Full day Hansard transcript

Transcription

Questions and Answers.
[6 '-MAR.;l946.]
iifjrgi5latitlt 'i\.a.5ttitbly.
W~ednesday,
'
6 JJ!arch, 1946.
Que>tions. without Notice--Food and ;)ledical Supplies
for ·the• Dutch· Ea>t Jn(lies ()lotion of {;rgency)
· -Oommonwe·1lth aPd Stnte -Fnu!Ung. Agrrement
Rill-State Brickworks Bill l •coi1d readirg)--
·l:i'ormo£an and Korean Uep_atlJ<.~tcs·: -0\'erci:owd- ~
ing on
-Y~izuki.
•Mr. ·SPEAKER took the chair.
The ·Op!'lning Pl,'ayer .was .read.
QUESTIONS ~~WITHOUT .'.NOTICE.
FREDERICK LEITH DAVIDSON.
Captain ARTHUR: I ask the Minister for Labour and Industry whether
it is a fact that an application has been
lodged with the Industrial Commission
of New South Wales by Frederick Leith
Davidson, secretary-treasurer of the New
South Wales Fruit Shopkeepers' Association, for a variation of the Shop Assistants, Confectioners, etc. (Metropolitan) Award of 21st August, -1942,
which, in effect, requests that the ''equal
pay" clause be deleted from the award?
Is it a fact, too, that this is the. same
gentleman who is continually featured
as a representative of the working-clas~
in .the communistic journal, Tribune?
Will the Minister say whether this gentl~man is a prominent member of the
Communist party? If the Minister is
.not in a position to make a full statement now with regard to the affiliations
.and activities of this gentleman, .will he
.have a comprehensive inquiry made into
these .allegations in order to reveal him
.in his true light?
Mr. KNIGHT: It is true that an
application has been made by Mr. David.son, . who is secretary-treasurer of the
Ne.w South Wales Fruit Shopkeepers'
Association, for a variation of the· Shop
.-Assistants, Confectioners, etc. (Met·ropolitan) -Awai;d. I .have no knowledge
of. his ·political ,affiliations, but I will
.make inquiries and let the hon- mem·ber know their result.
Questions and~A i~swm·s:. · ·2495
.REl\IISSION OF PRISON SENTENCES.
Mr. TR.RATT: Will .the AttorneyGeneral lay on the table of the House
the files in. re]ation to the prisoners
whose sente:pces have. been remitted by
the Minister of Justice?
Major MARTIN: I do not intend to
take any .such ,action. I shall refer the
matter to my colleague, the Minister of
.Justice, to,see .what his yiews are.
TRAM. AND J3US .. E:MPLOYEES:
.PENSIONS.
Mrs. FOWLER: Following a reply
given to me by the Minister for Transport last .week, that the .combined tram
and bus employees had not submitted a
scheme to him, will he say whether it
is a fact that these employees submitted
a.scheme for doubling their contribution
from H per cent. to 3 per cent., so that
they could receive a pension of the basi~
wage, instead of about £2 lOs., as at
present? Is it a fact, too, that the.scheme
embodied a plan whereby the employee's
widow, dependent mother or invalid child
col\ld benefit? If these are facts, wiii
the Minister now say when he will invite a representative of the union concerned, who will be able to give firsthand information as to the employees~
requirements, to take a seat on the
committee?
.Mr. O'SULLIVAN: The han. member for Newtown previously asked me a
question on similar lines, and I replied
that the combined tram and- bus employees had not submitted a scheme for
superannuation, but for gratuities. I
still say that is the c:;ase. Only yesterday I discussed this matter with representatives of the unions concerned. Whether they take a seat on the committee
will be .determined in due course. Already the committee is determining what
form of superannuation should be introduced in order to cover the men wh()
are not already covered. Immediately
I receive some information from that
committee they will be invited to take
·their r.•;ats.
~496
[ASSEMBLY.]
l!"OR:1110SAN WOMEN REPATRIATES:
SHIPBOARD OVERCROWDING.
Mr. DRU11:MOND: Will the Premier convey to the military authorities
.of Australia the appreciation of this
]louse in saving Australia from the out.standing disgrace of permitting 100
·women and others to be transported to
.Japan in a ship that is already over·crowded with men?
Mr. McKELL: I must admit that I
]mow nothing whatever about the matter
referred to by the hon. member. I suggest that he should bring the facts under
my notice, and if he does I will see what
:action is necessary.
EVICTIONS OF TENANTS.
Mr. MATTHEWS: I ask the Premier
-whether it is a fact that many tenants
.are receiving eviction orders on the
,ground that the applicant claims that the
~Jroperty requires reconstruction or rel10Vation? In Tiew of the acute short.age of houses, will the Premier consider
.amending the Act to prevent the enforce:ment of eviction orders on the ground
·Of reconstruction or renovation?
Mr. 11:cKELL:
I am prepared to
.examine the State law, and also the re.{?;ulations under the National Security
Act to see whether the Government can
take further action with a view to pre·venting unnecessary evictions.
RAILWAYS: ISSUE OF SOAP AND
TOWELS.
Mr. DARBY: I ask the Minister for
Transport whether he can inform the
.House when a piece of soap and a towel
will be available for passengers trave11jng by train?
Mr. O'SULLIVAN: When the other
passengers refrain from itaking them
..away.
ZONING: MILK AND ·BREAD.
Mrs. QUIRK: Will the Minister for
'Social Services say whether it is a fact
that master bakers and milk companies
l1aYe decided to continue zoning, despite
·the Government's decision that it shall
;he abolished? Is it a fact that they
J1ave threatened not to supply these
Qttestions ar,d Answe1·s.
necessary commodities to any .one commencing business? Is it further a fact
that these two industries have made
huge profits out of the housewife because
of zoning during the war period? Is it
also a fact that these monopolies are
keeping out of employment men who are
desirous of opening these businesses?
lf these are facts, will the Minister take
steps to see that the law is obeyed in
its entirety and, furthermore, take action
against these firms if they so offend?
Further, will the Minister take some
action against these men who are
threatening intimidation and see that
other men who made great sacrifices in
their fight for freedom are allowed t~~>
earn an honest living?
11:r. KNIGHT: I am not aware of the
action mentioned by the hon. member.
A great deal 'Of press publicity was
given against this Government and the
Federal Government retaining any form
of zoning. It was sugg.ested that the
only things that stood in the way of
people having a free choice in these
matters were the regulations relating to
zoning, and that if the Government
wouid give private• enterprise a free
hand everything would be all right .
However, when the Federal Government
lifted the zoning regulations there was
a public outcry that the Government
should take some action against somebody because something had not been
done. I do not know of any law that
gives an Administration power to direct
or compel anyone to deliver goods to
anyone. I have seen statements in the
press that certain people will not deliver ice, bread, or milk outside their
present zoned areas. I know of no law
that can be brought into being to compel them to do so. So far as I know there
has always been an arrangement between
the purchaser and the seller, but there
has been a great deal of criticism in regard to zoning which is largely based
on something that did not affect zoning but on the fact that no deliveries
were being made. It was stated that
women had to stand in queues because
storekeepers did not deliver goods. The
facts are that milk is delivered to the
household seven days a week, and that
(6 :h!AR., 1946.]
:bread is delivered six days a week and
ice four days a week. The goods that
·were not zoned were those that were
cau.sing all the public criticism because
there were no deliveries. I have called
:a conference of the storekeepers and
those associated with the delivery of
,goods for Monday next for the purpose
-of finding out whether there is anything
in the way of delivery of goods that I,
·as Minister, or the Government, can do
:in order to facilitate the delivery of
goods to the people. I appreciate the
fact that in the war years the house-wife was called upon to do more than
.her fair share. She was called upon viriuall,y to become a pack-horse. I think
that any storekeeper who refuses to de1iver goods when he could do so is doing something that is most reprehen··
·sible. I am hoping, if it is a question
-of the release of vehicles, tyres or
petrol, that as the result of the con-ference on J\.fonday we might be able to
-find some way to help.
EIGH SCHOOLS: COUNTRY CENTRES.
:hfr. CHAFFEY: I ask the Minister
for Education whether it is a fact that
:a Minister in the present Government
has claimed publicly that he received a
:special concession for a town in his electorate, in that the Department of Edu-cation waived the condition requiring a
-certain attendance at high schools, in
·consequence of which the status of the
:school in that town in his electorate
was raised to that of a high school~ If
my information is correct, would the
:Minister be willing to extend that con-cession to other country areas~
Mr. HEFFRON: I do not know of
:any Minister of this Government making such a statement, and it is certainly
not true that high school status has
been given to any school in any electorate, without the necessary number of
pupils.
HOUSING: COUNTRY BRICK
SUPPLIES.
Mr. DAVIDSON: I ask the Premier
whether it is a fact that there is a
shortage of houses in most of the country towns throughout the State~ Is it
7T
Questions and A nswe1·s.
2497
a fact that this is one of the causes of
the drift of the population to the city?
Is it a fact also that decentralisation is
a prominent part of the policy of the
Government? If these are facts will the
Premier consider in conjunction with
the State Brickworks proposal which is
now before the Douse the establishment
of brick kilns in the larger country
towns, particularly at Broken Hill
which is isolated and much in need of
bricks and thereby save freight from the
city to the country?
Jl.fr. 1foKELL: I understand that
there is a shortage of houses in most
country towns. I am prepared to investigate the matter of the production of
bricks in country centres and also to
take whatever action is necessary to increase it.
GAS AND ELECTRICITY RESTRICTIONS.
Mr. HUNTER: I ask the Minister
for Local Government whether it is a
fact that for about a month at the last
Christmas period, due to industrial disputes, he was forced to restrict the use
of gas and electricity in a manner previously unparalleled, and that he commended the peopll:) for playing fair by
the restrictions he was forced to impose?
Is it a fact that the restrictions are not
reflected in the accounts rendered for
those commodities, but rather that there
have been substantial increases? If
these are facts, can the Minister throw
any light on the seeming anomaly?
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: It is a fact that
rationing of gas and eleCtricity was·
imposed about last Christmas time and
that since accounts have been rendered
covering that period certain complaints
have been made that the electricity accounts rendered do not reflect the reduction that the consumers think took place.
I do not think I have had any complaint
in regard to gas accounts. There have
also been letters received in the department showing a saving on the accounts. I
referred these matters to the supplying
authority, the Sydney County Council.
It was generally expected that because
of rationing there would be a substantial reduction in the quarterly accounts.. ·
2498
[ASSEMBLY.]
but in many cases this has not eventuated. The explanation tendered to me
is that the charges for electricity arc
based mainly on a "residence" rate,
under which a charge of Hd. is made
for w many units and a fraction of a
penny for subsequent units consumed.
The savings wei·e not effected on the
Hd. units but on those charged at a
fraction of a penny. It must be borne
in mind also that the public was permitted to use electricity for the cooking
of the evening meal and one light was
permitted until a certain time. "While
the restrictions caused great inconvenience, the quarterly accounts have not
reflected the savings to the extent expected. I appreciate that there is cause
for complaint but am assured by th.:1
supply authority, the Sydney County
Council, that the charge has been·
made only in accord.ance with the
reading of the meters and that if
a perwn considers his account to be
incorrect, his meter will be checked.
During the rationing period large
numbers of persons co-operated to the
fullest possible extent, though others
failed to comply with the restrictions.
I am assured by the County Council
that no charge has been levied that
!'hould not have been made and as that
body is the supply authority I must
accept that statement unless something
is proved to the contrary.
WESTERN DIVISION· CO~TDITION OF
ROADS.
Ques~ions and Answers.'
MANUAL TRAINING: TENTERFIELD
ELEC'l'ORATE.
Lt.-Colonel BRUXNER: Is the Minister for Education aware that the·
teacher of manual training at the Cen-·
tral School at Tenterfi.eld is compelled
to travel 100 miles to take a class at
the Emma ville Central School? As this
is neither fair to teacher nor pupil-Mr. SPElAKER: Order! The hon. member is expressing an opinion!
Lt.-Colonel BRUXNER:
Will the
llfinister see that a manual training
teacher is appointed to the Centra]
School at Emmaville~ ·
11£r. HEFFRON: I am not aware of
the facts mentioned by the hon. member
but will look into the matter immediately. The distance mentioned is too
great for a teacher to travel and .if it
is possible to comply with the hon. member's request it will be done.
FARM REQUISITES:
11fr. FINN AN: Will the Premier say
whether it is a fact that large stocks
of galvanised barbed wire, galvanised:
rabbit-proof fencing, steel posts and
corrugated fibro are deterior.ating at the
Army depot at The Speedway, Penrith?
Is it a fact also that many primary
producers in the Hawkesbury district
have had urgent orders placed for these
materials for the last eighteen months'?
If these are facts, and in view of th<1
urgent need of primary producers and
ex-servicemen for these materials, will
the Premier ask the Minister for the
Army for the immediate transference of
these materials from the Army to another
department for disposal to those io
u~gent need of them~
Mr. HORSING TON: Will the :Minister for Transport say whether it is a
fact that because of recent heavy rains,
ro~ds in the \Vestern Divi~ion are in
:1 very bad condition and that many of
them are impassable? If this is a fact
will he ask the :Main Roads Board to
increase the maintenance staff on these
· ]l{r. McKELL: I do not know that
roads, particularly the road from it is a fact that there are large stocks.
l3roken Hill to Tibooburra. so that they
of the materials mentioned by the bon .. :
may be put in reasonable travelling
member on hand, but I am certainly pre<In·der ~
11£r. O'SULI,IV AN: It is a fact that pared to take the bon. member's worcJ
recent rains have badly damaged the for it, and I shall make representationg
roads in the Western Division and if to the Commonwealth authorities with
possible effect will be given to the hon. a view to their being made available for
member's sugg-estion.
civil purposes.
F'ocd and ~nfedical81tpplies
[6 MAR., 1946.]
'·
FOOD AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR
'l'HE DUTCH EAST INDIES.
MOTION OF URGENCY.
Mr. TREATT (Woollahra) [2.51]: I
move:
That it is a matter of urgent necessity
that this House should forthwith consider
the following motion, viz.: "That this
House is of opinion that,(1) 'l'he organised attempt by '\.tterside
disruptionists to prevent the despatch of
food and medical s11pplies to the peoples
of the Dutch East Indies is a flagrant de·
fiance of constituted law and order and a
cruel insult to a gallant ally.
(2) This Parliament calls upon the Com·
monwcalth Government to exercise the full
authority veste-d in it by the Constitution
to allny Dutch suffering and maintain
Australia's honour.
( 3) That the terms of this resolution
be conveyed to the Prime Jl.iinister of Aus·
tralia.
On the question of urgency, I think it
will te conceded by members on both
sides of the House that Australians have
teen shocked at the circumstance that
medical supplies and food for the relief
of women and children in the Dutch East
Indies bave been denied to the wives
and children of men who fought with
and for us. It is a matter of urgency,
I submit, that this motion, if it be
>:cceptable to the House, be passed forthwith and forwarded to the Commonwealth Government, cecause reflection,
I think, will satisfy the House, having
regard to the history of the matter. that
th Commonwealth Government will corcliallv recei1•e :mel be glad to have the
expr~ssecl opinion of the Parliament of
New South Wales that every action
should te taken to restore Australia':3
honour and to bring relief to these
people. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Federal Parliament meets
to-clay. No ·doubt the House is aware
that an opportunity will be taken to
bring these matters before that Parli~ment, and surely it is urgent that all
parties in the Federal Parliament, if
thev take the view that I am sure this
Ho~1se will tnke. should have the suprort of the Parliament of New South
Wales, which is comprised of members
who i''·e in close toueh with the events
that have led to the degradation of
fer Dutch East Indies.
24!)!)
Australia?s name. It is no use mincing words. On the question of urgency,
I submit that we cannot wait for the
forms of this House to be gone through,
by notice of motion, before something
is done in regard to this important matter. If something is to be done, it will
have to be done immediately. The iron
must be struck while it is hot. Every
effort must be made by enlightened anJ
responsible citizens to see that the Commonwealth Government obtains the support _and encouragement of the responsible people of New South Wales.
I
submit that the matter is urgent, Mr.
Speaker, because our feelings of humanity have been outraged and Australian
honour is involved in the determination
of this issue.
Question put. The House divided:
Ayes, 24; noes, 47; majority, 23 ..
AYER.
Bate, Jeff
Black, I. C.
Brai11, G. W.
Bruxner, Lt-Colonel
Darby, E. D.
Dickson, S.D.
Drummond, D. H.
Frith, W.
Gollan, G. C.
Rearnshaw, E.
Howarth, W.A. H.
Hunter, D. B.
Jackett, H. G.
Arthur, Captain
Baddeley, .J. M.
Cahill, F. J.
Cnhill, J. J.
Cameron, R.
Chanter, Major
Davidson. M.A.
Davies, W.
Enticknap, A. G.
Finnan, F. J.
Fowler, Mrs. L.
Freeman, J. S.
Geraghtv ..J. L. ·
Gollan, w. M.
Gorman, R. D.
Graham. E. H.
Grei!!. R.
Hawkins, F. H.
Heffron, R. J.
Horsine-ton, E. M.
Kellv. C. A.
Knight. H.
Lamb, vV. H.
Landa, A.
Jordan, L. C.
Lawson, J. A.
Reid, J. T.
Rose, D.
Stephens, S. T.
Treatt, V. H.
Turner, H. B.
Vincent, R. S.
Wingfield, C. G.
Tellers,
Chaffey, W. A.
Robson, Lt.-Colonel
NoEs.
Lang,J. T.
Lazzarini, C. C.
Macdonald, D.P.
McGirr, James
McKell, W. J.
Martin, Major
Matthews, C. H.
Nott, R. B.
O'Halloran, R. E.
O'Sullivan, M.
Qui1·k, Mrs. M.
Renshaw, J. B.
Robertson, C. G.
Seiffert, J. W.
Stanley, F.
Storey, S. A. D.
Sweeney, J. T.
Ton~e.
A.
'l'nlly,.T.M.
Weir, G.
Williams, A. J. L.
Tellers,
McGrath ..T. F.
Woodward, H. P. J.
2500
[ASSEMBLY.]
PAms.
Mair, A.
Richardson, A.
Carlton, W. J.
Hamilton, R. G.
Question so resolved in the, negative.
QUESTIONS· WITIICUT NOTICE
(Resu~ned).
SOLDIER SETTLE£.<IENT.
Mr. SEIFFERT: I ask the Minister
for La)lds whether it is a fact that he
has issued, closer settlement proclamations over ni11e large properties in· the
Monaro electO.l'ate in connection with the
settlement of returned soldiers on the
land~ Is it a fact, also, that there is
a. general reluctance on the part of the
companies and others who. own these
large a~:eas, to release their surplus lands
for the soldiers? If these are factsand to show these owners that the Government means business-will the Jl.fini:ater take immediate <>teps to institute
resumption proceedings instead of waiting for the voluntary giving up of surplus lands, which. obviously, will not
'be done to any large extent?
·
Mr. TULLY: It, is a fact that several
have been plac·,~d over
·suitable estates in the Monaro .district,
:and vario.us other parts of K ew South
Wales. Tb,ere is also a disposition on
the part of some holders to ask for a
nigher price than would ordinarily be
required, but nevertheless a fair number of large holders are prepared to sell
parts of their estates to the Government.
Naturally these sales can be effected
much more expeditiously in a voluntary
:and amicable. way, and rather than enforce a resumptioi.\, we are giving preference to those holders who are pre·pared voluntarily to submit their properties to the Government. I want the
·House to realise that sometimes resumptions mean a lot of expense and the
-collection of considerable evidence;
sometimes it will add lOs. an acre to
the cost of the .land, and by the time- the
-court deals with. the resumptions and
disturbance d0lay-s of up to twelve
months are occasioned. We, therefore,
-prefer to come to some voluntary
proclamation~;>
Questions and A nsu·e1·s.
arrang·ement with respect to the acc;ui-:
sition of these estates, because where
compulsory :~:es1,llllptions take place,
delaY.s of up to eighteen months · are
occasioned before the estates are finalised.
TEACHERS' TRAINING COLLEGES.
Jl.lr. DICKSON: I ask the nfinister
for Education whether it is a fact that
the Federal Gover-nment bas been unable
to make accommodation available at the
agga W agga aerodrome for the purpose of establishing a teachers' training
college there? If so, will the :Minister
have immediate investigations made as
to the possibility of obtaining suitable
accommodation at Cootamundra or·
Temora aerodromes for this purpose, and
thus meet an urgent and pressing need?
'V
Mr. HEFFRON:
I shall be very.
pleased to investigate the facilities at
both places mentioned by the hon. mem!i>er. It is desirable to establish a teachers' college in a town where there are
.a number of schools, so that the students
may be able to take advantage of practice teaching. That is one of the reasons
why \Vagga Wagga was regarded as a
very good place to establish a college.
As to the lack of accommodation, I shall
he pleased to look into the merits of
both the places mentioned by the bon.
merober.
Captain ARTHUR: When the Minister' for Education is considering the
establishment of any further teachers'
colleges in ~ew South Wales, will he
give favourable consideration to establishing one in the Newcastle district,
where all the facilities that he has mentioned are av.aila ble ~
:Mr. HEFFRON: I shall be very
pleased to give consideration to the
merits of the Newcastle district, too.
Jl.fr. ENTICKN AP: Following a question I asked last week in regard to the
proposed teachers' colle~e for the southwestern portion of the State, and in view
of the fact that the :Minister for Education was unable to obtain premises for
Sl.lch a· college to be established at W agga
[6·MAR., 1946.]
.
W.agga, will the Minister now give consid·eration to obtaining premises at N arrandera, which is in the centre of the
south-western district~
Mr. HEFFRON: When the hon. member asked the question last week I said
that we were making representations anrl
very strong protests to the Federal
authorities for using the camp at ·wagga
W agga for the purpose of housing
refugees when other places could have
been used for that purpose. I suggest
that the Federal authorities should reconsider their decision and let us have
that camp. The situation has not .altered
since I made that statement.
EDUCATION: HOME SCIENCE
TRAINING.
Mr. WOODWARD: Will the Minister
for Education say whether it is a fact
that home science training provides an
excellent foundation upon which to build
happy and contented home life~ Is it
a £.act, too, that home science schools in
this State compare favourably, if not
more than favourably, with those in any
other part of the British Empire~ If
these are facts, in order to maintain and
improve the standards, will the Minister
give consider.ation to a suggestion made
in the press last week that a (!Ourse
should be provided at the universities for
the teaching of future leaders in the art
of home science~
Mr. HEFFRON: I agree with all that
the hon. member has suggested concerning the value of training in horne science.
It can be generally admitted th.at the
set-up for home science teaching in the
latest schools in this State at least cornpares very favourably with that in existence in any other country. As to whether
I would favour the suggestion made in
the press a few d.ays' ago that the university should train leaders and confer
degrees in home science, I might say
that there is already provision for a
degree of Bachelor of Domestic Science
at the University of Sydney, though so
far onl:v one person has actually completed the course. Some little time ago
we went into the question of dealing
with home science in a very thoroug-h
way in our technical education branch.
2601
.•
It is felt that all the facilities necessary
for such training are there. We advertised for a lecturer in home science, and
have received a number of applications.
These we are now considering. When a
lecturer is appointed I am sure that we
shall be able to provide in our technical
colleges the kind of leadership advocated
in the press and to which the hon. member refers.
FACTORY BUILDING PERMITS:
COUNTRY DISTRICTS.
Mr. FRITH: Will the Jlfinister for
Labour and Industry say why applications for permits to build factories in
country districts are not granted~
llfr. KNIGHT: I could not answer
such a general question as that. If the
hoi1. member has any particular person
or company in mind that has applied
for a permit to build and has been refused, and he supplies me with p.articulars, I will find out the exact reason for
the refusal. We are encouraging the
building of factories in country towns,
particularly where there are materials
available and where m.aterials other than
bricks c·an be used. In some country
centres ·there is a surplus of bricks, and
we encourage applicants to use them. If
the hon. member will give me the particulars of a specific case I shall be able
to find out the facts and give him a
reply.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' DAY.
Mr. LANG: Will the Premier state
when he proposes to remove the "gag''
from Parliament by restoring private
members' da:v ~
Jlf r. MoRELL: There is no "gag"
on Parliament, nor has there been at
any time since this Government took
office. That is in marked contrast to
the action of the Parliaments that preceded it.
Mr. TREATT: Will the Premier inform the House when he proposes to
re~tore private mem hers' da:v ~
1\fr. SPEAKER: Order! That question has already been answered. The
hem. member has merely repeated it in
different language.
2502
Quest-ions ancl Answe1·s.
[ASSEMBLY.]
Questions and Answe1·s.
HOUSING: RELEASE OF BUILDERS.
TAXI-CAB PLATES.
Mr. W. DAVIES: Will the Minister for Housing say whether there is a
shortage of operatives in the building industry? Is it a fact that many builders
who are in the army wasting their time
have applied for their release and have
been refused?
Will ·he approach the
Minister for the Army: and acquaint him
with the urgent need for builders and
the absolute waste of skilled labour in
the running of military trucks all over
the country, as well as of tyres
and petrol, when these men could be
employed in the building of homes?
11:r. TURNER: I ask the Minister
for Transport whether it is a fact that,
despite recent legislation and fears expressed by the Opposition, when that
legislation was being considered, taxi-cab
plates are selling at £1,500 each? Is it a.
fact that this indicates a -considerable
shortage of taxi-cabs, to the inconvenience of the public? Will the Minister
say whether it is intended to increase
the number of plates, .and, if so, to what
extent? Will he further say when and
on what principles additional taxi-cab
plates will be allotted?
Mr. JAMES McGIRR: I should like
to say that there is a shortage of men
not only for the building of homes, but
also for the production of the materials
nec,essary. The 11:anpower and Material
Supply branch of the Housing Commission is constantly in touch with the manpower authorities and the army in an
endeavour to have men released. It is
very difficult to secure their release, but I
am prepared to press the matter raised
by the bon. member in order to see whether something more substantial can be
done through fhe Minister for the Army.
SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
:Mr. STOREY: I ask the Premier
whether it is a fact that there is .::~ wide~
variation in the contributions and benefits of the various superannuation funds
in this State? Is it a fact that superannuation pensioners are subject to income tax, .and do not receive travelling
concessions as do other pensioners? If
these are facts, is the Premier willingto set up a committee to consider whether
uniformity cannot be achieved and the
lot of the superannuation pensioner improved?
Mr. :McKELL: The question of some
uniformity with regard to superannuation payments and benefits as between
the respective branches of the pu.blic
service is at present under consider.ation.
Mr. O'SULLIVAN: Recent le~isla
tion was passed in an endeavour to prevent trafficking in taxi-cab. plates. Anyone who held a taxi registration before
the passing of the Act could transfer his
registration once only. If people are prepared to p.ay £1,500 for a taxi-cab plate
that is their own business. There is no
shortage of taxi-cabs at the present time.
[Interruption.]
:Mr. SPEAKER: Order!
:Mr. O'SULLIVAN: If we take the
two cities concerned, namely, Sydney
and Melbourne, where there is no great
disparity in population, we find that with
our population we have 950 unrestricted
taxi-cabs operating, while in the city of
:Melbourne, with a population not very
much lower than that of Sydney, there
are only il50 unrestricted taxi-cabs. If
hon. members will go into the -city they
will find taxi-cabs parked in various
places awaiting passengers. What is
making taxi-cabs so profitable to-day is
that there l1as been a restriction on
tr.~.n~:>port, and taxi-cab owners have been
permitted to do something that is not
done ordinarily, that is, to "jitney." The
moment we> are in a position to prevent
that practice any taxi-cab driver who indulges in it will lose his licence. No
taxi-cab licence will be issued in future
unless a ballot has been previously taken.
In this ballot preference will be given to
returned servicemen who had previously
held a licence, and the next preference
will be given to ex-servicemen who now
desire to become taxi-cab owners.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY.
Mr. BADDELEY: With reference to
the question asked by the hon. member
for Annandale concerning the exhibition of Australian films, I should like to
inform him that under the existing law,
motion picture exhibitors are required
to exhibit two and a half per cent. of
Australian films in their programmes
oeach year, not five per cent. as mentioned by him. If an exhibitor exhibits
<me copy weekly of an Australian newsreel that is counted as one feature film
for the purpose of fulfilling his quota.
So far as Australian shorts of any other
nature are concerned, the provisions of
the quota legislation do not apply to
them. During the war years the production of Australian films fell away almost to nothing, but from information
available in the department it is understood that production is now increasing.
I recently approved of one Australian
film, "A Son is Born," being accepted
under the provisions o_f the Act as an
Australian quota film, lmd it is anticipated that two other films, "Smithy"
and "The Overlanders," will be submitted for consideration in the near future.
There is provision in the Act that if in
any year compliance with the quota requirements by exhibitors is not commercially practicable by reason of the
quantity, character or exhibition value
<Jf Australian films available or the
excessive cost of such films in relation
to foreign films, the requirements may
be modified or exhibitors may be exemptoed therefrom to such extent as, in the
<Circumstances, is considered reasonable.
~rhe Theatres and Films Commission is
at present inquiring into the failure of
-certain exhibitors to comply with requirements in respect of the year ended
'30th June, 1945, but it is known that
the number of Australian films available
<luring that period was negligible.
DUST
COMPE~SA TION
CASES.
Mr. KJnGHT: Yesterday the hon.
member for Wollongong-Kembla asked
me whether it was a fact that many
miners had to go on the dole system for
twelve months because insurance companies are not prepared to pay compen-
Housing Agreement Bill.
2503
sation until the matter has been decided
by the court. In reply, I want to assure
the hon. member that there is no case
where the applicant has had to wait twelve
months on account of the congestion in
the Commission's lists. There may be
dela:ys of a few months in some cases,
but that is entirely clue to the parties
themselves asking for adjournments. If
the hon. member will furnish me with
the names of the miners who have had
to wait an undue length of time I wili
let him know the reasons for the delay.
I can, however, inform the hon. member
now that there is no delay in the hearing of workers' compensation cases at
\Vollongong, where the Commission sits
four or five times a year. As a matter
of fact, there was a sitting of the Commission at vVollongong last week when
all cases awaiting hearing there were
dealt with. Some litigants, instead of
exercising their right to have their cases
heard at \Vollongong, prefer to have
them heard in Sydne,y. When this course
is adopted the cases must then take
their place in the S,ydne:y list. But even
with the Sydne:y lists, special hearings
are arranged in Sydney for vVollongong
cases to suit the convenience of the parties' solicitors. I should like to inform
the hon. member further that the majority of claims for compensation by
South Coast coal miners are dealt with
by conciliation through the Commission's Conciliation and Information
Dureau, and awards are made immediately after the findings of the Medical Board. There is no delay at all when
the parties use the services of the Com·
mission's Conciliation Bureau. In thos.:;
cases where the parties prefer to liti-·
g·ate the dispute in open court, delay car;
be reduced to a minimum if they have
the cases heard in W ollongong.
COMMONWEALTH AND STATE
HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL.
:Mr. J AlliES llic:GIR.R (Bankstowu)
:Minister for Housing [3.20] : I move:
'f·hat leave be given to bring in a bill
to appro1•e :mel rntify an agreement between
the Commom1·ealth ancl the States in rclat ion to housing; ancl for purposes connected
therewith.
This Bill which I present to the Hou&e
approves an agreement between the
Commonwealth Government and the
governments of the various States
of .Australia. .At the Premiers' Conference in January 1944, the then
Prime Ministe·r put forward a proposal
for a Commonwealth-wide post-war
housing scheme. The proposal, br.iefly,
provided that the Commonwealth Government would make loan moneys available to the housing authoritie& set up
by the various States, which were to
build homes primarily to meet the needs
of the low income groups, large families and servicemen and servicewomen,
and to provide certain rent rebates. The
proposal was generally approved by the
Premiers' Conference, which directed
that the officers of the Commonwealth
and the respective States &hould meet to
prepare an agreement covering the proposal.
The officers subsequently met and a
resultant draft agreement was submitted to the Premiers' Conference in
.August, 1944. .At the conference the
various clauses of the agreement were
discussed in detail and certain principles were agreed upon. It was directed
by the conference that a further meeting of Commonwealth and State officers
be called to determine certain administrative details. That meeting was held
in Melbourne in June, 1945, when the
draft of the agreement was carefully
revised. The agreement was again submitted to the Premiers' Conference in
.August, 1945, where final agreement was
arrived at. The draft agreement having
been subjected to the close scrutiny of
the Crown Law authorities, officials of
the Treasury and of the Ministry of
Housing in this State, and the appropriate authorities in the Commonwealth
and the other States, the agreement has
now been signed by the Prime Minister
and by the Premiers of the respective
States.
The agreement provides that, before it
becomes effective, it must be approved
by the Parliament of the Commonwealth
and the Parliament of each of the
States. Information has been received
Mr. James McGirr.]
that a bill approving the agreement
has been passed by the Parliament of
the Commonwealth and by the Parlia-·
ment of each of the States, with the·
exception of Victoria and New South
Wales. It is now necessary, therefore,,
for the agreement to be approved and
ratified by thi& State.
Mr. TREATT (Woollahra) [3.24]:::
This bill obviously will require careful
consideration, not that it would appear
that this Parliament will have much
say as to its contents. It conforms to
the pattern of similar bilis and follows
the trend of events in our national life
consequent on the war, in that the
Commonwealth Government, admittedly
after consultation with State Premiers~
invites the State Parliaments to accept
or to reject a measure. The States;
cannot amend these bills to their liking.
I want to make it perfectly clear that
members on this side are as anxious
as anyone could be to have the housingposition in New South Wales cleared:
up, and I should not be so foolhardy,
without seeing the proposals embodiecT
in this bill, as to suggest that there coulcT
be no progress implicit within its
clauses; but I take the opportunity of
saying that it seems in the highest degree improbable that the Premier of
New South Wales was able to approvethis measure in its entirety. It is
evidently necessary to get the approval
of all the States to a bill presented. by
the Commonwealth Government as a bait
or inducement, or at any rate something that goes along with a grant of
money; and it seems in the highest degree improbable that every State could
be perfectly satisfied that the biU
meets the requirements, no more and no.
less, of its citizens.
It may or may not have proved an
embarrassment to the Minister or the
"Premier; it may be that the Premier in
return for the money was willing to
accept anything. On the other handthe people of New South Wales do not
know-it may ha>e been that he objected
to some features of the measure.
The
Premiers were expected to come to some
Housing Agreement'Bill.
16 Mi\R., 1946.]
agreement on the basis of a uniform system throughout Australia,
though conditions are different in
every State. That sort of problem must arise if the system of uniform
taxation combined with conditional
grants is to be engrafted permanently
upon the financial activities of the
States. I suggest that the J\finister or
the Premier, every time a bill of this
sort is introduced should give an assurance, supported by facts, that what he.
conceives to be the real requirements of
the State, and not a compromise, were
preserved when the agreement was
entered into.
I assure the Minister and this House
and the people that the Opposition is keen
to see houses built. It is keen to see that
certain persons get priority, as is their
due in common justice. These matters
seem to have been in view in drafting
the agreement that is embodied in the
bill. The Opposition, even though we
have not the control over taxes that we
ought to have, want to see that the taxpayers' money is spent properly and not
squandered. So far as the g-eneral objectives of the bill are concerned, the J\.finister can be assured of the absolute
sympathy and interest of this side of the
House. So far as the other matter is concerned, we do not 'know with any certainty what is the position. It is to be
hoped that the bill, which will provide
the pattern for others, will provoke a
most earnest and searching debate inside
and outside the House.
Mr. LANG (Auburn) [3.30] : Leave to
introduce is sought for a bill to ratify
an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. No doubt the
Premier's signature was attached to the
document and his was the· major voice
from this State in the discussions that
took place.
It puzzles me, therefore,
why the bill has not been introduced
by the Premier.
It is presented to
the 'House and bon. members are
asked to accept or reject it.
It
comes before the House as an accomplished fact and not one word of the
bill ca.n be altered by amendment.
The agreement was made and the
negotiations that led up to it will be
State Bfic'hworlcs Bill.
kno,vn to those who took part in the
discussion, but not to hon. members. I
thetefore ask the J\finister to lay on
the table, before the measure is dealt.
with at the second reading stage, the
record, if one exists, of the discussions.
that took place, so that bon. member~
may know exactly what occurred and
why certain decisions were made. If
that action is taken on this occasion, it
will become a precedent, and when billsof a similar nature are presented the
i'esponsible Minister will see that they
are accompanied by a. record of the proceedings that took place.
That is a perfectly reasonable request and the House should have before
it aU the reasons that actuated the Premiers to enter into the agreement. Hon.
members will then be able to see whether
there are any strings attached to the
measure, and whether anything outside
the agreement might affect the interpretation of its various clauses. I hope
that the Minister will accede to my re-·
quest and will lay on the table, not on
the day he delivers his second reading
speech, but prior to that day, any records
that will asssist bon. members during
the course of the debate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill presented and read a first time_
STATE BIUCKWORKS BILL.
SECOND READIKG.
Debate resumed (from
5th ]\{arch,
·vide page 2494) on motion by Mr. J. J_
Cahill:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr. TREATT (Woollahra) [3.35];
Last night I made the point that with
the exception of the hon. member for
J\1:arrickville, hon. members opposite who
had spoken, allegedly in support of the
measure, had confined their remarks to
attacks upon a number of persons who
were not and could not be present in
the House and who were, therefore, unable to 'defend themselves. Most bon.
members will regard that as something
to which the gravest exception should
2.::03
State Brickworks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
be taken, but it becomes more objectionable and more unpardonable when a report is available showing quite clearly
that so far as such charges can be disproved, they are without foundation.
The name of J\£r. Barton was mentioned
and I hasten to say that I do not know
him.
Government members attacked
this gentleman, alleg·ing, in plain terms.
the gravest criminal acts against him.
He was openly accused of being a crimanal, \:;ut I direct the attention of hon.
members to the report of the late Mr.
Justice Halse Rogers, who said:
Earlier I summarised the charges which
were made against Mr. Barton by Mr. Lang
in his speeches. 'l'hose charges have been
~·eitera.ted and extended during the course
<>f the hearing; in fact Mr. Sheahan has
oroncentrated on nn attack on Mr. Barton
during the whole course of the proceedings.
The Commissioner further said:
In view of the continued and reiterated
:attacl;s that were made on Mr. Barton, both
1n the speeches and in the conduct of the
-<:ase before me, and which have been repeated after examination of all the docuJnents and the hearing of all the evidence,
I think it proper to say that nothing has
<em€rged which, in m~· op:nion, can reflect
:lldv€rsely upon Mr. Barton or in any way
odamage the high repute in which, accord:'ing to the testimony, he is held by his felJow citizens.
That gentleman could have no better
testimony and in the light of that ex1Jaustive examination it .ill behoves any
11011. member to enter the Chamber a.nd
:attack a person who cannot defend himself. Knowing that the throwing of mud
might do irreparable damage, hon. meml)ers opposite did not hestiate to suggest
that Mr. Barton was a criminal. They
also hurled charges across the Chamber,
using- the words "they are the guilty
men," and on more than one occasion
the plain statement was made that the
guilty men, comprising hon. member;>
Qn this side of the Chamber, were guilty
Qf a crime. There is only one course
l::y which such charg-es may be answered,
an exhaustive public inquiry.
Surely
l10n. members on both sides will deplore
these reckless attacks based upon what
must be imperfect knowledge in the
light of the considered report of a justice
of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Treatt.]
The Hoyal Commissioner then stated:
It "·ill be seen later that I find there is
no evidence of any fraudulent transactions
on the part of any member of the Government in connection with these sales, and
consequently that there is no ground for the
suggestion that Mr. ·weaver was removed
to give freer scope to a Mini::ter engaging
in fraudulent transactions.
Without retaining the offensive meaning
which the phrase was given by hon. members on the Government side when supporting this measure, I would say that
if we are to look for "guilty men" we
must look to the Government side. I
suggest that the responsibility for the
condition of affairs which prompts the
Government-I tl1ink without justification-to introduce this bill is on the
Government, first and last, and, incidentally, on those hon. members who stood
idly by while the Governmest failed to
discharge its responsibility to the people
to provide houses. That is not a reckless charge.
It can be supported by
documents. I said last night that the
brickworks had 40,000,000 bricks in reserve in 1940. It was not in 1940, but
in 1943, that they had 40,0CO,OOO bricks
in reserve. Because they were men who
wanted to get on with the job, in order
to ensure that there would be bricks
available when the housing c:1mpaign
got under way, they made a request to
the Government. They asked for one
thing, .:vhich was the necessary manpower. Is this House to be misled by
shallow artifices such as those adopted
by Government members when speaking
in support of the measure? Is there
any substance in the suggestion that
these brick manufacturers did not want
to get on with the job, or, conversely,
that the Government was doing all that
it should do to get on with the job? Let
us test that in the light of this correspondence, which, fortunately, I am able
to put before the House. If bon. members are to evaluate the worth o£ this
bill, and if they are to assume that this
bill will do anything towards solving the
housing problem, they must ask themselves what has been done in the past.
I am not g·oing back to 1915, but to the
[6 MAR., 1946.]
last few years. I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to a letter directed to the Deputy-Premier of New
South \Vales, and I ask the House, before it idly accepts the me&sure, before
it accepts the Government's statement
that this is the only way in which to
solve the housing problem, to consider
what this letter suggests. It is dated
the 18th July, 1945, is addressed to the
Hon. J. M. Baddeley, Deputy-Premier
of New South Wales, and commences :
Realis~ng the great demands on manpower
during the war period, we have previously
1·eframed from bringing under your personal notice the serious disabilities to which
this industry has been subjected.
I would remind hon. members that this
letter was written to the repr.esentative
of a Government which has represented
itself to the people of New South Wales
as one which is alive to the requirements
of the people.
The letter points out
that manpower must be obtained. It is
stated that forty million bricks were in
reserve in June, 1943, that these stocl{S
had been depleted during the following
two years, and that in June, 1945, there
were
16,000,000
bricks in stock,
but that the position was serious.
That letter was written on the 18th
July, 1945, at about the end of the war,
and just about the time when all the
vast plans which had been prepared and
which were ready to be put into opera-.
tiou should have been put into operation.
That was the time for action.
This
House has not yet be:m told what the
Government did, nor what it told these
people in reply to their letter. How can
the charge be made that private enterprise has failed? How can the claim
of the Government that the only way in
which the position can be met is by the
State Government taking over the brickworks be sustained? The position is not
going to be settled in their electorates
by their making the charge against hon.
members on this side : "You opposed a
Government measure which would have
r~lieved the housing situation."
The
Opposition will tell the people that the
Government failed to give to private enterprise the facilities asked for by prudent men which would have resulted in
2507
the 40,000,000 bricks in reserve being
increased to meet an emergency. The responsibility for the present lack of bricks
in New South Wales, if it can be charged
to any person or group of persons, on
the documents, clearly rests on the Government of New South Wales.
The
only way of judging the future is by a
consideration of the past, and the Opposition will say that a consideration of
the past shows that Government enterprises have been, by and large, substantial and complete failures. They will go
further and say that it is the policy of
the Opposition to support private enterprise, but to see zealously that private
enterprise does not constitute itself a
monopoly inimical to the public. The
leader of the Opposition pointed out
wh::tt has happened in New South \Vales.
There has been a loss, on eight undertakings, of £1,205,000. What has been
the position in Queensland, which has
enjoyed the perhaps doubtful advantage
of Labour Governments for a large number of years? The Queensland Government commenced a policy of State enterprises in 1915, and continued them
for a period of nearly fifteen years until
1929. During that period of time it was
established beyond a shadow of doubt
that eighteen enterprises showed a total
loss of £3,750.CDO. and most of them
were abandoned. That is the experience
which makes the Opposition take the
stand for private enterprise. We say that
private enterprise can produce the goods.
It has produced the goods, and, given a
fair chance, it will produce the goods more
efficiently than Government enterprise. I
know that it will be argued that the
State brickworks, when they did operate,
constituted an exception to the rule.
It will be argued that the State Brick
works operated at a profit. That I concede, and I should be the last person to
advocate the removal of any enterprise
that could make a profit after meeting
all the charges that are normally placed
on private enterprise. That was the
attitude adopted by Sir Thomas Bavin
when he was Premier of New South
·wales. But it is a ver:v different thing
for .a Government to take the initiative,
merely to cover up its own default, in
2508
'State Bficlcwofks Bul.
[ASSEMBLY.]
building up a State enterprise which, on
prior experience of private enterprises,
appears doomed to failure. The Opposition does not take up an unhelpful attitude in these matters, and,
if the bill goes through, as appe.ars likely
from the somewhat tolerant attitude of
hon. members who are influenced by the
present housing position, the Opposition
proposes in Committee to move amend·
lbents that will provide that State enterprises must carry all the burdens carried
by private enterprise. From the point
of view of ordinary accounting, we shall
then be able to see whether the enterprise is a success or not. The public
does not want a bolstered-up State enterprise making an unnecessary demand
upon the finances of the State until the
Government in office is deposed and another Government has the unpleasant job
of liquidating the enterprise. I trust that
the Government will support the amendment that will be moved. but my hope
that that will be done is not strengthened
by confidence; rather, it is a trust in the
basic goodness of hon. members and their
readiness to do the right thing when
the true position is put before them.
The leader of the Opposition has informed hon. members that the Opposition opposes the bill. ~fembers of this
party say that the solution of the problem is not by the institution of a Government enterprise which, from past
experience, is doomed to failure, but
rather by giving private enterprise a
decent chance to carry on business.
Documents prove that private enterprise
has not been given a reasonable chance.
A letter that I have mentioned previously
proves conclusively that the Government
was most unhelpful to the private enterprises and, from what has been published
in the press, the brickmakers h.ave been
hampered in their efforts to get machinery in a time of great domestic crisis.
For that I do not blame this Government. The Commonwealth Government
or one of its instrumentalities was responsible. These grossly unfair burdens
may have been placed on private enterprise as the result of some fault inherent
in Government."!} enterprisef'. That is
not good administration.· The United
Mr. T1·eatt.]
·State Brickworks Bill.
Australia ·party invoked the ~1onopolies
Act to prove that a monopoly exists. A
royal commission was appointed for the
pu'rpose, but, despite the protestation of
supporters of this Government, when in
Opposition, that they would take appropriate action, nothing has been done in
that direction since it assumed office.
If the Minister believes that a monopoly
may operate in the future, why does he
not adopt a scheme along the lines suggested to him, and at present obtaining
with the Commonwealth Government, in
respect of the Amalgamated Wireless of
Australia Limited. If that were done,
this State would have what the people
demand-confidence in the enterprise,
and efficiency in the production of goods.
I have not the opportunity to mention
the hundred and one occasions on which
Governments wAre forced during the last
war to go to private enterprise for assistance-and they have acknowledged the
elficiency and drive of private enterprise.
Nor does time permit me to detail the
mtmerous instances in which Governments have admitted that these socialistic ventures are doomed to failure.
Mr. ToxaE: The State brickworks
was a financial success!
Mr. TREA.'TT: It is a fact that the
State brickworks was a financial success, but experience of State enterprises
has shown that this is the exception
rather than the rule. If the hon. member won the first prize in Tattersall's
sweep to-day he would not be likely to
win it again.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: Has the hon. member any knowledge of the Southern Electricity Supply undertaking, which has
been a very profitable undertaking~
Mr. TREATT: I do not deny that the
Southern Electricity Supply undertaking has been of benefit to the State,
but, generally speaking, experience has
shown that State industrial enterprises
have resulted in financial loss. In
Que·ensland, Labour Governments abandoned ·such undertakings after a loss
oi almost £4,000,000 had been sustained,
and the same thing has occurred in New
South Wales. As I have pointed out to
hon. members, there is documentary
proof that private enterprise has not
[6 MAR., 1946.]
been given a chance and that obstacles
have bee"n placed in its way. Before the
Government usks hon. members to agree
to an extraordinary measure of this
nature, it should ensure that private
<>nterp;·ises are given a fair chance to
operate efficiently.
Mr. VINCE:NT (Raleigh) [3.59] : I
shull not take up a great deal of the
time of the House in speaking upon this
measure. Some hon. members have compared the position in 1935 with that
obtaining to-day, bnt having in mind
the fact tlwt a world war has inter"'·ened, I believe that there is no sound
basis for comparison between thv;;e two
periods. Had the war not intervened
in all probability we should have found
the brick position to-clay quite satisfactory. It was sati&factory after 1935,
and also in 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941,
when up to 17,000 houses were built in
one year. Therefore, the reason for the
shortage of bricks to-day is that something has intervened and cut through
the stream of production that was in
evidence in the years to which I have
referred. I am one of the few members
in this House who was a member of
the Cabinet in 1935 when these brickworks were sold. While I have not a
clear recollection o£ all that took place,
nevertheless I know that it had been the>
policy of the Stevens-Bruxner Government-a policy founded on a mandate
received from the people-to rid the
State of what we called State enterprises so far as they had their being in
industry. Quite a number of concerns
<lwnecl by the State had been sold up
to the year 1935, when the question o£
the selling of the brickworks was raised.
Some people contend that because the
brickw01·ks happened to be a paying
proposition over the years, they should
have been spared. But the conditions
at that time were such as to indicate
clearly that private enterprise was quite
-capable of meeting all the demands of
the people for bricks. That being the.
case, there was no more justification for
the retention of the brickworks than
there was for the retention of other
~mterprises that had previously been
sold.
2509
I want to point out to those hon.'
members who have voiced the view that
the han.d of guilty men was interwoven
in this transaction, that the sale of the
brickworks in 1935 was widely adver"
tised and publicised by the then Oppo~
sition, yet despite thnt fact, in 1938 the
mandate held by the GoYernment of the
duy was renewed by the people. If anything may be deduced from that, it i~
that the people were quite satisfied with
what the GoYernment had done at that
time. , The Gover~nnent continued !in
existence up to 1941 when it was defeated at the polls, and only three of the
members of the Cabinet of 1935 were
retul'ned to this House.
J\fr. WILLIAMS: The others had been
puslted out!
Mr. VINCENT: Some of them had
resigned. The fact remains that after
the di&posal of the brickworks in 1935
and after all the criticism that had been
levelled by the then Opposition at the
action of the Government, nevertheless
in 1938 the Government was returned
with almost as great a majority as before, and thus had its mandate renewed
by the people of the State. The people
must have thought that what the Government of 1935 did was proper. Its
action certainly was in accordance with
the programme that it had placed be-:
fore the people in 1932 a:tld 1935, inasmuch as the Government had &aid that
it did not believe in the hand of Government interfering· in private enter-'
prise. While the hon. member for,
W oollahra was speaking, the Minister.
interjected that we must recQgnise that
the Southern Electricity Undertaking
which this Gover-nment instituted, is
profitable. That may be so, but I would
point out to the Minister that we cannot compare a n.ational work of that
character with an ordinary enterprise.
It is the function of the Government
to undertake these great national works.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: Private enterpri&e
is also. running elec.tricity undertakings!
Mr. VINCENT: That is so, but the
Minister cannot point to any instapce
eitlter on the mainland of Australia or
in New Zealand where p:r;ivate ente.rprise
is deriving electric energy from the;
2510
Slate B1·ickworks Bill.
fASSEMBLY.]
waters of those countries. The Government is generating electricity by and
largely from water. It is true that there
is an auxiliary plant at Port Kembla,
but that i::. not private enterprise in
the 'strict sense of the term. I would
translate private enterprise as the control of ordinary business or industry in
a community such as exemplified in
bricb.\vorks or things of that sort. As far
as possible the Government should keep
its hand out of such enterprises, because if it does enter into competition
with them it must compete with its
own taxpayers with particular advantage to itself.
Now the Government is emboldened
to embark upon the establishment of
the brickworks owing to the fact that
there is an acute shortage of bricks.
That applies more particularly to the
metropolitan area where there is indeed
an acute shortage, but in certain sections of the State there is no shortage.
although there is the equivalent, inasmuch as it seems to be almost impossible
to have bricks transported from th.e
place of their production to the point
where it is desired that they should be
used. In consequence we find the same
factors weighing against the building
of houses in the country as we find in
the metropolitan area, though in the
country this is not due as much to a
shortage of building materials, particularly of bricks, as it is in the city.
O'ne might suggest that because the
Government says there is a shortage of
bricks, it should step in. By the same
logic one might say that because there
is a shortage of clothes and of certain
classes of food, -the Government should
enter into the production of cloth and
set up establishments for the employment
of· tailors so that the people may be
clothed, and that it should establish factories so that foodstuffs may be processed to enable the people .to get the
food to which they are accustomed. But
we do not hear the Government say that
it will do so, and I do not expect it
to say that it will. When it comes to
bricks, what is the position? I will define my attitude towards the bill. I ask
myself why the Government confines its
Mr. Vincent.]
activities to the manufacture of bricks?
My answer is, because the shortage of
bricks has given rise to a state of emergency in this country Unquestionably
a state of emergency exists, and unless
it is met, it is possible that social disorder will result from the conditions
given rise to by the shortage of houses.
One has only to walk through the city
and suburbs and travel in the trains to
hear discussion on this. There is no
doubt that the shortage of houses is
pressing with the greatest harshness upon a considerable section of the community, a section that should have
houses because it is upon that section we
must depend for the renewal of life in
this country.
Having in view that a state of emergenc,y exists, I say that it is quite right
for the State to act, and in saying that I
do not weaken my normal attitude to
Government trading. The State must
act in any emergency-that is what the
Government is for. Having that in mind,
it is my intention to vote for the principle of the bill. I believe that it
can be improved, but nevertheless, I
think that the Government has in mind
a measure designed to meet an emergency. Whether the Government will
meet the emergency successfully is quite
another matter; only time will prove
that. llfy view is that it is doubtful
whether the bill will meet fully what the
Government has in view, though it may
afford some assistance. We must remember that we have not emerged from
the conditions that were given rise to
by the war, and while those conditions
remain, tl1e Governments in this country
and elsewhere must do things that they
would not do in normal times.
During the war Governments were
obliged to embark hastily upon various
enterprises, including shipbuilding. The
building of certain classes of ships may
be regarded as a legitimate Government
activity. We established shipbuilding
yards at Newcastle because of the appe:1T
made by the Home Government toAustralia to produce more ships. I shaH
have something to say about our shipbuilding industry that will not be welcome, but nevertheless, I submit that
[6 :MAR., 1946.]
25U
during the period of the war the Gov- it will be good business in future to
build vessels similar to those that ara
ernment had to do everything it posbeing constructed in the shipyards at
sibl.Y could to produce ships. When the
:Minister brought down the measure in present.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: We protected our
which was embodied the power to establish the shipbuilding yards at Newcastle primary industries!
11£r. VINCENT: Of course. you did ..
there was no opposition from this side
of the House, though I think there were and that is the justification for it, irresa couple of divisions in Committee. The pective of cost.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: Prior to the war
broad principle of the bill was approved.
we
protected our primary industries by
:Mr. J. J. CAHIIJL: Shipbuilding was
means of a tariff. Why should we not
well under way then !
protect our secondary industries, even
11£r. VINCENT: Whether it was or if costs are a little greater?
not, would have made no difference. vVe
Mr. VINCENT: That opens up a
knew we had to have ships. Any means wide avenue of discussion. It will de>
that could be adopted to build them had
for another occasion:. But what was
to be adopted by the Government. Cost done was fully justified, and nothing but
did not matter; ships were everything; praise can flow to the Minister for it.
we had to get our men and materials
The time for full and comprehensive acaway. We are still building ships, but tivity at the shipyards had arrived in.
if one could translate oneself to a point order to meet our great national needs.
three or four years hence, and see what In regard to the State brickworks, which
had happened in the intervening period,
this bill proposes to re-establish, I would
I fear one would see that we had passed point out tha.t we are still in the throes
the point of time when we should con- of an emergency. and if by the passago
tinue with this indust~y. If the Govern- of this legislation we can make som~
ment continues to build commercial impact upon the housing position, even
ships the cost will be so great as to cause if it costs us much in money, neverthethem to enter into competition at a dis- less it would be justified.
I do not
advantage with ships built in other mean that it will be justified for air
countries by private enterprise. I said time, but it will be justified if it carrie~
. du~ing the war-and the ·Minister will us through the gap which exists at prerecollect this-that there would be some · sent. For that reason I join with mem20,000,000 tons of shipping tied up at its bers of the House in voting for it.
moorings in peacetime. In the United
I shall vote for the second reading on
States of America there are 54,000,000 the grounds that we are still in an emertons of shipping compared with 18,000,gency, and it is the Government'!'1
000 tons before the outbreak of war. The bounden duty to do whatever is necesBritish Empire has as great a shipping sary in order to meet that emergency;.
tonnage to-day as she possessed prior to but in so voting. I am not casting m,y
the war, while other countries have a vote for the re-establishment in this
great deal of shipping at present. When country of the principle of Government·
demobilisation has been completed, nnd enterprise in industry in spite of thewhen stores have been carried through to fact that certain bon. members have
the places where they are required, I am stated that the price of bricks has risen
sure that we shall see many millions of from 48s. a thousand to 98s. a thousand.
tons of shipping tied up. That will have The conditions which have supervened·
a depressing effect upon the shipbuilding since the outbreak of war are such that
nctivity on the Hunter River. However, if in the course of three or four years·
that does not say that it should not have we look back we shall find that whi]l}'
been commenced. It was justified dur- this bill has been justified, nevertheless
ing the war; it may be justified now anrl
the time has come for us to examinP.the activities of this enterprise and if
in the future for the building of certain
it does not cease to exist, restrict its
types of vessels, but I do not think that
~·5l2:
State Brick1J)orks .~ill.
[ASSEMBLY;.]
Qutput, for the purpose of meeting the
needs of Government departments, the
Department of Railways, and so forth.
Mr. WILLIAMS (George's River)
[4.27]: No measure has been brought
before this House that I welcome more
i;han this one that provides for the re-establishment of the State brickworks.
<Jontra:ry to the opinion of the last
:Speaker, I am firmly of the belief that
the fall in popularity of members of
ihe United Australian party-cum Liberal
party dates from the time when the
leaders of that party, Mr. B. S. B. (now.
:Sir Bertram) Stevens and ·:Mr. E. S.
:Spooner, disposed of the. State brickworks and injured the people in one of
their most important activities-house
building. The fall of the United Australia party dates from the time of that
sale. From that date onwards it lost
its popularity. The two men to whom
I have referred who were primarily
Tesponsible for the sale of the State
brickworks have never returned to this
.House. In the intervening time United
.Australia party numbers were reduced.
The Labour party has won every by<election that it has contested, including
the by-election for Ryde when I was
:returned. That seat had seldom been
won by a Labour man.
Mr. JACKSON: The bon. member does
not look like one!
Mr. WILLIAMS: Possibly I do not.
During the Ryde by-election campaign
my fight was based on the disposal by
the United Australia party Government
o0f the State brickworks and the monier
pipe works. I also attacked the Government for its failure to implement a
lwusing programme. As the bon. member for Hawkesbury said last night, the
Liberal party, which has followed the
United Australia party, comprises guilty
men who are responsible for the present
:state of housing in New South Wales.
.At the last two elections there has. been
a complete landslide, this Government
•On both occasions being. returned with
overwhelming and record majorities.
One of the most pl'Ominent features of
the Labour party's policy at those elections. was the. restoration of the State
State Brickworks B.ill.
brickworks, and. the promise was made,
that the Labour. Govemment would introduce legislation for the re-establish. ment of the State brickworks which
represent one of the most vital activities in relation to housing. We have
been fighting a war, and if we had
attempted to bring in legislation such
as this in the middle of a war hon.
members opposite in their usual hypocritical manner would have said, "vVhy
do you not get on with the wad" vVe
got on with the war and won the war
with a Labour Government in power,
and I am convinced that Labour is the
only party that can govern during a
time of war or crisis. I am firmly satisfied that if any Government other than
Labour had been in office during the
last war we should not have come out
without an inv.asion of Australia itself.
I believe that an anti-Labour Government would hand over to private enterprise social problems such as housing.
Private enterprise is not doing its job.
We have heard that this is because of
high taxation. I believe that is one of
the reasons, but there is another reason.
These people are not doing their job
because they desire to see the housing
problem become so acute and the shortage of houses so severe that the State
will fall down on the job, and then they
will come in to exploit the people in one
of the fields where exploitation is at
once so profitable to them and so hurtful to the people. I am one of those who
believe that it is the duty of the Government to protect the people in regard
to both housing and food requirements,
and that wherever possible we should
eliminate from these fields the element
of profit, particularly since we have experienced the consequences of exploitation, both in regard to t'b.e rates of
interest and the cost of raw materials
in connection with housing.
The United Australia party fell from
popularity because it disposed o£ thfl
assets of the people in 1935-36. The
deputy leader. of the. Liberal party bas
said here to-day, "Why blam,e ue ?" He
said there was nobody here in his .party·
who was: in the Cabinet .that disposed·
[6 MAR., 1946.]
2513
of the State Brickworks, with the ex- at the right price. Can any hon. member suggest that a rise in price from
ception of course of the leader of the
Country party. However, the deputy 48s. a thousand in 1936 to nearly £5 .a
leader of the Opposition cannot "get thousand to-day is justi£ed?
Mr. TURNER: What is the Prices Qom:from under" by statements of that kind.
'The people at the next election, after missioner doing about it?
-we have re-established the State Bri{!kMr. WILLIAMS: That is not for me
·works to protect their interests, will to say. We will produce bricks at a
-return Labour with an overwhelming price that will convince people that they
majority. Not one of the members of have been exploited in the past. Even
-the Sutherland Shire Council, which is when people can buy bricks to·day, they
:situated in my constituency of George's still do not get the quality that we supRiver, is a member of the Labour party, plied from the State Brickworks. They
:yet I recently received a letter convey- get a callow brick-the sort that used to
ing a unanimous request from that be discarded.
Even at the in-council that the Labour party should flated price of £5 a thousand-and I
-re-establish the State Brickworks in know that some people are paying n;,cre
ihe· interests of the people of the -the callow brick is being supplied.
:Sutherland Shire. That is what we Fancy bricks are about £7 lOs. a tho:J.s-are doing. I regret that we did not and. State enterprise should function
<Io so earlier, but I believe that the £rst side by side with private enterprise so
.necessity was to win the war, and that that you have .a practical experience of
we a-re wise now in taking the opportune what is going on and you know whether
time to bring down this measure. The the people are being exploited or not.
brickmasters now realise that they are
I suggest also that for one reason
·in trouble, and apparently have come alone the State should always have its
to the Minister with a suggestion that own brickworks, and that is for
they are willing to co-operate. They the purposes of the State's own building_
were not willing to do so until now, wnen .activities. Why should we have to pay
ilhe danger point for them is reached and private enterprise these enormous pro£ts
we are again going to have a State when we are building hospitals or
schools? The hon. member for Willough'brickworks.
by is an accountant and he knows that
We know that there are theoretical the present prices are not warranted.
systems of costing that may or may not The State has nu right, whether under
:prove something. My own opinion is a Labour or anti-Labour Government,
that State enterprises should be estab- to use publi{! money to buy bricks .at
lished to function side by side with such prices for its own hospitals and
priv.ate enterprise, because you then schools building programme, and the
are not working on a theoretical system Government is now doing the right thing
by this measure.
·of costs or fuing a, pri{!e on some unMr. BRAIN: Who will pay the taxes?
·Cel'tain basis, but you have the actu.al
Mr. WILLIAMS: The brickmakers are
job going on and you are selling on not making bricks and are not paying
:ascertained costs and not on a theoretical taxes. To-day in our community the
:assumption. That was the position man who is holding wealth is able to sit
when the State Brickworks were pre- back in the breeches, particularly in this
-viously operating. They were able to matter of housing. I know a builder who
manufacture· and to sell bricks at 48s. went to one of the men in the brick combine to get bricks, and the brickmaker
..a thousand and show a pro£t. I am not
said to him, "What are you coming into
-concerned with pro£t-making-that is
this business for? Keep out of it. Let
not the job of a State activitythe State have it until they make a.
but I am concel'ned with their turning muddle of it, and then we will come in."
.out b;ricks in sufficient quantities and Of course, private enterprise will come
7u
State B1·iclcwo1·ks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
in, in its usual way, and charge the
~"'aut prices for timner au.J
bricks and mone;y.
Mr. Bn.AL.'<: The hon. member does not
believe that story!
l\fr. WILLIAMS: I do. It is the duty
of the Government to protect the people
in regard to housing and food requirements; that is a national responsibility.
Our proposal to re-establish the State
Brickworks is really just carrying out
the job we ''ere elected to do. This particular builder, whose permis3ion I have
to quote his case, is an example of private enterprise. We are told 1by hon.
members opposite that the State can do
nothing successfully. Nothing was ever
more untruthful. More often than not
the State is highly successful, but you
cannot say that of private enterprise.
Throughout the ages the bankruptcy
court has proved that private enterprise
frequently fails. Thi.s particular gentleman entered into a State ·contract and
is building houses, and he has lost from
£20{) to £250 on every house he has built.
l\fr. BRAIN: Because of the labour!
Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. member
claims that private enterprise cannot
fail: I claim that it frequently fails.
When private enterprise fails it h.::ts to
be carried by the community; its losses
are passed on to the community. In introducing the measure, the Government
is taking a step along the road to CI"eating State enterprises in bricks, tiles and
pipe works, all of which are concerned
with housing. After solving its own
problem of supplies for the building of
schools and hospitals it should make
bricks available to the public. I support
the bill and shall vote for it with a great
deal of pleasure.
Mr. TURNER (Gordon) [4.41]: I
listened to the debate last night, and
to-day with great interest, sometimes
last night with a good deal of enjoyment.
It reminded me of a journey I once made
from Jerusalem to Jericho.
As we
were leaving ·the J udean wilderness, a
mountain on the left was pointed out,
whf!re, in the olden days, the ritual of
Racrificing the scapegoat was carried out.
As the debate proceeded, I began to see
some connection between the scapegoat
State Brickwo1·ks Bill.
and the case being put on the Government side of the House. That mountain.
overlooked the Dead Sea. There are no
birds above the Dead Sea and no fish.
within it, nothing· is more dead. The
darkness of the inner sepulchre is not
so deadly still as is that wide stretch of
water. That reminded me of the Housing Commission, and the absence of any
real building activity in the State. As,
I opened the Bulletin this morning, I
saw reported in its columns a statement.
made the other day by the hon. member
for Hamilton who, I thought, provided
the key to the situation. The statement.
explained why the bill is being introduced, and explained also the argument&
adduced on the Government side.
Mr. J E~'F BATE: What did he say?
l\fr. TURNER:
He said that the
Government had no more alibis available to explain to the people why it was
not building houses. He went on to
say that it might well result in the ejectment of the State and Federal Laboui"
Governments from office at the next.
election. ""What a dreadful thought ..
Think of all those who would suffer
if that were to happen.
It would be
dreadful for the racketeers who. are
allowed to practise without let or
hindrance. It would be dreadful foi"
racing clubs and other institutions that
have constantly received the support of
the Government.
The bill has been
brought forward because the Government has failed to produce houses, and
it is necessary to find some excuse. The
Government is searching franti<:a Uy
for nnother alibi and the scapegoat it
has found is private enterprise. It ha!;
begun by trying to fix the responsibility
upon the brickmasters. It says that
private enterprise has failed. The hon.
member who has just resumed his seat,.
supported that contention. It is a
curious thing that it was necessary foi"
that great socialistic country, Russia~
the spiritual home of those who support
hon. members opposite, to use equipment
provided by that capitalistic countr.v
America for the purpose of waging war:Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Slate BTickworlcs Bill.
[6 !fAR., 1946.]
:Mr. TURNER: I am arguing that
private enterprise far from failing, has
just given the most perfect demonstration in the world that it is capable of
achieving far more production than any
socialistic country. I took two outstanding ex;:~mples, the United States and the
Soviet Union.
A number of charges were made last
night, and I propose to deal with them.
First, were the charges made by the hon.
member for Yass who delivered what
might have been a convincing speech but
for tl1e fact that it was merely a repetition of his advocate's address before the
Royal Commission . that inquired into
the sale of .the State Brickworks some
years ago. He redelivered the address
he then made, but he did not tell the
House that the judge's finding was
against him. Hon. members know what
it is to listen to a skilled advocate's address. After hearing the advocate for
the plaintiff it is eas,y to assume that he
mt:st be right. Then after hearing the
advocate for the defence we begin to
have some doubt. Finally, the judge,
who is trained in these matters, sifts
the evidence and comes to a conclusion.
Last nig·ht the House heard Mr. Sheahan's side of the argument and I propose to quote briefly a few remarks
made by the late Mr. Justice Halse
Rogers who sat as a Royal Commissioner. Fi:·st of all, Mr. Sheahan said
that a number of documents were missin~ from the official file and on page 18
o{ his report the Commissioner says:
During the course of the henring every
relevant document has been sought out and
produced, nnd, with the r<'cords complete
nnd in order, it is seen that there is no
basis for the surmise or suggestion made by
Mr. Lnng that the absence of these documents from the Public iVorks file is evidence of something sinister.
Again, fhc hon. member said that the
Rtate brickworks were disposed of to
friends of the then Premier. On page
22 of his report the Commissioner says:
It cannot be said either that the brick·
works were given away or that the friends
of th? Premier-even in the widest senser,,criv<'d :my preferential treat1ucnt.
State Brickwo1·lcs B~ll.
2515
The hon. member then traduced M:·.
Barton.
That matter has been dealt
with by the deputy-leader of the Opposition, but let me quote a few words from
the Commissioner in that regard.
He
says:
In view of the continued and reiterated
attacks that were made on Mr. Barton,
both in the speeches and in the conduct of
the case before me, and which have been
repeated after examination of all the docu·
ments and the he a ring of all the evidence, I
think it proper to say that nothing has
emerged which in my opinion can reflect
adversely upon Mr. Barton or in any way
damage the high repute in which, accor·
ding to the testimony, he is held by his.
fellow. citizens.
Further, it was charged that there was
a conspiracy to sell the State Brickworks at a gross under-valuation. That
charge was repeated by almost ever;y
hon. member opposite who has spoken.
Last night it was said that the brickworks were given away, but what does
the Royal Commissioner say about that?
He Eays:
The allegation is that the brickmasters
and the Government entered into a conspi·
racy for the transference of the assets to
the brickmasters at an under-value.
The
suggested conspiracy involves the Premier,
Mr. Spooner, Mr. Barton, Mr. Gibson, Mr.
Swift, and officials of the Brickmasters'
Association . . . . I find no evidence of a
conspiracy and nothing to show that the
price obtained on sale was an unC:er-value.
It is quite evident that the hon. member
for Yass was doing what has been done
for a number of years on the assumption that if you throw enough mud some
is bound to stick. It was a curious way
to bolster up the :Minister's case for the
repurchase of the brickworks. Those are
matters of the past. We are concerned
with matters of the present. The
strength of the argument of the hon.
member for Hawkesbury was in inverse
proportion to the strength of his voice.
He claimed that the brickmasters were
going slow on account of heavy taxation, and that statement was repeated
by the hon. member for George's River.
Mr. HonSTNGTON: It is quite true, too!
l\fr. TURNER: It may be that hon.
members opposite are in favour of high
rates of taxation. That is the only inference that can be drawn from what
State Brickworlcs Bill.
[ASSEiiiBLY.]
was said by -the hon. member for
Hawkesbury and the hon. member for
·Georg-e's 'Jf{iv.er. It will be interesting
·for tl~e people of thia State to bear that
the Labour Government and Labour
members are in favour of heavy rates of
ta...xation. Labour members we1·e giving
us evidence last night, by their speeches
and interjections, that that is their attitude towards taxation. Consequently,
when promises are made at the next
election about reductions in taxation,
their sincerity can be judged in the
light of their speeches and interjections
during the course of this debate. I
shall certainly draw the attention of my
.constituents to what has been said here
to show the insincerity of the Labour
Government on this matter. The
hon. member for Hawkesbury went
on to say that he would not have such
a thing as profits, which are wicked. I
have no doubt that, so far as the proposed brickworks are concerned, there
will be none! But do not let us forget
that in those countries where there are
110 profits there are firing squads. People
are induced to work either because they
-obtain some advantage from it, or be·cause otherwise they may face a firing
squad. I think that in a democratic community, profits are preferable to firing
e,quads.
The Government, however, is permitting some profits to be made. The
·wealthy members of this House do not
sit on this side, but on the other side.
'The Government is creating a little
:squirearchy. What hypocrisy! We have
heard talk of hypocrisy, but where does
it exist~ Does it exist on this side of
the House or on the other side? I do
:p.ot wish to pursue that matter, as I do
not want to hurt the feelings of bon.
lfiembers opposite, but if they raise these
matters they must not be surprised if
·they are turned back upon them. Then
there are the ambaasadors, such as :M:r.
· Jaef!.sley; who go abroad. They do not
go .as poor people. They take with them
riches greater than the poor people of
'B:rit,ain. enjoy tocday. Ri<lhes in food·stuff-s a-lie of great importance in starviqg countries.
Mr. Turner.]
State Bricl,;tb'Orlcs Bill.
The hon. member for Hawkesbury
went on to speak abou.t certain, "guilty
men." I thank the hon. member for
his suggestion. Who are they? The bon.
member went back a long way. He went
back a decade. He pointed out that there
was much unemplo;yment, and that the
Governments thEn in office did not employ men to build houses. Labour Governmente, were in office in both the Federal and State spheres, and failed to find
a solution. Other Governments were elected to office, and did find a solution,
although the way was long and difficult.
Possessing the knowledge that we now
possess, we may feel that the way need
not have been so long and difficult, but
we did not then possess the knowledge.
It was not until much later, for example,
that ~fr. J. ~1. Keynes published his
epoch-making book analysing the causes
of unemployment.· Labour men struggled
with the situation; others came and at
last e,ucceeded. An honest attempt was
made to deal with the problem.
But let us look at the question of"guilty men" when we come to 194445-46. Men who leave the services are
living in cellars and tente,, and are
crowded into houses that are not fit
for habitation. What has the Government done about it? 'iVhere arz thes;:o
guilty men? They are here in the Government that is charged with the responsibility of housing these people. The
Government has been in office for years,
it has had every opportunity, and ali
that it can propose is to put four families of returned men in one army hut.
Where are the guilty men? The members of the Government have not liveu
in army huts. If they had slept in an
army hut and been awakened by mer:
coming in late at night, maybe from an
hotel when it was left open by permission of the Government, or maybe harmlessly returning from the camp cinema,
if they had been awakened by the impact
of army boots on wooden floors, perhaps when they had duties to attend to
early in the morning, they would know
what having to live in an army hut
means. If they were living in tents that
might be blown down in the night, they.
State .Brickworks .Bill.
[6 MAR., 194tl.]
would know what it means, especially if
their wives had young babies.
Where
are the guilty men? Are they on this
side or the other side of the House? The
Government has suggested no means of
alleviating the conditions of the people
who are distressed through lack of
housing accommodation.
Have bon. members on this side been
content merely to oppose.._ without
attempting to help?
No.
Whenever
there has been an opportunity for debate bon. members on this side have
pointed out the way in which these
difficulties could be overcome.
Has
there been any response from the Government side? No. Last November,
when the debate on the Estimates was
' proceeding, and long before the hullabaloo about the shortage of bricks, I referred to the lack of equipment in the
brickyards. If anybody cares to turn
up Hansa1·d he will find that I referred
to a visit to a brickyard, and to my astonishment at the primitive methods employed to bring clay to the place where
the bricks were moulded. Did the
Orwernment take any notice? No.
Did the press take any notice? No. The
press noticed only the other day
that there was a shortage of brick!;'.
And the Government has only just
noticed it.
Then the hon. member for Newto
the
castle
addressed himself
bill. He did not complain about
people "going slow" because of heaYy
tHxation. It has been stated in this
House, and in the press-though hon.
members need not be influenced by that
fact-that because of the heavy taxation
imposed to-day the coal miners, in common with other sections of the community, do not like working harder than
is necessary. The hon. member for Newcastle did not say that the brickmasters
should be adjudged guilty because they
had allowed heavy tal\:ation to slacken
thPir nroiluction. It was just as well
that he did not, because every other
~Pr:tion
of the community is being
affected by this blight, including- the
miners. Production generally is being
otifled by heavy taxation, and hon. members opposite have confessed that they
State Briclcworlcs Bill.
2517•
believe in high rates of taxation. The
hon. member for Newcastle, with soma
indulgence from you, sir, which I was·
pleased to see, made some reference to
the State Shipyards. He pointed out, as.
the Minister had done, what a wonderful
enterprise this was. It had made profits!
But on the reasoning of some ministerial
supporters that is wrong. Profits are evil:
There should be no profits. Yet here we
have the Government itself making a
profit. I do not know how it can reconcile those two contrary points of view.
Mr. W. GoLLAN: How did the ship~
yards make a profit?
Mr. TURNER: It is simply a matter of cost plus. You cannot lose. No
company, however inefficient, could fail
to make a profit on the basis· of cost plus.
I am sorry for the Minister, because, this
is his babe that he has dandled at his knee,
that he has pressed to his bosom, an.d
whose merits he has extolled time and
time again. He takes it to heart when
he hears ill spoken of his child. I am
sorry for him because this industry it1
going to bear the hard cold blast of competition that will blow in the economic
IS ·over,
world now that the war
for if we hope to continue docking overseas ships our charges will have
to be competitive. And if we are to
build ships we shall have to do so at competitive prices. However, I do not wish
to enter into a long dissertation on that
matter at this stage.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member would
be out of order in doing so.
Mr. TURNER: I shall content myself with pointing out that the profits
that were made by this particular enterprise cannot be adduced as a general
argument in favour of the efficiency of
State enterprises. The question is, has
private enterprise failed? There has been
a great deal of discussion on the subject.
I do not wish to traverse ground that
has already been covered, but this is a
step in my argument, and, to achieve
artistic completeness in my speech, I
must touch upon it briefly. It has been
claimed by the brickmasters that manpower has not been m~de available to
them. A number of letters have been
quoted by the leader of the Opposition
2:>18
State B1-iclcw01·ks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
and the deputy-leader of the Opposition.
I read from an article in the Sydney
JJi ominy I1 erald which is dated 1st February, 1946, and which furnishes details
of a statement made by the spokesman of
the. brickmasters, and summarises the
position very well. It reads:
Efforts were made in August, 1944, to
ha,·e men released from the services to offset the steady decline in brick stocks. Requests for this assistance, macle through the
Department of War Organisation of Industry, met with scanty success in the early
stages. Mr. Wilkinson produced copies of
correspondence showing that in July, 1945,
letters were sent to the Prime Minister,
the chairman of the New South Wales Housing Commission, the Federal Minister for
Works :mel Housing, the State Minister for
Housing, and the Acting-Premier, stressing
the need for releases of the necess:ny manpower before the position became really
serious; but lack of man-power continued to
be the main factor in retarding the reopening of brickyards.
It has been suggested that private
enterprise has failed. Need we go far
afield to find an explanation? Ron.
members know that there was a shortage
of manpower during the war, and every
sphere of industry suffered therefrom.
That assertion rings completely true.
The menace of invasion receded from
our shores two ye.:ns ago, but the Federal
Government failed to make the readjustments in industry that were necessary
to win the peace. \Vhen the threat to
Australia was removed and it was no
long·er necessary to maintain a huge garrison army in this country, why did not
the Federal Government cull out those
whose skill and experience made them
valuable to prime essential peacetime
industries? Because it was incapable of
the efl'ort and did not possess the administrati,·e capacity. This "magnificent"
Government, which won the war, is losing the peace. Its supporters claim that
it won the war, but I suggest that the
sixth. seventh and ninth Australian Imperial Forces divisions had something to
do with keeping war from the mainland
of Australia. Of course, I am only a
member of the Opposition and I may be
wrong.
Mr. BADDELEY: Those divisions were
drawn from the workers of this
country!
J!r ..~'u7ncr.]
State BTiclcworks Btll.
llir. TUHNER: That is so, and I
assure the Colonial Secretary that we
of the A.I.F. work very hard.
llir. J. J. CAI-IlLL: It is unfortunate
that the hon. member raised that point
because the Federal Labour Government
had something to do with diverting
those divisions from a theatre of war
to which other people wanted to send
them!
llir. TURNER: That is a matter
that I should be very pleased to debate
on the hustings at a more appropriate
time. That reference to the hustings
reminds me of an incident and I thank
the :Minister for the reminder. It occm-red during the last election campaign.
I recall having listened to a Government
member addressing a meeting on the
Corso at Manly. Of course, the Labour
candidate was defeated. The hon.
member's argument was that it was very
fortunate that a Labour Government
was in office in this State, because it
was able to co-operate satisfactorily with
the Federal Labour Government, and
could get just what it wanted from that
Government. Therefore, I listened with
great interest to a letter from the brickmasters that was read by the lead~r of
the Opposition. It was written by brickmasters and was addressed to the acting
Premier drawing his attention to the
difibulty of getting labour.
:Mr. BADDELEY: Did the leader of the
Opposition read my reply?
Mr. TURNER: I have no doubt of
what was in the Acting Premier's reply,
I am sure that he promised the brickmasters, with the utmost solemnity, that
he "would look into the matter," and no
doubt he is still looking into the matter.
The ability to look into matters is a
very excellent qualification for a crystal
gazer, but it is not ver:v useful to anyone who is asked to obtain manpower
for a industry that seeks to provide
homes for returned servicemen.
The
Government is confronted with the
situation that no houses have been built,
nnd there is a rising tide of public resentment which will soon engulf it. The
hest authority for that statement is the
hon. member for Hamilton himself, who
[6 MAR., 1946.]
suggested that the Government was looking for an escape from its position of
ineptitude.
The reason why private
enterprise has fallen down is not far to
seek, because it is quite evident to all
that manpower has been the main factor
.in that connection.
Then there is the question of mac'hinery, and in that respect I should like
ito quote the following statement that
appeared in the press on 7th February
last:Mr. W. G. Pooley, who represents the
co-operative building societies on the Buililing Industry Advisory Committee, said last
night that official indifference to the brick
problem constituted a national ~caudal, for
which the Federal Govemmcnt c 1ulil not
-escape responsibility.
It was clear that output could be greatly
increased if the brickyards could be furnished with machinery suitable to their
Jteede. The inclustry could be mechanised
.to an appreciable extent if six front-end
loaders and five buckeye shovels could be
procured. These were· in existence, in the
l1ands of the army and the Department of
import Procurement.
The D.I.P. at first stood out for £9,000 for
.each of its sho\·eJs, but it had now come
-<lown to £7,060, ::llthough this offer had not
.:ret been approved by the Federal Minister.
'Brick manufacturers offered £4,500 for
i:hese machines, and those competent to
judge considered this a fair offer. During
1he war the Federal authorities had ~eized
from Brickworks Limited a mechanical
f'.hovel which had cost them £12,000, at an
·arbitrary assessment of £4,950. The shovel
for which DIP now demanded £7,060 had
only_ half the capncity of the £12,000
1nnchine. For neal'ly three months a price
difference of £12.500 had held up delivery
1lf machines which. he had been told, could
'increase production by about 1,000,000
l)ricks a week. The Fed ern 1 Government
\\·ould have to tnkr responsibility for it, hecnllPP tlm priP~ J'ITP were demanding ap·
Jlenred unconscionable.
Reverting to the statement of the hon.
meml::er for Hamilton concerning co-operation between the Federal and i:'tat.c
T"abour Governments, it does P.ppear t'hat
the Federal Government is not so ameiO·able to the representations of this Government as he would lead us to suppose.
Indeed, I am wondering whether, if a
Liberal Government had been in office
nnd had publicised these thin!!'s. there
would not have been an immediate response. However, this Government could
State B1·ickworks Bill.
2519
not expose the shortcomings of its friends
in the .Federal sphere and therefore no
action was taken. The statement that
I have read characterizes the :flabbiness
of the Labour Government in the Federal sphere ever since it has been in
office. It was faced with an awkward
predicament and it had to make
some decision.
Having no imagination, it drew from a back cupboard
the moth-eaten fustian "Socialisation."
It had no solution of the problem.
The English Labour Government faced
a similar situation, but socialism was
found to be no solution.
:M:r. SPEAI,ER: Order! Socialism in
Great Britain has nothing t~ do with
this debate and I ask the hon. member
to confine his rema1ks to pertinent and
relevant references to the provisions of
the bill.
!'1£r. TURNER: I am pointing out
that socialism is not an answer to the
problem that to-day confronts not only
Australia but also Britain. Socialism
will not solve the problem of Russia;
it will not solve the problem of food for
Britain and it is not likely to solve the
export or any other problem. Socialism
has not solved problems overseas and is
not likely to solve our problems. The
hon. member for George's River suggested that if the State Brickworks are
re-acquired by the Government they will
control the price of bricks and keep
them at a reasonable level.
l\fr. WIL.LI.tDIS: They did that last
time!
Ur. TURNER: Theoretically that is
a wonderful proposition, but what doe~·
happen? I have no time to quote figures,
but I am sure that hon. members will
take it for granted that I am summing
up the matter correctly. Actually, when
the State brickworks began• to operate
back in the twenties the price of brick:;.
was not fixed by those brickworks at all.
They agreed with the brickmasters in
fixing a price suitable to the brickmasters as well as to the State undertaking. The argument that has been p•.1t
forward by the hon. member is that the
competition introduced by the State
brickworks will fix the price at a reasonable level, but that is not what
2520
[ASSEMBLY.]
happened
pl'eviously.
The
Sltate
brickworks were one of the ring
and the price wa-s .:fixed by the brickmasters in conjunction with the State
enterprise. That is how they made a
profit. The inefficiency of State undertakings is notorious and there is an
abundance of evidence in support of
that C•)ntention in the various reports
that ha-ve been published from time to
time. Even if the State brickworks,
when re-acquired, do not join the ring
as they did ·before, the cost of production will still be so high that the brickmasters will be delighted to have the
price :fixed on the basis of the cost of
production at the State brickworks. In
spite of the strange views held by some
of the J\.iinister's colleagues, I am sure
that he' will like the State brickworks
to make a profit even though it is carried on inefficiently. I suggest that the
cost of inefficiency plus the profit made
by the State brickworks will undoubtedly bolster the price even higher than
would be the case under the present system. If the State brickworks could be run
as a private ent:~rprise there would be
much in the theoretical argument put
forward by the hon. member for George's
River, but we cannot avert inefficiency in
respect of a State enterprise. I have no
doubt that the manager of this undertaking would not be permitted to dismiss an employee. We shall always :find
among any body of, say, a hundred men
two or three that are not efficient. They
may be trouble-makers, and they may
make little else but trouble. Unless· we
get rid of this overhead we shall have
inefficiency, and having regard to. the
soft-heartedness of Labour Ministers
evi~enced again and again, it is quit~
obvious that inefficiency will creep in.
I now come to the constructive part
of my speech. I oppose the bill because
I want to see bricks produced and houses
built, and because, in the :first place, thi~
bill will not achieve that objective, and
because, in the second place, there is another means by which that objectiv<>
could be achieved right now. I regret
to say that some bon. members on this
side of the House, for whose opinions
Mr. Turner.]
State Brickworlc:s B~'Tl.
at other times I have the greatest respect, have adduced the argument that
we must meet an emergency and that the·
opening of the State Brickworks will d~>
that. I do not know what the word
"emergency" means if it does not mean
that there is a pressing problem to .bemet now. When will the State Brick-·
works produce bricks? It will be four
months before the Government entersinto possession of the premises; it wili
be .another three or four before it can
put the necessary equipment in ·position.
The most optimistic estimate of when
production could be commenced is about:
eight months hence. Would it be unreasonable, having regard to past experience, to add, say, another four months
for contingencies? Yes. It will take at.
least twelve months before the State
Brickworks begin production. If that will
meet an emergency-the catastrophiC'
situation with which we are confrontecf
at this moment-Mr. WILLLur-s: That is merely the bon.
member's opinion!
Mr. TURNER: I cannot see hmv
the Government can achieve its purpose
in less than twelve months under this
proposal. At the present time. certain
yards are partly in operation and have
a certain quantity of equipment
installed; other equipment is. to be
added.
They are going concrerns.
Surely, if the Government is looking
for an immediate solution of this problem, it must get the existing yards to prGduce bricks right now by giving them the
machinery and the manpower that they
lack. That is the only way to meet the
emergency now. There is a combine-a
combine that might well be detrimental
to the public; it has been in the past.
I make no· apologies for a combine suclli
as that; I am utterly opposed to it, but.
if the Government had appointed a
chairman to the Brick Council three
years ago, a·nd given him the assistance
of a technical m&n, skilled in brickmaking, it would have·ensured that existing brickworks would be in full operation to-day and the public interest saf~
guarded. Instead, the Government comes
along at this late sta-ge looking for a
[6 MAR., 1946.]
sca_pegoat and proposing something that
cannot achieve its objective for a long
time to come.
Lieut-Colonel BRUXNER (Tenterfield) [5.24]: I do not wish to delay
the House, but I want to make the attitude of my colleagues and myself on
this matter perfectly clear. :My deputy,
the hon. member for Armidale, has spoken during· my absence, and I have no
intention of traversing his remarks,
though I would recall that of which the
hon. member for Gordon has reminded
the Government, that it has had the
necessary legislative machinery in its
hands long since to enable it to deal with
any monopolies that detrimentally affect
the public. The fact that the Government has never put that machinery into
operation, and has never dealt with this
brick monopoly shows, as the hon. member for Gordon suggests, that it has
either been recreant to the trust reposed
in it by the people, or that the combinr:
has not been acting detrimentally to the
public interest. I would suggest that
the reason why the Government did not
put this machinery into operation was'
that it has never been game to tackle
the very people that it talks so much
about.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: 'We have never said
anything aboRt the monopoly. Most of
the things that have been said about
it WEl'l'e said by hon. members on the
Opposition side of the House!
Lt.-Colonel BRUXNER:
I would
say that if something is known on this
side of the House about the combine,
the Government, which is in possession
of all the machinery for finding out the
innermost doings, methods of accountancy, and so on in the business of this
State, must have fallen down on its
job if it did not know of some of the
things that the Minister says members
of the Opposition have told him. However, I am not concerned with that, and
I will not waste one moment in replying to statements as to why previous
Governments sold the State brickworks,
or to anything else. I was a member of
the Government that sold the State
Brickworks, and it sold them because
2521
it did n~t believe in Government enterprise; it did not believe that it could
achieve all that it set out to achieve.
We believe that properly controlled private enterprise, that is to say, private
enterprise that is not allowed to function
against the interests of the people, will
do the job. Why. all the talk about handing this great undertaking over tO>
private enterprise at a bad price? It.
is a thing of the past, and I shall not
traverse any criticism. I have no need
to traverse it.
MT. SHA'H\ON:
..
The hon. member was
in the Government that sold the State
Brickworks!
Lt.-Colonel BRUXNER: Quite so.
We are concerned about the people
that the hon. member for Gordon mentioned, people that every other bon. member knows of to-day, people who cannot
get a sheet of bark over their heads>
people whose families are living in the
open, people who are using bits of old
tents for cover, people who are living
three of four families in a room.,
servicemen who are coming bomP. and
bringing their brides from the other
side of the world into this State that
has hardly been hit by a shell or a
bomb. These brides might well have said.,
"We are going· to a promised land, a land
where social amenities have been in the
bands of some of the world's great social
reformers over the years. This is the
place where we shall get a home." But
they land here to find the app·alling
conditi-ons that have been referred to by
various hon. members.
I will not apportion the blame. The Government has
been in office five years, and its confreres· in the Federal sphere have been
in office even longer. The Government
has had all the pow.er that could pos-·
sibly to handed by democracy to any
body of men, in fact, more power than
has ever been handed to a body of men
in any other democracy. It cannot plead
one argument for not having done the
job that it told the people it would do.
It cannot blame this side of the House
or previous Governments. It has had
everything in its own lap. Every man'
and ·every woman that is without a hom-e .
2522
[ASSEMBLY.]
to-day must ti1rn towards hon. members
<>n the Government side of the House
.and say, "You are letting us down!"
:Mr. J. J. CAHILL: The hon. member
.should get on with the subject of bricks!
Lt.-Colonel BH.UXNER: If I throw
a brick at the Minister and he cannot
"take it," whose fault is that~ 'l'he 1\'linister has been there for five years, and
_yet every hon. member knows that there
.r.re people \\•ho cannot get even a shack
in which to live. If I had been in his
;place for five years, and could not have
.clone something better than the sorry
business we see to-day, I should not be
ready to take any credit for it, or be
very proud of my position.
:M:r. J. J. CAHILL: If we had had the
!brickworks that you gave away-Lt.-Colonel BR UXN ER : If you ha 1
had the brickworks! What I want to
know is why the Government that wa5
Teturned five years ago could not haYe
·done this five years ago. It could have
brought down this bill, and the brickwoTks could have been in opemtion foT
ihe last fi1·e years, but, as the hon. memlber for Gordon has said, neither the Gov('rnment nor its supporters were awal:e.
rrhey were too bus~· e3t.ablishing the
:Sydney Turf Club. They were spending
:all their time and energy and strength
in increasing the number of racing and
greyhound racing coursing days, and ir!
1.1sing the materials tha·t could havE> been
•utilised for the building of houses.
So far as we are concerned, we .are
110t going to accept any respon.::ibility
whatsoever in denying- to the Government the use of anything that even looks
like providing a house. or part of R
!rouse, for the people who are in dire
neE>d of homes to-rlay. I do not. believeand the bon. member for Gordon showerl
it up pretty plainly on the Minister's
·own statement-that this great undertaking can !!"et g-oin!! in four months. If
it does. most nf the records we have
will be beaten. Unfortunately, this GovPrnment i~ in power. and has some time
to go. So far as housing is concerned, nohody c:1n afford to wait. There is a wintPr coming on and wP must !:!'et busy. or
thPre will not merely be tlw distre~s that
exists to-day, but people will be suffering
also from ailments that come from exposure to the cold weather that we shall
experience in a few months' time. Anything that can be done to provide homes
for the people should be done. The Government says, and it must accept responsibility for it, that if this undertaking is
re-established it will increase the number
of bricks that will be available to the
people. Vve have no need to bother about
price, because that enters into every other
phase of building activity. One may have
all the bricks in the world, but unless
there are brickl.ayers to lay them, in
large numbers, the houses will not go up
any faster than the bricks go up. People
to-day are not concerned about what
they pay for bricks. They merely want
bricks, whether they are made by the
Government or by private enterprise.
They also w.ant timber. We propose to
let the Government have this bill. We
will not vote against it.
Mr. THEATT: The people will pay!
Lt.-Colonel BRUXNER: They may
get it in the neck, but people are not
so much concerned about the price as
the fact that they want .a roof over their
heads. If houses that, some time ago cost
£500 to build were put up for auction and
there was no restriction on the price,
there are people who would be prepared
to pay from £1,400 to £1,500 for them.
A man with a wife and children, without
a home to live in, will spend everything
he has to provide shelter for his family.
The Government sa;ys: "We cannot do
anything else," but we say, "If the Government does not turn out hricks, and
lots of them, and very quickly, too, and
if it does not make some real contribution towards the housing problem, it.
still stands condemned."
So far as my colleagues and myself
are concerned, we do not support Government ownership of brickworks. We
have not the power to prevent the
Government from doing things, but we
do say to the :Minister and to the Government t11at if it does not make the
brickworks function satisfactorily after
paying interest, sinking fund, taxation
and meeting all the other charges that
are met by private individuals and firms
State BTickwm·ks Bill.
l6 MAR., 1946.]
in the production of bricks, we will have
something to say even before the next
State elections. The people have been
let down badly by the Government, but
we have no desire to withhold something
from the people that will enable them
to obtain homes. I was a member of
the Government that disposed of these
brickworks, and I say that I would do
it again. In all probability if they are
not run better than they were previously
it may be our responsibility to
do it again. However, if by taking the
riok, and by re-establishing the brickworks we can build a few more houses
and bring a little more brightness into
a few homes, we will not oppose this
action even if it means sacrificing for
the time being some of the principles
for which we stand and for which we
have always fought.
:Mr. JACKSON (Nepean) [5.38]:
The Minister in presenting this bill
failed to make out a good case for its
introduction. The Government finds itsel£ in a difficulty. People are without
homes. It is therefore the duty of the
Government to relieve the position. However, its approach to this problem is
weak. The Minister has attempted to
make out a case for the passage of this
legislation and for the re-establishment
of an authority to produce bricks for
the community. I suggest that we were
€ntitled to a better story than that
given by the 1.1:inister. My experience
jn life does not permit me to take up
the work that has been performed for
a long iime by others; nor does my experience fit me to do the work equally
as well as it has been performed by
others in the past. I think we are entitled to hear from the Minister how
he proposes to take over this function
of brickmaking from the skilled men at
present in it. I have not the privilege
of knowing any of these gentlemen who
constitute the brickmasters' council. I
l1ave heard in this Chamber during the
last 48 hours a lot in villification of it.
I think it is a mean thing to come here
as the hon. member for Yass did last
nig·ht, and say that this is all a swindle,
and that the brickmasters are perpetrating a crime against the community.
State B1·icl.;worlcs Bil!.
2523
That has been substantially the approach
of supporters of the Government on this
question.
We are entitled to be told what is the
rnodus ope1·andi proposed for the production of these bricks. The creation of
an authority and the expenditure of
£30 000 to put the brickyards into order
doe~ not ensure that bricks will be produced; there is more than that to be
done. Ths Minister has not told us
his proposals, nor has any hon. me~ber
who has risen on the Government s1de.
The Government's emergence into the
field of brick production is not going
to improve the position substantially. for
any continuing period. I do not doubt
that the Government leaving its own
business of administration and entering
the complicated field of production, will
find many more difficulties than it now
imagines, and meanwhile it will be leavin"' tasks at its elbow that should be
in"' front of it. The difficulties in the
way of brick-making must be insurmountable. The manufacturers themselves want the Government to take the
job over. It seems from what the Minister has said that the brickmasters have
asked him to take over the job because
they cannot run it, and that they are
ready to join with him on some basis of
combined production to get bricks. These
men have devoted their lives to obtaining the necessary skill to produce this
essential home-building material, and if
they are powerless to produce bricks,
what will the Government do~ It is the
duty of the Government, when experts
in the production of a national commodity are in difficulties, to come to
their assistance in the interests of the
,people.
Profit-making does not come
into the question; there are many means
of checking undue profiteering, and I
know that companies or individuals are
not allowed to make great profits nowadays.
The trouble is that manpower difficulties are besetting the brickmasters and
every other organisation.
The men
engaged on the administrative side
in industry know that is the trouble,
but apparently the Government does
2524:
Btate Brickworks Bill.
fASSEMBLY.]
not understand it.
Like many misguided people in the community it
believes that when you are in trouble
all you need to do, if you have money,
is to buy something big and set an organisation at work. That cannot be
done in private enterprise; it ~rings
about disaster. It can be done in State
enterprise because it is the public that
foots the bill and the public does not
know the answer as a rule for long years
to come. The governmental structure
created for the construction and repair
of ships at Newcastle was the subject of
certain prognostications, but the story
is not yet told and cannot be told for a
considerable time.
Mr. J. J. 0AmU,: They want cottages
at St. Mary's very badly, and I am
afraid that if the bon. member opposes
this bill it will go ill with him!
Mr. J AOKSON: I should be "~;ery
sorry for all the people at St. Jl{ary's, if
the only help they can expect to get is
what will come from this measure. I
will not be turned aside from what I
believe to be an essential principle of
government by any threat that my constituents might not like.
I have to
decide what the people of this country
need.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: The hon. member
for Nepean is a very brave man!
]l,fr. J AOKSON: Not at all. I am
not wanting any glory in that way at
all.
I want the courage to do those
things that I believe to be right, and I
try to produce it when the occasion requires it. I am prepared to give away a
lot if we can get the results. I have no
belief in the story of the :Minister and
his supporters, however, that this bill
will help us at all. The most logical statement made during the debate was that
of the bon. member for Marrickville, who
said that the measure could be justified
on the score of expediency. There might
be something in that if we can logically
assume that we are going to get more
bricks.
The problem is how can we get more
bricks, when men cannot be found to
produce the food we need to eat. Apparently the Government has not taken
any account of this great scarcity of
labour at all. The brickmasters, by way
of correspondence, and members of this
House also, have put to the Government
an appeal that assistance be given in
the way of releasing men to work in
these brickyards, without which the work
cannot go on-as is proved by the fact
that the brickmasters themselves want
the Government to take over the job.
There are a lot of people in this community to-day who would be quite prepared to hancl over their jobs if there
was a reasonable way of doing so. That
difficulty is not confined to the brickmasters by any means.
It is not a
question of profits. You cannot build
up a big organisation such as that which
txists for the production of bricks and
walk out any morning you like. The
brickmasters have to make some attempt
to keep the works going. They have a
loyalty to many men, and must endeavour to keep them in employment.
That being ·the position, they will
naturally struggle on, even though their
figures of production are much lower
than formerly. But what can they do
about it~ They can only beg those who
control manpower to relea"Se men or more
particularly appeal to their own domestic
Government, which needs the bricks and
whose constituents need them, to relieve
t.hem of the restrictions on manpower.
It appears that the brickmasters, not
for their own sakes but for t·he sake of
the men and women who need their products to protect them from the elements,
are entitled to more consideration than
they have received. The House has been
told of a proposal on the basis of a
51 :49 per cent. shareholding control in
favour of the Government. If the Minister had submitted a proposal that the
Government should superintend this
undertaking because it was thought that
the best was not being done, it is probable that the· public would have been
prepared to invest money in such an
establishment, but it would want to be
shown that the costing was on sounri
liries, that a profit would be made and
that in the event of failure they would
be allowed to withdraw their m:oney. We
Bta:te Brickworks Bill.
'[6 MAR., 1946.]
all suspect that those unversed in indus. trial control are likely to cause trouble
·when they deal on the investment
market.
It is not to be wondered at, having in
mind the Government's record of inefficiency in the control of industrial enterprises, that the public is a little nervous
at what is likely to happen. 'Vhen the
undertaking is set up, men, who to-day
are working for private enterprise, will
be tempted to transfer to the Government
institution. They will consider it a more
secure livelihood with less dan~er of
being disturbed. The result will be that
no more bricks will be produced, indeed
fewer bricl<s will be produced in a different yard. With unlimited capital at
its disposal and a novel method of
finance that permits regulation of capital
according to profit or loss, competitors
will not· be able to compete and conditions of employment in the Government
yard will be somewhat more pleasant.
If I were a brickmaker I should like to
get across to the Government yard myself.
Improved working conditions cost
money and add to the price of the home
that the citizen is to occupy. Many examples have been given of what happens
to persons who buy homes to-day. I
1Jave seen men purchase homes valued
from £200 to some thousands of pounds,
but I should imagine that until recent
years, the man on the basic wage or
just above it, purchased a home costing about £750. Nowadays the purchase
price is nearly £1,500. Even at £1,200
-and no one will question that estimate
-it would be difficult for the averao-e
worker to purchase a home. That is"' a
large sum of money to be saved by a
person working for wages or salary without means of adding to :•it. Not
only does it take a longer period
than formerly and require a greater
'Sacrifice, but it also makes the
public disspirited. Anyone who faces
the payment of £1,200 from .wages will.
~e .a very. w.e.ary individual long before
l1e has discharged his debt, even if he
has the best of luck.
State Brir.kworks Bill.
'2525
In his second reading speech the
J\{inister suggested that there was a
poverty of capacity in the circle of
the brickmasters.
Private enterprise,
he said, had been responsible for the
production of bricks and had produced
almost no bricks. The position had gone
from bad to worse and so, in desperation, he and his Government must make
amends. If we can no longer produce
the resources n1quired by the people
we haYe lost the character that has made
us what we thought was great; we have
lost the nerve to face difficulties and must
confess ourselves a blundering, incapable
body. Those •who have been masters
of the calling have helped us in a crisis
but now the Government in a state of
utter helplessness seeks to pick it up
and tell us that everything will be alright. Can a person of ordinary intelligence accept tha.t reasonin¢~ I do
not suppose that there is a person in the
department who would claim to have
more than an ordinary knowledge of
the production of bricks.
The case presented by the Minister
and his supporters does not suggest that
they are facing the practical side of
the question. They look at it from thP
angle of those who have promised to
socialise an industry if the opportunity
presents itself.
I have heard streetcorner advocates of Labour policv swing
into the grand old catch-cry, "We will
·nationalise this and that," and thP nromise is greeted with loud cheers. When
it has been suggested, during the course
of the debate, that the panacea for all
ills is to let the Government enter an
industry, irrespective of its difficulties
and complexities, much cheering has
come from the Government benches.
These proposals have not been ad~
vanced merely by the Minister and members of the Government. Somewhat
similar theories have been advauced by
other Governments, but I notice that
during the last few weeks there has been
a departure from the previous attitude.
The Prime Minister, when exhorted to
approach the coal question from the
viewpoint of nationalisation, proJ;llpdy
said that that is ·not the s.olution. Only
.:~
,,
,;
2526
State B1·ickworl.:s Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
yesterday that great advocate of socialism in the British Parliament, Mr.
Herbert Morrison, said that the people
must work for everything they want, and
that advantages could not be easily obtained. He is endeavouring to persuade
the people of Great Britain away from
any such foolish belief. Instead of endeavouring to boost the theory of socialism, be told the people quite plainly, as
reported in yesterday's press, that Great
Britain must depend upon private enterprise to assist in the relief of the great
difficulties with which it is confronted. I suggest that the speakers
on the Government side of the House
have not made out a case. There is a
right way and a wrong way, and I am
confident that the Minister is taking tl1e
wrong· way. If he had more practical
experience, he would have approached
the men who are competent to produce
bricks. They would have no opportunity
to make excessive profits, nor to obtain
a monopoly, because their p-owers are restricted. I suggest that the Minister
and the Government are doing the wrong
thing. The establishment of State brickworks will not result in the production
of more bricks. If men competent to
produce bricks had been given the opportunity to do so, the Government would
have got much further and would not
have introduced a competitor against its
own taxpayers.
[Mr. Speal.-er left the chair at 6.5 p.m.
The House resurned at 7.90 p.m.]
l\fr. HEARNSHA W (Ryde) [7.30] :
I take this opportunity of registering
a public protest against the bill. First,
as may be assumed from the views that
I have often expressed in this House, I
am opposed to State enterprises operating in the realm of the ·production of
commodities. Also, I must say that T
am very disappointed with the way in
which the bill has been presented to the
House. From the e."'positions given Ly
the Minister and his supporters, I should
have imagined that this was a bill t.o
rescind a previous determination .advocating the sale of the State brickworks.
The argument put forward by hon. members opposite seems to revolve around
the question whether something that happened in the past was right or wrong;
and the impre::sion is given that this
is an attempt to rehabilitate a venture
that failed previously.
l\fr. HoRSINGTON: It was a wrong thing
to do!
Mr. HEARNSHAW: That may be so,
but I did not think that was the
reason for this bill. l\fy impression was
that, in a period of crisis, it was intended to provide urgently needed bricks
for housing purposes, .and I should have
thought that that would be the line followed by Government supporters. Instead, hon. members have had no clear
statement from the :Minister, or, indeed,
from any supporter of his Government,
to indicate how this bill will help tu
produce more bricks. ·we have been told
that if the State brickworks begin to
operate within a certain period of time,
be it four months, eight months, or
twelve months, it may be expected to produce 27,250,000 bricks, and th.at thP.
number will ultimately expand to
74,000,000 bricks annually. Ron. members have a right to know whether those
bricks are additional to those that cou ],1
be provided by private enterprise, but
the :Minister has not yet given us any
indication of this.
l\fr. HonsrxGTON: The bon. member
means the brick£ provided by the combines!
llfr. HEAHNSHA W: The "combine~"
are .a group of men, which has organised
and rationalised the industry so that it.
mig-ht be developed more effectively.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: Does the bon. mernbed call them public-spirited citizens?
llfr. HEARNSHA W: These person'!
have established themselves in industry
and have demonstrated that they can
meet the demand of a large market.
l\fr. ,J. ,T. CAHILL: The Ryde Council
h.ad something to say about that!
llfr. HEARNSHA W: The Ryde CounC'il is distressed, as are all other citizen>',
that there are insufficient bricks available
to meet present demands. The Government did not tell the people why there
were no bricks. It did not tell them
that before the war our brickworks employed approximately 2,000 men, and'
State B1·iclcworks Bill.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
that that number was reduced to 100.
It w.as later built up to 600, and I believe that the present number is about
650. That is why private enterprise cannot produce bricks. The brickmasters
have neither the men nor the machinery
to operate their brickyards.
Mr. HoRSINGTON: The combines closed
the brickyards !
Mr. HEARNSHA W: The brickyards
wer·e closed because there was a fluctuating demand for bricks in the building
tr.ade, which is one of the most fluctuating of all industries. It was found,
reasonably enough, that in certain areas
brickworks had to be operated at a loss
because of the poor demand for bricks
in such localities. Those in control of
the industry came to the conclusion,
quite rightly, that the only effective
means of retaining men in employment
was to rationalise the industry. Such a
laudable action should have the approval
of hon. members opposite, and should
not be sneered at by them. The brickmaking interests found that, by ceasing
work in certain brickyards and concentrating it in others they could provide
men with constant employment and
could satisfy the public demand. They
have paid dividends because they have
made profits out of the brickyards, and
if the Government was not satisfied with
the way in which the brickyards produced bricks, why did it not interfere
with them before now?
Mr. HonsiNGTON: The Government
supported by the hon. member could
have done that!
l\f r. HEARNSHA W: The price at
which bricks are now sold is fixed by
the Prices Commissioner, and it has
nothing to do with the combines.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: The Prices Commissioner accepted the price given by
the combine in 1942, and that became
the fixed price!
JIIIr. HEARNSHAW: That price was
:flxed after due investigation was made.
The Prices Commissioner fixes prices
only after he has made the necessary investigation, and we must assume that he
acted wisely when he fixed this price.
The Government enterprise, when it was
2521
in existence, shared the increased price
for bricks that was brought about by
the so-called "combines."
Mr. J. J. CAHILL : The increase in
the price of bricks did not take place
until after the State brickworks were
sold!
Mr. HEARNSHA W: There were subsequent increases, but increases have
taken place from 1912 onwards.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: There was very:
little complaint about those increases!
Mr. HEAHNSHA W: No, because
everyone is glad to get a profit out of
industry, and that is as it should be. I
should like to point out very clearly
that members on this side of the House
are advocates of profit from industry~
because that is the only reasonable way
to establish which enterprises should remain in operation.
:Mr. J. J. CALIILL: Does the hon. member say that even though yards did not
operate their owners should have made
a profit~
Mr. HEARNSHA W: Profits were not
made by yards that were not in production. The rationalisation of the industry necessitated the closing .Uown of
uneconomic kilns, thus permitting bricks
to be made in kilns that could be economically worked.
On that basis, the
combine operated satisfactorily, and was
able to pay a dividend. The combine
made a maintenance contribution-GovERN~mNT MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!
Mr. SPEAT\ER: Order! The hon. member must be heard in silence. I ask the
hon. member to address his remarks to
the chair and not to invite interjections.
Mr. HEARNSHA W: In the stress
of war Britain found it necessary to
rationalise the brick industry, and it
closed down certain kilns in order to
make others productive. It paid a maintenance charge of 3s. a thousand bricks,
based on the production at a kiln at the
time that it was closed. I mention what
happened in Britain as a justification
for the action that was taken by private enterprise in the brickmaking industry of this country. That action was
justified by the results, and it was logicaf
that the brickyards that could not give
full employment should be closed so
~528
State BriC'lcworks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
-that other yards might provide full and
.adequate employment. The problem of
:manpower has been a very dreadful one
indeed in the brick industry, as is evi·denced by the fact that the number of
-employees dropped from 2,000 before the
war to 100 during the conflict. How
.can hon. members opposite expect brick:yards to be kept open with only 100 men
to operate them? Surely commonsense
<lictates that small labour units should
be brought into a limited area where ilhey
may be fully employed r.ather than be
:scattered over thirty-six different brick:yards that cannot, individually, operate
-economically. In my opinion, the practice adopted by the brick-making enterprises was justifiable and I support it.
Mr. HoRSIXGTON: When men are transferred from brickyards in that way it
-is not possible to produce sufficient
bricks!
Mr. HEARNSHAW: If supporters of
the Government believe that a mere one
hundred men in the brick industry can
produce as many as could 2,000, it is
futility to debate with them. When the
brickyards had their full complement
Qf men they were able to produce
'250,000,000 bricks from the fifteen or
sixteen brickworks that were then operating. In 1944, not because of the combines and not because of evil men who
-exploit the public, but because of the
shortage of labour, machinery and equipment, brick production fell from
'250,000,000 to 42,000,000. Government
supporters say that there was a period
oQf emergency, but as the leader of the
Country party and the hon. member for
·Gordon stated the conditions to-day are
-in a shocking muddle. We have the
responsibility of meeting that situation
not by the implementation of a particular programme over a period of ten
:years but by a definite and concrete
application of intelligence. Had the
Government assisted the brickmasters in
securing machinery and men we should
"have had more bricks. The brickmasters,
according to the letter quoted by the
leader of the Opposition, first made
application for manpower in August,
1944. At that time the production was
·42,000,000, but now that the number of
men engaged in the industry has increased from 100 to 600, the production
has increased from 42,000,000 to
100,000,000.
There is, therefore, evidence that the brickworks are meeting
the situation. Intelligent men who know·
this industry are prepared to produce
bricks provided that they are given the
men and machinery. We are not concerned with what the Government may
do i11 twelve months' time. It is quite
likely that at the end of that period the
private brickworks will be able to supply
all demands, and I would point out that
to-day the brickyards have a capacity for
producing 470,000,000 bricks.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: Why do they not
produce them?
1fr. HEAR~SRA W: Because they
have neither machinery nor labour.
llfr. J. J. CAHILL: They have
machinery!
:Mr. REAHN SHAW : We heard the
letter in which the brickmasters asked
for machinery. They are anxious to use
modern machinery.
)fr. J. J. C,tHILL: The hon. member is
making wild statements!
Mr. HEARNSHA W: The Minister
considers that my statements are wihi
only because they are unpleasant to him.
The fact remains that the brickmasters
are willing and eager to produce bricks
at an ever-increasing rate up to a capacity of 470,000,000 bricks a year, provided that the men and machinery are
made available. That is not an unreasonable request. Now that the war
is over the Labour' party has no justification in t~;ying to re-establish an undertaking the disposal of which hurt it in
1936. That seems to be the motive behind the introduction of this bill, and
I am not to be confused and neither is
the public to be confused as to the present issue, because we know that the
need for bricks for ho.uses is not the
true motive behind the bill. If it were
otherwise we might even share the
opinions of some members of the Country party, but in view of the circumstances I cannot understand their point
of view. They say clearly that they are
opposed to State enterprise and that
they believe· that this bill will not bring
State Brickw01·ks Bill.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
.about the necessary results, yet in a
blind hope and with a sincere wish that
.somehow or other it might improve the
position they are willing to support it.
We say clearly that this legislation is
:no contribution to the housing scheme.
It will not make one iota of difference
to the production of bricks for the next
.twelve months, and in the interim the
hrickmasters should be supplied with
:men and machinery so that they can
utilise some of their surplus capacity.
That is the only source from which
;bricks are likeiy to come.
If the Government is earnest in de~iring to find homes for the community
.and not to implement their political
theories, then its remedy is simple. It
:should exercise whatever influence it
possesses with the Federal Government
150 that men may be released for this
'industry. Without labour and machinery
bricks cannot be provided, not even by
the Government. If there is a limited
:supply of men willing to work in the
brickyards where is the Government
.going to secure its manpowed Will it
take it from the other brickworks? Are
·the State brickworks merely going to
provide 74,000,000 bricks by preventing
the brickmasters from producing a
similar number? If so, that is no solution of the problem.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: Competent men
who were formerly employed at Homebush Bay have been out of the industry
for years but now that it has become
known that the Government intends to
start the bric1.·works these men have
been re-engaged by the brickworks
people!
Mr. HEARNSHAW:
When were
'these men re-engaged?
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: About a fortnight
:ago!
Mr. HEARNSHAW: It is quite
•obvious that if this bill goes through
there will be more Government jobs
available and of course those who want
Government jobs will re-enter the in.dustry.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: They are working
for the brickmasters to-day!
Tz.
•
2529
Mr. HEARNSHA W: In anticipation
of the opening of the Homebush Works?
llir. J. J. CAHILL: The hon. member
should not misconstrue· my statements.
These men were working in private industry and when the brickmasters knew
that the Government intended to reacquire the brickworks they asked these
men to work for them so that they could
open up new :vards!
lllr. HEARNSHAW: From that we
gather that the Government's interest
in bricks has stimulated production. It
is a pity that its interest was not.
exhibited a few years' ago. The fact remains that the brick industry as organised to-day requires modern machinery·
to make it effective. The machinery is
here and could be made available if the
influence of this Government were used
with the Federal Government. It seems
that this Government is holding back
this machinery so that it can be used
in its own works. and if that is the position it is an absolute disgrace. Private
enterprise has for the last two years
been pleading. with the Federal authorities to permit it to get on with its job,
but its pleading has gone unheeded and
therefore the brickmasters are unable
to meet the tremendous demands that
have been made upon the industry. The
passing of this bill will provide no solution of the housing problem and I intend to vote against it.
Mr. LANDA (Bondi) [7.49] : The
hon. member for Ryde commenced hi;;
address by deploring the fact that the
speeches made by members on this side
of the House were not to his liking because we indulged in too much argument about what had taken place in the
past and what is taking place at present.
And what is taking place? I should
think that the bon. member would
have endeavoured to bring the debate
back to its proper level. Instead,
we found him indulging in a strong and
vigorous defence of the brick combine.
Perhaps, in his profession of accountancy, he has special knowledge, and he
certainly showed that in some respects
he enjoyed acquaintanceship of those
who controlled the combine. In other
respects, however, he showed that his
2530
State B7ickwarks Bul.
[ASSEMBLY:] · S'tate B·rickwork~ Bill.
knowledge was sadly limited. This de·
bate has, perhaps, taken on too muoh
of a political character. The bill deserves the most careful consideration of
hon. members in view of the urgent
housing problems that confront this
country to-day. We are faced with a
crisis of .gTeat mag·nitude. Our young
people who m:e getting married cannot
(find homes. Some people are living
with thrae ·Or four children, and even
more, in one ·bedroom, a:n.d' are naturally
crying out for homes. They are asking
various hon. members to protect them
against evictions, and to be given homes
to which they can take their families.
But we cannot cope with the demand
for houses that is being made upon us.
Naturally one cannot fail to be distressed by the conditions of these people ..
One of the first debates that I heard
in this House when I returned from
abroad was a debate on housing. It was
difficult for me to appreciate the eal'nestness and vigour with which some hon.
members attacked the Government fot
its failure to build enough houses.
In
every country that I visited while
abroad, I heard exactly the same complaint. I visited New Zealand, where
there have been proportionately more
houses constructed by its Labour Government than have been built in any othe~
country. The New Zealand Government's housing record is magnificent.
I stayed in New Zealand for three weeks
and found the demand for houses there
was equalled only by the demand fot
houses in this State. When abroad, I also
visited the United States of America,
where Henry Kaiser builds a ship a day.
.Jn that country mass production is a
specialty, but they were unable to cope
with the great demand for houses. In
Canada I heard of a similar difficulty.
When I visited England and Scotland there was more than a mere demand
for houses; there was an outcry. 1fr.
Aneurin Bevan answered questions daily
in the House of Commons about what
he was doing to provide homes for the
people. Nevertheless, I did not see a
single brick being laid in any part of
England that I visited. When one returns to this State and hears people
Mr. Landa.]
criticising the Government's failur~
to provide enough homes, I can.
only say that they are either unaware of all the difficulties associated with building to-day, or that
they are trying to make political capital
out of the peoples' hardships. The question of socialism does not arise to-dayThe party to which I belong does not try
to hide from the public that it has
certain socialistic objectives. That has
been made quite clear to the public over
the years.
The Labour party. is not
ashamed of the socialistic objectives for
which it stands.
Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member should link up his remarks with ther
provisions of the bill and keep hisargument consistent with them.
Mr. LANDA: I shall certainly do so,.
because I have heard the word "socialism" used in this debate. But the question of socialism does not arise now_
This is a period of great crisis, and ther
Government is not merely entitled totake <!teps, but is bound to take them,
to reduce the shortage that is preventing
the people from getting homes. I was
very much surprised tp hear the leader
of the Opposition and the hon. membe1·
for Ryde say that this new enterprisewould not provide a single brick. I cannot understand that contention or ther
reasoning behind the leader of the Opposition's speech. As a matter of fact,
the Homebush brickyards will produce
millions of bricks. I am mindful of
the fact that the leader of the Opposition told the Minister in charge of thebill that he would not be able to build a
rowboat in the shipyard for which her
was responsible.
Not one, but man:v
ships have heeD( built ~n that ·yard,_
and more will be built. This Government is to be heartily commended upon
the steps it has taken. Some hon. members have said that the Government'<J
action in bringing down this measure is
belated, but the old maxim ''better later
than never" applies in this instance.
Perhaps in years gone by it would not"
have been so easy for the Government
to take over these brickyards.
State Br~ckwot·ksBul.
[6 MAR., 19«1.]
I have he"rd a great deal said about
private enterprise, but the brick industry provides an example of where private
enterprise has failed. It has not stood
up to the test in a moment of crisis; it
has not been able to produce and deliver
the goods. Someone has suggested that
the profits of the brick industry were so
high that in order to obviate increased
taxation it was decided to keep production down. I heard the bon. member for
Ryde say that the brick industry was
short of men and machinery. I say to
him and to others that may think like
him that if the industry is short of
machinery it has only itself to blame.
That would show a lack of foresight on
its part, because during the war years,
when there was no building or very
little, it made no preparations for the
post"war demands that everyone knew
would be made. I understand that there
is a workshop in this State that does
nothing but make machinery for the
brickyarcls.
Jl,fr. HEARNSI-IAW: Did it make it during the war?
Mr. LANDA: I do not know, but it
has certainly made it since. I go a step
further and say that the brick combine,
which has been defended so vigorously
by a certain section on the Opposition
side of the House, has always wanted
to limit the production of bricks to
maintain the price at what it considered
was a fair and reasonable level. The
proof of that is this: The brick combine, as the hon. member for Y ass so
eloquently stated last night, purchased
the State brickyards in such a way as
to cause shame to the Government of
1;he day. But the point I wish to make
with regard to that transaction, fraudulent as it appeared to anyone, was that
it involved the sale of a public asset at
tho.usands of pounds less than it was
worth. No sincerity was shown in the
vurchase of that asset. They did not
purchase it to widen their ramifications
of the brick-making industry, or to give
them another large, well-equipped brickyard. They showed b:v their purchase
that they wished to limit the number of
bricks produced. Shortly after they had
State Bricl,works Bill.
2531
purchased the brickyard they began to
sell the assets which they had pur•
chased, and the modern equipment was
sold or destroyed. The yard had cranes
at both ends. It had punts with which
to carry the brick~; across the water. It
had a transport system of lorries all of
which were dissipated. It had a light
railway connection with the depot at
Parramatta, and it also had depots on
the north side of the city. I commend
the courage of the Minister and the
Government in taking over that piece
of desolatiDn which has been left to it.
The brickworks had ten patent kilns
when they were sold, and twenty
kilns for faced bricks. All this equipment in one of the most modern and
highly-efficient brickyards in this community has gone. The cranes have vanished·. The transpo;rt system ha~; been
broken up. The kilns are now covered
with concrete.
Mr. HE..,RNSUAW: By the na-vy!
Mr. LANDA: But they were never
used by the brick combine. The grinding plant was sold. I admire the cour·
age of the Minister and the GovernmeEI
in taking over the brickyard in its pr1•·
sent condition, and I should be please~!
if a miracle would happen to . en,ablo
the production of bricks to be commenced next week or next month. U n·
fortunately that cannot happen.. The
Minister has a big job ahead of h.im, but
I am sure tktat he will be ~s su.cuese;ful
in regard to the State B;rickwoxks aiJ
he was in connection with the New·
castle dockyard. Ii he can get tkte Yi<t-J:dfJ
in op.eration, and have the f;i.rst brickt.
produced within six months, he will
earn the gratitude of the whole com·
munity.
I propose now to refer to the perfidJ
and insincerity of those persons who run
the brick combine. They say that they
have not enough men to increase brick
production. Yet there are many exservicemen to-day who are unemployed,
and I will tell you one reason why they
do not go into the brick-making industry. A few years ago when the brick combine bought the State Brickworks, it
achieved its purpose. It got rid of ·Government enterprise. But in 1923 this
2532
State B1·ickworh:s Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
same group sold one of the most efficient brickyards in New South Wales.
I refer to t'he Flemington brickworks,
alongside the railway line at Strathfield.
This yard had been producing at least
14,000,000 bricks each year. It had two
continuous kilns, whereas the average
yard has only one. That brickyard
was also sold. It i5 now being util-ised by a J;llanufacturer of :fly-spray. The
brick combine did not want any additional brickyards. In point of fact, it
has too many small brickyards at pre_sent scattered over the St. Peters areD.
that ought to be closed down. The conditions of employment are abominable, and
that is a further reason why bricks are
not being produced efficiently. The
works are not situated close to transport facilities and should be moved
closer to them. There should be one
large central brickya::d, near 'to the
material it require5 and close to transport facilities, and the conditions of
employment should be good. Then, with
more efficient methods, more bricks
would be produced, and produced more
cheaply.
I am glad to know that under the bill
the Minister, if he so desires, will be
empowered to take action to acquire
some of these brickyards. Some of t'hem
ought to be acquired, and amalgamated
into one and the machinery fully
utilised and modernised. At the pres.ent they are uneconomic from the
viewpoint of employment and the
public interest. If the machinery
were centralised in one efficient
and if the material
brickworks,
were more plentiful there would be a big
increase in production.
Mr. TREATT: Does the hon. member
imply that the Government should take
over the smaller yards and use the machinery?
Mr. LANDA: No, but this bill gives
the Government an opportunity to make
the brick industry efficient. It is not an
efficient industry to-day. During the
debate I have heard very little said about
the employees in this industry, who
deserve consideration. I· speak as one
·who acts for the union that protects the
Blalc fl.rickworlo:s Bill.
interests of these employees. There is
no industry that has fewer amenities for
the employees than has the brick-makinci
industry. There is no industry th.at is
more irregular in emplosment. I have
been advised by those who know the
affairs of this union where the emplosec.:!
are all enrolled that there is no encouragement for an ex-serviceman to enter
the industry if the conditions are to remain as they are at present.
Mr. HEARXSHAW: They are controlled
by an award!
Mr. LANDA: Yes, but it is not satisfactory to these men. I drew attention
the other day to the fact that they
have not adequate protection under the
Factories and Shops Act. Nor in respect
of explosives, have they the protection
of inspection by the Department of
Mines. This seems to have been overlooked.
111:r. HEARNSHAW: They have a remedy!
Mr. LANDA: They have tried for
years, but private enterprise has resisted
every attempt of the union to better their
conditions. Some of the men who were
formerly employed at the State Brickworks at Homebush Bay have now taken
employment with private enterprise, but
as soon as the State Brickworks are
opened these men will immediately leave
that private enterprise to work in the
Government enterprise.
Mr. HowARTH: You cannot blame the
men for that. They do not have to work
so hard!
Mr. LANDA: That is a gratuitous insult to men who produced a substantial
quantity of bricks for this communitybricks that were sold to the public at
17s. a thousand less than those made
by the brick combine. Those men did a
highly efficient skilled job. The only
point of difference is that in the
State Brickworks the men were treated
as human beings and given a job that
could be regarded as permanent. They
were paid from 3s. to lOs. over the
award rates of pay and 33-1/3 per cent.
of the net profit was distributed as
bonuses amongst them.
1\fr. BRAIN: It is illegal to-day to pay
over the award wage!
·
State Briclcworks Bill.
[6 MAn., 1946.]
Mr. LANDA: It is not. There are
many servicemen without jobs, but I
would not like to see them herded into
the brick-making industry because I
know the poor conditions of the men in
that industry. I have come into contact
with them in my daily work. The job
is not permanent and gives the men no
security. But if the Government Brickworks were re-established on the lines
on which they operated previously I
could confidently recommend servicemen
to take up work there because they
would be given some security and permanence, they would receive a decent
wage and would enjoy better conditions
than exist in any private brickyard.
The Government is taking the necessary step to overcome the housing shortage, which is having such a deplorable
effect on our community. Ron. members
should all be behind the 111:inister and
should give him every encouragement to
get this brickyard cleaned up after its
occupation by the Navy, to get rid of the
concrete, and to get the machinery restored and to put the m,en back at wo1rk to
produce millions of bricks in order to
overtake the shortage that now exists.
Even if the Minister takes nine months
to bring this into effect, he will have
earned the gratitude of the people of
this community.
Mr. STOREY (Hornsby) [8.13]:
Those of us who were not in the House
when these brickworks were disposed of
are very interested in the historical
background of the debate, but after all
that has nothing to do with the question before us. The question is, whether
having regard to the desperate position
in regard to housing in this country,
it is necessary for the Government to
take the step that is contemplated. I
think the step is justified and that if a
referendum were taken, it would be
carried by eight votes out of every ten.
Since this bill was introduced, I have
taken the trouble to check up with
various electors who are in the middle
of the road, the same as I am politically,
and I find that there is a~ almost unanimous desire on the part of those people
to see thia measure passed. The general
expression of opinion is that even if the
2533
Government loses money on this enterprise, it is more than justified in the
step that is being taken.
We have just been through a war that
cost the country £1,500,000 a day, and
yet we boggle over the expenditure of
£50,000 or so in order to see to it that
the people get houses. Those who have
said that this will not produce bricks
surely do not believe that what they
say is correct. Their very hypothetical
argument was really answered by the
hon. member for Ryde, who saicl that the
introduction of this bill has already
stimulated the brick industry. I feel
that an answerable case has been made
out f~r those who say that the brickworks were sacrificed in 1936, and that
the . people lost, taking into account
what was paid to the Government for
them; but as I have said, the historical
background does not concern me at all.
I am concerned with the fact that today we cannot get bricks, and men and
women are almost blackmarketing in
the fight to get them because the brickmasters say they are ten and twelve
months behind in deliveries. In local
government circles we have reports from
the building inspectors time and again
that that is the position, and we are told
that we must allow people to live in
garages or to put up half-fibro houses in
brick areas, and to put up houses worth
£500 alongside others worth £2.000 or
£3,000, because there are no bricks and
it would be inhuman to prevent people
from building a roof over their heads.
Those who have said that bricks are not
the only building material are correct,
but we have been told to-night that the
maximum production at the brickworks
in question, even if £100,000 more were>
spent on it than the original £30,000
estimate and the cost of resumptions,
will produce only 74,000,000 bricks a
year.
·we have been told that the
maximum annual production to date
by the brickruasters is 250,000,000
bricks with a possible maximum of
470,000,000.
If we look into some
of the Commonwealth's reports we
shall see without any doubt that we are
about 250,000 houses short to-day. That
being the position, let the brickmasters
State Brickw01•ks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
bring up their production to 250,000,000,
and let the State Brickworks make
70,000,000, and we will have only
320,000,000 a year then, and we shall
still not get very far.
A lot has been said about socialisation
and about private enterprise. It has
been suggested that this industry ought
to be left to private enterprise. Not
much has been said about monopolies or
combines, or about competition. The
basis of private enterprise, after all,
is competition, because without competition as a rule we cannot get efficiency.
If there is a monopoly, w!1ere is the
competition~
The only possible competition with a monopoly is a · State
enterprise.
I have said in this House on other
occasions that I am m favour of
private enterprise. I favour it, in general terms. I am not in favour of tpe
socialisation of industry or of the Government nationalising everything· under
the sun or even everything in the building industry. I •believe that in the present ·desperate position in which we find
ourselves, a .Jittle competition will
stimulate the industry.
Competition,
after all, is the right force in
private enterprise, and it will help us
to get more bricks and to build more
houses. I have decided to eonfine m:v
remarks to a very small compass. I
am not interested in throwing the party
political football from one side of the
House to the other. I am responsible
to my constituents, and I believe that
my electorate, conservative though it is
in some respects, in the present national
situation would favour the establishment of a brickworks by the Government. There is a post-war works programme of £50,000,000. for this State.
Bricks are required for hospitals,
schools and many other amenities.
If the State Brickworks did no more
than supply public utilities, they would
be doing a wonderful job because
bricks produced by private eJ?,terprise
could then be used by home builders. I should much rather see the
Government establish the brickworks
and become brickmasters than enter
into home building. In my view the
Mr. Storey.]
construction of homes is a function in
which private enterprise is more likely
to be successful under reasonably even
conditions than is Government enterprise. Those are a few remarks from the
other viewpoint and I mention them to
indicate that I am not one-eyed on the
subject.
It is futile for the Opposition to
oppose the bill merely because it
thinks private enterprise is being
threatened. Private enterprise is not
being threatened. Apparently this
industry was the only State enterprise that showed a profit from
1911 until 1034 and it is now to be reestablished. From the viewpoint of
everything that is fair and reasonable,
in a time of crisis &uch as this we
should bury some of the bogies of private enterprise versus Government enterprise, and give the Government credit
for doing this job. I see ·no great spirit
of socialism on the part of this Government and consider that the &tep it is
now taking will have the approbation of
the community.
1Ir. GuiEG: The hon. member said
that the brickworks was the only State
enterprise that operated successfully.
The State Monier pipe works and the
metal quarries also made handsome
profits!
:Thfr. STOREY: I am thankful for
the hon. member's correction but this
particular enterprise &howed a profit
throughout. I say to members of the
Opposition who declare themselves so
fervently in favour of private enterprise that the basis of private enterprise is competition. With a monopoly
competition is eliminated and private
enterprise goes by the board. Because of
that, if for no other rea&on, the Government is entitled to take this step. I agree
with the hon. member for Raleigh who
said that normally he might not support the bill, but having regard to the
condition of almost national emergency
that exist to-day, he believed that the
action of the Government was justified.
If a Government did nothing in this
and other directions it would lose office
at the next election irrespective of its
political colour.
.flitp.Ze !8rickworks .})ill.
[6 J\{!1,1.~ 1946:]
Mr. J. J. CAIHLL (:Minister for
.Public W orlts and Lpcal Government)
{Cook's River) [8.25] in reply: The con-tribution to the debate has covered a
wide field and I congratulate some bon.
members who have discharged what they
.consider to be their responsibilities to
the people.. I congratulate the members
<Of the Oountry party, particularly those
who say that they are opposed to State
o€nterprise b11t who believe that something must be done to speed up brick
production in order that homes may be
'.built. They have interpreted the views
.of the electorate and are in a much
better position that are members of the
Liberal party who have registered
:a protest against Government enterprise
jnterfering with private enterprise. The
hon. member for Ryde does not speak
very frequently and unfortunately when
he does speak he is not always fortified
with facts. His speech to-night was built
.on statements made by other members of
the Opposition. "\Vhen challenged he referred to the fact that his colleagues
had said that such and such was the
.case and it must be correct. I was taught
jn a debating school that to make a
point successfully it was necessary to
have an authority. If the authority of
:the bon. member for Ryde is what some
<>ther member of his party has said, his
.contribution to the debate has boon negligible. The Ryde Municipal Council has
.been one of the foremost local governing
bodies in the County of Cumberland in
pioneering home building. It has applied for a loan, and I have approved of
the money being made available, so that
it may embark upon an extensive home
,building programme. That council is in
the electorate of the bon. member. It
l1as complained of brickyards being
.closed in its immediate vicinity and has
.asked me to amend the Local Govern.ment Act to give councils power to do
what the Government proposes by this
bill. I have agreed, and the Government
J1as agreed, and an amendment of the
'Local Government Act will be presented
to this House shortly. This is being
done only because those responsible for
State B1·iclo;w01·ks Bill.
2535
the production of bricks, for one reason
or another, have not been able to meet
the demands of the community.
Many bon. members opposite have
said that the Government would not
supply the men and machinery to euable
this to be done. What machinery is required? A number of brickyards were
closed down and the machinery from
those yards has become available. As
a matter of fact, most of the machinery
has been taken out of the former
State Brickworks at Homebush Bay
and has been used by the brickmasters
in other yards. Consequently, they have
been able to improvise, and it is well
known that they have not pmctised the
mechanical method of brick production
about which they speak so much to-day.
It is equally well known that the brick
industry must be mechanised. I could
never understand why bricks had to be
placed by hand in a kiln wet,
the kiln closed and
burnt for
four or five days and allowed to
cool out before the bricks could
be taken out again by hand. I have
worked in a power house and have seen
the coal fed by a chain stoker which went
very slowly through the furnace as an
endless chain. I do not know whether
it is possible to bake bricks in that way,
but, if it be possible, something like
that should be done to prevent the manhandling of bricks which to-day must
necessarily add to the cost of home building. If we are able to introduce a
metL.-d whereby bricks can be placed
in a furnace and taken out by mechanical means then we shall have contributed
something towards ·the mechanisation
of the industry. That may not be practicable, but, if Parliament agrees to the
re-establishment of :the State Brickworks, they will be under my administration, and I can assure the House
and the country that the administration
will endeavour to get bricks into production at the earliest possible moment. The
hon. member for Ryde said that I had no
hope of producing bricks within twelve
months. I hope that many cottages will
have been built in this State within
2j36
State Brickw01·ks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
twelve months and built wholly of bricks
that have been baked at the State Brickworks.
I now propose to refer briefly to some
of the contributions to the debate by
bon. members opposite. The leader of
the Opposition described the bill, and
especially the financial clauses, as "fantastic."
He, as a former Colonial
Treasurer, puts himself forward as an
authority on :finance-a kind of financial "vVizard of G'z." It is customary for
the leader of the Opposition to question
the financial clauses of every bill that
comes before the House, and the hou.
member for Albury excelled himself in
the debate on the Electricity Development Bill when he declared the financial provisions to be unconstitutional,
and this without quoting any legal authority whatsoever, although he must have
known that the Government had been
advised by the Crown Law authorities,
apart from departmental legal officers.
On that occasion we had an extraordinary development when the deputy Je.ader
of the Opposition stated that, in his
opinion, the validity of the financial
clauses of the bill was beyond questiou.
From the moment of that expressed
opinion, and all that it implied, not one
further word of criticism was uttered
concerning those clauses, and the "Wizard of Oz" became the "Wizard that
Was." In the debate on this bill, the
leader of the Opposition was very critical
of the provision f'Jr any possible loss
on the State Brickworks being met from
the Treasury. Apparently his memory
played him false in this matter, else he
might have known that the Broken Hill
Water and Sewerage Aet, introduced
by his own Government in 1938, established the precedent for such a provision-one which has been incorporated
in several bills in the n1eantime.
comparison, let me point out that
the output of the State Brickworks
m 1929 was 62,250,000, but when
they were banded over to Brick-·
works Ltd. they produced only a
total of four million bricks in one year
and less than twelve million bricks in
another. They were up-to-date brick-·
works, and I put it to han. members
that it is correct to say that the State·
Brickworks were purchased in order to
be closed down, as a number of other
brickyards were, and the profits made
from the remaining yards were spread
over the idle brickworks.
The leader of the Opposition in a
characteristically sweeping statement,
alleged that the bill provided that th~
capital cost of the State Brickworks
would be increased or decreased according to the profit or loss. If he had read
the bill more carefully, as befits the
leader of the Opposition, he would have
found that this is a direc~ mis-statement.
In accordance with proper accounting
and financial practice, the bill provides
that the capital cost will be increased
or decreased in accordance with the ex ..
penditure or receipts, and the expenditure or receipts here referred to are
clearly expenditure upon capital assets
and receipts in respect of capital asset.;;
which have been disposed of.
The han. member for Armidale made
much of the fact that a monopoly must
be a monopoly acting in restraint of
trade to the detriment of the public
before it becomes liable to prosecution
under the law. I think han. members
will do me the justice to say that I have
refrained
from
referring
to
the
owners of brickworks as people who
would not do this or that. I mentioned
that they had had considerable difficulty in producing bricks because of
the lack of manpower and the incidence
The leader of the Opposition made a of the war. Most of the things that
number of false statements, the . first have been said about the owners of the
of which was that after the sale of brickworks were said by members of the
They accused th 'l brickthe brickworks in ] 936 the combine kept Opposition.
them in full production.
In actual masters of having done this, ttat and
fact, the number of bricks produced in the other, but immediately they made
1936 was less than 4,000,000, and in out a case against the briekmasters they
1938 less than 12,000,000. By way of began to pull it clown.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
However, one or two hon. members
have been most caustic. The hon. member for Yass, who was interested in a
legal capacity in a Royal Commission
that sat, did make some very strong
statements, but, generally speaking, hon.
members have refrained from castigating the owners of the brickworks. They
have castigated the former United Australia Party Government for the disposal of a State asset which was of tremendous benefit to the people, and which
was saving the people 18s. a thousand
on the price of bricks, but they have not
been over critical of the brick combine
which certainly acted in restraint of
trade when it closed down certain brickworks and increased the price of bricks
from the remaining brickworks.
The hon. member for Armidale twit·
ted the Government with having neglected to take action against the brick
combine for five years, but in all fairness he might have made some allowance
for the fact that the nation was at war
for four of those five years, and that
it has taken the only effective way to
break the monopoly in the first year of
peace. I had not intended to mention it,
but this Government has not been inactive with regard to the question of reacquiring the State Brickworks. It is well
known that the brickworks property has
been in the hands of the Federal Government for a considerable number of years.
It was impossible to take them .away
from the Federal Government while the
war was on, bearing in mind the huge
amount of ammunition stored in those
brickyards, even if this Government
had the power to do so. For that
reason, hon. members should be a
little more charitable and should
not twit the Government with having failed to acquire men some
years ago. I thought that the" Commonwealth Government may have been
interested in resuming this property,
and if it had done so it would
have been comparatively easy for the
State Government to take it over when
the Commonwealth had finished its work
there. I understand that the Commonwealth Government did make certain advances and that a figure in the
2537
vicinity of £1t;O,OOO was asked for the
sale of the property. Responsible officers.
of the Commonwealth stated that· it.
could be obtained for much less than that,.
and I have been informed-han. members.
may take this statement for what it isworth-that this would have been done·
if an assurance had been given that n<>
more bricks would be produced at Homebush Bay. I should not have imported
this matter into the debate but for the
hypocritic-al attitude of members of
the Opposition, who &aid that the Gov-ernment should have done certain things;
that, obviously, it was unable to do. This
Government moves cautiously and does.
not make mistakes. \Ve re-established the
shipyard first, now the brickworks-and
the field is still open. The Government
will not rush headlong into taking over
this, that, and the other industry, merely
for the sake of nationalising everything.
Its endeavour is to establish these in-·
dustries on a sound business-like basis,
and it requires that they should have
some connection with the wants of the
public. The Government has no desire to enter wholeheartedly into com•·
petition with private enterprise, but
where it is in the interests of the community to do so it believes that it should
see that the people receive fair play.
For that reason, the Government has decided to establish the State Brickworks.
The hon. member for ]l.{osman signified
his intention of supporting the bill, but
spoke of "loose draftsmanship" without,
apparently having read tl~e measure
carefully, because clause 8 (1) of Part
IV. answers his criticism. I suggest that.
before hon. members make such state-·
ments they should verify them. The reputation of those who draft these bills
is at stake and it is very unfair that
such utterances should be placed on record when they are not based on fact.
It is made abundantly clear in that subclause that any land may be resumed,
appropriated or purchased: Subclause
( 4) of the same clause makes it clear
that brickworks, plant, ·equipment or
machinery on such land shall vest in the
constructing authority. The subclause
pl~o makes mention of compensation.
The deputy-leader of the Liberal Party
2538
State Brickworks .Bill.
[ASSE;MBLY.]
was in the h&ppy position of being able
to show that he was not a member of the Government that sold the
.State enterprises, because he was not in
Parliament in those years. Therefore
we have to absolve the deputy-leader of
the Opposition and, generally speaking,
1 should s!ly that his contribution to
the debate was characteristically fair.
Another notable effort was the address
of the hon. member for Y ass, and the
frank and practical speech of the bon.
member for Byron commended itself
:to the House. This Yomlg Country party
member set a standavd that might well
·be followed by his colleagues. He supported the bill in policy and in principle,
and emphasised that there was no reason
why this undertaking should not be
utilised to the fullest extent.
In my opening remarks, I made it
;abundantly clear that the State would
require huge numbers of bricks for the
progressive works programme that it
now had in hand and which it contemplated in the immediate future.
It
bas been demonstrated ,beyond all doubt
that the price of bricks is unreasonably
high. This, as Sir Thomas Bavin
pointed out in 1928, reacts to the detriment of every person who builds or occupies a home. It reacts to the detriment
·of the people also, beca]Jse public works
()OSt more than they should. This is
a most important factor to-day, when
the Government's present and immediate
requirements of bricks reach unprecedently high figures.
After serious consideration, therefore,
the Government has decided to re-open
the State brickworks in the interests of
the people of this State, so that homebuilders can get cheaper bricks, so that
public moneys are not unnecessarily
drained away by high price.s, and so as
to relieve the serious production lag
that has hampered the State's progressive building programme.
I should like to congratulnte the lJOn.
member for Raleigh upon his contribution to the debate. The bon. member
-and the Country party generally, realised
that difficulty with which the Govern.ment was faced and appreciates that
jt is int.roduciug this .bill in o:rdel." .to
Stat:e Brickworks Bill.
overcome the present housing shortage.
Members of the Country party believe it is their responsibility to support
the bill, not because they support the
Government, but because it may be
instrumental in providing more homes
for the people. The hon. member for
Gordon, who, I understand possesses
some scholastic attainments, would go
a long way in this House if his manner
and attitude were different from that
at present adopted by him.
Mr. JEFF BATE: The bon. member will
go a long way in this House !
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: The hon. member for Gordon will not go v~ry far in
this House if he attacks every bill and
problem that confronts us in the manner
in which he attacked this measure. The
hon. member will find that a supercilious
air, calculated to convey the impression
that he knows everything and that no
one else knows anything, will not take
him very far in this House. I saw very
pr~m1i·neut business men enter Parliament and sit on the Government side
of the House while the Labour party
was in Opposition. Although they were
looked upon as magnates in industrial spheres, they made no impression on bon. members. I remember,
too, a very eminent legal gentleman
who sat with hon. members now in Opposition and who made contributions to debates, but who failed to make an impression on even the most humble member
in the House. It will be seen, therefore,
that the mere fact that a man is possessed of scholarly attainments gained
on the other side of the world does not
count in Australia.
Mr. JEFF BATE: The hon. member
fought for Australia!
]lfr. J. J. CAHILL: That remark is
typical of the hon. member for W ollondilly, who always seems capable of saying something that is foreign to the
question before the Rouse. He invariably puts the cart before the horse and,
as usual, his latest statement has no relation to the matter under discussion. I pay due regard to every man
who fought for his country, and I may
say that one of my family foug-ht for
Australj:a in the •second World War and
State Brickwork~ Bill.
'[6 MAR., 1946.]
another did not return from the World
War I. Such matters should not be introduced in a debate that is unrelated to
war service, and the hon. memhe·r should
be more sure of his ground before importing such issues.
The speech of the leader of the
Country party was most refreshing.
I am sur'\ that all hon. members
regret thaL he has not been in the
best of health for some little time. If
the time ever came when we did not
have him with us to stand up and fight
as we all know he can, the House would
be the poorer. To-day he was in his best
form. He criticised the bill and he
criticised the Government, but the sum
total of his criticism was that his colleagues and he were going to support
the bill. I want also to refer to the very
practical speech made by the hon. member for Hornsby. I know that on the
last occm;ion that I was introducing an
important bill he was a thorn in my
side, and I am very pleased to have
him ''on side'' on this occasion. I cau
assure him that his contribution to the
debate was well worth while.
I trust that hon. members will pass
this bill, so that it may be dealt with
immediately by another place. Everything is ready for its passage. The
resumption papers are wa1tmg in
my office pending the Governor's approval to this legislation.
When
that approval is given notice of re~umption will be isRued. I have competent tradesmen from a Government
enterprise waiting to inspect the brickwork~:. and to inform me what is necessary by way of new machinery. I have
a man from the Agent-General's office
in England ready to go intn the works
to make an inspection. I have been in
constant touch with overseas in quest
of suitable and up-to-date machinery. I
nssure the House that when this bill
becomes law I shall do my utmost to
mechanie.e the industry and to place .it
on a sound basis so that in a short time
it will be producing bricks for the home
builders of this State. I commend the
hill to the House.
2539
·Question put. The House di-vided :
Ayee., 58; noes, 13; majority, 45.
AYES.
Arthur, Captain
Baddeley, J. M.
Booth, G..
Bruxner, Lt.·Colonel
Cahill, F. J.
Cahill,·J. J.
Cameron; R.
Ohaffey, W. A.
Chante>, Major
Cunningham, L. L.
Davidson, M.A.
Davies, W.
Dickson, S. D.
Drummond, D. H.
Enticknap, A. G.
Evatt, C. R.
Fowler, Mrs. L.
J<~owles, H. T.
Freeman, J. S.
Frith, W.
Geraghty, .J. L.
Graham, E. H.
G1"Cig, R.
Hawkins, F. H.'
Heffron, R. J.
Horsington, E. M.
Jordan, L. C.
Kell'y, C. A.
Knight, H.
Lamb, W.H.
Lawsan, J. A.
Lazzarini, C.'C.
Macdonald, D.P.
McGin, Ja!mes
McGiath, J. F.
McKell, W. J.
Martin, Major
Matthews, C. H.
Nott, R. B.
O'Halloran, R. E.
O'Sullivan, M.
Quirk, Mrs. M.
Reid, J. T.
Renshaw, J. B.
Robertson, C. G.
Seiffert, J. W.
Stanley, F.
Ste-phens, S'. T.
Storey, S. A. D.
Sweeney, J. T.
Tully, J:. M.
Vince11t, R. S.
WeiT,"G.
Williams, A. J. L.
Wingfield, .C. G.
Woodward, H. P. J.
Tellers,
Landa, A.
Shannon, T. J.
NOES.
Brain, G. W.
Darby, E. D.
Fitzgerald, R. L.
Hearnshaw, E. M.
Howarth, W. A. H.
Jackett, H. G.
Jackson, J.
Richardson, A.
Robson, Lt.·Colonel
Treatt, V. H.
Turner, H. B.
1'el'lcrs,
Bate, Jeff
Black, I. C.
PAIRS.
Carlton, W. J.
Gollan, W. M.
Hamilton, R. G.
Gollan, G. C.
Hunter, D. B.
Mair, A.
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
IN COMMITTEE.
Clause 3 (Officers and employees).
Mr. BRAIN (Willoughby) [9.0]: The
clause reads:
(1) The Govemor may, under and subject
to the provisions of the Public Service Act,
1902, as amended by subsequent Acts, appoint and employ such officers and employees
as ·may be necessary for the purposes· of thjs
Act.
2540
State B1·iclcwo1·ks Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
(2) The officers and employees so ap·
pointed or employed shall be subject to the
provisions of the Public Service Act, 1902,
as amended by subsequent Acts, dming
their tenure of office or employment.
(3) The Minister may appoint, employ
:md dismiss such casual employees as are
deemed necessary for the purposes of this
Act and may fix wages and conditions of
employment of such casual employees where
such wages and conditions are not fixed in
accordance with the provisions of any other
Act.
.
To those provisions I take exception.
The power should not· be vested in the
11finister to appoint, employ and dismiss
casual employees. Surely th.at authority
should be vested in the manager of the
State brickworks.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: It is!
Mr. BRAIN: If that is so it should
be stated in the bill. The bill says one
thing and the Minister assures us that
it does not mean what it says. Some
other procedure will have to be adopted.
I think it is time that the Minister in
charge of the bill gave instructions to
the Parliamentary Draftsman to draft
it in such a way as to make it mean
what it says.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4. (Capital cost.)
1fr. DRU1fMOND (Armidale) [9.2] :
Consideration should be given to thi<>
clause to ensure that there is no interference with the working of the proposed
undertaking, and that it will be placed
upon a financial basis that will ensure
that it conforms to the best established
business practice. It should be no part
of this or any otl1er Government's activities to enter into unfair competition with
those who are already eng.aged in the
brick industry. There will be unfair
competition if the Government does not
include in these provisions means to
ensure that every charge that will pe
accepted by a corporate body in this
State, or a company incorporated under
the Companies Act, will be m.ade upon
this undertaking. I do not suggest, for
instance, that taxation which will be
paid by the undertaking should be paid
to the Commonwealth as it would he
paid by a private incorporated company.
I do not intend to infringe upon the
State B1·iclcworlcs Bill.
.announced intention of the leader of the
Opposition, which I presume will be carried out by his colleague to-night, to
move an amendment to ensure that certain things shall occur. In case there
should be a movement that would close
discussion on this clause, if the amendment foreshadowe9, by the leader of the
Opposition is not moved, I shall move
it myself.
There are certain charges which, it is
accepted, must be made by every properly
organised undertaking that operates under the Companies Act. There is the
payment of wages and provision for depreciation. Such provision must be made
upon terms and conditions that ensure
the undertaking's continuation.
A
charge must also be made from time to
time for renewals, and replacements.
Payments must also be made in respect
of money borrowed upon overdrafts.
What is proposed in this instance~ Is
it proposed that this undertaking shall
be granted a rate of interest more favom·able than that to which any other
undertaking is subject~ Bank interest
in the Commonwealth is fixed, and will
continue to be fixed whether we like it
or not, by the Commonwealth Bank
which to-day controls the financial operations of Australia. It is a first principle
of any undertaking of government which
claims that it is at least as efficient
as private enterprise, that it should meet
the same charges as a corporate body
would have to meet. It is possible that
this organisation may have to meet certain demands that would be equivalent
to the payment of interest on overdraft.
If that is so it should pay the prevailing
rate of interest on overdrafts; it should
pay neither more nor less. It seems
to me that certain privileged rates may
be granted.
Mr. W. DAVIES: That would be all
the better!
Mr. DRUMMOND: It might be for
this particular undertaking, but if we
ask private enterprise to pay tax to keep
our schools, our hospitals and other Government institutions going, and then put
private enterprise in unfair competition
with a Government undertaking, we enter into a very controversial field and a
State Briclcworks Hill.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
State B1·iclcworlcs Bill.
2i>4.1
very different one from that envisaged
by hon. members. I want to make that
perfectly clear. The leader of the Opposition has already indicated that he
will move certain amendments. I do
not propose to hold up the passing of
the measure, but I do propose to indi-cate that I will move, if this amendment
is not previously moved by the deputyleader of the Opposition:
portion of the expenditure and add it
to the capital cost or reduce the capital
cost by any deduction of the expenditure for that year. The capital cost may
be £100,000, but the Minister has not
yet given any figure to show what the
Government will pay for this undertaking. If the expenditure exceeds the
revenue for the year by £20,000 he would
be empowered ·to add that amount to
the capital cost.
That there be inserted in subclause (2)
{b) of clause 5, after the word "for" the
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: This clause does not
words "overdraft at current rates or."
relate to expenditure and revenue; it reThat is the form of the amendment · lates to the capital cost!
which I propose, but I do not intend to
Ur. BRAIN: That is so. It says that
move it, but as a matter ·of courtesy ana the capital cost shall be increased or
following parliamentary etiquette the decreased according to the expenditure
-:remedy lies in the hands of the deputy- or receipts. What does that mean? The
leader of the Opposition.
J.\llinister has not told the Committee.
Mr. BRAIN (Willoughby) [9.11]:
The Minister has said that if there were
Clause 4 of the bill is not clear and I
a loss it would be written off. I do not
.ask the Minister to elucidate it. For
agree with that view.
Taken in its
instance subclause (1) wnich deals with literal sense, this clause means that if
the capital cost of the brickworks the expenditure is in excess of the receipts the Minister can add that differreads:
ence to the capital cost. Subclause (2)
The capital cost of the State brickworks
;ghall be such amount as the Governor by
provides that:
proclamation published in the Gazette de·
The Minister shall notifv in the Gazette
dares to be the capital cost. Such p1·ocla·
mation shall be published as soon as prac·
ticablc after the establishment of the State
~rickworks.
The ]vl:inister is empowered to determine
the amount by which the capital cost
shall be increased or decreased by reason of expenditure or receipts during
the period commencing on the date as at
which the capital cost was declared and
-ending on 31st day of :March immediately following the declaration of the
capital cost.
:Mr. J. J. CATm,L: I ask the hon. member, who is an accountant, to read the
:subclause carefully.
Mr. BRAIN: I am trying to do justice to the bill.
Mr. J. J. CAHU,L: Considering the
provision is made in about four other
·enactments, the bon. member's state·ment is extraordinary.
:M:r. BRAIN: If it is drafted in con-formity with previous legislation then
it is time a change in the drafting ·was
~made
because as drafted it gives
the Minister the right to take any
the amount of such increase or decrease.
Upon publication of such notification, the
capital cost shall be deemed to be altered
accordingly . . . .
What does that mean?
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: The hon. member
is, an accountant. Why does he not tell
the Committee?
:Mr. BRAIN: There should be an
amendment to add the word "capital"
before the words "expenditure and
receipts."
Mr. BRAIN: If the amendment were
accepted it would be an intelligible
clause.
I\fr. J. J. CAHILL: I assure the bon.
member that the clause provides for
exactly what he considers it should contain. The whole thing refers to capital
assets.
I\fr. BRAIN: Why did not the Minister say that in his speech t
:Mr. J. J. CAHILL: My departmental
accountant assures me that it is proper
to incorp~rate the provision in the bill!
Mr. BRAIN: Irrespective of what
your accountant may tell the :Minister~
2542
State B1·ickworks Bin.
[ASSEMBLY.]
it appears to me that he could not have
proper regard to capital income or capital
expenditure if the clause is left in its
present form.
· Clause agreed to.
Clause 5. ( 1) An account shall be kept in
:Joe b1 ecial .0!'j:r.:;its Account· in the 'l'rcasw·y
to be· called the "State Brickworks Work·
ing Account," in this Act referred to as the
"\Vorking Account."
(2) (a) There shall be credited to the
Working Account all 1·evenue, earnings and
moneys received f1·om all sources in the
course of the conduct of the State Brickworks and such amounts as may from time
to time be appropriated by Parliament for
the pmpose.
.
(b) There shall be debited to the
Working Account the following charges, in
the order set out hereunder:-Firstly, all costs and expenses whatsoever of and incidental to the administration, management and conduct of the
State Brickworks and also the costs of
repair and minor renewal of buildings,
plant and. equipment.
Secondly, interest on the capital cost
declared pursuant to section four of this
Act for any year ending on the thirtyfirst day of March at a rate or rates to
'be determined by the Colonial Treasurer,
but not exceeding the average rate payable during such year by the Government
for loan moneys, and exchange at a rate
or rates to be determined by the Colonial
Treasurer, the amount of which interest
and exchange shall be credited to the
Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr. TREATT (Woollahra) [9.1'7]: I
move:
That in subclaul!e (2) (b) after the word
"equipment" there be inserted the words:
Secondly, such sums a.s are the equivalent
of the amounts which would be payable by
the State Brickworks if the· State Brickworks in respect of its brick-making business were liable as a brick-making company
for the payment of income tax, land tax,
local government rates and other ta-.:r,s
under the provisions of any Act or CClmmonwea.lth Act, the equivalent sums of
such rates and taxes shall be paid to the
Colonial Treasurer.
· This amendment is a simple one. It
seeks to place the State Brickworks on precisely the same level as
private enterprise. During the debate
members on the Government side took
up a considerable amount of time, energy
'and ability in a lot of persuasive talk
State Brickwo9·ks Bill.
directed towards showing that the reestablishment of the State brickworks
would act as a sort of barometer or safety
valve which would enable some check to
be made on private enterprise. They
said that if the Government could carry
on the brickworks and charge d certain
sum for bricks the State brickwork!!
would have to conduct its affairs in a
similar manner. What I am putting to
the Committee is completely consistent
with that principle. A member on the
Government side said in effect that it
would be a desirable feature of the bill.
I do not know whether the Minister will
relieve my anxiety by saying that he will
accept the amendment.
M •. J. J. CAHILL: I will relieve your
anxiety by saying that I will not accept
it!
Mr. TREATT: It is a reasonable proposal. There is a duty placed on the
-Government to align itself with the
Opposition in accepting this amendment. The position is simple.
This
amendment seeks as far as possible to
place the State brickworks on the same
basis as private enterprise.
The Minister has achieved his point
and will get his State brickworks. Now
we are asked to let the Government
give an assurance to the people of New
South Wales and its own supporters that
the State brickworks will be run in an
economic fashion and will constitute
control
against private enterprise
which the Minister himself has suggested
it will constitute. If those charges that
private enterprise has to pay are not
added to the cost of running the State
brickw0rks -the public will be deceived;
but if the Minister is sincere on this
point to which his attention ·may not
previously have been directed and he
wants the State brickyards to set the
pace,. then he will want it to carry the
same weight. If ther.e are objectiom~
to what I suggest, let us hear what those
objections are. Is there any reason why
the State brickyards should not carry
the same charges as a private enterprise'?
The G-overnment has submitted that
it is desirable to have the State brickworks as a pace-maker with which private enterprise can be checked. If a man
wants to find out how a couple of champion horses are running, he does not put
9.6 on one and 7.6 on the other. This
debate has been conducted on the basis
that we are dealing with champions.
On our right, so to speak, we have the
State brickworks, something that will
set right the disgraceful housing conditions that have characterised New South
Wales during the term of the present
-Government. On our left we have private enterprise, which it is admitted in
1943 had 40,000,000 bricks available, but was unable to carry on because the
Government gave it no help. To put
these champions to a fair test of ability,
they need to carry equal rates. They
have been tested in Queensland, and they
turned down State enterprises there
because they lost so much money on
them. No Labour bettor in Queensland
will put money on State enterprises.
Will not the Government accept this
amendment, which is designed to put the
State brickworks, when established, on
the same basis as private enterprise, so
that the public and the Government will
be able to see how the two are running~
Mr.
DRUMMOND
(Armidale)
[9.25]: I am in accord with the views
expressed by the deputy-leader of the
Opposition, but I suggest to him that
by moving his amendment, he may be
excluding the necessity for paying interest, as proposed :
Secondly, interest on the capital cost deelared pursuant to section four of this Act
for any year ending on the thirty-first day
of March at a rate or mtes to be determined by the Colonial Treasurer, but not
exceeding the average rate payable during
such year by the Government for loan
moneys, and exchange at a rate or rates
to be determined by the Colonial Treasurer,
the amount of which interest and exchange
shall be credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
If there is an overdraft it should be
at the current rate available to ordinary
business. If it is the intention of the
deputy-leader of the Opposition to allow
this provision to remain and for his
amendment to come before it, then I am
quite in accord with that, and it win
State Bricl..--works Bill.
2543
leave it open to me to move my amendment without reducing the value of that
proposed by him.
Mr. JACKETT (Burwood) [9.28]:
I support the amendment. The need
for the brickworks to assume its full responsibilities in competition with private
enterprise is all the g-reater because the
records of the undertaking show that it
has been a good source of revenue for the
large builders. I do not think that hon.
members on the Government side desire
to . add to the profits of the large
builders; I hope they are more concerned with· the small builders.
The
State brickyard charged about 5s. a
thousand less than the private yards.
That was because it did not concede any credit to the builders. They
demanded cash before they supplied
any bricks, whereas private brickyards allowed credit for some weeks
or months to enable the small man to
get on with his building work and
meet his accounts as they became due.
The State Brickworks were operating for the benefit of the big builder.
I am sorry that the impetuosity of the
Minister in getting on with the bill, denied my having something to say at
the second reading stage, but I hope
that the Min.ister will take notice
of this because it is vital. The big
builders desire the Government to start
the brickworks because -they save 5s. a
thousand on their bricks by paying cash.
I put it to the Minister that the home
builder receives no benefit or no concession, the only person who benefits is the
big builder in the city who builds the
banks.
Mr. WILLLD!S: The hon. member does
not believe that!
Mr. J AOKETT: I do believe it; anyone who studies the bill must believe it.
Here i;; the State Brickworks demanding the money before the bricks are delivered. Who can afford to pay that?
Only the big builders. They are the
only persons with money at their disposal and can say to the State brickworks, "'iVe want so many hundred thousand bricks; here is the money." It is a
mere bagatelle to them. Surely we should
not be wasting our time here to provide
:2544
State B1·icl.:worlcs Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
·<:heap bricks for big city builders. Every
-claim made in support of the bill has
been along the lines of building homes
for the workers, yet the Jl.finister, be·<:ause of his impetuosity to get the bill
through, prevented myself and others
"from speaking at the second reading
·stage. I have had similar treatment
·from the Minister before, and I point
-out to him that the purpose of the bill
is not to provide bricks, because they
o<:annot be produced for another twelve
·months. The amendment of the leader
·<>f the Opposition seeks to ensure that
·the Government Brickworks makes its
proper contribution to the State. We do
.not want large builders, merely because
<Jf their financial resources, to profit by
-the operation of the State Brickworks.
lf we are here for anything we are
1here for the man who wants to build
:a home.
Mr. Lum: That is why the hon. mern'ber voted against the second reading!
Mr. JACKETT: By casting his vote
:in favour of the second reading of the
· 'bill, the hon. member for Granville has
]JUt money into the pockets of the big
·builders. I ask the House to strike a
"blow for the man who wants a home,
Tather than for the ~ig builder who
:saves 5s. a thousand by the operation of
the State Brickworks. The amendment
·makes it · pos&ible for the State Brickworks to enter the field again. The
:State has had experience of what the
home builder can expect from the opera·tions of such an undertaking. It is all
·very well for the Jl.finister to sit there
and say nothing, but we have been del.Jrived of our rights during the second
reading debate.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! -I make it
·perfectly clear to the hon. member for
J3urwood and to every other hon. member
that this bill has been before the Cham·ber for nearly three days. Every hon.
member had ample opportunity of speaking during the second-reading debate,
and if the hon. member for Burwood
failed to take that opportunity the fault
li2s with himself and himself alone. I
am not prepared to allow to go in Hansard unchailenged a statement that an
bon. member was not permitted to speak
at the second reading stage.
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: That is a reflection
on the Chair.
Mr. JACKETT: The Chairman made
a reflection on me, and I am not prepared to take it.
The CI-IAmniAN: I call the hon.
member for Burwood to order for the
second time. On the next occasion the
standing order will be .applied.
Mr. FowLES: One more "toot" and you
are "oot !" ·
Mr. JACKETT: I am not concerned
. whether there is another "toot" and I
am "oot" or not..
The CHAIRMAN: Order! Serjeant, remove the hon. member for Burwood.
[The hon. member for Burwood left the
Chamber, accompanied by the Serjeant-atArms.]
Mr. BRAIN (Willoughby) [9.38]: I
support the amendment of the deputy
· leader of the Opposition. Cl.ause 5 deals
with the working account and in effect
is the profit and loss account of the
State brickworks. Clause 5 (2) provides:
(a.) There shall be credited to the Working Account all revenue, earnings and
moneys received from all sources in the
course of the conduct of the State brick·
works and such amounts as may from time
to time be appropriated by Parliament for
the purpose.
(b) There shall be debited to the Working Account the following charges, in the
crder set out hereunder:Firstly, all costs and expenses whatsoever
of and incidental to the administration,
management and conduct of the State
brickworks and also the costs of repair
and minor renewal of buildings, plant
and equipment.
Secondly, interest on the capital cost declared pursuant to section four of this
Act for any year ending on the thirtyfirst day of March at a rate or rates t()
be determined by the Colonial Treasurer, but not exceeding the average
rate payable during such year by the
Government for loan moneys, and exchange at a. rate or rates to be detel'mined by the Colonial Treasurer, the
amount of which interest and exchange
shall be credited to the Consolidated
Revenue Fund.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
The Minister bas not told us that the
Colonial Treasurer can fix the rate of
interest according to whether the State
Brickworks show a profit or a loss. lt
is possible to reduce the rate of interest
.to. a decimal point of 1 per cent., and
that is not good business. The l.Gnis.ter brings forth the bill quite honestly
.and has no intention of placing before
the Committee something that will not
measure up commercially and will not
enable the State Brickworks to function as a successful undertaking. Surely
J1e wishes to have a bill passed through
the Chamber that cannot be tampered
with by the present or a subsequent
<Colonial Treasurer.
·
Mr. SHAJ.'\'NON: That is an extreme
·case!
Mr. BRAIN: So is the bon. mem'ber for Phillip. Why not provide in
the clause that the rate shall be
the average rate payable by the Government. for loan money. One year
might be a good year, in which there
might be a handsome profit, and tlie
<Colonial Treasurer might fix a high
rate of interest. The next year might
not be so good and he might reduce the
rate, thus saving a large sum of money.
Hon. members know that such things
'have been done in the past. So far as the
.(iepreciation reserve account is con·cerned, there is no reference to what the
1·ate shall be. It might be one per cent.
-or ten per cent., according to the state
·of the finances. That is not good enough
in a bill of this nature. 'Where charges
-can be fixed, they should be fixed. If the
-opinion is held that the rate of depreci:ation should be 3 per cent., that rate
should be fixed. The Minister bas offic·ers to advise him as to what is a reason:able rate of depreciation, and that rate
:should be stated. Provision is also made
for such contributions to be made to
·a sinking fund as the Colonial Treas·urer may direct. The more clay that is
taken out of a clay pit, the less is its
·value. If a sinking fund is neces·sary, and I believe that it is,
:and if it is desired to have a true
~omparison of the working of the State
'Brickwci!l'ks ±'rom year \to yeal.-, then
i!urely the Auditor-General should deter'l.Y.
State Br·ickwo1·ks Bill.
mine the amount of contribution to the
sinking fund. Every clause relating to
the finances of the proposed undertaking
bas been left so open that the Minister
can do just as he likes. Probably tho
:Minister's attention has not been drawn
to the finan<::ial clauses of this bill as
closely as it has been to the other cl.ause.o .
Ur. J. J. CAI-nrA.: The bon. member
is wry wrong in making that statement!
Mr. BRAIN: Sub-clause (6) of clause
6 provides:
If the Minister considers the amount
at credit of the Working Account insufficient to meet the contribution referred to
in subsection two of this section having
regard to the charges referred to in subsection two of section five of this Act, such
contribution or portion thereof may be
allowed to remain a charge on the 'i'V or king Account.
In other words, if the contributions cannot be met they will not be charged.
How extraordinary !
Mr. J. J. CAHILL: I am sorry that I
cannot follow the hon. member, and I do
not think that any other bon. member
can. The Committee is dealing with an
amendment to clause 5, and the bon.
member is speaking to clause 6!
The TEMPORARY ·CHAIRMAN (Mr.
Shannon) Order! The hon. member is
getting away from the amendment.
1.1:r. BRAIN: I support the amend:
ment, which, if carried, will bring tha
State Brickworks into line with ordinary commercial undertakings. I take it
that the Minister does not want the
State Brickworks to have any unfair
advantage over private concerns. This
undertaking has all the advantages.
It has annexed the best site.
Mr. GORMAN: .Why should it not? It
is the people's brickworks!
Mr. BRAIN: If it is on Crown lands,
it is,, but if it is not on Crown lands,
it is not. The undertaking has an assured
market for a number of years to ~orne
because of the shortage of houses, more
manpower is becoming available, and
money can be obtained to carry out the
work The amendmei1t provides that the
undertaking shall not only pay interest
but shall also provide for depreciation.
~rovision should alsq be made for (1
2546
[ASSEMBLY.]
sinking fund, the payment of incon'lc·
and land tax, local government rates,
and any other charges that an ordin·
ary company is caHed upon to meet.
Mr. DARBY (l\fanly) [9.48] : The
amendment is vital in that it illustrate~>
that this· measure is not designed solely
to provide bricks, but also to introduce a State enterprise as part of
the socialistic programme. The ~iinister
said in his speech that we should have
some instrument to enabl-e bricks to be
obtained in as rapid a fashion as pos•
sible. If that is the sole objective of the
bill, why cannot the undertaking be·
placed On a busin~ss footing.
:Mr. Lum: Wbat would the hon.
member call a business footing?
Mr. DARBY:
A business footing
takes into account normal charges and
expenses. If the State Government is
going to show the people of New South
'vVales that by its enterprise it can do
better in quantity and price than can
private enterprise, in producing bricks,
it must at least start off with the same
basis of financial computation.
M1·. LA~IB: The hon. member is speak·
ing of a privately-owned business!
Mr. DARBY: The State enterprise
has the advantage of expert advice, as
well as the backing of ninety chosen
people in Parliament. The State enterprise would be in a favourable position
even if it took into consideration every
charge made by a private concern in
estimating its profit and loss account.
~b·. \VrLLIAMS:
The hon. member
wants to take in a fictitious amount!
Mr. DARBY: Provision for income
tax is not a fictitious factor in estimating profit and loss. The bon.
member knows as well as I do
that income tax is acceptable for the
purpose of deciding profit and loss, and
that if an enterprise is to be run on
business lines tbe terms suggested in this
amendment must be taken into consideration.
Mr. WILLIAMS: That is, something that
does not exist !
Mr. DARBY: 'Lhe computation i~
simple, and as such a computation i&.
made by every other industry, it is something that does exist. Also, as the Minister did not say that what is proposed.
in the amendment is not possible of
achievement, it must be considered to.
be capable of achievement. It may bethat, after all, the Government does not
intend merely to re-establish the brickworks at Homebush Bay for the purpose:
of makii}g bricks, but that its real intention is to give effect to its socialisticprogramme. If that is so, the amend-ment is a vital one.
Mr. LAMB: The amendment is designed to add to the cost o£ production~Mr.- DARBY: No, it is designed to.
give a clear picture of production, so.
that a comparison can be made. That.
is the whole purpose of it and the other
amendments that are foreshadowed by
the bon. member for Armidale and thebon. member for Willoughby, and which
would have been moved by me had that
been necessary. The intention is to ensure that the expenses to be charged
against this enterprise shall be defined
and specific and, as far as possible,.
equivalent to the expenses incurred by
an ordinary business undertaking. If,.
after careful consideration, the amendment is still not acceptable to the Minister, he will lay himself open to thecontention that the State enterprise at
Homebush Bay will compete most unfairly with private enterprise. In othe:r
words, it will not be possible to see what
that enterprise is able to do as compared with private enterprise. The enterprise will gradually take over the
whole of the brickwork industry in New
South Wales. In other words, it is a
socialistic enterprise. I must say that,.
had mature consideration been given to
the measure by the Government, it would'
have conceived a much more effectiveway of producing bricks for the country
without turning New South Wales intoa socialist State.
J\fr. STOREY (Horn!5by) [9.53]:
I was glad to listen to the reasons given
by the ~iinister for his not supportingthe amendment. At the second-reading·
stage I indicated to hon. members that
State Brickworks BilZ.
[6 :M!A'R:, 1946.]
Brickworks Limited was "making· the
paee,'' and that the Governmen·t would
be justified in encering the business, if
merely to create competition. I said tha-t
it was not a question of Government
versus private industry, but one of creating competition so as to obtain greater
efiiciency. However, if we want comp.;tition in the interests of efficiency, both
parties must be placed on the same footing. Those hon. members who have interjected against the proposal apparently have forgotten that the money is paid
to the Coloni-al Treasurer, so that it
becomes, in fact, nothing else but a
charge against possible profit. One other
point that I wish to make1 and this is
my mai~ reason for rising, is that the
wording of the amendment indicatea
that the local government rates shall go
to the. Colonial Treasurer. Sometimes,
it seems to be forgotten by hon. members
that the local government rates belong
to the local councils; and that these
bodies have responsibilities in respect of
Government institutiom. The railways
and many other public utilities that ought
to be paying rates to municipal and
shire councils are exempted from doing
so. The most intereating feature of the
amendment, to which I direct the attention of the hon. member for Woollahra,
is that it is proposed that the rates shall
be paid to the Colonial Treasurer, but it
is not proposed that the rates so receiveol
by the Colonial Treasurer shall, in turu,
be paid to the local municipal council.
Mr. J. J. CAIDLL: If this is an industrial undertaking it will automatically
pay rates to the local council.
J\fr. STOREY: I am pleased to have
the Minister's assurance that this undertaking will pay rates. to the local council.
The Railway Departm€nt does not pay
rates, and I should have thought that
this undertaking would be in the sam€
position; consequently, any error that I
have made is excusable on that ground.
I do not think that there is a great deal
of logic in opposing this amendment,
because the Government is confident that
it can operate the industry successfully
and obtain the same results as were obtained by this undertaking in the years
1911-1934 .. The tax on the profit will go
8tat13 B'ricfcworks Bill.
back to the Colonial 'treasurer as a tax,
instead of as part of the profit, so that
it is really calling it by .another name.
It gives an opportunity to all those who
are anxious to do so to see what results
can be obtained by a State um::J:ertaking
as against a priv.ate undertaking. Unless very good reasons are. furnished far
the bill as it stands, naturally I shall
vote .in favour of the amendment, because my l'eason for supporting the bill
is to see that there will be competition.
I desire that the State shall pro~
duce under the same conditions as those
under which the private brickyards produce, and I believe that it would be a
very good thing if they were both placed
on the same footing so that we could
see whether a State enterprise could be
efficiently managed, as compared with
the management of a private enterprise.
Question-That the words proposed to
be inserted be so inserted-put.
The
Committee divided.
Ayes, 19; noes, 41; majority, 22.
AYES.
Bate, Jeff
Black, I. C.
Brain, G. W.
Chaffey, W. A.
Dickson, S. D
Drummond, D. H.
Frith, W.
Heal'llshaw, E. M.
Howarth, W. A. H.
Lawson, J. A.
Richardson, A.
Robson, Lt.-Colonel
Stephens, S. T.
Storey, S: A. D.
Treatt, V. H.
Vincent, R. S.
Wingfield, C. G.
Tellers,
Darby, E. D.
Turner, H. B.
NOES.
Arthur, Captain
Baddeley, J. M.
CaJ1ill,. F. J.
Cahill, J. J.
Cameron, R.
Chanter, Major
Cunningham, L. L.
Davidson, M.A.
Davies:, W.
Buticknap, A. G.
Fowler, Mrs.
Fowles,.H. T.
Freeman,. ,r. S.
(!nr·HThtv .T. T,
Gor~an·, R. D.
Ci-1·nl1:Hl1.E.H.
Greig, R.
H~wkin•, F.
Kell~'. C. A.
H.
Knight, H.
Lamb, W.H.
Landa, A.
LaZJzarini, C. C.
McGirr, James
McGn1,th, J. F.
:McKell, W. J.
Martin; Majo·r
Matthews, C. H ..
Nott, R. B.
O'Ha-mmtn, R. E.
O'Sullivan, M.
Quirk; Mrs.
Hobertson, C. G.
Seiffert, J. W.
Shannon, 'f. J.
St:inley, F.
Tully, .T. M.
vV~ir. G.
Woodwnrd, H. P. J.
Tellers,
Rl'n•hnw ..T. R.
Williams, A. J. L.
2548
State B1·iclcw01·lcs Bill.
[ASSEMBLY.]
PAIRS.
Gollan, G. C.
Hunter, D.
Mair, A.
Carlton, W. J.
Golla.n, vV. M.
Hamilton, R. G.
Question so resolved. in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
DRU~iMG'ND
Mr.
[10.5] : I move:
(.A.rmidale)
1'lwt in subclause (2) (b) after the word
"interest," first occuning, the1·e be inserted
the 'vords "on overdrafts at current commercial rates and interest."
If the :Minister will agree to the amen.dment ·it will be necessary to move
two coni;lequential amendments. If it
is agreed to, the relevant part of the
clause will then read:
Secondly, intere-st on overdrafts at current commercial rates and interest on the
capital cost declared pmsuant to section
4 of this Act. . . .
I indicated the reasons for this amend-·
ment at an earlier stage, and I therefore do not propose to deal with it at
length. However, it involves the most
important principle that where the
Government enters into competition
with private business it shall at least be
subject to the same commercial charges
as private business. In this instance
the Government proposes to enter into
the business of brick making, and hon.
members agreed to its doing so at the
second reading stage. I made it quite
clear a little earlier, and I propose to
emphasize what I said, that unless this
enterprise can stand on its own feet
and produce bricks on the saine terms
and conditions as you and I would have
to produce them if we entered into
business, the Government will not be
acting fairly and the Committee will be
placing its seal on a very unsound procedure.
·
Question-That the words proposed to
be inserted, be so inserted-put. The
·Committee divided:
J3lack, I. C.
Chaffey, W. A.
Darby, E. D.
Dickson, S.D.
Drummond, D. H.
AYEs.
Frith W
Hear~sh~w, E. :M.
Howarth, vV.A. H.
Lawson, J. A.
Richardson, A..
State B1·ickw01·ks Bill.
Robson, Lt.-Colonel
Storey, S. A. D.
Treatt, V. H.
Turner, H. B.
Vincent, R. S.
Wingfield, C. G.
Tellers,
Bate, Jeff
Brain, G. \V.
'1
NOES.
Baddeley, J. M.
McGirr, James
Cahill, F .. J.
McGrath, J. F.
Cahill, J. J.
McKell, W. J.
Came1·on, R.
Martin, Major
Chanter, Major
Matthews, C. H.
Cunningham, L. L.
Nott, R. B.
Davidson, M.A.
O'Hallomn, R. E.
Davies, W.
O'Sullivan, M.
Enticlmap, A. G.
Quirk, Mrs.
Fowler, Mrs.
Henshaw, J. B.
l!'owles, IT. T.
Robertson, C. G.
Freeman, J. S.
Seiffert, J. W.
·Geraghty, J. L.
Shannon, T. J.
G01·man, R. D.
Stanley, F.
Graham, E. :ij.
'fully, .J. M.
Greig, R.
' vVeir, G.
Kelly, C. A.
'Williams, A. ,J. L.
Knight, H.
Woodward, H. P.J.
Lamb, W.H.
Tellers,
Landa, A.
Arthur, Captain
Lazzarini, C. C.
Hawkins, F. H.
PAIRS.
Gollan, G.
Hunter, D.
Mair, A.
Carlton, W.
Gollan, W.
Hamilton, R.
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negativ~d.
Mr. DARBY (Manly)
move:
[10.9]:
I
That in subclause (2) (b) the wo1·d "exceeding" be struck out, and there be inserted in lieu thereof the words "not less than".
I move this ~mendment,. because I desire to bring the provisions of this- bill
into line with "sound business." This
term, "sound business," I quote from
speakers on the Government side
during
the. .second-reading debate.
The effect of the amendment would
be that whereas now the Minister
could not mulct the enterprise by
charging interest in excess of the
average rate payable for loan money, ha
would, instead, not have a.n opportunity
of hiding losses due to. inefficiency and
bad management by charging less than
the proper interest.
Mr. V·l. DAVIES: I rise to order. I
maintain that the bon. member is dealing with something that was voted upon
in the last· division!
State Briclcw01·ks Bill.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is
in order. His amendment strikes out
the word "exceeding" and inserts the
'yords "less than,'! and I rule that it is
in order.
·
Mr. DARBY: It gives the Minister
an opportunity of making certain that
neither he nor his successors would take
advantage of this clause to hide lossea
or to increase profits.
Mr. SHANNON: What would the Auditor-General think~
Mr. DARBY: There is no provision
for this rate to be determined by the
Auditor-General.
He might make a
report if he feels that an interest rate
of 1 per cent. is inequitable, but it is·
well known to all hon. members that
the Auditor-General's report is not taken
much cognisa.nce of, and even his frantic appeals may not be noticed for some
;years. 111:y amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to put the State
Brickworks on a sound financial foot-·
ing, and if he refuses to accept the
amendment he does so at his peril.
Question-That the word proposed
to be struck out stand-put. The Committee divided:
AYES.
Arthur, Captain
Baddeley, J. M.
Cahill, l<~. J.
Cahill, J. J.
Cameron, R.
Chanter, Major
CunningJ1am, L. L.
Davidson, M. A.
Davies, vV.
Enticknap, A. G.
Fowler, Mrs.
Fowles, H. T.
Freeman, J. S.
Geraghty, J. L.
Gorman, R. D.
Graham, E. H.
Greig, R.
Hawkins, F. H.
Kelly, C. A.
Knight, H.
Lamb, W.H.
Landa, A.
JJazzarini, C. C.
McGirr, J.
McGrath, J. F.
McKell, W. J.
Martin, Major
O'Halloran, R. E.
O'Sulliv:m, M.
Quirk, l\11-s.
Renshaw, J. B.
Robertson, C. G.
Seiffert, J. W.
Shannon, T. J.
Stanley, F.
Tully, J. M.
Weir G
\Villi~m·s, A. J. L.
Woodward, H. P. J.
Tellers.
Matthews, C. H.
Nott, R. B.
NOES.
Bate, Jeff
Brain, G. W.
Ohaffey, W. A.
Darby, E. D.
Dickson, S. D.
Drummond, D. H.
Frith, W.
Hearnshaw, E. M.
Adjournment:
2549
Vincent, E. S.
\Vingfield, C. G.
Howarth, W. A. H.
Lawson, J.
·
Hiehardson, A.
St01·cy, S. A. D.
'l'reatt, V. H.
Turner, H. B.
TelleTS.
Black, I. C.
Robson, Lt.·Colonel
PAIRS.
Carlton, W.
Gollan, W.
Hamilton, R. G.
Gollan, G.
Hunter, D.
Mair, A.
Question so resolved in the-affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported
report adopted.
without
amendment;
ADJOURNMENT.
FORMOSAN AND KOREAN REPATRIATES:
CROWDING ON Y oizulci.
OVER·
111:otion (by 1fr. J. J. Cahill) proposed:
'l'hat this House do now adjourn.
llfr. TREATT (Woollahra) [10.26]: I
should not have taken up the time of
bon. members at this late hour were it
not that I deem it essential to draw the
attention of the House and the Government to something that has apparently
taken place in Sydney Harbour. I do
not know whether the attention of .the
Government and the House has been
drawn to the circumstances which
attended the departure of the Japanese
destro,yer Y oizulci from these waters today. It would appear that when the
destroyer left the conditions on board
were of such a· nature as to deserve the
condemnation of all decent-thinking
people. Having regard to the fact that
this matter has occurred in Sydne,y,
under our very noses, as it were, I am
sure tl~at the Gove1:nment and the House
will agree that the attention of the Federal authorities should be drawn to it
immediately. I ·cannot,' of course, vouch
for the authenticity of the pictures
which appeared in the press relating to
this matter, but it is perfectly certain
that over ·200 women and children and
some thousand Japanese have been sent
<tway on a ship designed to carry no'rhere near that number. There are two
2550
Adioumme'XI,t .
[ASSEl\iB.LY.]
poi.nts that the authorities must considn in this case l;lnless we al'e to be
charged, as it would appear offhand we
may le, with committing something in
the nature of the atrocities for which
we condnnned Japanese. I am not overstating the case if the information contained in the pr-ess is correct. 'First of
all, about 1C'O women and 112 children
together with Japanese prisoners-of-war,
have been sent away on this destroyer
which, we are informed, is about the size
of a Manly ferry-boat, and the ship
is crowded to the very limit. Responsible officers have chimed that tbe conditions on the destroyer are so cramped
and vile that it is certain death for some
of the women and children to make the
voyage. It might well be c~rtain death,
and, having regard to what we have
learned from painful experience in Australia, it might well be precn.ded by
something termed "worse than death" in
the case of the women. The second point
is that it is extraordinary that a large
number of the men who are being repn ·
triatecl are Formosans.
l\fr. W.
too!
DA YIES:
And of the women,
Mr. TREATT: The Allies declared at
Cairo that after the war Formosa was
to be returned to China. That was reaffirmed at Potsdam, and there has been
a formal handing back of Formosa to the
Chinese. This matter g·oes very deeply
indeed. We have loyal Chinese citizens
in our midst to-day. These Formosans
who, we have learned, and as we may
well expect, have claimed Chinese
nationality, are being sent back with
people who have tyrannisecl over them
for years. I am drawing this matter to
the attention of the Government, not because the Government is unaware of
it, but to bring to the notice of the
Federal authorities most vehemently the
fact that we, in New South WaJes, will
not stand for it, if the facts are as they
are claimed to be. We ask for the return
of this ship if it is still in our territorial
-Adiourrvment.
waters. If those re~pon~ible .for the repatriation of these people cannot provide
the necessary transp01•t at this stage1\ir. STANLEY: On .a point of order, T
ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is a
matter for the State Government.
Mr. SPI,AI<EH: It is a matter of public
importance, and the hon. member for
W oollahra is in order in bringing it
under the notice of the House.
Mr. TREATT: In view of the implications and seriousness of this matter I
think we are justified in taking some
steps to make it clear that we will not
st.and for these conditions.
Mr. W. DAviES: \Ve are decent Australians!
1\ir. TREATT: I agree with that interjection. I .ask the Government to
make clear to those responsible the attitude of this House on this matter.
Mr.
DRUMMOND
(Armidale)
[10.32] : I personally feel that the matter
raised by the deputy leader of the Opposition transcends every party consideration, because it affects the good name
of Australia and the good name of
every citizen of Australia. It is not a
question of reflecting upon or attacking
a Government; it is a question whether
we are going to be associated or permit
ourselves to be associated with a blunder
that is cert~:~inly worse than .any crime,
that is, enforcing the travel of 100
women and 112> children in a ship that
is crowded to the limit with Japanese
prisoners of war. It would not matter
whether they were Japanese or any other
nationality. I suggest that there is not
one man in this House who has a spark
of decency in his composition-and all
of us have natural feelings, jrrespective
of party policies-who would not shudder
at the very thought of the conditions
of these people on board this vessel. We
have seen the pictures in the press, and
I do not know any more than does the
deputy-leader of the Opposition whether
they are authentic. I do know that in
the Sydney Morning Herald it was stated
that 100 women were to be placed on
board and that the Japanese capt.ain
laughed for fully a minute when he was
told of this fact.
[6 ]'.L\n., ].946.]
·l'her:e :are some .thi:o.gs upon which
.we should not preserve silence. vVe have
..condemned i:u the strongest terms the
:horrible ~.trocities committed against
prisoners of war at Belsen .and elsewhere.
..Are we to remain silent in Australia, i11
.the olde:;t :ParHaroent of Australia, if
.these things are really true? If there is
.a shadow of truth in them this Parlia.ment should to-night carry a motion
-Willing u.pon whate\'er authority is re·
,sponsible at once to remove these wome,""l
:and chilchen from the ship, and if tlw
vessel has left our shores that authority
-should send a fast vessel after the.
Y oizulci to bring those women an.J
<Children l?acl- to Australia until such
time as it is possible to give them
reasonable and decent tra11sport. So
far as the men are concerned, we
know that in time of war our own
.men were jammed to the limit in
:ships. Against that I have nothing
to say; but against the present conditions I certainly have so]Tiething to say.
The good name of Australia is at stake
if we do not ensure that these people are
;returned to their country under decent
..and proper conditions. I do not know
whether these women a11d children arc
J apanesc, but if they are that is no reason why we should compel them to travel
under frightful conditions and thus
;place ourselves upon a par with those
who put unfortunate Poles and Jews in
the concentration camps of Belsen and
elsewhere in order to destroy them.
If these people are Chinese, as seems
more than probable, then indeed our
disgrace will become deeper if we do
not rectify the error that may have been
made without thought by some official.
If it is that an official is responsible, he
'Should be called to order, because he is
"TLOt fit to be in a responsible position.
Any man who understands human
nature, who could think it possible or tol~
€rable for one moment that these women
-and children-children like our own,
'(:lifferent perhaps in features, but
young children after all-should be
placed on a ship on whic11 there are something like 1,000 men who have been
segr~gated for something like two, three
'?J" :four !)18!\rs, .!>:nows-exactly what their
Adjoumment.
2551
will be. The Sydney JJ[ o1·ning
Herald states that the c.aptain of the
fate
ship said he would give the best part
of it .to the women, yet it was said that
the only place that would be aYailable
for .certain of the people on that ship
would be amongst the crew.
I rise
to-night not because I wish to attack any
Government, but because I want to say
here as an Australian, that I feel in
the depths of my nature that if what is
actually stated in the press is Sl.\bstantially correct, unless this wrong is
righted at the earliest possible mo!Tient,
there will remain in the memory of
every Australian, and on Australi:;~
itself, an indelible blot that can never
be erased.
:Mr. :McKELL (Redfern) Premier and
Colonial Treasurer [10.37] : I read the
report in the press to which reference
has been made by the hon .. n1ember for
\Voollahra and the hon. member for
Armidale. To that extent I was in the
same position as they were. The press report was all I had to guide me, but I
think all of us should be appreciative
of the fact that it is not always desirable to form judgments on what
appears in the press. Very often we
have made the mistake of doing so, and
found that our judgments were formed
on statements that were not correct. I
think the first duty of hon. members
is to ascertain whether the facts are as
reported in the press. If they are, it
~would indicate a very bad state of
·affairs. On the ~ther hand, the facts
may not be as reported in the press, and
I would not be surprised if they
differed. This matter, of course, has
been raised purely as a matter of public
interest, and it is not suggested by any
hon. member that this administration is
in any way responsible, or that the
remedy for any wrongful thing that may
have been done rests with it. So that
from that standpoint we can consider
this matter impartially. Immediately I
read this evening's press, I determined
to find out what I could of the facts; I
felt that it was my duty to do so. In
the first place, it would .give me the
opportunity of explaining the matter to
2552
Adjournment.
[ASSEMBLY.]
the press and the House. I felt also that
if the facts were as stated it may be that
there was something that we as a Government could do to mitigate the circumstances as suggested in the press.
This evening I got in touch with the
military authorities, but I do not suggest for one moment that I am speaki.ng
in an official way. I am merely mforming the House of the matters on
which I received information.
The military authorities informed me
very definitely that the facts were not
as stated in the press. this evening. They
informed me that the procedure in these
matters is that the Allied War Control
in Japan allocated vessels to the different countries, and in this allocation
they determined the 1mmber of persons
who are to be repatriated on these vesseh The vessel that is under discussion
is a demilitarised Japanese destroyer. It
was allocated by the Allied War Control
in Tokio to proceed to Australia and to
pick up a certain number of persons of
particular nationality. The persons who
were to be placed on that ship and who
I am informed were put on the vessel,
were not Japanese at all. They were
Formosans and Koreans. The number
of persons to be placed on the ship was
determined by the Allied War Control in
Japan. The people who were here in
Australia and who have been placed on
the ship were persons who had come
from the Netherlands East Indies. I w:1s
informed that the military authorities
here were acting as agents, as it were,
for their safety and control, and were
merely acting under the directions of
the Allied War Control in Japan, bot.h
in respect of the number and nationality
of persons who were to be placed on the
ship.
I am also informed that the Formosans and Koreans cannot speak English,
and they were under the impression that
the ship on which they were to be placed
"as to take them to Japan. The Chinese
Consul addressed them. It seems that
these people are now Chinese citizens
!'lnd the Chinese Consul told them that
U1ey were not going to Japan, but that
the ship was going to Formosa, and they
Mr. McKell.]
Adjournment.
were being repatriated to their own cou!ltry. They were told that the arrangement for this ship to come to Australia
to take them back had been made l;>y
the authorities in Chungking with the
authorities in Tokio, and that what had
been done had been done for their repatriation.
:M:y information
is
that
after
the Chinese Consul had addressed
them they took their places on the snip.
I understand that the Chinese Consul
also told them that if they found that
the conditions under which they were
travelling were such that the number
was too great, consideration would be
given to a number of them being taken
off at another point. From the facts
that have been stated to me the position
is that our authorities here have acted
merely as the agents of the Allied War
Control in Japan and have carried out
the instructions that were issued.
It would also appear that those instructions were given by those in control in
Japan whose responsibility it is to see to
this work of repatriation and to determine the conditions under which people
shall be repatriated and the standards of
the ships transporting them.
As far as I can understand, the
Chinese Consul is the man to whom
these persons would look .as Chinese
citizens. Apparently his attitude '"as
that they should take their places on the
ship and apparently after he ~a~ addressed them that is what they d1d. I
understand that an o:ffi.ci.al statement is
to be made.
:Mr. HEKSHAW: It is a disgrace to the
press of this country if these are the
facts!
l\£r. McKELL: I am not forming any
judgment with respect to the matter at
this stag-e and I counsel the members
of this H~use to reserve judgment until
they know the whole of the facts.
Mr. TnEATT: \Vhen is the official statement to be made?
:M:r. :M:cKELL: I do not know. I do
not want it to be thought that I am
makinO' an official statement, nor do I
take a;y responsibility for the statements
made to me. I have only mentioned
the matter because it has been raised,
Adjournment.
[6 MAR., 1946.]
and I felt that I had an obligation to
let the House know the information I haci received. I do not speak
for the military authorities; they
are quite competent to speak for
themselves, and I assume they will do
so. I am simply giving the House the
information that has been given to me,
and it would seem, in. view of that information, th.at it would be wise for hon.
members and the public' to reserve judgment until the whole of the facts are
known. The questions in regard to shipping repatriated persons, the allocation
of nationalities,. and the number that
should travel on available ships .are matters over which the Australian militar,r
authorities have no control.
:M:r. DRUMMOND: We cannot divest
ourselves of responsibility for what hap·
pens on our own shores!
llfr. McKELL:
The hon. member
knows that that is an exaggerated statement.
He knows, as do other hon.
members, that we in this House are not
in sole and absolute control of everything that might be associated-with matters connected with the war and the
aftermath of war.
Mr. DIUJ~BIOND: I am not suggesting
that it is the responsibility of the
Premier, but it is the responsibility of
Australia as a whole!
llfr. McKEI,L: Ron. members know
that the various countries are represented by thzir Ministers and consulates,
who· look to the interests and the protection of their nationals. The information I have is that the person representing the country to which these persons belong, went down to the ship and
addressed the repatriates. App.arently
he took no objection to the arrangements that had been made for their
repatriation. On the other hand, I am
informed that the repr:esentative advised the repatriates to. accept the
arrangements that had been made and
if my information is correct, those
arrangements had been made by the
Government at Chungking with the
allied authorities in Japan. I can add
nothing further and ·make the statement
only because the raising of the matter
Question and Answer.
2553
in the House thrust the obligation upon
me to give the House the information
I have received in connection with the
matter.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 10.52 p.m.
i.Gegi£ilattbe .2\a.aembly.
Thu1·sday, 7 ]}[arch, 191;6.
Question without Notice--Formosan and I\orealll
Hcpatriatcs: Overcrowding on Yoizuki (Motiqn
of
Urgency).
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair.
The opening Prayer was read.
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE.
UNIVERSITY APPOtNTMENT:
MR. CLIVE TEECE, K.C.
Mr. LANDA: I ask the Minister for
Education whether it is a fact that a Mr.
Clive Teece has been selected by the.
Faculty of Law of the University of
Sydney to act as Dean, and that
this llfr. Teece is a part-time lecturer giving a few lectures on legal
ethics?
Is it a fact, also, that
many of the members of the Faculty are
part-tirp.e lecturers who gained their positions because of the patronage of the exDean, and that the members of the Bar
were not given a chance to compete for
the position? If these are facts, will th ~
Minister call for a report and ask the
Senate to inquire into this extraordinary
election with a view to ascertaining (1)
whether it is in the interests of the Law:
School that a part-time lecturer and a
full-time practitioner should act as Dean
of the Faculty of Law; (2) whether it is
in the interests of law students that tb.e
Eenior member of the Faculty should be
ignored?
llfr. HEFFRON: As every bon. member is aware, the University Senate is
responsible for the conduct and management of that institution, and perhaps it
might resent being asked for reports on
the matters mentioned by the hon. mcrob.er. However, as the Government gives

Full day Hansard transcript

Transcription

Similar documents

Boral Bricks

UNP HYMN - University of Northern Philippines

Site Report Poroton Home

Brick brochure - Arcola East Community Association

Print Details - North Point Yacht Sales

HON Has Lead Role In Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

SAFORA

Ultimate Collector Series Obi-Wan Kenobi`s Actis Eta

Ultimate Collector Series Anakin Skywalker`s Jedi

putting you face-to-face with today