Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 22 September 1942

Mr ROSEVEAR (Dalley) .- The honorable member for Boothby (Dr. Price) observed towards the close of his speech that the Opposition did not appear to be happy listening to him. I ask who could be happy listening to such doleful prognostications? Against the honorable member Hanrahan was a mere circumstance. The honorable gentleman reminds me of that notable character, Peter Doody, in the Arcadians, who tells a story of going to see a friend who was desperately ill. He stood by his friend's bedside and remarked, "Well, Bill, they tells me you're not long for this world. I have come round to cheer you up, hut I was thinkin' as I was a' com iii' up them stairs what an awk'ard place it would bo to get a corfin out ". I have never heard the honorable, member say anything good about any budget. He could not even say anything good about the budget introduced by the government he supported. The one saving grace about the honorable gentleman's speech was that after he had prophesied that the budget would be a dismal failure in achieving its declared intention of providing funds for carrying the war to a successful issue, he undertook to do everything possible on the public platform in order to make the Government's proposals a success. In that respect, the honorable gentleman tried to redeem himself, but if he had had a genuine desire to promote the success of the budget, he would have expressed some faith in the people of Australia to do the things that the Government desired them to do.

It is true that, as a nation, we are passing into more difficult times. Our war expenditure last year was £319,000,000, which was £98,000,000 more than the estimate. It is possible that the estimated expenditure on the war this year will be exceeded, as it was exceeded last year, but no member of the Government or of the Opposition can say from day to day just what we shall have to meet. Certainly, we cannot look forward twelve months with any degree of assurance. The Government proposes this year to raise £205,000,000 in taxation from all sources as against £179,000,000 last year. The estimated expenditure for 1941-42 was £421,000,000, of which £320,000,000 was required for . war purposes, and £101,000,000 for other purposes. The estimated expenditure for this year is £549,000,000, although, as I say, no one can predict with any degree of accuracy what amount is likely to be required. The estimate provides for an increase of £12S,000,000 over the expenditure of last year. A deficiency of £211,000,000 between the estimated revenue and expenditure had to be financed last year from loan, and the Government succeeded in achieving that task. As even honorable gentlemen opposite have admitted that this year the people possess a greatly increased spending power, and are making greater savings than last year, it should not be beyond the bounds of reason to expect that the gap of £300,000,000 in the budget may be met from the sources suggested by the Treasurer, seeing that £211,000,000 was obtained from those sources last year. A good deal has been said about this gap of £300,000,000 between the estimated revenue from taxation and the estimated expenditure. All manner of ways of bridging the gap have been suggested. The right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) took the Treasurer to task because he said that as £120,000,000 had been raised from loan last year, we could, by doubling our effort, raise £240,000,000 this year from that source. The right honorable gentleman commended the Treasurer on his impeccable arithmetic, but observed that even the £240,000,000 would be £60,000,000 short of the requirements.

But I ask honorable members to consider what would have happened if the financial advice given by the Opposition last year had been accepted. Honorable gentlemen opposite proposed a plan that is referred to as post-war credits or compulsory loans for bridging the gap. It was suggested that £20,000.000 could be obtained from individuals and £5,000,000 from companies by compulsory loans, which would have given us a total of £25,000,000. But how far would that have gone to meet the need ? As a matter of fact, this new panacea for our financial ills would have got us only a very little distance towards our goal. How then, could the Fadden plan assist, to any great degree, to bridge the gap of £300,000,000 that has to be bridged this year? It has been the practice of Opposition members, from time to time, to make invidious comparisons between the tax burdens of the people of Great Britain and those of Australia. Honorable members opposite say that by putting the uniform tax scheme and the post-war credits scheme into operation simultaneously, the deficit could be immediately eliminated. What are the facts? I propose to place before honorable members some figures showing the taxes paid by citizens of Great Britain under a combined tax and post-war credits plan and the taxes paid by the people of Australia under the uniform tax plan oi. this Government. If honorable gentlemen study these figures, Chey will at once realize why the Opposition is anxious for the British scheme to be applied to Australia. The reason is, of course, that the British scheme would swat the poorer man in Australia just as it has done in Great Britain -

Honorable members will note that the difference becomes less as each higher range of income is reached -


I pause here to remark that in Great Britain the wealthier people escape more lightly. I wonder whether that actuates the desire of honorable members opposite to have the British scheme introduced in Australia ! What I have said is borne out by the figures that follow: -


Under the conservative Government of Great Britain, the whole scheme of taxation differs from that of the Labour Government of Australia in that the imposition on the lower ranges of income is less in Australia than in Great Britain, but on the higher ranges it is infinitely greater. Honorable members opposite overlook that if post-Avar credits were superimposed on the existing uniform taxation of Australia to equalize the taxes paid in Britain in the various ranges of income, the additional amount raised would be not more than £45,000,000. How much farther would that take us towards the bridging of the gap of £300,000,000?

It ha3 been said that the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner) has in mind another scheme under which he could raise £100,000,000. It is a wonder to me that he did not place it before the Fadden Government. Although he was a Minister in that Government, he allowed that government to submit to Parliament a plan for the raising of £25.000,000, upon which it was defeated, while having in his mind a plan under which he estimates that. £10,000,000 could be raised without batting an eyelid.

If we were to equalize our taxation with that of Great Britain, an additional £45,000,000 would be raised. If we were to apply the British rating principle of adding post-war credits to the taxation imposed, we would raise only an additional £30,000,000. Under the Fadden plan, £25,000,000 would have been raised. Under a scheme providing for taxation equal to that of Great Britain, the gap would still be £255,000,000. The adoption of the British rate of post-war credit would leave the gap at £270,000,000; and the adoption of the Fadden plan of last year would leave it at £275,000,000. Therefore, all these proposals merely amount to utterly futile criticism of a Government that is doing a better job for Australia than the sponsors of such proposals were capable of doing.

There is another scheme which has always been a pet subject of honorable members opposite. By some means, they have discovered that a section of the Australian community is untaxed. The aggregate annual income of that group is, they say, £550,000,000. They do not say how many millions of persons exist on that sum. They do not bother to let it be known that, the average income of that group is less than £3 a week. Yet they are continually hammering the Government because it will not seek to bridge the gap by imposing taxation on those people!

We have been told that post-war credits would provide a very useful nest-egg that could be redeemed after the war. The view that I offer is that the people would discover it to be an addled egg. Let us picture the post-war position. I wonder whether honorable members opposite try to look so far forward! In my opinion, they are so short-sighted that they take the toes of their shoes for the horizon.

Mr Archie Cameron - The honorable member' cannot say what the post-war position will be like.

Mr ROSEVEAR - I am facing up to the fact that at present we have 500,000 persons in the munitions industry, and that it is proposed to transfer to that industry an additional 300,000 persons, which 'will make a total of 800,000 persons who will be engaged in that occupation until the war ' finishes, if the number be not increased. There are approximately 500,000 men and women in our defence forces. Therefore, on the day on which war finishes there will be a total of 1,300,000 persons out of work. War production is maintained at the highest peak attainable in order to meet the demands of the times; it does not taper off towards the requirements of peace-time. By that, I mean that the day on which peace is signed production will be at -its maximum, and there will be no tapering off before peace arrives. Consequently, when peace has been declared, the whole of those people will be engaged exclusively on the production of munitions, and in the fighting services. If honorable members can tell me what munitions will be required on the day after peace has been declared, I shall agree that there is some prospect of a continuance of employment for them. It is true that for a period of twelve months after the termination of the war we shall be engaged on the repatriation of the men and women now in the fighting services. There will be some easement in that direction; but I submit that it will be more imaginary than real. On the day on which war terminates, civil production will be at its lowest ebb; because day after day avenues of civil production are being converted into avenues of war production. Therefore, planning for the post-war period ought to be undertaken now. I disagreed with the last Government, and I disagree with the present Government, in this respect, that instead of completely eliminating civil industries at least, a skeleton staff ought to be left to maintain them as going concerns. All of those industries that are closed owing to war necessities will not spring up like a mushroom so soon as peace has been declared. That position has to be faced. There will be what is known as a transition period, in which there will be a great deal of suffering in this country. The Opposition has said that in that period when unemployment will be at its maximum, post-war credits would be a useful nest-egg. How, exactly, would they be paid? In the year prior to the termination of the war, the people will be making large incomes. The cry at present is that many people are making much more than they ever made previously. But in the first year of the peace, hundreds of thousands of them will be without employment. How could they meet their taxation assessments on the incomes they had earned in the previous year ? Unless they could meet them in the first post-war year, where would the money be obtained with which to repay the post-war credits?

Mr Jolly - Would not the taxation be paid by instalments?

Mr ROSEVEAR - Where would the people get the money with which to pa the instalments? I am pointing out that in that post-war year hundreds of thousands of persons will be without income, and will consequently be unable to discharge their taxation assessments either in a lump sum or by instalments. The financial system as a whole may be likened to a dog chasing its tail. The more the people are taxed, obviously the less they have to lend. When the last budget was presented, I predicted that the raising of loans in future years would become more difficult. I believe that to be correct. The more people you drive out of tax-paying private industry into public institutions that are not taxpaying, the heavier will be the burden of any Treasurer to make ends meet. I believe that that was one of the thoughts that prompted the Government to stabilize taxation this year at last year's figure, and to rely on the success of borrowing. If loans fail, it will be impossible to raise by taxation the whole of the amount that is needed, and the Government will have to resort to an increase of bank credit or " tax and bust " in the process of trying to make ends meet. Professors and their followers consider that the time is never opportune to do anything. To-day, when wealth is flowing freely throughout the land, and every body is making big wages or profits, the honorable member for Boothby says that this is not the time for inflation, because the people who were unemployed are working. I recall that in 1930, when one-half of the population was starving on the dole and the remainder was hanging to their jobs " by the skin of their teeth ", the professors told us that the time was not opportune for inflation ; that what was wanted was " reflation ". We heard a most remarkable analysis of the position to-night by the honorable member for Boothby. He referred to a period of " reflation ", which I understood to mean something between deflation and inflation. He told us that it was a combination of inflation and deflation once know as the "Premiers plan". What is the appropriate time for an increased amount of bank credit to be made available to the community? This, we are told, should not be done during a depression, because then there are too many unemployed. Nor should it be done during times like the present, because now there are not sufficient unemployed ! I believe that the Government will be forced, and, if honorable members opposite were on this side, they too would be forced, to use an increased amount of bank credit as the solu- tion of the financial problems of the country. We are looking hopefully to the people to subscribe to the war loans, in order to bridge the financial gap, and we have adopted the slogan "austerity". I have not much faith in slogans. Ten years or more' ago, a similar slogan was adopted during the depression then experienced, when half of the population was on the dole and the other half was hanging on " by the skin of their teeth " to whatever jobs they had. A different kind of austerity was preached to us then by the professors. They then said that the workers were spending too much, although half of them had nothing to spend. It was said that it would be necessary to adopt the hybrid scheme about which the honorable member for Boothby talks, and it was decided to adopt the " Premiers plan ". As the workers were thought to be spending too much, it was decided to reduce their wages by 20 per cent., and to reduce invalid and old-age pensions by 12-J- per cent. The policy in the last depression was to preach austerity to people who were already compelled by circumstances to be austere. As the workers are now earning good wages, they are now told that they are getting too much, and ni,us therefore practice austerity. I desire to know when the workers will receive a fair deal.

For twelve months I was a member of the Man Power and. Resources Survey Committee, in which capacity I travelled throughout Australia. I obtained a wealth of knowledge for myself and tried to impart it to others, but the reports of the committee have been pigeon-holed. If austerity were practised in the expenditure of government funds on the war effort, if there were less expenditure on elaborate establishments for people engaged in the war effort, and for which the Government will never be paid, if less elaborate furnishings were provided for the departments set up from time to time, and if exploitation of the Government under the cost-plus system were prevented, austerity would be practised in the proper way. If we had austerity in the expenditure of government funds austerity would not be necessary at the other end of the scale. The only alternative left to the Government is to resort to the use of bank credit. The Government hopes to raise £300,000,000 by means of loans. I wish the Government well, but I shall not preach austerity to the workers in my electorate, half of whom were starving during the last depression. In one part of my electorate I saw a factory being built of elaborate brickwork which, when equipped, will cost £250,000, whilst on the opposite side of the street were the slums. How can I tell the people who have been compelled to live in those slums to be austere, when elaborate buildings for which the Government will never be paid are being erected? I should prefer to go out of public life rather than tell those people to be austere. The bogy of inflation has been raised. The workers may have more money at present, but there are fewer goods on which they can spend it. It is also true that when the supply of goods is short and money is plentiful, prices rise, but that could be prevented by government action. The right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) warned me that my electors would be looking for me later, when the effects of inflation were being felt and they were crying out f ot food. The right honorable gentleman may talk about ray electors crying out for food, but Australia is crying out for scrap iron to-day, although when he was in power a great deal of it was sent out of the country. If the people were asked to choose between .those who would provide them with food and those who supplied war material to the enemy, I know. whom they would prefer.

I have spoken on the man-power problem until I am sick and tired of it, yet the fact remains that there is too much divided authority in Australia to-day with regard to this matter. There is no central guidance or direction. Take first the Army. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) recently stated that extra men are being called up daily, until the number of men considered necessary by the military advisers has beeen secured. So far as the Minister is concerned, we have not a central authority giving instructions as to how many men shall be called up, but as many men a3 the military authorities require, irrespective of the needs of other sections of the community, are to be provided. In the Navy and the Air Force we have voluntary enlistment, but a demand is still being made on the man-power resources without regard to the needs of the other services and industry. The Prime Minister stated recently that if it came to a choice between well-trained soldiers and " tucker ", we should have to go without " tucker ". Of course, the Prime Minister is entitled to express that view.

Mr Curtin - What I said was that, if I had to make a choice between being short of men in the next six months, and being short of ** tucker " a year from now, I would take the risk of being short of " tucker

Mr ROSEVEAR - I accept that correction, but I think that the implication, remains. If it comes to a choice between a shortage of men or a shortage of " tucker ", the Prime Minister would leave the people short of " tucker".. The first question is whether the men being called up are being, or can be, properly equipped, and whether they are being properly trained. I seriously question whether they are. If we have not thu things with which to equip them properly, they would be better engaged in the manufacture of munitions, or in providing foodstuffs for the people. Are we to allow the Army to call the tune and say how many men are to be called up, without regard to the requirements of the community? If so, the time will come when both soldiers and civilians will be without " tucker ". Therefore, I do not consider that the choice is between soldier* and " tucker ". The choice is between a properly-controlled system for the utilization of man-power and the present haphazard method under which various authorities that have been set up grab men right and left, without regard to the requirements of other sections of the community.

I have already said that- austerity should be practised in government departments. I have attacked the Allied Works Council, and I have been castigated for it, but every opinion that I have expressed can be substantiated. I said that men were being taken off the graving dock in hundreds, and that the dock was an essential piece of work. Nobody will deny that, with the prospect of increased naval warfare in the south-west Pacific, the clocking facilities in Australia are inadequate, and that the work of erecting the graving dock should be regarded as one of first priority. The ministerial reply is that the dock is now under the control of the Allied Works Council. lc has been under the control of that body for a very short period, but that does not alter the fact that men are being taken from that, work, which ought to have first priority. I criticized the methods of book-keeping, and the distribution of vouchers, and I have proof in my pocket that vouchers were given to the wives of men who were not even entitled to be called up by the Allied Works Council. The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) replied to my criticism as follows : - i

In the House of Representatives recently, the honorable member for Dalley declared that the Allied Works Council was interfering with the work of important government undertakings in New South Wales, that it had taken mcn off work at the graving dock, and had seriously upset the staffing position there. In making this charge, Mr. Rosevear was obviously unaware of the facts. First, the graving dock is a job which comes entirely under the control of the Allied Works Council. Therefore, the council can scarcely be accused of interfering with its own job ". Secondly, the decision to take certain men away was made by the service chiefs, who instructed the Allied Works Council that a number of men were required for certain works which were regarded as of even higher priority than the graving dock. The service chiefs indicated that, if necessary, to secure the numbers required, men should be taken off the graving dock. Naturally, some interference with the work of the dock occurred as a result. Work was not, however, stopped in any section, and action to restore the former position us promptly as possible was taken immediately.

Of course, when from 200 to 300 .men were taken off the job, there was interfer ence with the work.

With regard to pay vouchers, the Minister remarked -

The honorable member for Dalley also stated that a lax book-keeping system was endangering government funds. He alleged that vouchers entitling wives of members of the Civil Construction Corps to £6 a fortnight were being distributed ti> dependants of persons who were not members nf the Civil Construction Corps.

That is not correct. I have before me a \oncher which was sent to a woman whose husband was not a member of the' Civil Constructional Corps, was not associated with the Allied Works Council, and was not even eligible to be called up for work under that body. As to the wastage of manpower, I cite the case of a man who was instructed by the Allied Works Director to remain in Sydney on his present job. His wife was given one of those vouchers which in certain circumstances would entitle her to £6 a fortnight. That man has part of his wages paid by the Maritime Services Board, while £6 a fortnight is paid by the Allied Works Council, and. I understand that this applies to thousands of other men working in and around Sydney. I can understand the payment of an allowance to a man's wife if he is with the fighting forces, or if he is sent to work in another part of the country, but I cannot see why a man who has been told to stay in his job in Sydney should have part of his wages paid by the Maritime Services Board, and the rest paid by the Allied Works Council. Why should the men working for the Allied Works Council be paid by two separate authorities in this way ? If that is not a shameful waste of man-power I do not know what is. I said, further, that men had been called up and sent to distant places where they were engaged upon work for which they were unfitted, and that they were not in physical condition to stand the rigours of the climate. The Minister replied to this charge as follows : -

The honorable member for Dalley .further complained that men called up would not be capable of standing up to hard work under the conditions of a summer in north Australia. In this connexion, I know that particular care has been taken, in sending men to Queensland, to send only those men who have regularly been engaged on work of a nature similar to that on which they will be employed when they go north. We have not sent any men who have been called up from other occupations, and it is a fair assumption that nien who, over a long period, have been engaged either as plant operators or labourers, without physical ill effects becoming apparent, should be considered at such a critical time as the present, to be capable of continuing to perform this work, even in the north, for a period of three months.

There is no mistaking what the Minister meant. He meant that the men who are sent to the north are always put on work similar to that on which they had been previously engaged. As a matter of fact. I have made representations on behalf of three men who, up to the time of their being called up, had been commercial travellers, and 1 should be very surprise.! if the Minister could prove to me thai they are now being employed upon work similar to their ordinary occupation. Here is a letter which I received to-day from one of my constituents - 1 appeal to you to continue your justified attack on the Allied Works Council as I have just had the experience of being humiliated at their Pitt-street office. 1 have been in business in one of Sydney's suburbs for the past seventeen years, and am now 53 years of agc and in response to a notice from the Civil Constructional office in Pitt-street called the other day at 9.30 a.m., and after being handed on from one official to another, and finally to a doctor, who by the way, took my blood pressure only, was directed to report at 8 a.m. the next day to the graving dock (very aptly named), and on reporting was handed a pick and shovel to do my war effort. I will not bore you with the details of my effort, suffice to say that I hardly did any work, and am lead to believe that 1 am to bc paid at the rate of £1 a day for such work, which I can assure you, was 19s. (id. wasted by some one. My main reason for writing is not to complain of such generosity, lint to give you a list of names of men I saw in the Pitt-street office, and leave it to you to confirm same. After what I saw, is it any wonder the office cannot run any industrial undertaking?

That letter provides further evidence that men are not properly examined before being sent away to jobs, and that they are being put on work to which they have not been accustomed. The Minister confirms my accusation that men are torn away from their families after beinggiven only 48 hours' notice to report at Central Railway- Station. Indeed, I understand that in Victoria, they are sometimes given only 24 hours' notice. The Minister stated that special magistrates had been appointed, and that apparently I knew nothing of it. As a matter of fact, I did know about it, though the fact is that they have been appointed only recently. When one of my clients was presenting his case, the appeals officer was none other than the famous Peter Cruise. Referring to my charges, the Minister said that their gravity lay in their utter irresponsibility, and not in their substance. Two nights after I made my speech on the subject of the Allied Works Council, the Sydney Trades and Labour Council passed a resolution demanding an investigation into the operations of the council. Are we to understand from the Minister's statement that all the members of the Trades and Labour Council have gone berserk, and are to be regarded as irresponsible ( Are we to believe that Mr. Arthur blakeley went berserk and was irresponsible when he found it impossible to work with Mr. Theodore and Lieutenant Packer i Does the Minister wish us to believe that- Mr. Reginald Windsor, a man well known and respected in the Public Service, was irresponsible because he could no longer continue to work in the Sydney office? Isit to be assumed that such a man would throw up his job for no reason whatever f Were all the Australian Workers Union officials who complained of camp conditions irresponsible persons? Here is an extract from a letter which I received from a union organizer -

I thank you for your attack upon the mismanaged state of affairs of the mail-DOW tops. As an organizer of builders labourers unions 1 see the chaotic state of affairs of St. -Mary's and Villa Wood - well go and have a look at. it for yourself and see the unfinished state of this plant. Our men are treated like donkeys, transported here- and there, while thousands of loafers and slackers hang about the city doing nil.

Are we to assume that he, too, is irresponsible? [Extension of time granted.] The Minister makes some very grave charges against the secretary of the Australian Builders Labourers Union, a man who represents many thousands of workers. This is what the Minister said -

Another form of criticism is directed against camp conditions of members of the Civil Constructional Corps. In recent weeks, severe criticism of so-called " Stone Age " Koto Camp received much publicity. I have investigated this case very thoroughly. The outcry undoubtedly originated with Mr. W. F. Thomas, general secretary, Australian Builders Labourers Federation, who declared that most meat was inadequate, frequently fly-blown, vegetables scarce, bread mouldy, cookhouse insanitary, sleeping quarters most unsatisfactory, sanitary arrangements disgraceful, recreation-room unsuitable, washing facilities inadequate, first-aid supplies unsatisfactory. Notice that all the facilities exist - the criticism generally being that they are not good enough. Mr. Thomas is paid for that sort of thing. Naturally, he will discover and magnify any flaws which he can. I know thai the camps are not perfect, but I also know that they aTe as good as they can be made under the circumstances. Much of the work to be done by the Civil Constructional Corps is of a very urgent nature.There is no time to build elaborate permanent camps, but the camps which are built compare veryfavorably indeed with the type of construction camp accepted in pre-war days. The men themselves appreciate the difficulties, and accept them cheerfully and patriotically. The men on the job rarely complain. It is only the outsider who comes looking for trouble who makes a fuss. Mr. Thomas made a violent outburst against conditions atRoto Camp on the 27th August. On the 31st August a mass meeting of the men expressed resentment of the recent press criticism, and resolved unanimously to write to the Allied Works Council expressing complete satisfaction at the council's efforts to adjust difficulties and provide comforts for the men. The men themselves went so far as to repudiate certain of Mr. Thomas's demands, stating that they preferred the arrangements previously existing. The tactics employed by Mr. Thomas can do little good, but they are capable of doing a very great deal of damage by destroying harmonious relations between the men and those officers responsible for their welfare.

The Minister also castigates Mr. Hansford, the union organizer. The Minister did attend a meeting of indignation held yesterday in the Sydney Trades Hall, and it was said that he bearded the lion in its den. As a matter of fact, all the "bearding" he has ever done was to grow some on his chin. At the meeting he contented himself with repudiating the statements which he had previously made, and which have been recorded in Hansard. I have a copy here, andI propose to see that there is no sub-editing of them -

In connexion with Civil Constructional Corps camp conditions, let me quote here an un solicited testimonial from Sir Archibald Howie, managing director of Howie, Moffat and Company Proprietary Limited, Sydney.

The Minister takes refuge behind what he calls an unsolicited testimonial and his remarks are worth quoting. Sir Archibald Howie was last in the public eye when he, with some others, was called before a royal commission to explain his conduct in regard to the disposal of the State brick works. As a matter of fact, royal commissions seem to have hung around the necks of a number of persons associated with the Allied Works Council, even as the albatross was hung around the neck of the Ancient Mariner - very smellful. He accepts Sir Archibald Howie's views and uses them against union officials. The time has come for a clean-up of the office of the

Allied Works Council in Sydney. Unless something is done about it very soon there will probably have to be another royal commission. If the Minister wants the names of these persons associated with the council, and something of their reputations, my correspondent can supply the information. In his letter he states that one of them was a startingprice bookmaker, who called himself a turf commissioner. He now holds a responsible position. Another wasa friend of the one to whom I have just referred. He is an ex-bookmaker, and is now a professional punter. Another is a notorious North Sydney startingprice bookmaker, who still operates the largest starting-price office on the North Shore. Another is a bookmaker who operates at dog meetings because he lost his licence to bet at horse races for failing to meet his liabilities. There is also another bookmaker who operates at dog races who has not been allowed on any race course for fifteen years. He is a noted " urger " who is well known to the police and racecourse detectives. Those are a few who have sheltered there, and are bringing the name of the Government and of the Labour party into disrepute. The sooner these people are dealt with the better it will be for the country. I can substantiate all the statements that I have made, with the exception of the contents of that letter. I have not mentioned names for two reasons : first, I have no desire to give to these people an advertisement, and, secondly, I have no desire to use names improperly. I shall, however, give the information to the Minister, and shall demand that the whole position be cleared up.

Suggest corrections