, or only 30,000 more than there were two years ago. There are 16,600 fewer males in private employment to-day than there were two years ago. Yet the Government claims that the community has confidence in it! </para>
<para>The figures which I have brought to the Parliament clearly establish that not only has the Australian Labour Party no confidence in this Government, but the people as a whole have no confidence. Industry has expressed its lack of confidence in the Government. Industry is afraid to carry out development. Banking statistics show that. People are investing their money in Government bonds. Overdrafts are lower than they were and lower than they should be. These are undeniable facts. I support wholeheartedly the motion of the </para>
<para class="block">Leader of the Opposition that this Government no longer possesses the confidence of the people. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>391</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KGP</name.id>
<electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HAWORTH, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HAWORTH</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline>anybody who has listened to the honorable member for Newcastle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Jones)</inline> will quite understand why the Australian Labour Party adopts policies likely to turn Australia into a people's republic. I do not want to traverse what he has said because there is too much to be said in the limited time that I have at my disposal. I think that the Government is indebted to the Opposition for having moved this want of confidence motion because it has given the Government an opportunity to state its position in regard to the new spirit of optimism and confidence that has sprung up everywhere in Australia during the last few months. I am sure that I am not the only one on this side of the House who thinks in this way. My colleagues have accepted the challenge thrown down by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell)</inline> during his speech on this motion. He said, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Some members of the Government do not intend to defend themselves on domestic or economic questions but hope to confuse the people with spurious issues about the Australian Labour Party and the ideologies of the cold war. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I want to repeat those words - </para>
<list type="lowerroman-dotted">
<item label=".">
<para>. spurious issues about the Australian Labour Party and the ideologies of the cold war. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">The Leader of the Opposition wound up his speech by challenging the Government to an election on the issue of the radio base at Exmouth Gulf, or, as we sometimes call it, the North-West Cape. Now he wants to talk on economic and domestic issues and not on the defence policy of the Labour Party. He cannot have it both ways. At one moment he wants to talk about defence policy and in the next minute he wants to move away from that issue because he believes it is spurious. I believe there is no need to confuse the public on defence. They understand this issue. They realize the tremendous effect that this could very well have on the lives of Australians. The Leader of the Opposition warned my colleagues not to raise this spurious issue. What more spurious issue could anybody raise than that raised by the Leader of the Opposition when he tried to tie the Prime Minister up with a whispering campaign? </para>
<para class="block">Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>392</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KGP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HAWORTH, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HAWORTH</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> just before the suspension of the sitting I was questioning the impropriety of the Leader of the Opposition in suggesting that honorable members on this side of the House should not raise the defence issue or the Labour Party's ideologies but should concentrate on the domestic issue. I cannot think of a more spurious issue that could be raised by a Leader of the Opposition than that in which he tried to associate the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> with the whispering campaign that United States secrets would not be available to a Labour government. Apparently he must have a very guilty conscience about this, because I have never heard the whisper. I think the first time most members of this Parliament, particularly those on this side of the chamber, heard that suggestion was when the Leader of the Opposition mentioned it. The Prime Minister has contradicted it, as I expected he would do. I do not know whether the United States thinks that way, but if the United States has any doubt about the Labour Party's ability to be trusted I am not surprised. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The history of the Labour Party since the last war is that its members cannot keep the most simple domestic issues secret. The executive of the A.L.P., rightly referred to as " the 36 ", will not trust even the Leader of the Opposition. When recently the executive was in Canberra to discuss the Labour Party's policy on defence the Leader of the Opposition was not even allowed to participate by his constant presence at that discussion. So, although it is not a surprise to all of us, I suppose it is a very great surprise to the people of Australia to know that a potential Labour Prime Minister would not be allowed to be present at such discussions. </para>
<para>What is wrong with the Labour Party executive? What is wrong with so many Opposition members? The week-end papers say that they are starry-eyed about the virtues of communism. They are what has been described in this House as left-wingers. What we do know about leftwingers of the Labour Party is that they have made some remarkable statements and have performed some remarkable actions. I know that when I raised the question of the persecution of Jews in Russia, with a request to the Government to raise the subject with the United Nations, with the exception of one man, Opposition members gave no encouragement whatever to the request. Members of the Labour Party rubbished the suggestion in another place. They went further and allowed a senior member of their party in this chamber to accuse the supreme leader of Australian Jewry of being a traitor to his faith and to his party. The only wrong he had committed was to defend, courageously and with great loyalty, Jewish people in Russia against persecution. </para>
<para>How could any friendly nation have confidence in a government composed of a party of unpredictable people who see virtue in those things that the free world opposes? The recent conference of the A.L.P., in Canberra, at which some people hoped to get a ban placed on the Northwest Cape project, is now legendary. The A.L.P. men came to Canberra from Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland resolutely opposed to the establishment of the Learmonth base, at the North-West Cape. They had the traditional " defence is bunk" approach of die-hard leftism, and they thought they had the numbers. They, had, too, until one Queensland; delegate realized that there were electoral implications. Nothing else mattered to him. Australia's defence did not matter. He had probably read the new doctrine enunciated by President Oliver of the New South Wales branch of the A.L.P., who had said: " We must welcome America as an ally". He added coyly, " Not to accept America as an ally, would be to commit political suicide ". You will notice, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> that it was not a matter of principle, but a matter of political suicide that concerned him most. </para>
<para>So one man switched to save the skin of eighteen others, and they all came tumbling after him. <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, very</inline> simply, does not all this make you feel a bit sick? Does any one really believe that vital issues of principle can be made the currency of tawdry little fixes like this one? Is this the stuff of which national leadership is made? Is this the type of government that the people want? Is this the type of government that would start to-morrow if this want of confidence motion were won by the Labour Party? I think not. </para>
<para>I do not want to refer to any further matters regarding that side of the issue because the domestic issues are uppermost in the minds of some people and I should like to follow my colleagues in making reference to them. The first signs to look for in any revival of public confidence are public spending, unemployment figures and immigration figures, as well as inflow of overseas capital. These are the great national policies of this Government and they will, I am sure, impress people if they take time enough to look at them. </para>
<para>I submit that there is free spending in the community in most spheres to-day and there are signs that the taxpayer is resuming his buying habits with much more discrimination. That is a very healthy sign of a good economy. This is in marked contrast to what took place two years ago during a period of inflation. Over and above that, the gratifying thing about to-day's economy is the stability of costs and prices and the cost-of-living index, which has been steady over the last two years. If anybody doubts me in regard to that, he has only to refer to the " Monthly Review of Business Statistics " for January, 1963, or turn to the "Treasury Information Bulletin " Number 29, of January this year. From those documents he will see that what I say is true. Further, he might see the instalment credit figures, which are even more marked than those for the cost of living. </para>
<para>Retail sales and instalment credit figures are to me most significant. They are very buoyant figures, and are even more important than the figures for the motor transport industry, because the figures for retail sales of goods cover such a wide range of goods. In other words, the sales of some commodities included in the retail figures must be high in order to take care of those that are of a lower level. 1 mentioned the motor transport industry. Most of us know that the rise in the figures for that industry was almost astronomical over the last eighteen months. Then I come to the unemployment figures. The last review of the unemployment situation at the end of February, 1963, made available by the Department of Social Services several weeks ago, showed that there was a fall of 15,765 in the number of persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. This reduced the total number of unemployed to 96,042 persons in all, males and females, or 2.2 per cent, of the work force of Australia. No one on this side of the House wants to say that is good enough, but it does show a strong trend towards full employment, and an infinitely better result - I repeat that remark; an infinitely better result - in employment figures, even at 2.2 per cent., than Labour ever had during its period of office. The Government Statistician tells us in his Labour Report for 1960 that during Labour's regime, under <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chifley</inline> or <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtin,</inline> the lowest unemployment figure was 3.2 per cent.; and that was in 1947 when every man, woman and child had only to say they were available for a job and employers would rush them off their feet in a desire to place them on the payroll. </para>
<para>I pass to the subject of immigration. One of the best outward signs of confidence that the people of one country can have in another country, is that they want to go to that other country and share in its prosperity. The people of overseas countries are prepared to sacrifice all that they have in their own country in order to start afresh in Australia. That is the position to-day. Immigration figures are strongly on the way up. Seldom in the history of this country have they appeared to be better. The 1962-63 target of 125,000 arrivals will be exceeded. There has been a tremendous flood of applications in Great Britain for assisted passages to Australia, and there is no reason why this trend should not continue. Many of the applicants are skilled and key workers of a type upon whom the expansion of our industries depends so heavily. It is already clear that the intake of British migrants in the twelve months ending 30th June next will be the best for the past ten years. </para>
<para>The inflow of overseas capital is a very good indication of the confidence that overseas countries have in the Government of Australia. It is worthwhile reminding the Opposition, which desires to criticize the handling of the economy of this country by the Menzies Government, that the hippocket nerve is still the most sensitive of all nerves when it comes to gauging public confidence. It is a very good barometer. The tremendous interest manifested in the growth possibilities offered by Australia is emphasized by figures in the quarterly summary of Australian statistics for December last year. Leading executives of great overseas industrial investment houses have come lately to Australia, in large numbers, to assess the opportunities presented for the initiation and extension of their financial activities in Australia. They are impressed and they have come here to find out what is going on. Of course, they have read the statistical reports that have been made available to them by the Treasury in its information bulletins. I have no doubt they have read also one of the most highly conservative financial gazettes in the United Kingdom. I refer to an article which appeared in the " Stock Exchange Gazette " of London at the end of January this year. It was headed "Australia - a Common Market Hedge", and it contained the following paragraph - </para>
<quote>
<para>For the British investor seeking a wider spread of his funds in these days of uncertainty, Australia has a lot to offer. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That article appeared about the time of the Brussels talks on the European Common Market. In addition, our own Treasury Information. Bulletin, No. 27, 1963, made it very clear at page 11 that our balance of payments position was very strong. </para>
<para>For a variety of reasons we need the capital that has flowed into this country from abroad; and I do not propose to develop that aspect further. However, I should like to take this opportunity, when referring to the wonderful and welcome inflow of capital, to say that the benefits which flow from these transactions have been by no means one-sided. I congratulate the subsidiaries of overseas corporations which have succeeded in making profits in this country. I praise their initiative and skill. I join issue with the honorable member for Scullin <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Peters),</inline> who apparently objects to overseas capital coming to this country. He objects to these companies making profits. He referred to the fact that General Motors-Holdens' Limited sent approximately £11,000,000 profit to the United States of America this year. Let me remind the honorable member that if we had had to import motor cars into Australia to meet the demand of the last twelve or eighteen months it would have cost this country £100,000,000. </para>
<para>I think the subsidiaries of overseas corporations would admit that they have come to Australia for the single purpose of taking advantage of conditions and markets to make profits in the atmosphere that this Government has helped to create. I have no objection whatsoever to that. The stable political and industrial conditions that exist in Australia have assisted such companies to achieve their objective. Also, the skill of Australian workmen, the large export markets adjacent to our shores, as well as stable costs and prices, have all contributed to the success of this country. However, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> do say that it would seem that overseas companies need more than a reminder by the Government that they should be prepared to concede to Australian citizens the right to have equity in the Australian operations of their subsidiaries without having to transfer capital overseas. I strongly recommend the Government to have a close look at the state of affairs that exists to-day in this respect. Australians will obtain such equity only by Government action. You cannot expect companies themselves to initiate such a move. This is in no sense a complaint, because the remedy is in our own hands. If we desire that the Australian citizen should have more equity in these companies it is up to the Government to arrange it; and I think it could do so. </para>
<para>I should like to say a lot more about the economy and how it is improving from day to day, but time does not permit me to do so. In conclusion, I ask: How could we have a Labour government directing the national affairs of this country when the Labour Party is so divided on international affairs? The matters on which it is divided could have an effect on the lives of every living individual in Australia. We can well understand the feelings of the Australian people, who have taken strong action in the last fortnight, since they realized the tremendous division that exists in the Australian Labour Party, which wants to capture the treasury bench. Labour's representatives in this Parliament are directed from outside by people who have no responsibility whatsoever to the electors. </para>
<para>I shall not support the want of confidence motion, but I feel grateful to the Australian Labour Party for affording this opportunity to Government supporters to point out to the people of Australia, by facts and figures, that the outlook for this country was never brighter. The confidence shown in this Government extends for beyond our shores into the great countries of Europe and America; and that, 1 believe, is one of the most exacting tests of all. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>395</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOO</name.id>
<electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEATON, Noel</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEATON</name>
</talker>
<para>.- During the three days in which this want of confidence motion has been debated a mass of evidence has been presented by Opposition speakers which is sufficient to indict any government. We have had evidence of miscalculation and incompetence and of an unrepentant attitude on the part of the Government in respect of its mismanagement and mistakes of the past. Government speakers have tried, as usual, to draw the red herring across the trail, but nothing can disguise the fact that at home or abroad they have engaged in what is virtually government by guesswork. The Government's foreign policy has shifted with the wind, while at home Ministers have been hopeful prophets with predictions that are never fulfilled in fact. They have made continual confident statements, without any economic evidence to support them, like that of the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt),</inline> supported by the Minister for Labour and National Service <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McMahon),</inline> who said that no unemployment would result from the credit squeeze of November, 1960. How false that prediction was and how equally false were the countless others that have followed! </para>
</talk.start>
<para>I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister for Trade <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McEwen).</inline> 1 was staggered to hear him comment on what he said was the false charge levelled by the Labour Opposition of neglect of the north of Australia. The picture he painted this morning was a vastly different picture from that which he painted only three days ago. I am greatly disappointed that only one member of the Country Party is interested enough to hear me recount what he had to say on Tuesday last at the Victorian Country Party's conference. He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>Here in Australia, where we must need more than anyone else to encourage the spread of population, less is done than elsewhere. This country with its empty and neglected north and inland is the most urbanized nation on earth. The tempo of concentration of population in a few cities grows at a rising pace. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">What a dreadful indictment that is of his own party, the Country Party, the so-called champion of country people, members of which for years have been full of talk of decentralization and development of the outback and country areas, who for thirteen years have been partners in this coalition government, and who have done nothing but talk and pull the wool over the eyes of country electors. Despite brave words by the Minister for Trade about an expansion of export trade, the stark fact is that we cannot pay our way. In the last decade the excess of imports over exports has reached a staggering total of £1,600,000,000. </para>
<para>Three years ago the Minister for Trade said that if we were to maintain our balance of payments we must increase our export income by £250,000,000 annually within five years. Over those three years, in spite of a windfall in the form of wheat sales to China, which this Government feeds and clothes but does not recognize, Australia has had a deficit of over £600,000,000 on current account. So it can be seen that this tragic trend in trading has not been arrested. </para>
<para>A look at our balance of payments will tell the tale of how this Government has covered its failure to pay its way, by borrowing from overseas and by encouraging, in any circumstances, the investment of foreign capital. It has built a legacy of debt, of repayment of capital and dividends, which future citizens and governments will find increasingly burdensome, and which even now requires the repatriation of vast sums of money overseas each year. In 1960-61, for instance, the amount was £57,000,000, with a further £63,000,000 of undistributed profits ploughed back into industry, earning more money. That was Australian customers' money. These sums, of course, require substantial export earnings to equalize. </para>
<para>Government supporters accept this foreign investment gleefully, unmindful of the pitfalls as they stumble blindly on. Overseas capital comes here for one purpose and one purpose alone - profit - and certainly with no high-minded " develop Australia " motive. The Opposition is appreciative of the advantages that can accrue from foreign investment, but we see also the need to regulate its flow and to ensure participation by Australian capital on a partnership basis in any enterprise. The nation draws no benefit from foreign portfolio investment which merely takes control of, or a share in, an existing and prospering Australian enterprise. This is purely speculative investment, with no material gain at all for Australia. </para>
<para>I am reminded of a statement by a leading Melbourne stockbroker, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Ian</inline> Potter, in July, 1961. He said- </para>
<quote>
<para>In the short space of ten years, two-thirds of Canada's industry has passed into foreign ownership and control. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">He said that this had been accompanied by unemployment and a fall in real output. This dangerous situation could be repeated in Australia in the years to come if this Government remained at the helm. The Labour Opposition offers no real objections to foreign capital which brings with it new industry and new techniques, providing some degree of Australian control and equity in the development and use of our national assets and resources are maintained. Now, we find foreign interests exploiting our great mineral resources and natural assets, with this Government eager to sell out more. Is this the great national policy that the honorable member for Isaacs <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Haworth)</inline> spoke about a few moments ago? Following Labour's lead, there has been a gathering storm of protest from Australian investors. One such statement was made only yesterday by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. A.</inline> H. Urquhart, the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, which is certainly not a traditional source of Labour support. He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>Australia should not lose all its natural resources to overseas investors. Australian banks, insurance offices and other big public companies could back the development of Australia's natural resources. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Surely this statement is evidence of unrest at this Government's sell-out of Australia's heritage, our natural assets. I am reminded of another statement by the Minister' for Trade, made at the opening of the Country </para>
<para class="block">Party conference at Coffs Harbour. He described as disquieting a trend towards overseas ownership of Australian industry. The great disparity between his words and his actions in this Parliament is remarkable. </para>
<para>There is another aspect of foreign investment which the Liberal-Country Party Government has chosen to ignore and which is costing us dearly in foreign trade. I refer to restrictive franchises preventing Australian manufacturers from engaging in export trade. This restriction, imposed by foreign companies on Australian subsidiaries or on Australian factories manufacturing under licence, is becoming increasingly widespread. Embracing more man 1,000 products over a wide range from consumer durables to foodstuffs, it places a dead hand on the export potential of these industries. The manager of the trade and commerce department of the international division of the Bank of New South Wales, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. W.</inline> S. Johnston, who recently toured South-East Asia, had some very revealing comments to make. He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>The large percentage of Australian manufacturers tied to local marketing by franchise restrictions with overseas principals was a bigger problem to exporters than price. . . . Having reached this stage of recognition, the franchise problem cannot be over-emphasized; it is the major hurdle facing Australia and without question is detrimental to the future development of our export trade. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Here, an expert in his field of trade and commerce says that a large percentage of Australian manufacturers is prevented from exporting by these restrictive franchises, and that price is only a secondary problem. Repeatedly, Opposition members have urged action on what really amounts to an infringement of Australian sovereignty. How can we effectively expand our export income in the manufacturing field when these hobbles restrict activities? Frightened of offending its powerful - that is, financially powerful - friends, this Liberal-Country Party Government stands idly by. Surely this is another indictment to add to the overwhelming evidence that it is time for a change to a Labour government. </para>
<para>I want to turn to one branch of primary industry in which government inactivity has endangered the livelihood of many Australians. More than six months ago I initiated a debate on the poultry industry as a matter of urgency. For egg-producers little has changed since then. Action to stabilize the industry is still an urgent necessity. Over the past eighteen months returns to egg-producers have slumped to levels lower than for a decade. Many eggproducers have left the industry, being literally starved out of it and losing their life's savings. Some are deeply in debt. Some go out to work, leaving their families to work the farms; whilst some receive the only governmental assistance available to them, namely, the unemployment benefit. </para>
<para>So great is the disorganization in the industry that State egg boards handle less than 50 per cent, of Australia's consumption. Border-hopping, under the protection of section 92 of the Constitution, is a practice engaging whole fleets of transports. The producers who participate in it evade thi payment of the equalization levy or pool charge which enables the egg boards to make up the losses incurred on overseas sales. As conditions have progressively worsened in <inline font-style="italic">recent</inline> months, and as this Government has stood by, desperation has driven many more producers to that practice. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Turnbull</name>
</talker>
<para>- What do the States say about it? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>397</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEATON, Noel</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEATON</name>
</talker>
<para>- J. will answer the honorable member for Mallee in a moment. What is the answer for the poultry industry? Many months ago the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities submitted to the Minister 'or Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Adermann)</inline> and the Government a stabilization plan. That plan consists, in the main, of four features and has received substantial support from the industry. It provides for minimum prices for all egg products in Australia; a reasonable similarity in prices of shell eggs on the Australian market; uniformity of grading and quality and a levy on all laying fowls except the first twenty in each flock. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The great majority of the people who have examined the plan realize that it could go a long way towards ending the chaotic marketing situation. Because of our turnofthecentury Constitution, such a plan can become a reality only with the consent and co-operation of the States. Regrettably, as the Minister for Primary Industry informed us last week, such consent is not forthcom ing from all States. Although the Minister has not mentioned the dissenting State, it is no secret in the industry that South Australia has rejected the plan. This has come as a very bitter blow to those people who have struggled to restore sanity to the industry. But, quite frankly, when records are considered it is no surprise. South Australia has come to regard other States - particularly Victoria - as almost traditional markets. The surplus of production over South Australian consumption is sold in other States, and South Australia virtually ignores overseas markets. At the present time South Australian egg pulp is being marketed in New South Wales contrary to a pulp agreement between the States. </para>
<para>Does the South Australian board think that it will always live such a charmed life? Does it think that these excursions into the domestic markets of other States will continue to solve the problem of its surplus production? How it has dodged massive retaliation up to now is a mystery. The South Australian board and producers should be warned that they are vulnerable to such retaliation and that their refusal to support this stabilization plan will provoke an egg war which will result only in further financial loss to the hard-working poultryfarmers. </para>
<para>I ask the South Australian producers to take a look at the economics of the situation. In 1961-62 South Australian commercial egg production was 11,400,000 dozen. In the same year New South Wales produced 61,600,000 dozen and Victoria produced 29,900,000 dozen. So the Sou:h Australian production is dwarfed by the big two in Australian egg production. In the same year the combined production of egg pulp by New South Wales and Victoria was 16,500 tons. The South Australian production was 1,531 tons. In fact, New South Wales and Victoria together export to overseas markets more than twice South Australia's total production, and those overseas markets return net prices as low as Is. a dozen. Is it not obvious that New South Wales and Victoria would lose nothing by dumping large quantities of egges on the South Australian market? After all, eggs sell in Britain and Europe for next to nothing. </para>
<para>I predict that, unless this plan is adopted on a Commonwealth-wide basis, in a few months' time, in the midst of the flush production period, a cut-throat interstate egg war in which not only producers but also egg boards will participate will bring further disaster to the industry, and the South Australian producers will suffer severely. Of course, they have a choice - stability and a fair deal for all, on one hand, and a selfish " I'm all right, Jack" attitude, on the other. Knowing how strongly the other States feel about the situation, I urge the South Australian board to take an industry viewpoint, a national viewpoint, and accept the stabilization plan. </para>
<para>Of course, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> the Menzies Government has a choice, too. As always, it has taken the easy way out. Despite vigorous support from egg producers and producers' associations for the plan, when faced with this single dissenting voice among the egg marketing authorities it has, in the words of the Minister for Primary Industry, " let the matter rest ". But there is another course open to the Government, namely, an amendment to the Constitution. That course was recommended by an all-party committee on constitutional review as far back as 1958. T remind the Government that its Liberal Party and Country Party members had a majority on that committee. The committee, in clause 148 of its report, recommended that the Federal Parliament should be given power to submit proposed marketing plans to a poll of primary producers. What is happening in the poultry industry is surely a classical example of how our 63-years old Constitution has failed to keen abreast of developments in modern marketing and transport. The marketing practices carried on under the protection of the Constitution are permitting the exploitation of poultry-farmers. </para>
<para>What does this Government intend to do about it? For years it has been urging the poultry industry to increase production. Now, when the industry is in trouble and unable to sell its surplus economically, the Government coldly stands by and watches the financial execution of life-long members of the industry. Why will it not follow the recommendations of its members and supporters? Is not the poultry industry - or other industries similarly endangered by constitutionally correct but self-seeking ex ploiters - important enough to warrant action? </para>
<para>When opening the Twelfth World Poultry Congress on 13th August last, the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> described the development of the poultry industry as " one of the great achievements in Australia in the last fifteen to twenty years ". He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>The industry has changed into a major industry, scientifically and technically abreast of the times, giving more stable and satisfactory results than ever before . . . </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">How that must have provoked ironical laughter from the producers who were present and who knew the real situation in the industry. The Prime Minister went on to say that the industry is a major industry worth £67,000,000 a year and employing more than 100,000 people. Those were very fine and flattering words from the Prime Minister, who is adept at saying such words. But what the poultry-farmers want is action, not words. Like all primary producers who take risks in producing their products, they want stability and they want a reasonable living as the result of their labours. This stabilization plan offers them the chance to achieve that. On their behalf, I ask the Government, lacking the confidence of the people as it does to-day, for once in its life to be positive, to be strong and to take action to bring this plan to reality. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>398</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DB6</name.id>
<electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WENTWORTH, William Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr WENTWORTH</name>
</talker>
<para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> it is no secret that I have not always seen entirely eye to eye with the Government on the details of its economic policy. Indeed, there have been times when I would have liked that policy to have been pressed a little further and a little more vigorously. I took it a little ill, I am afraid, that the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell)</inline> should have said or implied that I had followed the Australian Labour Party. If he will look up the records, he will see that what I have said I have said in advance of the Labour Party. I do not intend to take that any further at this stage. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>As the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Robert Menzies)</inline> said, this is a censure motion with two sides, and the important and operative side is its objective. The objective of the people who moved it is to have a new government brought to power, a Labour government. I personally believe that a Labour government could not be accepted as an alternative to the present Government. That this is so has been shown very clearly during the past few weeks, when the structure and orientation of the Labour Party, which should have been apparent, have been clearly revealed to the public. Labour would be impossible as an alternative government, because it is under the control of an outside body, and also because it is deeply infected with communism and is, in a sense, an agent of the Communist Party in this country. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
<name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
</talker>
<para>- I take a point of order, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker.</inline> I take strong exception to the honorable member's remarks, and I would request that he be instructed to withdraw his reference to the Labour Party's connexion with communism. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KSC</name.id>
<electorate>BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order! The honorable member for Mackellar was not referring to the honorable member for Wills. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
<name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
</talker>
<para>- But, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker-</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order! The ruling has been given. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DB6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WENTWORTH, William Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr WENTWORTH</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> I can understand- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KX7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is no point of order now. He is a lunatic. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! The honorable member will withdraw that remark. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KX7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
</talker>
<para>- Certainly, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>399</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWU</name.id>
<electorate>EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRASER, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr Allan Fraser</name>
</talker>
<para>- Every one knows it, anyway. </para>
</talk.start>