House of Representatives
1 June 1939

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

GRIFFITH ELECTORAL DIVISION
- Return to Writ
QUESTION
- COUNTRY PARTY.,
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- VALIDITY OF WHEAT LEGISLATION
QUESTION
- TARIFF BOARD
QUESTION
- ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
QUESTION
- WIRELESS BROADCASTING
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- NEW ZEALAND POTATOES
QUESTION
- AIR SERVICES
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- ALLOWANCE POST OFFICES
QUESTION
- GUN PRACTICE IN SYDNEY HARBOUR
QUESTION
- AIR FORCE RESERVE
SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939
- Third Reading
QUESTION
- SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE
NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL 1939
- Second Reading
INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1939
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Treatmentof Naval Ratings
PAPER
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Manufacture of Motor Cars
- Repatriation : Aborigines
- Canberra
- Public Works
- Pensions: Explanatory Handbook
- Duntroon Royal Military College
- Wireless Broadcasting: Ownership of B Class Stations

Mr.Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1060

GRIFFITH ELECTORAL DIVISION

Return to Writ

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to announce that I have received a return to the writ which I issued on the 28th April last for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Griffith, inthe State of Queensland, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Francis Matthew John Baker, and that by the endorsement on the writ it is certified that William Patrick Conelan has been elected in pursuance of the said writ.

Mr.Conelan made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

page 1060

QUESTION

COUNTRY PARTY.,

Relations with Government.

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that yesterday it was made plain that some new use had been made of the Country party, affecting the conduct of business in this House, will the Prime Minister intimate to the Parliament and the country the full extent of any change of programme resulting from this new understanding?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– If the honorable gentleman refers to the programme of business before the House, I am not aware of any change of it.

page 1060

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Canberra Times this morning published the report that when, last “night, the vote was taken to apply the guillotine to the Supply and Development Bill, I walked out of the chamber. This report is without foundation and the statement . it contains is quite untrue. I was seated at the side of the chamber when the vote referred to was taken, but was paired with the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney), who on Tuesday night asked me to grant him a pair because his brother was seriously ill. I willingly did so. Unfortunately, the honorable member’s brother has since passed away. I am sure that the honorable member has the sympathy of all honorable members. Had I been free to. vote, I should certainly have unhesitatingly supported the Government.

page 1060

ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for External Affairs confirm the report that the Anglo-Russian negotiations have broken down, and that Russia intends to negotiate with Germany? If this report be correct, can the honorable gentleman give any indication as to the reasons for the breaking down of the negotiations and as to whether the Australian Government has tendered or will tender any further advice in respect of this most important matter?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Minister for External Affairs · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

– I understand that the British official wireless this morning announced that the AngloRussian negotiations had broken down, but gave no reasons therefor. I believe that the negotiations with Germany, of which mention was made, are trade negotiations. The Government has not received an official endorsement of this message.

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for External Affairsable to disclose the steps that have been taken to make known Australia’s special interests in relation to the proposed Anglo-Russian pact? Will he state to the House the opinions of the Government in view of the expressed determination of the Prime Minister that this country should take an active and live interest in shaping international politics in the Pacific?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– I shall be glad to take the honorable gentleman’s suggestion into consideration, and will furnish him with a reply at a later date.

page 1061

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Candidatesfor Admission

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether he is yet in a position to reply to the question that I addressed to him the week before last, in respect of candidates for the Royal Australian Navy?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

– Since the question was asked I have had an opportunity to acquaint myself of the position in relation to the particular case referred to. Applications numbering 43, of which six were from South Australia, were received for admission to the Royal Australian Navy. Those six applicants were given a provisional medical examination in their own State, and two of them failed to pass it. The remaining four were sent to Melbourne for a final medical examination and interview. One of the four failed to pas3 the second medical examination ; the other three were not successful in securing selection, and were so notified on the 27th February. I believe that, in the particular case which the honorable gentleman has in mind, the parents of the candidate were notified of his nonsuccess on the 1st March. Prior to being interviewed in Melbourne, all of the candidates were measured for uniforms on account of the fact that, if chosen, they would have had to go to England at an early date, and it was necessary for the clothing factory to have the measurements immediately. The candidates were given clearly to understand that the mere fact of their being measured for uniforms did not indicate that they would be selected. Further applications were called, because the candidates offering in the first instance were not up to the requisite standard.

page 1062

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING

Broadcasting Station 2 KY.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware of any forms of the House under which I could compel, or oblige, or constrain, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) to attack my administration in connexion with the temporary closing of wireless station 2 KY ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not sure of the purpose of the honorable member in asking the question. Does he refer to something done in the House by the honorable member for East Sydney?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Is any honorable member entitled to oblige another honorable member to open up a matter in the House to which he continually refers by interjection?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not understand the purport of the honorable member’s question.

page 1062

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Seeing that the guillotine is in operation in respect of a very important measure, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will either move an amendment to the motion to provide that the time occupied in questions may not shorten the time that would otherwise be available for the consideration of the bill, or else refuse to answer any further questions without notice?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I am very largely in the hands of honorable members.Seeing that only a limited time is available for the discussion of the measure to which the honorable member has referred I am quite prepared to ask honorable members to defer any further questions until to-morrow, if that course should meet with their approval.

page 1062

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND POTATOES

Re-imposition op Embargo.

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to make his promised statement in respect of the policy of the Government concerning the embargo on the admission of potatoes from New Zealand ?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– by leave - The Government has recently given much consideration to the economic position of the Australian potato industry, with special reference to the fact that the arrangement made by the previous Government in regard to the admission of New Zealand potatoes into Australia expired on the 31st May, and has decided not to renew that arrangement which, in fact, did not result in the importation of any potatoes other than a special experimental shipment of under two tons. I am communicating with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and informing him that the prohibition on the importation of potatoes will be continued pending a complete and prompt investigation into the position.

The Federal Potato Advisory Committee has been invited to make suggestions to the Government regarding measures designed to stabilize the potato industry. It is anticipated that representatives of the committee will visit Canberra for this purpose and will confer with the Commerce Department in regard to the matter. The suggestions made by the committee will be considered by the Commonwealth Government in consultation with the Agricultural Council.

From time to time citrus growers in Australia have complained that the continuance of the prohibition on the importation of potatoes has adversely affected their industry. I have informed the chairman of the Federal Citrus Advisory Committee that I will receive a deputation from the citrus-growers and give them an opportunity to state their case. When these steps have been taken, the permanent policy to be adopted will be considered and announced.

page 1063

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation inform me whether it is correctly reported that a contract has been prepared in the last few days, and is about to be signed, between the Civil Aviation Department and certain air lines for the provision of subsidized services? If so, is any subsidy to be granted to the company known as Air Lines of Australia in respect of the service between Sydney and Brisbane? If that is the case, will the Minister insist that any subsidies shall be conditional upon the re-establishment by Air Lines of Australia of the service which formerly operated between northern river towns and Brisbane?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Civil Aviation · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · UAP

– The honorable member asked me a question about this subject recently, and he has also discussed it with me privately, and I have since made inquiries into it. I was under the impression that aircraft had ceased to call at Lismore owing .to the inadequacy of the aerodrome there. I now understand that this is not so. Air Lines of Australia suspended the service because the business did not warrant its continuance without a subsidy. The company had been informed by the department that the inter-departmental committee had recommended that this line did not justify a subsidy. That is the situation at present.

page 1063

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– Having regard to circumstances previously referred to, I ask honorable members to defer until to-morrow questions which are not absolutely urgent.

page 1063

QUESTION

ALLOWANCE POST OFFICES

Mr McHUGH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the PostmasterGeneral make available the precise details which govern the payment of allowances to postmistresses and postmasters conducting allowance post offices throughout the ‘Commonwealth? At present the persons conducting these post offices are not aware of the manner in which their allowances are calculated. I should also like the honorable gentleman to intimate whether the

Government will make provision for these officers to become insured as public servants, seeing that they are obliged to pay insurance in respect of persons they employ ?

Mr HARRISON:
Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The answer to the first part of the question is: “ Yes “. I shall give consideration to the second part of it.

page 1063

QUESTION

GUN PRACTICE IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister, for Defence inform me whether the Port of Sydney was closed by departmental instructions during the gun practice that occurred at Middle Head and North Head recently. If so, did the captain of the Mariposa contravene those instructions by virtue of the fact that his ship passed North Head just as the guns fired, with the result that considerable damage was done to the ship?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– Certain restrictions were placed upon shipping on the occasion referred to by the honorable member, but reports received by me indicate that there was no appreciable interference with the exercises by shipping. I haveno further information on the subject.

page 1063

QUESTION

AIR FORCE RESERVE

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Yesterday I asked theMinister for Civil Aviation, with reference to press reports that he was favorably considering the creation of a “larger Air Force Reserve, as the result of representations made by aero clubs and individuals, including himself and myself whether he would make an early statement dealing with the extent of thisdesirable reform. The Minister replied that he made no statement to the press as indicated by me. I now draw his attention to the following report which appeared in The Herald, Melbourne, of the 29th May last :-

Under the plan for the subsidized trainingof reserve pilots, young men would be trained at reasonable cost by aero .clubs and flying schools and reserve officers would be given facilities for “ refresher “ courses, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Fairbairn) said to-day. . . .

Mr. Fairbairn made this announcement after he had received in private a deputation from the president of the Associated Aero Clubs (Mr. Cecil McKay), and the secretary (Mr. Guy Moore) .

Mr. Fairbairn told the deputation that the Government agreed in principle with the proposals of the aero club and was already acting on those lines.

The report of the Air Board and his department would survey the capabilities of aero clubs for taking a more active part in the air defence of Australia. The report indicated that it would be possible to build up a trained air reserve at comparatively small cost.

In view of that report will the Minister tell the House a little more on the subject ? Or was. he misrepresented?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
UAP

– I thought I made it quite clear when I was replying to the honorable member yesterday that I did not make any statement of what was the Government’s policy, but that I merely told the press of inquiries which were being made. The honorable and gallant gentleman was himself a Minister long enough to know that a Minister does not express an opinion on what is the responsibility of another Minister.

page 1064

SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 31st May (vide page 1042).

Clause 10 - (1.) The Minister or any officer or class of officer authorized in that behalf by the Minister or prescribed may, except in offices or positions wholly administrative or clerical in nature, employ such persons as are necessary in connexion with any factory established or deemed to have been established by the Governor-General in pursuance of this act.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That the words “ offices or positions wholly administrative or clerical in nature “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ such administrative or clerical offices as the Governor-General directs.”

As the clause stands it is a question of fact in each case as to whether a position can be regarded as being administrative or clerical in character. The amendment will facilitate administration, because it will leave the consideration of this point to the Governor-General in Council and thus any doubt as to whether particular positions should be created under the Public Service Act or not, will be dispelled.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 - (2). All persons who at the commencement of this act are members of any board constituted by or under any regulations deemed in pursuance of sub-section (1.) of this section to be regulations made under this act, shall, without any further appointment, approval or nomination, but otherwise subject to the regulations, be deemed to be members of that board.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That sub-clause (2) be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following subclause: - “ (2.) The boards established by, or appointed in pursuance of, the regulations made under the Defence Act which are specified in sub-section (1.) of this section, shall, as constituted immediately prior to the commencement of this act, but subject to any regulation made under this act, be deemed to be boards established by or in pursuance of regulations deemed to be regulations made under this act.”

This amendment is merely a redraft designed to improve the expression of the intention of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Regulations).

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I move -

That at the end of the clause the following sub-clause be added: - “ (2.) Nothing in this act shall authorize the making of any regulation -

depriving any trade union or any member of a trade union of any right conferred by any law of the Commonwealth or of any State;

altering or affecting any provision of any agreement between an employer and a trade union to the detriment of such trade union or of any member thereof;

invalidating in whole or in part any rule of any trade union;

restricting the freedom of any employee to change his employment; or

altering to the detriment of any trade union or of any employee’ any rule practice or custom obtaining before the coming into operation of this act in any industry or branch of an industry.

In this sub-section ‘ employer ‘ includes the Commonwealth and every authority of the Commonwealth and ‘ trade union ‘ includes any organization registered under the law of the Commonwealth or of any State and any branch of such an organization.”

My amendment is designed to prevent the Government from using this regulationmaking power to control labour by exceptional legislation. Every one who had experience in respect of this matter during the last war, either here or in England, will remember that legislation was passed, more especially in England, which brought munitions workers under exceptional control. There was not a great deal of it done here for the reason that the then Prime Minister, although he had left the Labour party, was to a great degree in sympathy with the unions. My amendment does not in any way derogate from the powers of the Arbitration Court, or the Public Service Arbitrator, over the conditions of persons who come within the ambit of their jurisdiction, but is intended to prevent what every body believes will be done if no restraining steps are taken. It is intended also to prevent the making of regulations to control labour in the munitions industry. Such regulations may set up new tribunals to deal with persons employed in that industry, and deny to them the opportunity to go to existing tribunals. They may set up new conditions of labour and abrogate existing customs in factories, or override the rules of unions, or prevent labour from moving freely. I have inserted paragraph d deliberately in my amendment, because the Munitions Act 1915, in England, provided that a person employed in a munitions factory was not free to change his employment without obtaining what was called a leaving certificate, and that provision has appeared in a modified form in all subsequent legislation of the same kind. During the Great War, Sir William Irvine, who was a leading member of the Victorian Bar and afterwards Chief Justice in Victoria, expressed the opinion that, notwithstanding section 49 of the Defence Act, regulations could be made under the War Precautions Act compelling men to serve overseas. That is to say, he pointed out that a regulation under the act would enable the Government of the day to disregard and override altogether the provisions of section 49 of the Defence Act that no one shall be compelled to serve out of Australia. I am quite satisfied to rest upon the opinion; but, apart from that, I am not prepared to take the risk of this legislation in the stress of war being interpreted so as to give the Executive power to control labour. The proposals that I makes are simple, obvious, and just. The first proposal is that any right that a trades union has at present shall remain to it unaffected by any regulation made under this legislation; that is to say, no regulations shall deny the right of the trades unions to go to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, the Public Service Arbitrator, or any State arbitration tribunal to enforce awards, shall send them to other courts, or shall alter or affect, to the detriment of a trade union or any member of a trade union, any right possessed by the member or the union. I propose the inclusion of paragraph b in clause 16 for this reason: There is now in the -iron trade an agreement between the Commonwealth and some of the unions, including the Amalgamated Engineers Union. The Commonwealth has agreed not to attempt to upset that agreement by any proceedings in the Arbitration Court. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) is well aware of the position. That agreement is not an award of, or registered at, the Arbitration Court, and the Government has agreed that it will not disturb it by proceeding in the court. But for the proposed new provision the Government would be able to disturb the agreement by making a regulation. Proposed new paragraph c prevents the making of any regultion - invalidating in whole or in part any rule of any trade union.

The rules of trade unions are subject to State law if they are registered in the State Courts, and Commonwealth law if they are registered in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The disciplinary control of the arbitration courts,

State or Federal, is quite sufficient control over the rules to prevent a trade union from being oppressive or tyrannous, or anything like that, and there is no need for any one else to interfere. But without this proposed provision it would be possible under this legislation for the Commonwealth Government to make regulations abrogating the rules of trade unions and to take power which at present can be exercised only after due inquiry by an arbitration court. The next point refers to -

Restricting the freedom of any employee to change his employment.

That was done in England by statute during the war, and it could have been done here by regulations under the “War Precautions Act and could, in my opinion, which is based on the view of Sir William Irvine, be done by regulation now. Proposed new paragraph e refers to-

Altering to the detriment of any trades union or of any employee any rule practice or custom obtaining before the coming into operation of this act in any industry or branch of an industry.

– If those conditions are to be altered tomeet an emergency, they should be altered by act of Parliament, not by a regulation made by the Executive, and I do not think that, if an emergency does arise, it should be only the workers who are regimented. Having regard to the fact that we have tribunals, there is no reason for the Executive to take over the control of labour in any case. I am not asking that labour should be free from the control of industrial tribunals. I say that, subject to the control of those tribunals, and of the law, they should be free from any other special restrictions; that no special tribunals should be created for the purpose of dealing with the matter, and no special legislation should be passed for that purpose. We know the feeling that the late Mr. Justice Higgins had about the creation of special tribunals, and we know the feeling that the British people have always had about the same matter, the Court of Star Chamber, and the Court of Ecclesiastical High Commissions, being examples. I do not think it is desired that the Executive should . have power to override established tri bunals. This legislation has been prepared in contemplation of war. Under it the Executive is to be given a blank sheet on which it may write anything it likes.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse.)The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr SPENDER:
Assistant Treasurer · Warringah · UAP

– I regret that, before the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) commenced his speech, there had not been circulated an amendment which is to he moved by the Minister in charge of the bill.

Mr Curtin:

– This amendment was circulated since the guillotine was introduced, and yet it would be put automatically by the Chairman, although the amendment circulated by the honorable member for Bourke prior to that would not have been put.

Mr Blackburn:

– This amendment was not in my hands until this moment.

Mr SPENDER:

– I recognize that. I regret that the amendment which includes, and substantially covers, the subject matter of the amendment of the honorable member for Bourke, was not placed before him before he commenced his speech. The contribution of the honorable member for Bourke is of considerable value, and while I do not agree that there exists power to make regulations covering some of the matters touched upon in his amendment, I appreciate that, if there is any doubt, it should be resolved in the bill. With that object I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of the honorable member for Bourke so as to make certain that the matters which he has in mind shall be excluded as the subject of regulations under the bill.

The amendment of the honorable member for Bourke would have the effect of excluding Commonwealth employees, as well as private employees, from the operation of this legislation. The first part of his amendment states -

Nothing in this act shall authorize the making of any regulations -

depriving any trade union or any member of a trade union of any right conferred by any law of the Commonwealth or of any State.

That has been adopted in the amendment I have circulated.

Mr Blackburn:

– I am satisfied with that.

Mr SPENDER:

– The Government amendmentincludes the additional words “ relating to rates of wages or conditions of employment “. The second paragraph of the honorable member’s amendment is as follows: -

altering or affecting any provision of any agreement between an employer and a trade union to the detriment of such trade union or of any member thereof.

The provision in the amendment foreshadowed by the Minister is as follows -

altering or affecting, to the detriment of a trade union or any member of a trade union, any provision of an agreement between an employer and the trade union relating to rates of wages or conditions of employment.

Mr Blackburn:

– Subject to what I desire to say about “ employer “ I accept that.

Mr SPENDER:

– In regard to paragraph c, I accept the opinion of the honorable member that it may well be that regulations made under this clause might impose some restriction upon trade unions. As it was never the intention of the Government to take action in that direction, it is well to resolve any doubt, and the Government, therefore, has accepted his proposal. Paragraph c of the honorable member’s amendment states -

invalidating in whole or in part any rule of a trade union.

That provision is contained in paragraph e of the Government’s amendment. Paragraphd of the amendment of the honorable member for Bourke is as follows -

restricting the freedom of any employee to change his employment.

That has been accepted in its entirety. Then, paragraph (e) which states -

altering to the detriment of any trade union or of any employee any rule, practice or custom obtaining before the coming into operation of this act in any industry or branch of an industry; is in substance covered by paragraph d of the Government’s amendment.

Mr Blackburn:

– I took the wording from the English Munitions Act.

Mr SPENDER:

– I appreciate that. The proposals of the honorable member for Bourke have been accepted with certain minor alterations. The point of conflict between us is whether the provisions of the amendment shall be extended to apply to employees of the Commonwealth. To that extent, the amendment of the honorable member is not acceptable to the Government because, in respect of employees who are covered by the Commonwealth Arbitration Act, as are employees of the Commonwealth, the court can make awards inconsistent with any law of the Commonwealth. The Arbitration Court can make an award with regard to matters within its jurisdiction, notwithstanding anything in any act or regulation. The Commonwealth has never denied the right of its employees to approach the Arbitration Court. The honorable member for Bourke instanced one matter which is undoubtedly true. I understand that an agreement was entered into between a union and the Commonwealth under which it was agreed that the Commonwealth would not make any application to the court to vary the agreement. That, however, cannot be urged in support of the general principle for which he contends.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I regret very much that this amendment was not in my hands before I spoke ; otherwise I should have shortened my speech. The issue is this: The Government wants to exclude all persons employed by the Commonwealth in munitions factories from the scope of my amendment. There will be two classes of persons employed in munitions factories, namely, those employed in factories owned by private persons, and controlled by the Commonwealth under this legislation, and those employed in factories owned by the Commonwealth itself. The Government agrees not to attempt to control by regulation persons employed by private manufacturers, but it desires to reserve the right to control in that way persons employed in its own factories. That is to say a member of the Amalgamated Engineering

Union, or of the Boilermakers Union, working in ammunition factories at Footscray or Maribyrnong, could be controlled by regulation under the provisions of this legislation. I submit to the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) that he has taken the wrong act. I understand from what he has said, that he desires to exclude permanent employees of the Government from the operation of my amendment. The Arbitration (Public Service) Act covers all persons employed permanently or temporarily by the Commonwealth, or any authority of the Com monwealth, and includes employees of the Commonwealth munitions factories.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Surely the honorable member does not object to that?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I do. For me to agree to the proposal made by the Assistant Treasurer would mean that I should be surrendering to the Government’s arbitrary regulation-making power all employees in factories owned by the Commonwealth or by an authority of the Commonwealth. The Assistant Treasurer attempted to recommend that qualification of his by stating that the Public Service Arbitrator could make awards for all of these persons. Apparently, he has been told that that is so, and possibly has not appreciated the fact that this House could, at the request of the Government, disallow any award made by the Public Service Arbitrator. Under section 22 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act, an award made by the Public Service Arbitrator could, as the Assistant Treasurer properly said, override existing laws, but it could not do that without the consent of the Government. Section 22 provides -

The Arbitrator may make a determination which is not in accord with an award or order of the court, but, except as provided in this section, is not empowered to make any determination which is not in accord with the laws of the Commonwealth and the regulations made thereunder.

The section continues to say in effect that the Arbitrator may, where he thinks it proper to do so, make a determination which, in his opinion, is not in accord with an existing law or regulation of the Commonwealth, but in that case he must forward the determination to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister then has to cause the determination to be laid before both

Houses of Parliament, and the AttorneyGeneral has to advise whether or not it is in accordance with any law or regulation of the Commonwealth. If the AttorneyGeneral holds that the determination is not in accord with an existing law or regulation of the Commonwealth, either House of Parliament may prevent it from coming into operation by passing a resolution disallowing it. Therefore, in spite of all assurances given by the Assistant Treasurer, should the Attorney-General advise the Government that a determination made by the Public Service Arbitrator is inconsistent with regulations made under this measure affecting the employment of persons in munitions factories, either House of this Parliament would be able to reject that determination. That is one of the dangers which I contemplate under this new legislation. I do not want to see this Government, or any other government, invested with power to prevent, by regulation, the Public Service Arbitrator, or the Arbitration Court, from functioning effectively.

Mr Spender:

– This bill would not do that.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– In my view, that possibility does exist. I submit that there is reason for believing, according to one of the best opinions in this country, that theCommonwealth Government could, under this clause, make a regulation governing conditions of employment and wages of persons employed in Commonwealth munitions factories, and that any determination made by the PublicService Arbitrator with a view to overriding that regulation, giving more favorable conditions to the employees, could be disallowed by either House of this Parliament. There is no real reason at all for denying to munition workers in government factories the protection which is to be given to corresponding workers in private factories. I submit that the Government should reconsider its decision in this matter. I can understand the claim that permanent employees of the Commonwealth Public Service do not need this protection, but the Government is going further than that, and denying such protection to temporary employees in government factories. My view is that if this clause is accepted in its present form, a regulation could be made covering the Commonwealth munitions factories at Maribyrnong or Footscray, providing that no person should leave these establishments without the consent of the Government or the manager. The Assistant Treasurer has agreed that that is a possibility. If employees of government factories are to be exempted from this provision, then a man accepting employment at a government munitions fac- tory would not be able to leave that establishment without the consent of the Government, yet could be dismissed at any time. If the Government desires outside labour to believe in its bona fides in this matter, then it should go the whole distance and bring the Commonwealth, as well as private employees, under the operation of this legislation. I do not .think there should be any line of distinction between persons employed in government factories and others employed in private factories.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker

Mr BEASLEY:

– It does not.

Mr Curtin:

– The award of the Arbitrator, being in conflict with the gazetted regulations, ceased to have effect. The regulations were gazetted in order to defeat, if necessary, an award.

Mr BEASLEY:

Mr SCULLIN:

– That is exactly what Hitler says in Germany. The leaders in totalitarian countries say that it is better to compel men to work in specified industries.

Mr Blackburn:

– The department would be able to “ sack “ them.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes, but there would be nothing to prevent them from being chained to the wheel, whether they liked it or not. The Minister regards it as necessary to resolve doubts with respect to the rights of private employees, but he is not prepared to grant similar protection to a temporary employee in a munitions factory who may wish to improve his industrial position. Why did the Government include in the proposed amendment circulated by the Minister the following provision : -

This section shall not be construed to empower the making of regulations -

restricting the freedom of any employee to change his employment.

Is that paragraph merely bluff and padding? If not, it should have as much application to a person employed in a government munitions factory as to one working for a private employer.

Mr.Curtin. - Does not the Minister intend to reply to the right honorable member for Yarra?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribynong

– The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has undoubtedly rendered valuable service with regard to this clause; but, when the Government wishes to omit a most important paragraph of the amendment, the Opposition naturally objects. The Government’s acceptance of most of his amendment proves that. The right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has supplied cogent reasons why the whole amendment should be accepted, and I endorse them. I am at a loss to understand why the Government is unwilling to yield this point. In the industrial area which

I represent are thousands of men who would suffer if the restriction which the Government contemplates imposing were to operate. Within the last twelve months, 2,020 men have been added to the staff of the munitions factories in my electorate, many of them, unfortunately, having been out of employment for a long period. In the event of an emergency arising they might be able to secure employment under more favorable conditions than those offered by the Government, as an opportunity may occur for them to enter into some enterprise, ind their liberties in that regard should not be restricted. Although the conditions of employment in the Government service are generally satisfactory, they are not always the best obtainable. Evidently, judging by the declaration by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), some honorable members supporting the Government are prepared to make men work under any conditions. The attitude of those honorable members demonstrates the necessity for the protection sought by the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Bourke. In England, during the Great War, many men employed in the railway services were transferred to munitions factories or were engaged on work connected with munitions. They were promised an 8-hour day while the war lasted but after the war was over they had to go on strike in order to obtain it. Neither the Minister nor the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) has attempted to give reasons why men employed in the Public Service should work under different conditions in respect of their rights and liberties from those of private employees. I protest against the attitude of the Government, as indicated by its proposed amendment. If smooth cooperation is to be obtained between all parties in regard to defence preparations, the Government should accept the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Bourke. It should not be possible, by regulations, to deprive a member of a trade union of any industrial right merely because of a national emergency. The views expressed by members of the Opposition are reasonable.I am reminded by the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) that railway employees in New South Wales were made public servants so that the wage during the depression could be applied to them and similar treatment may be given to railway employees whose services may be required in the manufacture of munitions. [Quorum formed.]

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

– Listening to some of the speakers, whose views, I admit, have been moderately advanced, one might be inclined to think that the Government was trying to “put across “ a new set of onerous conditions in connexion with its own munitions factories ; but that is not the position. It is attempting to maintain the same set of conditions which have operated satisfactorily in the past, and will, no doubt, do so for many years to come. I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) to reply to the speech by the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), but I consider that my previous remarks were, in effect, a reply to his argument. Under the Government’s proposed amendment, the conditions that have operated, with complete satisfaction for many years, will be maintained. The effect of the amendment submitted by the Opposition would be to amend, in an important direction, one of the main provisions of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act. The Government is not prepared to take such a step in these circumstances. It believes that the present arrangement is fair, and is working well. I deny any suggestion that the Government is attempting in any covert way to “ put across “ something to the disadvantage of workers in munitions factories. Nothing of that sort at all is in its mind.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- Following the refusal of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) to accept the Government’s amendment in substitution of his own, because it excludes certain employees whom he wishes to be protected, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) declared that this is a war measure, and in a time of war awards must go. That is the first time we have heard expressed on the floor of this chamber the real motive behind this measure. An Assistant Minister (Mr. Holt) declared earlier that there was no necessity for the Government to introduce the bill because it already possessed power to carry out all of the proposals embodied in the measure. Contrast that statement with the declaration of the honorable member for Barker. The honorable gentleman says that this is a war measure and that in a time of war all awards, workers’ rates of pay and conditions of employment must go, but he does not say that in a time of war all profits also must go. Obviously, he speaks as a representative of big business in this country which, directly or indirectly, is connected with the armaments ring. Those interests will not be called upon to make sacrifices; indeed, they will be given an opportunity to make profits in a time of war. While the wages and conditions of the workers are ruthlessly cast aside, the profits of big business will rise higher still. Not only will the workers of this country be put in the front trenches in a time of war, but they will also be called upon to make sacrifices in munitions factories. In view of the honorable member’s remarks, this measure savours of what we might expect from a totalitarian government. It has been said that we are drifting in that direction, and the honorable member for Barker verifies that view.

The Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Casey) said that there was nothing sinister -behind the Government’s move.

Mr Casey:

– I do not think that I used the word “ move “.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The right honorable member said that there was nothing sinister behind this measure. If in a time of war, workers are required to produce munitions for the armies in the field, they must be satisfied with their conditions. Otherwise serious industrial trouble may result. References have been made to what took place in England during the Great War. The Government has said that it ‘ believes in the principle of arbitration and that it has delegated to a tribunal power to make awards governing every form of industrial undertaking, and if it is honest it will have no option but to abide by its declared policy, and ensure that the decisions of the tribunal will stand notwithstanding the fact that conditions may have altered since the awards were originally made. What has been said already by honorable members on this side of the chamber indicates clearly that each of us will support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Bourke.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- We are indebted in some degree to the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) for the information he has supplied to us, even though he did so unconsciously. He has let the cat out of the bag so far as the Government is concerned. Any anti-Labour government is capable of interfering with the conditions of workers in industry when it declares that a state of emergency has arisen. The mere insertion of provisions in any act of Parliament does not necessarily give to the workers that protection which members of the Opposition desire to secure for them. The speech of the honorable member for Barker could not have come at a more opportune time from the point of view of members of the Labour party, because the workers of this country have already had their suspicions .aroused as to the intentions of the Government. Those suspicions have now been confirmed by the honorable gentleman. Members of the Opposition and many thousands of trade unionists have no doubt that the measure now before the committee, and another which will be introduced shortly, are based on the .pretext that a state of emergency exists. They are designed, in effect, to bring about industrial conscription. Honorable members opposite may ask why, if I am honest in my contention that ‘the mere insertion of a provision in an act of Parliament does not guarantee protection to the workers, members on this side should endeavour to secure any amendments to this legislation. The reason is that the workers of this country have been told for a number of years past that Australia has democratic government, and, consequently, they have felt obliged on many occasions, to accept conditions which are unpalatable to them. They have done so, because they are. democrats. They have said to themselves that, as the elected representatives of the people had determined to do these things, they, as the electors, should be prepared to take the good with the bad. They will be amazed, however, to learn, that, irrespective of what is contained in any act of Parliament, the Government may determine at any time that a state of emergency has arisen and may brush aside industrial awards and impose new conditions of employment. A remarkable feature of the discussion on this measure is that the Government benches were empty while the important clauses dealing with the conditions of workers were being considered, whereas they were full when the clauses dealing with the profits to be earned by the profiteers who support the Government were before the committee. I do not know exactly what procedure has been followed by the Government, but I have just received a copy of a proposed amendment to clause 4, circulated in the name of the Minister, although the committee is now dealing with clause 16. That amendment to clause 4 defines “ war “ as follows : - “ War “ means any invasion or apprehended invasion of, or attack or apprehended attack on, the Commonwealth or any Territory of the Commonwealth by an enemy or armed force.

The threat of attacks on the wages and conditions of industrial workers, which was mentioned by the honorable member for Barker, will, therefore, apply at any time when the Government may decide that an invasion is apprehended.

Mr Blackburn:

– The Government could apply these restrictions to-morrow, in a time of peace.

Mr WARD:

– That is the position. If this legislation is passed, the Government can enforce its provisions whenever it feels so disposed. Every one knows that in recent years Australia has become an imperialist power, and, besides being concerned with its own defence, must provide for the defence of New Guinea. I understand, also, that Australia exercises political control over a great section of the Antarctic. I do not know if there is anything in the Antarctic that may be coveted by a foreign power; nevertheless, the Government may decide that an attack on it is apprehended, and, on that pretext, make inroads on the conditions of the workers.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The honorable member is not helping his argument with an illustration like that. He would do much better by confining his remarks to New Guinea.

Mr WARD:

– I have referred to New Guinea already. Statements have been made by some honorable members -I think the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) was one of them. - that, Australia’s frontiers are not even at New Guinea, but at Singapore, Hong Kong, or perhaps some other far-flung portion of the British Empire. Perhaps, if any of those places were in danger the Government could say that an attack on Australia was apprehended, and in that event this legislation would operate. The workers’ organizations are taking the proper stand, in their efforts to resist this form of industrial conscription, by deciding that, irrespective of any decisions of this Parliament, they will use every power they possess to prevent thu Government from giving effect to its will in this way. Only by the efforts of their industrial organizations outside Parliament, supported by their political representatives in the Parliament, can the Australian workers hope to resist successfully the attack that is intended upon them. It is easy for the Government to accept, in an amended form, the proposed amendment of the Opposition. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) would at’ least make it a little more difficult for the Government to give effect to its intentions, but it has conveniently accepted those portions which, in its opinion, do not matter a great deal, and has deleted those parts which it believes would hamper its activities. The amendment proposed by the Government reads - (2.) This section shall not be construed to empower the making of regulations -

depriving a trade union or any member of a trade union of any right conferred by any law of the Commonwealth or of a State relating to rates of wages or conditions of employment;
altering or affecting, to the detriment of a trade union or any member of a trade union, any provision of an agreement between an employer and the trade union relating to rates of wages or conditions of employment;

The definition of “ Trade union “ in the proposed amendment which has been circulated is as follows: - “ Trade union “ includes any organization registered under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State, and a branch of any such organization, but does not include an association of employees in the Public Service “.

– That is not a fair statement.

Mr CURTIN:

– It is a proper statement of the case. The Government would not have reserved the right to interfere with its own workers otherwise if that were not so. The definition of “ employer “ in the amendment moved by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) is -

In this sub-section “ employer “ includes the Commonwealth and every authority of the Commonwealth. whereas the definition of “ employee “ in the amendment proposed by the Minister is - “ Employee “ means employee other than an employee in the Public Service within the meaning of the Arbitration, (Public Service) Act 1920-1924.

Mr Casey:

– That does not involve any change from the practice that has ruled for twenty years.

Mr.Scullin. - If, as the Minister would have honorable members believe, the bill makes no changes, it is unnecessary.

Mr CURTIN:

– But this bill does make changes. It has been brought forward ‘ with a flourish of trumpets as a comprehensive plan of action to take over production and those engaged in production for the purpose of enabling the country to have equipment which would be available to meet an emergency.

Mr Casey:

– I should like thirty seconds to reply to the honorable gentleman.

Mr CURTIN:

– The right honorable gentleman could have had thirty hours but for his own arbitrary practice.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

– My amendment does not affect the right of Commonwealth employees to approach the Public Service Arbitrator. I want that to be quite clear to honorable members, because, although I do not suggest that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) was guilty of distortion, the way in which he put the case might lead honorable members to think that the Government is seeking to infringe or may infringe upon some right of the Commonwealth employees in a way from which it is disqualified by existing conditions.

Mr Ward:

– The amendment gives the Government power to do so.

Mr.CASEY. - To no greater extent than in the past. The amendment does not affect the right of Commonwealth employees to approach the Public Service Arbitrator to get a determination from him.

The honorable member for East Sydney interjecting ,

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse.)Order! The honorable member for East Sydney must restrain himself, and if he interjects again I shall name him.

Mr Ward:

– I move -

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable gentleman is not in order in doing so.

Mr Ward:

– I move -

That the Minister be not furtherheard.

Mr CASEY:

– The Public Service Arbitrator is the tribunal provided for the determination of all disputes relating to Commonwealth employees.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time allotted for the consideration of the committee stage to the end of clause 17 has expired.

Question put -

That the sub-clause proposed to be added (Mr. Blackburn’s amendment) be so added.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. J. H. Prowse.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16 with the circulated amendment of the Government, agreed to.

Circulated amendment of the Government -

That the following sub-clauses be added: - “ (2.) This section shall not be construed to empower the making of regulations -

Clause 17 agreed to.

Postponed clause 4 (Definitions).

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

– When this clause was under consideration, the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) pointed out that whereas it contained a definition of “ time of war “ which had been translated from the Defence Act, no definition of the word “ war “ was inserted. As the word “ war “ is defined in the Defence Act, the honorable member suggested that we might include a similar definition in this clause, and I undertook to look into the matter. As I pointed out at the time the word “war” does not occur in this bill except in the phrase “ time of war “ ; but as the honorable member believes that the word “ war “ should be defined, the Government has no objection to doing so. I move -

That at the end of the clause the following definition be added: - “ ‘ war ‘ means any invasion or apprehended invasion of, or attack or apprehended attack on, the Commonwealth or any territory of the Commonwealth by an enemy or armed force.”.

Mr Nock:

– Would that cover attacks on shipping?

Mr CASEY:

– Yes, quite clearly.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- The point of having this amendment inserted is that “ time of war “ means a time during which a state of war exists. Unless the word “ war “ were defined and limited in this way it would be possible for the Executive to declare that a state of war existed when there was a western European war and Australia was in no danger of attack. For that reason, I suggested that the limiting definition of “ war “ contained in the Defence Act should be incorporated in this bill.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- Insofar as this proposed amendment represents another successful effort on the part of the Labour Opposition to improve a futile measure, I suppose we should congratulate ourselves upon it; but as a definition of “ war “ it really carries us no further. War, under the Defence Act, means “ any invasion or apprehended invasion of, or attack or apprehended attack on, the Commonwealth or any territory under the control of the Commonwealth by an enemy or armed force “. That definition is now being put into this bill. Whose apprehension are we to measure in connexion with this clause? What is the standard by which we are to decide that an attack upon Australia is apprehended ? By what standard of judgment are we to conclude that an invasion of Australia is apprehended? I suppose it simply gets back to this, if I understand it correctly, that the Government may declare that it apprehends an invasion or an attack upon this country, just as it may declare to be urgent a measure whichis really not urgent. For several months past I have had a very poor opinion of the judgment of this Government and of the Government which, as the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) so happily said, predeceased it. Who is to say that he apprehends an attack upon this country? The Government has been apprehending such an attack for months past. It has .been acting upon the assumption that an attack is imminent, but such an attack has never come to pass. As I have ventured to state on more than one occasion, the “ jitters “ of the Government have not been justified by events in the slightest degree. Crisis has followed upon -crisis; I have refused to recognize them as crises, and they have passed. I never knew a government more completely barren of crises that this one is at the present moment, and yet it is trying to force this bill on us as a matter of such grave urgency that discussion must be stifled. Presumably, it apprehends the invasion of Australia itself. I should be very sorry to be responsible for the apprehensions of the honorable gentlemen on the other side of the chamber. I do not share their apprehensions. I merely say that there is a danger, and there has always been a danger, that this Government may involve us in war, and as long as it remains in office I shall entertain that apprehension. However, it is an apprehension entirely of what the Government may do, not of what we may be involved in irrespective of the Government. Again, when we speak of an apprehension of war, what kind of war do we mean ? Are we speaking of war in Australia waged for the defence of this . country, or are we speaking of war that might arise out of some of the more recent commitments into which we have entered to maintain peace in central Europe? Which do we mean, war here, or war on the continent of Europe? I have sometimes heard it said that when Great Britain is at war, we are at war. I have never subscribed even to that doctrine. I have proved, I think, that it is constitutionally unsound from a legal point of view, and it is certainly unsound from a commonsense point of view. For the Government, however, it is not only a fact that when Great Britain is at war, we are at war, but it is also true, under our new united front for the protection of democracy, that when Poland is at war we are at war, when France is at war we are automatically at war, and, if I am not mistaken, when Greece is at war we must now, in defence of world democracy, also be at war. Are these the wars that honorable members opposite apprehend? Is that what is implicit in the definition? Are we to understand that we are preparing against something that may take place in central Europe in respect of which we have not been consulted, in respect of which we have no voice, and in respect of which we have no knowledge and no interest? Are we to believe that Australia is automatically at war should hostilities break out in Europe through the operations of the united front, initiated by the great democracies of the world to maintain the peace of the world? The Government seems to believe that we must apprehend the possibility of Australia being at war for such a cause, and it evidently believes, also, that once we are involved in war, in the defence of Poland, for example, we may take it for granted that one of our eastern neighbours, because it is a member of the Fascist axis, will immediately attack us. I have no such apprehension. I do not join with those honorable members who believe that. I repudiate their international philosophy as being traitorous to this country, as well as futile so far as the defence of Australia is concerned. I decline to lend my influence to a policy which would embroil this country in any one of a score of disputes which might arise in a continent other than our own. I have no fear of an attack upon Australia, or a possible invasion. The only state of war I apprehend is a war for the defence of Australia, and I think that, providentially, there is no immediate danger of that. I hope that this Government, which is fomenting war and creating war scares, and lending itself to doctrines of hatred and provocation, will be removed before it succeeds in involving Australia in conflict with another nation.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause -

PART IIa. - Aircraft Assembly. 14a. - (1.) The Governor-General may establish factories for the manufacture or assembly of such aircraft or parts of aircraft as are, in the opinion of the Governor-General, necessary in connexion with the defence of Australia. (2.) Factories established in pursuance of this section shall be maintained and operated in accordance with the regulations.

Mr Casey:

– I cannot say.

Mr.CURTIN.- Then the Minister does not know how many employees there will , be.

Mr Casey:

– I shall make my own speech.

Mr CURTIN:

– But the Minister has concluded his exposition of the subject. He has submitted it to the committee with whatever facts and data are available. Surely we are entitled to know approximately how many persons will be employed, and, generally, what is the estimated expenditure over a year’s operations? I think I am also entitled to ask why only the three eastern States and South Australia are to be linked up with the scheme, and why Tasmania and Western Australia have been excluded from it? In this proposed new clause, which is only a portion of the bill with which the committee has already dealt, there is power to make regulations in respect of factories. Sub-clause 2 reads -

Factories established in pursuance of this section shall be maintained and operated in accordance with the regulations.

– It will be able to do so. I am afraid that, in his attitude to this measure, the Leader of the Opposition has not shown his usual sound judgment. I am sure that the people generally will not believe all the statements made by the honorable gentleman and his supporters this afternoon. The Minister who will have charge of this new Department of Supply and Development will now be able to set about establishing the organization for which provision is made in this measure, but the freedom of this Parliament to deal with the Government’s proposals is unimpaired.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time allotted for the postponed clauses and the new clauses has expired.

Heading and new clause agreed to.

New clauses 14b to 14j, and 15a, circulated by the Government - “ 14b. The Governor-General may make regulations providing for the making of arrangements, agreements or contracts for the acquisition, manufacture or assembly of aircraft or parts of aircraft for the Commonwealth. “ 14c. - (1.) For the purposes of this Part, there shall be a Trust Account which shall be known as the Aircraft Trust Account. (2.) An account established in pursuance of this section shall be a Trust Account for the purposes of section sixty-two a of the Audit Act 1901-1934. “14d. There shall be a General Manager of Aircraft Construction (in this Part referred to as ‘the General Manager’) who shall have such powers and perform such duties as are prescribed. “ 14e. - (1.) The General Manager shall be appointed for such term, not exceeding five years, as the Governor-General determines. (2.) If an officer of the Public Service of the Commonwealth is appointed General Manager, the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1933 shall apply as if this Act and section had been specified in the Schedule to that Act. (3.) If an officer of the Public Service of a State is appointed General Manager, he shall have the same rights as if he had been an officer of a Department transferred to the Commonwealth and had been retained in the service of the Commonwealth. (4.) The General Manager shall not, without the approval of the Governor-General, engage in any paid employment other than the duties of his office. “14f. - (1.) The General Manager shall receive such salary as the Governor-General determines. (2.) There shall be paid to the General Manager, on account of his expenses in travelling to discharge the duties of his office, such sums as are considered reasonable by the Governor-General . “14c. - (1.) On the happening of any vacancy in the office of General Manager, the Governor-General shall appoint a person to fill that office. (2.) Any such appointment shall be for the remainder of the term of office or for such shorter period as the Governor-General determines. “14h. In the case of the illness, suspension or absence of the General Manager, the Governor-General may appoint a deputy to act for the General Manager during his illness, suspension or absence’, and every deputy so appointed shall, while so acting, have all the powers and authority of the General Manager. “ 14i. - (1.) The Minister may suspend the General Manager from office for inability, inefficiency or misbehaviour. (2.) The Minister shall, within seven days after the suspension, if the Parliament is then sitting, or if the Parliament is not then sitting, within seven days after the next meeting of the Parliament, cause to be laid before both Houses of the Parliament a full statement of the grounds of suspension, and if within sixty days thereafter an address is presented to the Governor-General by the Senate and the House of Representatives praying for the restoration of the General Manager to office, he shall be restored accordingly; but if no such address is so presented the Governor-General may confirm the suspension and declare the office of the General Manager to be vacant, and the office shall thereupon be and become vacant. “ 14 j. The General Manager shall be deemed to have vacated his office if he -

becomes bankrupt or insolvent, or applies to take the benefit of any Act for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, or compounds with his creditors, or makes an assignment of his salary or remuneration for their benefit;
absents himself from duty for a period of fourteen consecutive days, or for twenty-eight days in any twelve months, without leave granted by the Governor-General;
becomes permanently incapable of performing his duties; or
resigns his office by writing under his hand addressed to the GovernorGeneral.”. “ 15a. Nothing in this Act or the regulationsshall be construed as being in derogation of any requirement of the Tariff Board Act 1921-1934.”.

New clauses agreed to.

Remainder ‘of bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr CURTIN:
Leader of the Opposition · Fremantle

– The Opposition had hoped that many of the proposals which it put forward with the object of making the bill fair, and at the same time workable, would be accepted by the Government. We regret, however, apart altogether from our strictures in regard to the procedure followed, that important amendments which we feel had very great merit, and most certainly were necessary to safeguard the interests of the workers, were rejected by the Government. For that reason, we shall vote against the third reading of the bill.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 36

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.8 to 8 p.m.

page 1093

QUESTION

SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE

Contract for Additions: Royal Commission

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– by leave - Yesterday in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the proposed additions to the Sydney General Post Office, I said -

The possibility of some speedy investigation of the matters raised in relation to the tenders is now being investigated by me. I have had the advantage of some tentative conversations on the subject with the Leaders of the other two parties in this House, and I shall make a statement to-morrow. In the meantime, I assure honorable members that no contract will be signed.

I do not need to tell honorable members that this undertaking was given by me in good faith, and with the intentions that it should he honoured. I was amazed to discover last evening that, in point of fact, the contract in relation to these works was actually signed at about 47.20 yesterday afternoon, after I had made my statement to Parliament.

I at once put in hand inquiries, not only as to what had occurred, but also as to whether the contract had assumed a final and binding form. As to the latter point, I am advised that the contract is complete and binding. As to the former point, the facts as I know them are briefly as follows -

Last week departmental instructions were given by my colleague, the Assistant

Minister (Mr. Perkins) representing the Minister for the Interior, to the effect that no contract was to be signed until the discussions in Parliament in relation to this matter had been concluded. Yesterday morning, my colleague, the Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll), pursuant to my request and a discussion in Cabinet, specifically renewed these instructions. There is, I understand, a difference of view between the Director-General of Works and the Works Director for New South Wales as to whether these instructions, which were undoubtedly received by the DirectorGeneral, were passed on to, or clearly understood by, the Works Director. I offer no opinion as to what the true position is, but I do know that the deplorable fact is that, after I had given my undertaking to this House, that undertaking was violated by the signing of the contract. It may very well be, and indeed there is no reason to doubt, that the whole incident arises either from a confusion of instructions or from some negligence somewhere in the department; but I feel the matter very keenly. I am convinced that, in justice to everybody concerned, the whole affair must be promptly and impartially investigated, and that the questions which had already arisen in Parliament in relation to the acceptance of a tender should at the same time be examined.

Having regard to the nature of the questions involved, I propose that there should he a special committee consisting of three members of the Public Works Committee, together with an architect and a builder, selected as representative of the appropriate federal body in each case, and that such committee shall be invited to inquire into and report upon the circumstances in which a tender was accepted for such additions, and a contract signed in relation thereto.

The successful tenderer, H. G. Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited, has a binding contract obtained in open competition, and not unnaturally insists upon its performance.

I greatly regret what has happened in this matter, but I think that the House will agree that we are taking the right course. It is of the essence of the relations which should exist between a Prime Minister and Parliament that undertakings given by him should be scrupulously observed, or that, where an undertaking is broken, the reasons for such breach should be plainly stated and adequately examined. It is in the interests of the relations which should exist between public departments and those who offer to become contractors with them, that the whole of the circumstances of this case should be impartially examined and publicly reported . upon. It is in that spirit that I will, in due course, propose to the House that the committee of investigation be set up.

Sir Earle Page:

– Will the Prime Minister move that the paper be printed, so that honorable members generally may have an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr MENZIES:

– I have not the slightest objection. I lay on the table the following paper: -

Additions to General Post Office, Sydney - Acceptance of tender and signing of contract - Ministerial statement, and move -

That the paper be printed.

Mr CURTIN:

– Oh, no; because the right honorable gentleman must be aware that last Friday there appeared on the notice-paper a proposal of which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had given notice. I say, with great respect, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has something more than the status of a private member in this House. At the time he tabled his motion he was, in fact, the Acting Leader of the Opposition, because I was away. He gave notice of his motion on this day week, and the motion appeared on the businesspaper last Friday. This House has sat on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, as well as to-day. It will be fresh in the recollection of every honorable member that, last Friday, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Acting Leader of the House (Mr. Hughes) was questioned on this subject, and that on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week the Prime Minister himself was asked what opportunity he proposed to give to the House to discuss the motion. Actually, he has given honorable members no opportunity to do so, but yesterday he said that no contract would be signed, leaving the implication that there would be further references in the House to the subject before a contract was signed.

Mr.Menzies. - I said further, “ The possibility of some speedy investigation of the matters raised in relation to the tenders is now being investigated by me.”

Mr CURTIN:

– That is so, and I do not hold the right honorable gentleman responsible for the fact that there has been this new and startling development. Contrary, not only to the instructions given by the Assistant Minister (Mr. Perkins; last week, but also to the further instructions given by the Minister for the Interior (Senator Poll) yesterday morning, this contract was signed yesterday afternoon about 4.30 o’clock.

Mr Beasley:

– Who signed it?

Mr Menzies:

– The Works Director for New South Wales.

Mr. CURTIN.The presumption is that the Works Director for New South Wales signed the contract. If he did so, he was probably acting on the statement made by the Assistant Minister in this House on Friday, the 26th May, on which occasion that honorable gentleman said -

The contract had not been signed, but the contractor had been informed that his tender had been accepted. It is the intention of the Government to honour its promise to accept the tender.

The Assistant Minister also said -

The Government has entered into a bond with the contractor which it must honour.

He added -

The Government feels that its honour is at stake and that it must sign the contract, after having notified the contractor of the acceptance of his tender.

That, in the opinion of this House, the proposed work of the erection of additions to the General Post Office, Sydney, should be at once referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for early inquiry and report, and, in the meantime, no action should be taken to enter into any contract in relation to this work.

To put it mildly, I was astonished to discover next day that my motion had been placed near the foot of the notice-paper. I fully expected to have an opportunity to submit that motion in order to open the way for a full and frank discussion, which would have demonstrated the wisdom of referring the matter to the Public Works Committee for inquiry and report. I admit that the Prime Minister, was absent on that day - he was taking part in the Wilmot -by-election campaign - but the Acting Leader of the House (Mr. Hughes) stated in reply to a question which I asked : “ I can give to the House the assurance that in whatever position the matter stands at the moment, it will remain in that position until the House next meets, and an opportunity is given to discuss it “. Other honorable members asked questions relating to the matter and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has stated, the Assistant Minister representing the Minister for the Interior made a statement which probably gave an idea to some officials, including the Works Director in New South Wales, that the Government intended that the contract should be signed. The Assistant Minister said -

The Government has entered into a bond with the contractor, that it must honour. Usually eight or tcn days elapse between the making of a decision to accept a tender and the actual signing of the contract. In this matter the Government feels that its honour is at stake and that it must sign the contract, after having notified the contractor of the acceptance of his tender.

He was pressed to give an assurance that the contract would not ‘be signed before the House met again, and honorable members had an opportunity to discuss it, The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) definitely asked for that assurance and, on the motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday, the Assistant Minister gave, with the utmost frankness, the assurance we sought. I expected that the House would be given an opportunity to discuss the question when it first met this week, and when that did not occur, I hoped that the discussion would take place on the following day. In view of the disclosures made to-night by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), that, notwithstanding the assurance given to the Parliament yesterday by the Prime Minister, the contract was signed in Sydney, the matter has taken a more serious turn and I consider that the Leader of the Opposition is now fully justified in pressing for the appointment of a royal commission. My opinion is strengthened by the very definite statements made by the Leader of the Country party (Sir Earle Page), and by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). The honorable member for Barker was one of the Ministers mentioned in the controversy. No accusation was made against him, but no doubt he would be called as a witness if an inquiry were conducted by the Public Works Committee or any other body. . He has stated definitely that he was not prepared to give evidence before a committee of the kind now proposed by the Government. He favours the appointment of a royal commission. If he adopts that attitude, and he is quite justified in doing so, others who are vitally concerned will surely do likewise. I appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the whole matter in the light of the advice that has been tendered by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Country party, and the honorable member for Barker, to appoint a royal commission presided over either by a justice ‘of the High Court of Australia or by a judge of one of the supreme courts. Such an inquiry would meet with the entire satisfaction of everybody. It is important that the persons appointed to the commission should be disinterested. They should not have any axe to grind or be associated with the present tenderers in any way. If an architect is to be appointed, he should he far removed from association with all persons tendering for public works in New South Wales. If the Prime

Minister will give an assurance that he will select such a person we can feel confident that he will give effect to his promise. When the subject of the acceptance of the tender was first introduced by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), it was lightly brushed aside by the Government. We were told that it was a storm in a teacup ; that there was no need for any fuss as it was merely a matter of letting a contract. No charge was made then, but it was asked that the fullest investigation be made by the Public Works Committee. If the Government had acted promptly when I gave notice of my motion the contract would not have been signed. The matter has now gone so far that nothing less than a royal commission, presided over by a justice of the High Court or a judge of a Supreme Court, will satisfy the House.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The most remarkable feature about this matter has been the apparent reluctance of the Government to permit any discussion or inquiry ever since the matter was first raised by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. “Thorby). It has been a change this evening to hear suggestions from the champions of private enterprise among the members of the Government party and the Country party that there may have been underhand dealings in connexion with the letting of the contract.

Mr Menzies:

– May I ask who suggested that underhand methods had been employed?

Mr WARD:

– In the recent discussions, honorable members opposite appeared to be quite certain that the gentlemen who control private enterprise were beyond any suggestion of underhand dealing in connexion with the letting and -acceptance of tenders. I am not satisfied with the undertaking to appoint a committee of inquiry given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). Many .such committees have been appointed by antiLabour governments whenever there has been a suggestion of questionable dealings involving any of their supporters. All of the circumstances in this case are highly suspicious. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that he gave an undertaking which, due to some misunderstanding, had ‘ ‘been violated. If the right honorable gentleman wishes the House to know the facts, - he should make available to it the instructions issued to the Commonwealth DirectorGeneral of Works, or the Works Director in New South Wales. Surely Cabinet Ministers are competent to give a direction which will not be misunderstood. Surely they are able to instruct the Director-General of Works, or the Works Director in New South Wales, either to sign a contract or not to sign a contract. There could be no misunderstanding about the wording of such a direction. Yet the Prime Minister wants intelligent members of this House to believe that the Government has nothing to hide. The very committee which he has suggested would be a loaded committee. Its constitution would be such that it would inevitably bring in the kind of report that the Government wanted. Judging by the reports that have been submitted by committees of inquiry appointed by anti-Labour governments, the only question that those committees have ever inquired into has been the size of the brush needed to whitewash the people concerned in shady dealings. The alacrity with which the contract under discussion was signed after members of the Opposition had asked for an inquiry gives rise to keen suspicion. Fancy the Prime Minister and . one of his responsible Ministers having the audacity to assure this House that they gave instructions, either to the Director-General of Works or to the Works Director in New South Wales, that the contract was not to be signed, and then to inform the House that, due to some misunderstanding, the contract had been signed. Failing the presentation of more substantial evidence to the contrary, I feel that somebody had a particular interest in ensuring that the contract was signed before this House had an opportunity to discuss it. Why does the Prime Minister require an architect upon the proposed committee of inquiry? Is that architect to inquire into the form of construction most acceptable to the Government? That is not the question which needs investigation at this stage. Why also does the Prime Minister want a master builder to be appointed to the committee? One of the master builders involved in the dispute over the acceptance of this tender has already been connected with a dispute with the brick combine in New South Wales over another matter, and it is quite possible that the master builder who would be selected by the Government as a member of the committee would be one whose views were already known to it. There is no justification for the appointment of a master builder or an architect to the proposed* committee, and should a committee of this House be appointed, there would be no justification for the Government to have a majority representation, because the Government is amongst those who are involved in this case. If an impartial committee is appointed a majority of its members must represent the party which is not involved in the dispute - the Labour party. The appointment of any other kind of committee would be a waste of time, because it would only conduct a prolonged inquiry, and finally submit a report in which the Minister and the Commonwealth DirectorGeneral of Works and the Works Director in New South Wales would be exonerated. I can anticipate the substance of such a report. It would be to the effect that the whole matter was regrettable, that the contract was signed after the Prime Minister had given an undertaking to the House that it would not be signed, that nobody was to blame and that the whole thing was the result of a misunderstanding. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is very difficult where money-bags are concerned to secure an impartial inquiry. If a High Court justice were appointed to preside oyer a public inquiry, and those who were involved had the right to appoint counsel and anybody was at liberty to give evidence, it is possible that at least some of the truth would be brought to light. Honorable members should not be satisfied with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. We want something more than he has offered us.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

– I was astounded to learn this afternoon that the contract, which has been discussed in* this House on several occasions since I raised it on a formal motion for adjournment, had been signed. I do not wish to recapitulate those points which have been dis cussed already, but I say emphatically, as one who approved of the previous contract, that the only course open to the Government is to appoint the highest tribunal possible to investigate all aspects of this matter. I strongly urge the Government to give an assurance that it will appoint a royal commission because, undoubtedly, the signing of the contract has changed the whole position. If necessary, the House should be adjourned now to give the Government an opportunity to consider its own position, and to prepare the terms of reference for the commission, so that they could be considered by Parliament as soon as possible. We have had one illustration already of the trouble that can be caused by delay. It is unprecedented for Parliament to receive an assurance from a Prime Minister, and then to learn that it has not been honoured. I do not blame the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in this respect. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Prime Minister dishonoured his promise to Parliament; but as the contract has now been signed, there is no doubt that Parliament has been ignored. In view of the knowledge I have of the transactions from when it was first decided to construct additions to the General Post Office in Sydney up to the present, I believe that there is every justification for the appointment of a royal commission. I make an earnest appeal to the right honorable gentleman to give the House an assurance now that a royal commission will be appointed and that before the’ House adjourns to-night, before there is any further misunderstanding or damage done, the terms of reference to the commission will be announced. I am not prepared to accept the signing of the contract as the end of the matter.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.- It seems extraordinary that a contract involving an expenditure of over £400,000 could be signed by the Director of Works in Sydney practically without any documents to show that he had been instructed to do so. I am not particularly concerned about an investigation of whether the proposed new building should be faced with terra cotta or sandstone; the dispute has gone far beyond that. It seems to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) himself has a grave responsibility in this matter, irrespective of whether an inquiry be held or not. If an investigation be made by anybody other than one having the powers of a royal commission, it will probably prove a white-washing inquiry. I have a vivid recollection of certain charges made by the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) years ago, when he secured the appointment of a royal commission; but the terms of reference made it impossible for the right honorable gentleman to bring out the facts to which attention should have been directed. It is well-known that royal commissions frequently make long investigations, and that ‘ no practical results are obtained from them. Is an inquiry to be held on every occasion when a public servant lets a government down ? The Prime Minister should have stood up to his own responsibility in this matter, and should ‘have put the Director-General of Works and the Director of Works in Sydney through their paces. He has had opportunities to institute more inquiries than appeal- to have been made up to the present time.

Mr Menzies:

– Does the honorable member think that I should have acted both as judge and executioner?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– When the contract was signed contrary to his instructions, the right honorable gentleman should have taken immediate action. I do not say that he should have summarily dismissed any officer, but he should have satisfied himself whether the course that was adopted was due to a misunderstanding.

We have been told to-night by the Prime Minister that he has been let down with regard to a solemn undertaking given by him to this Parliament, after representations had been made on the matter by the Opposition aud the Country party. I have no doubt that he intended to make good his promise, but somebody has disregarded his instructions. If corruption or patronage be suspected with regard to the tenders for this work, I agree that the matter might well be investigated by a royal commission, but such an inquiry is not justified merely to find out whether one public servant conveyed instructions to another. If these officers have not discharged their duty, the Prime Minister should deal with them. I have not much respect for some of the methods of private enterprise, but I am certain that in circumstances similar to those now under discussion private firms would not go to the expense of long inquiries.

According to the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), certain .members of the Government are merely rubber stamps for public servants. If the practice disclosed to-night may be taken as a sample of the administrative methods of the Government, those Ministers will continue to ‘be rubber stamps. In other countries many books have been written showing that responsible government is degenerating to a bureaucracy of higher paid public servants, and that parliamentary control is being whittled away. If a royal commission is to be appointed to deal with the matter under discussion, it should investigate governmental administration -generally, and ascertain to what extent public servants follow the directions of Ministers.

Mr Brennan:

– I blame the Ministers.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– So do I. In this instance, public servants have deliberately let the Prime Minister down. He has been placed in the embarrassing position of having given to this Parliament an undertaking which has not been honoured. Frankly, I consider that this is a matter with which the Prime Minister himself should deal. He should not establish any investigating body in order to evade his own responsibility. The right honorable gentleman told us to-night that an instruction had been given to the DirectorGeneral of Works at Canberra that he was to tell the Director of Works in Sydney not to sign a contract involving an expenditure of over £400,000. I submit that a contract of that magnitude should not be valid unless signed by a Minister. In this instance, tie matter was finalized by means of telephone conversations, of which there is no record. Instead of a telephone conversation, a telegram should have been despatched, and this should have been followed up immediately by a letter. Communications of this kind can be traced. It may be necessary for a royal commission, or some judicial body, to’ inquire whether a contract was cancelled and another tender was accepted, because one contractor was able to obtain material a couple of thousand pounds cheaper than another ; but the flouting of instructions given to public servants is a matter which should be dealt with by the Prime Minister himself.

I understand that the right honorable gentleman proposes to appoint a tribunal consisting of three members of the Works Committee, and also an architect and a builder. The main question that should be considered is “Who is responsible for letting the Prime Minister down”? I take it that one member of the Works Committee would be selected from the United Australia party, one from the Country party, and the third from the Labour party, or there might be two members from the Government side and one from the Opposition. I submit that this would not be the kind of committee which should investigate a matter of such importance as that under consideration, and further, that such a committee would necessarily bring in a recommendation on party lines. Certain facts which ought to be divulged might be suppressed Therefore, a most searching inquiry should be made by a royal commission having the widest possible terms of reference.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I appreciate the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to clear this matter up by the appointment of a committee, which course was agreed to by the leaders of the Country and Labour parties, after consultation with him. I now hope that they have changed their minds with regard to this matter, in view of the information that the contract was signed contrary to the instructions of the Government. The Prime Minister should now exercise his own1 discretion as to the kind of inquiry that should be made, but it is essential that the whole of the facts should be thoroughly investigated. Some time ago, when I introduced the subject of the proposed additions to the Sydney General Post Office, very little interest was evinced by honorable members. Although a discussion has taken place over a difference of £1,451 between two tenders, the main issue is the expenditure of £1,250,000, which the whole of the work will involve. I repeat that we are chiefly concerned, not as to the kind of stone with which the building is to be faced, but as to the dismantling of the present edifice and the construction of a new one. I trust that any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the signing of the contract will embrace not only the difference in value between terra cotta and sandstone, but also the necessity to demolish the present building, which has cost the Government £300,000, and construct a new one at a cost of over £400,000, on the site on which .it now stands. Despite the fact that the existing building would meet the requirements of thu Postmaster-General’s Department, this expenditure is to be incurred at a time when it is said that small country post offices and other postal facilities cannot be provided because the necessary money is not available. The only reason given by the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs for the demolition of the acquired building, is that it is not of sufficiently strong construction to carry the weight of the postal sorting machinery to be installed in it. That ‘ is the thinnest of excuses for the demolition of this beautiful six-story building in Pitt-street. My rejoinder is that the tonnage carried in it by the wholesale hardware firm from which it was purchased was probably far in excess of what is proposed to be placed in it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is going far beyond the statement made by the Prime Minister and the proposed inquiry.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– The House is discussing the submission of the matter to some tribunal, whatever may be its composition. I suggest that the inquiry should embrace not only the difference in cost between one facing material and another, which is only £1,451, but also the reason for increasing the expenditure already incurred on the purchase of the site to a total of £1,250,000 by the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new one, instead of utilizing the present building for postal purposes.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- Having participated in the debate which took place on this matter last week - I was speaking upon it when the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) entered the chamber - I take this opportunity again’ to express my view. Every honorable member will realize that the Prime Minister must feel very keenly the position in which both he and his Government are placed. While searching for some individual or individuals to be made a scapegoat or scapegoats, the right honorable gentleman must examine his own responsibility and that of his Government in respect of the position that has arisen.

When the debate took place last week on a motion by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), the Postmaster-General (Mr. Harrison), in defending the present Government’s reversal of the original decision, poured scorn on his predecessor for having overridden departmental opinion. What should now concern the Prime Minister and his Ministers is the length to which they propose to pursue the policy of examining and reversing acts of their predecessors because they hold different political beliefs.

Mr Menzies:

– That, of course, is utter nonsense.

Mr ANTHONY:

– It is a fact; that is proved by what has occurred. There was only one point at issue in the debate last week. It was, not whether the Sydney General Post Office should bo faced with sandstone or terra cotta, but why the lowest tender in a suitable material was not accepted. If sandstone was not a suitable material, why did the Department for the Interior call for tenders for a building faced with that material?

Mr Menzies:

– I understood that it called for alternative tenders.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Alternative tenders were invited, for the obvious reason that it was desired that the lowest tender in the most suitable material should beobtained; and the lowest tender submitted for all classes of material was that- accepted by the Minister for Works at the time. What we now want to know is how it has been possible for the word of .the Prime Minister, given in this House yesterday, to be disregarded. All of us agree that the right honorable gentleman was sincere in his determination that this contract should not be signed ; yet in spite of the fact that he is the head of the Government of Australia, the contract was signed in defiance of his undertaking.

On Wednesday of last week the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior gave an assurance in the House that the contract would not be -signed at least before the following Tuesday. Therefore, that instruction must have been given. Yet the contract was signed yesterday. Who gave the second instruction ? That is a very pertinent question. If the matter is to be referred to a royal commission, the issue should be, not whether the building ought to be faced with sandstone or terra cotta, but in what manner is the administration of this country being conducted - what authority have Ministers over their departments, and how effectively are they exercising control. -Those are the matters which a royal commission should probe, not a matter that has gone beyond recall. No wrong would be rectified by inquiring whether or not the proposed building ought to be faced with sandstone or terra cotta, or whether John Grant and Sons Proprietary Limited or some-other firm has not done the right thing, unless the Government is prepared to introduce an act to cancel the contract that has been signed, and hold itself responsible for the payment of any compensation. We must remember that this contract is not one for extensions to a small bush post office at a cost of about £50; it is one of the largest works being undertaken in Australia “at the present time. We are told - with every apology and regret, I agree - that unfortunately, the instruction not to sign the contract went astray, and that, inadvertently some officer signed it. In view of the publicity that has been given to the matter, not only in this Parliament, but also in every newspaper in Australia, and because the Government allowed the matter to drift as though it were a contract for the extension of a small out back post office at a cost of £50, instead of making absolutely certain that the contract would not be signed, the question to which the Prime Minister must apply himself is - what redress is open to this Parliament; how is justice to be done? Whilst I have every sympathy - and I think that every honorable member must have - for the Prime Minister in the position in which he has been placed, it nevertheless is his duty and responsibility to the country and this Parliament to see that during the tenure of office of . his government, and, if possible, of any future government, nothing of this sort can again occur.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– in reply - It has been suggested by two of the last three speakers that a responsibility is placed upon the Prime Minister in this matter. Insofar as they refer to a responsibility imposed upon me politically, of course, that is true. I have a political responsibility for any error into which my government or any member of it may fall. I have also a political responsibility for any error into which those who are responsible to any of my Ministers may fall. I do not seek to avoid it. Further, I have a personal responsibility to see that undertakings which I give to this House are carried out. It is because I know that, that I made to-night what I think all honorable members will admit was a full statement as to what had occurred. But another kind of responsibility was suggested by the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini). He rather discounted the idea of an impartial inquiry, and said, in effect, that if I were any sort of a Prime Minister I would deal with the officials who had been guilty of error. Let me say right away, Mr. Speaker, that if members of the Public Service, as individuals, are to be accused of any fault, their judges arc not to be their temporary political masters. Every public servant has a perfect right to an examination of any charge that is made against him, and so far as I am concerned he will continue to have that right. I am not going to sit in judgment on officials, and I certainly am not going to arrogate to myself the right to say to Jones, Brown or Robinson, “ You have let me down ; I dismiss youfromthePublicServiceofthis country That would be an intolerable position.

In this case we have had a remarkable series of events. When I fifst heard of the discussion about the’ Sydney General Post Office, I understood that it involved the one question as to whether the new building should be faced with sandstone of with terra cotta. My personal view of that- if it be of the faintest interest to honorable members - is that I like sandstone, and detest terra cotta. Consequently, ifI had had to decide the matter I have no doubt that I should have made exactly the same decision as I understand was made by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby). But that is a matter of personal taste, Subsequently, after my government had taken office, my colleague the Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll) decided, on what seemed . to him to be good advice, that the appropriate material for the facing of the building was terra cotta. Let me remind honorable members - because a certain degree of murk has blown across this landscape - that the tender accepted by him was the lowest tender received for a building faced with terra cotta. The previous Minister - I think wisely -had decidedthat alternative tenders should be called, in order that he might discover the lowest prices for a building faced with either terra cotta or sandstone.

Mr Frost:

– Did hot the present Minister for the Interior agree to sandstone in the first place”?

Mr MENZIES:

– I understand that at first he was of the same opinion as I am - although he did nol discuss the subject with me, and in anycase it was not my business -but subsequently, when experts and the post-officeauthorities represented strongly that terra cotta was the better material, he fell in with that view. But I do not wantto go back over all that; I merely refer to itbecause it appears to be the starting point of this controversy. Then the adjournment of the House was movedtodiscussthismatter, and a debate ensued. Subsequently - I think it was the following day- the Deputy Leader of the Opposition(Mr.

Forde’) introduced a motion that the matter should be referred,not to a royal commission let me remind honorable members,buttothePublicWorks Committee.

Mr Frost:

– At that time, the contract had n6t been signed.

Mr MENZIES:

– I know that. The fa6t remains that his motion was that the matter of these tenders and the man ner in which they were’ dealt with should be referred to the Public Works Committee”.

Mr Forde:

– Circumstances have altered since then.

Mr MENZIES:

Mr MENZIES:

– That is a matter we shall have to consider further.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1114

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL 1939

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th May (vide page 312), on motion by Mr. Street -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adjourned.

page 1114

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1939

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 31st May, (vide page 996), on motion by Mr. Spender. -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr.CURTIN (Fremantle - Leader of the Opposition) [10.13].- The Opposition is agreeable to the passage of this bill. The Government is adopting the routine procedure for replenishing the trust fund out of which invalid and oldage pensions are payable each year. The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) stated last night, in introducing the bill, that the amount of money now in the trust fund would not be sufficient to pay all the pensions that would fall due during July. The amount of the proposed appropriation is larger on this occasion than it has been in recent years, which is due to the fact that invalid and old-age pensions are costing more each year. The practice of paying” this money into a trust fund was adopted years ago in order to meet a certain constitutional obligation to refund surplus revenue to the States. Had it not been for the adoption of this device it is questionable whether invalid and old-age pensions could have been provided so early in the history of federation. Certain objection has been raised from time to time in different States to the use of the trust fund device, in connexion with different recurring Commonwealth payments. For myself, I have never been able to agree with that criticism. This procedure is, in my opinion, both proper and convenient. Had it not Been adopted legislative difficulties would have been experienced by this Parliament. Unfortunately, it is not permissible, in dealing with this bill, to discuss the conditions under which pensions are payable. Otherwise honorable members would doubtless take the opportunity to do so. The Opposition is in sympathy with the proposal to appropriate this money.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Leader of the Country party · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

.- Ordinarily I should not rise to speak on a non-contentious bill of this character. I do so on this occasion because of the circumstances in which the bill was introduced. I have found, from long experience, that it is wise on the part of the Government to consult the leaders of the other parties in the House concerning the order in which bills will be submitted. “We had no intimation at, all that the Government proposed to present this bill when it did. I suggest to the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) that it would be reasonable and, indeed, courteous, as well as being in accord with the traditions and practice of this House, for the Government to give some intimation to party leaders of the business which it proposes to introduce from time to time. If it does so, it will find that its business will have a smoother passage through the House.’

The procedure being adopted in regard to the replenishing of the invalid and old-age pensions trust fund was devised originally to ensure that the Commonwealth Government would not have surplus money available in the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the end of each financial year, and thus be obliged to distribute it to the States. The. provision of trust funds is the only way in which the Commonwealth can deal effectively with such a matter as the payment of invalid and old-age pensions in respect of which it is not practicable to balance accounts every year. So that there may be continuity of operations, it is desirable that the trust fund method be continued. I support the bill.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- An inference that must be drawn from the fact that the Government is not proposing that a larger appropriation be made for the purposes of invalid and oldage pensions is that it has no intention, in the near future, to increase the rate of pension. Had it any such thought in mind, it would obviously have suggested that a larger sum be appropriated. I believe that the appropriation of the amount proposed will not fully satisfy the people of this community in general, or the invalid and old-age pensioners in particular. Some move should be made to increase pensions in accordance with the increased cost of commodities. Undoubtedly the cost of living has increased since the rate of pension was fixed at £1 a week. Seeing that many millions of pounds is being expended by the Government in certain other directions, the Parliament should not hesitate to request that an increase be made of the rate of invalid and old-age pensions. Our pensioners should not be expected to subsist on the small amount at present being paid to them.

– Order ! I cannot allow debate on these lines. The honorable member must not argue with the Chair. The position is well understood by all honorable members.

Mr.Brennan. - It is not understood by me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr.Brennan. - I deny that it is understood by me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Batman is out of order.

Mr.Brennan. - I rise to a point of order. You, Mr. Speaker, attributed something to me, and 1 deny.it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I said that the honorable member’s interjection was disorderly.

Mr Brennan:

– You stated that every honorable member in this House - that includes me - is well aware that the rate of pension may not be discussed under this bill. I do not understand that, and I believe that your ruling is incorrect.

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Pollard:

– The Standing Orders are wrongly interpreted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honorable member holds that view it is open to him to move that the ruling of the

Chair be disagreed with; but it is distinctly out of order for honorable members to argue with the Chair.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think, with the utmost respect, that it is a mistaken one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Honorable members have behaved in a’ most extraordinary manner. I point out to those honorable members who have disputed my ruling that their own leader, without any intervention on the part of the Chair, did not attempt to deal with the matters which they are attempting to discuss, because he knew he would not be in order in doing so.

Mr Pollard:

– I move -

That the ruling of the honorable the Speaker - that rates of pensions and other matters involved in the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of £15,000,000 for invalid and old-age pensions may not be discussed on the motion for the second reading of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Appropriation Bill - be disagreed with.

Assistant Treasurer contemplate to replenish the account? In the past trust accounts have been overspent, and that has been used as an excuse for the imposition of extra taxes to make up the deficit. I suggest that this appropriation should be increased from £15,000,000 to £16,000,000, so that when honorable members have the opportunity for a wide discussion on the shortcomings of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act they may be able to tug at the Assistant Treasurer’s heart-strings and cause him to liberalize the act. The bottom would be knocked out of the trust account if the .act were liberalized, unless it contained more funds than this bill appropriates. In the short space of time in which the Assistant Treasurer has been in office he has shown himself to be sympathetic in respect of pensions. Let us hope that when he deals with the legislation which depends on this appropriation he will translate his sympathetic outlook into sympathetic action.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have allowed the honorable gentleman a great deal of latitude.

Mr FORDE:

– I do not wish to transgress the Chair’s ruling, but I want the Minister to consider at this juncture the advisability of increasing the appropriation by £1,000,000 so that the trust account will be ‘able at a future date to meet all contingencies, thus avoiding the possibility of the Assistant Treasurer having to come to Parliament cap in hand for more funds to meet the needs of the invalid and old-age pensioners. If the hour were not so late I should speak at much greater length and probably induce the Assistant Treasurer to increase the appropriation in order to enable the Government to be more generous and restore pensions to those thousands of invalid pensioners who have been removed from the pensions list.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member will resume his seat. I ask the honorable gentleman not to behave as he is doing. He has tried every means that he has considered to be at Ms disposal to evade the ruling of the Chair.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

. I object to this class of legislation, “which puts the cart before the horse, by approbating money for twelve months before the budget is introduced. This procedure stultifies honorable gentlemen, because when the budget is brought down and honorable members have the opportunity, which is denied to them on this bill by the Standing Orders, to move for greater consideration to be given to the invalid and old-age pensioners who are affected by it, the Government counters such moves by a declaration that insufficient money has been appropriated and that nothing can be done. The Treasury has sufficient money in the fund at the moment for the payment of pensions until the budget is brought down, and an opportunity is afforded to discuss the matter fully on the Estimates. That was the procedure when I first entered this Parliament, but apparently it has been varied in an endeavour to avoid embarrassing criticism. The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) said nothing to indicate whether the £15,000,000 which is to be appropriated will be adequate. He gave no indication of the extent to which demands on the fund might be increased because of an increase of the number of pensioners. What does he propose to do if £15,000,000 should be not sufficient? Will applicants, in all respects qualified for a pension, be refused one because not enough money has been appropriated? I do not think that £15.000,000 will be enough to meet all demands during the next twelve months, and the Assistant Treasurer would be well advised to increase the amount by £2,000,000, or perhaps £3,000,000. There seems to be no shortage of money for other things, so let us make sure that there will be no shortage for this. The Government is cutting its estimate very fine, like a shopkeeper weighing out a pound of sugar to just the turn of the scales. The Government is hoping to get away with it, but we should not expose the pensioners to such a risk. The Assistant Treasurer has not cited any statistics to show what is the anticipated increase of the number of pensioners that may be expected during the next twelve months. We know that, with so many men on relief work, a high percentage will break down in health, and come on the pensions fund. Moreover, there is an increasing tendency, in industry to dismiss the older men, and these also will become applicants for pensions. No account of these factors was taken by the Treasurer. He simply looked at the figures, and saw that £15,000,000 was appropriated for the year ended the 30th June, 1939, and fixed the same amount for the year ended the 30th June, 1940. It is probable, however, that the amount will not be sufficient and, in view of the dire distress that might be caused by a failure of the pensions fund, we should take steps now to increase the amount of the appropriation.

Mr SPENDER:
Assistant Treasurer · Warringah · UAP

– in reply - Notwithstanding the invitation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), I do not propose to address myself to anything beyond the terms of the bill, which provides that a certain sum of money shall be appropriated for the purpose of a trust fund established under the Audit Act. The usual amount is £15,000,000, which is paid into the trust fund. If that amount becomes exhausted, a further amount can be paid in to meet pension liabilities. I am now concerned only with the question of whether or not the appropriation shall be made. There is enough in the trust account now to meet payments until the 30th June, 1939.

Mr Brennan:

– At what rate?

Mr SPENDER:

– I am not concerned with the rate. In any case, the honorable member knows the rate well enough. I am concerned only that this appropriation shall be made by Parliament, and ho reason has been advanced why it should not.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- Although this is an appropriation bill its title is quite inappropriate. -It is obligatory upon the committee to consider the purpose for which the money is being appropriated, and in so doing we should be able to discuss the pensions generally.

The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) endeavoured to show that the amount to be appropriated is insufficient owing to the fact that many persons entitled to pensions are not receiving them. Unfortunately, he was not permitted to state his case owing to what we consider an arbitrary and incorrect ruling.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse.)The honorable member must confine his remarks to the title of the bill.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I was submitting reasons why the title is unsuitable. Its title should be “ The Invalid and Old-age Pensions Appropriation Act 1939, the purpose of which may not be discussed in the House or in committee.”

That the honorable member for Ballarat be further heard.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. H. Prowse.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the negative.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I do not feel encouraged by recent events to trespass with a long speech. I content myself by saying that what I previously said in regard, to the date on which this measure should receive the Royal assent is in no sense to be taken as a personal reference to Royalty or to the GovernorGeneral, but is based entirely upon my interest in the purpose for which money is to be appropriated. Inasmuch as I felt that that purpose should be disclosed and fully discussed-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Neither the purpose nor the amount affects the giving of the Royal assent to this bill.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Very well, sir, I shall not challenge that ruling, but merely say that my reasons for thinking that the giving of the Royal assent should be postponed are as stated.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Appropriation of £15,000,000 for invalid and old-age pensions).

Mr CURTIN:
Leader of the Opposition · Fremantle

– This clause proposes that there shall be appropriated for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions the sum of £15,000,000. That means that into the trust fund is to be paid now the whole of the moneys which will be required for the purposes of invalid and old-age pensions expenditure as drawn from the trust fund during the financial year 1939-40. By asking the committee to adopt clause 3 in its present form, the Government is really asking the Parliament at this stage to vote the entire provision of this trust fund for twelve months. I know that this has been done in previous years, but I submit that it is a practice which ought not to be continued. The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) has told us that there is enough money in the trust fund at present to pay invalid and old-age pensions until the 30th June.

SirHenryGullett. - Merely a few weeks.

Mr.CURTIN. - I agree that it is necessary to vote from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the trust fund sufficient money to meet the requirements of the trust fund for the first three months of next financial year, but what is being done under this clause in connexion with the invalid and old-age pensions trust fund is entirely different from what is being done with every other item of expenditure. In respect of the next financial year, the Government will ask for Supply for a period of from one to three months, as its discretion suggests; it will be for only such period as will be necessary to enable the budget to be submitted to this Parliament and dealt with. I agree that it is necessary to ask for Supply for the maternity allowance and for other purposes of government expenditure until the budgetis passed, but I submit that provision for the invalid and old-age pensions trust fund should be of like duration to that which is contained in the Supply - that is, an interim provision to carry on His Majesty’s Government until the budget is passed. This practice of voting the whole of the requirements, or the presumed requirements, for the ensuing financial year postulates that invalid and old-age pensions are not to be reviewable in the budget of the next financial year. I do not propose to move an amendment, but I suggest to the Assistant Treasurer that the course which has been followed in previous years ought not be followed any longer. I agree that the Treasurer must have money in the trust fund for July and August, and probably for September also. Under another measure which he will ask this Parliament to pass he will need to get Supply, probably for July. August and September. All of the various aspects of government expenditure in the next financial year will be covered for the whole period of the year in the budget, and, therefore, the principle of voting a provisional amount until the budget is brought down is a practice which Parliament must adopt. I cannot see any reason why the principle of three months’ provision is not as sound in respect of pensions as it is in respect of other items of government expenditure.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1124

ADJOURNMENT

Treatmentof Naval Ratings

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– There is some doubt as to the interpretation of naval regulations dealing with naval ratings. During the last two or three months men have protested to me against the harsh treatment meted out to them. One of them had served for fourteen years and another for over twelve years. The latter completed twelve years’ service with an unblemished record, both as to conduct and ability, but subsequently, on two or three occasions he was found guilty of misdemeanours, and finally was dismissed from the navy. Under the regulations dealing with deferred pay, the Naval Board confiscated the whole of his deferred pay in respect of the period for which he actually served. I submit that that is harsh treatment. The men certainly regard it as such. They claim, too, that they are punished in other ways, such as by having their leave curtailed, or their badges withdrawn. The latter punishment means that their pay is reduced by 3d. , a day, and that they are virtually treated as prisoners on board ship. The naval rating to whom I have referred had had twelve years’ satisfactory service in the navy and was entitled to £160 deferred pay. When I inquired about his case from the secretary of the Naval Board,

I was received, as usual, with every courtesy, but was told that the interpretation of the regulations was not clear. I have tried to-day, with the assistance of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), to ascertain the real intention of the last amendment of the regulations in relation to deferred pay. My impression is that the secretary of the board felt that it was mandatory for the board to refuse any deferred pay in such circumstances. The honorable member for Bourke and I formed the opinion, however, that the board could pay the whole or any part of the deferred pay, or could confiscate it all according to the circumstances of the case. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to these representations.

The second case to which I direct attention concerns a man who had served fourteen years in the Navy, during which period his conduct had been exemplary. Whale his boat was in Hobart about six months ago, he committed an offence on shore which brought the navy into a measure of disrepute. It was decided that he should be tried by the Civil Court in Hobart. He took the advice of the police and did not defend the case. The magistrate fined him £10, which does not suggest that the offence was so serious as was suggested. When he went back on board he was deprived of his stripes, and also lost ls. 9d. a day for the remainder of the period he had to serve, which was about six months, so that he lost more than £12. This penalty was additional to and greater than that imposed upon him by the magistrate. Further, he was allowed only one day’s leave a month instead of four as formerly, so he considered that he was practically a prisoner on board. He was, in fact, punished twice for the one offence. I ask the Minister to look into his case.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · Corangamite · UAP

– As the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has admitted that both he and the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) found it difficult to interpret the naval regulations in regard to this matter, I am sure he will not expect me to give him a considered reply at once. If he will give me the names of the two individuals concerned, I shall make full inquiries into their cases.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I direct the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) to two cases in which 1” consider unsatisfactory and contradictory decisions were made by the Naval Board. In one case, the wife of a naval rating applied for the retirement of her husband on the ground of the illhealth of both herself and her husband. After due consideration, the board replied that it could not’ see its way clear to retire the man. The other case relates to Mr. Raymond Gerald .Baker, of 21 Montague-road, Cremorne, who was discharged from the navy on the 20 th October last, at which time he had completed nineteen years of satisfactory service. He applied for an extension of his period of service but, although he had an unblemished record, the board stated that it was unable to approve of an extension of his engagement. Recently I have read in the press that the navy is finding it difficult to obtain sufficient competent instructors for new recruits. It seems to me very strange, therefore, that the board should decline to extend the period of service of a man who, admittedly, had rendered excellent service for nineteen years and who was in excellent health. The replies which the board gives to requests made to it are almost always unsatisfactory in that no reasons whatever are given for its decisions. I wish to know through the Minister how the board justifies the refusal to release one man who is in ill-health, and yet declines to extend the period of service of another individual whose record has been completely satisfactory. In the case of the first man it has been suggested that the board will not release him because he is a good bandsman. Does the navy require good1 bandsmen more than it requires competent petty officers to train new recruits? I ask the Minister to provide me with a more satisfactory reply to the representations made in these cases than that contained in the stereotyped letters that have been received.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1125

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &e. - No. 12 of 1939 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

House adjourned .at 11.48 p.m.

page 1125

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated : -

Manufacture of Motor Cars

Mr Price:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

e asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What progress has been made in connexion with the various proposals submitted to the. Government for the manufacture of motor cars in Australia?
How many such proposals were received by the Government?
Has the Government examined a proposal which was submitted for some form of excise duty based upon licence for the manufacture of a specific kind, for incorporation in a chassis of Australian manufacture?
Could such a proposal be carried out under section 34 of the Excise Act?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. The proposals submitted are still under consideration.

A proposal of this nature has been received.
It is not the practice to express an opinion on points of law in answer to questions.

Repatriation : Aborigines

Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

Did any Australian aborigines enlist for service overseas with the Australian Expeditionary Forces?
If so, and in view of the fact that these men suffered the same privations and misfortunes of war as others, will he inform the House if they are entitled to, or receive, pensions and benefits under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act?

Mr Harrison:
UAP

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

Yes.
Yes.

Canberra

Dr Maloney:

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

Willbe inform the House of the total cost of Canberra, as far as possible to date, showing the following items: - Land resumption, engineering works, architectural works, buildings, maintenance and administration, losses (if any) on hotels, receipts from any services and taxation, and interest charged on any debt?
Will he give details of the losses on the various hotels?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The information is being obtained.

Public Works

Mr Price:

e asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What is the total amount of money made available for this financial year for (a) new works, (b) repairs, and (c) maintenance?
How many of these works were to cost £25,000 and over?
What are the particular works costing £25,000 and over?
What amount has already been spent on (a) new works, (b) repairs, and (c) maintenance, for this financial year?

Mr Menzies:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Pensions: Explanatory Handbook

Mr Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

r asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the pensions branch has ceased to distribute the handbook explaining pensions legislation?
If so, is it due to the fact that supplies are exhausted or that the department has decided to discontinue their distribution ?
Willhe see that new and revised editions will bo procured for distribution in order to assist pensioners to understand the main points of old-age and invalid pension legislation ?

Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

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

No.
Supplies of the last edition of the hand- book are available on request to the Commissioner of Pensions, Canberra, or his deputies in the various States.
The handbook is now in course of revision, and supplies of the revised edition will be available at an early date.

Commonwealth Loans: Evasion of Income Tax.

Mr Menzies:
UAP

s. - On the 30th May, the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked me the following question, without notice: -

If the practice of issuing bearer bonds in connexion with Commonwealth loans is continued, as indicated in current advertisements, will the Treasurer take the necessary steps to protect the Commissioner of Taxation against evasions of income tax on the part of any investors in these loans?

I have, as promised, obtained information from my departmental advisers in connexion with this matter, and am satisfied that no special action on my part is necessary to protect the Commissioner of Taxation in the manner indicated.

Special staffs of the Taxation Department are continuously engaged in the detection of evasion in this and other directions. It is likely that to divulge completely the methods of the department in this connexion would defeat the aim of the honorable member’s question as this would tend to place prospective defaulters on their guard against those methods of detection which might be disclosed. However, as indicative of the steps taken to see that all Commonwealth loan interest which should be included in returns is included, it may be mentioned, that after the conversion and consolidation of Commonwealth loans was completed in 1931, the department conducted a most comprehensive examination of the matter, and was able to trace effectively into the hands of bond-holders interest derived by them from the bonds.

Activities of a similar nature are continually in progress, and it is considered that all that can reasonably be done to prevent evasion of this nature is now being done.

It will be recognized that a large amount of interest on these bonds, apart from those held in very large quantities, is received by persons outside the Commonwealth taxable field because their total income, after making all the deductions permitted by the law, does not amount to the statutory exemption, viz., £250.

Old-age Pensions.

Mr Menzies:
UAP

– On the 30th May, the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) asked the following question, without notice: -

In view of the decision of the department to start paying old-age pensions in congested areas at 8.30 a.m., will the Treasurer take steps to have the staffs at the post offices increased so as to avoid inconvenience to pensioners and public alike?

I am advised that no general arrangement has been made by the Postal Department for payment of pensions in New South Wales at S.30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m.

It has been ascertained that in a few individual cases, however, payment is commenced at 8.30 a.m. by the Postal Department in order to relieve early morning congestion. So far, payments at 8.30 a.m. have been limited to four paying offices in Sydney and the metropolitan area. In these offices adequate staffing arrangements have been made to avoid inconvenience or delay both to the public and the pensioners.

Royal AustralianNavy: Punishment of Steward - Appointments.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has he perused an article which appeared in the Melbourne press recently in which it was alleged that a steward in a Royal Australian Naval Depot received fourteen days No. 11a punishment for failing to lay out an officer’s pyjamas?
Does he approve of such harsh treatment being meted out to naval ratings, and is it a fact that such happenings are causing a great deal of discontent among the men of the Royal Australian Navy?
Is it a fact that these repugnant disciplinary methods were introduced by British naval officers on loan to the Australian fleet?
Will he take immediate action to see that such disciplinary methods arc not continued in the Royal Australian Navy, and will he advise the British officers concerned that Australian naval ratings are not prepared to endure the conditions that they apparently desire to impose?

Mr Street:
UAP

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

No, but if the honorable member will furnish the name and date of the paper in which the article appeared, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated. 2, 3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.

Mr Street:
UAP

t. - On the 30th May, the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) asked the following question, without notice: -

Will the Minister for Defence assist me to understand a communication which he has addressed to me? Why is it that an officer who served in the Royal Australian Navy as a cadet midshipman, and therefore a very junior officer, whose appointment was terminated owing to unsatisfactory conduct, cannot be allowed to re-enter the Naval Service because of his record, but that the same objections do not apply to his joining the Army, the Air Force or the Militia? Why is there this distinction between the various arms of the Defence Forces, and why is it that persons of lower moral calibre are apparently more acceptable in the Army, Militia, and Air Force than in the Navy?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that I have ascertained that the facts of the case mentioned by him are that in 1934, a boy was appointed to the Naval College for training as a cadet midshipman. He stayed there one term only. His conduct was unsatisfactory in that he absented himself without leave, and stated that he wished to leave the service. His appointment was terminated.

In 1938 he applied to enter the Navy in the Seaman Branch, but the Naval Board rejected his application, owing to his previous unsatisfactory record.

In 1939 he wrote to me, and his letter indicated that he was under the impression that he was debarred from joining the Army or Air Force, as well as the Navy. Accordingly I explained to him that the reason for his non-acceptance for the Navy would not debar him from joining another service.

I wish to assure the honorable member that it is not a question of moral calibre, but of a recruit having in past years expressedhis distaste for naval training, which renders it undesirable to accept him again.

Duntroon Royal Military College

Mr Anthony:

y asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What is the distinction between “ normal “ and “ special “ entrants of cadets to the Royal Military College, Duntroon?
What is the duration of training of cadets who enter under normal or ordinary conditions of entry?
What was the number of normal entrants in1939?
What was the number of “ special “ entrants admitted in 1939 for a short course of training, and when will they pass out and become commissioned officers in the Permanent Military Forces?
What is the present strength of cadets, by categories (a) Australian, (b) New Zealand, and (i) normal entry cadets, and (ii) special entry cadets, i.e., short course?
Is it proposed to admit this year a further number of special entrants ? If so, what will be the duration of their training and when will they pass out and become commissioned officers in the Permanent Military Forces? 7.With what rank do normal entry cadets pass out of the College, and what will be the rank of special entry cadets when they graduate after a short course?
How is it proposed to adjust the seniority of normal entry cadets, whose period of training is three or four years, with that of special entry cadets who graduate after a comparatively short course of training?
Can the Minister give an assurance that normal entry cadets will not be penalized in their seniority by reason of their longer period of training?

Mr Street:
UAP

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

” Normal “ entry is for candidates between sixteen and 20 years of age as on the last Saturday in February in the year in which admitted. “ Special “entry is for candidates between the ages of 20 and 25 years who complete twelve or sixmonths courses at the College.
Under existing conditions - three years.
Special entrants number 25 and will graduate in December, 1939.
Present strength by categories.: -

Yes. The duration of their training will be approximately six months at the Royal Military College, graduating December, 1939.
Lieutenant in both cases.
Commonwealth cadets, not being cadets admitted by way of special entry, shall, on graduation, be granted seniority in the Australian StaffCorps according to the aggregate of marks gained while at the College, the higher aggregate giving seniority over the lower :

Provided that any marks gained by a cadet during ayear at the end of which he was not advanced to a higher class shall not be included in his aggregate of marks.

Cadets admitted by way of specialentry shall, on graduation, be granted such seniority in the Australian Staff Corps in relation to each other and to other Commonwealth cadets who graduate on the same date as is determined by the Military Board on the recommendation of the Commandant.

See answer to No. 8. Even after appointment to commissioned rank on graduation, each graduate is safeguarded in his subsequent promotion, provided he is qualified. Promotion to Captain and Major is safeguarded by reason of the fact that such promotions are automatic after a prescribed period of service in the lower commissioned ranks.

Defence: Co-operation of Motor Cyclists.

Mr.Curtin asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has he received an offer from the Autocycle Union of Victoria to form a motorcyclists’ corps?

If so, what was his reply?

How many motor-cycle units are in existence in the permanent and/or Militia Forces ?

Are these numbers considered sufficient?

Mr Street:
UAP

t. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

Yes.
The Auto-cycle Union was notified that a motor-cycle corps is not included in the establishments of the Australian Military Forces, and that none was envisaged, but that the military authorities would be glad to utilize their organization to good advantage if they would form an auxiliary reserve, organized so that groups of cycle owners and their machines, of the types required, could be mobilized at short notice, and attached to units of the various arms requiring despatch riders, &c. on mobilization. Further, it was suggested that their members should be encouraged to enlist in existing units requiring motor cyclists for peace training, or alternatively a liaison could be established, so that the “ Reserve “ could bc kept in touch, in peace time, with the units to which they would be allotted in time of war. This proposal is still Under consideration by the Auto-cycle Union, and a definite reply has not been received from them.
None. Motor cyclists are included in the (.raining establishments of certain cavalry, artillery, signal and army service corps units, and every encouragement is, ‘given by the department to motor cyclists interested in these units.
Yes.

Works Programme.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 25th May, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) asked the following question, without notice : -

Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior arrange for a list of the works to be’ undertaken, together with the names of the contractors and the location of the works to bc placed in a prominent position at the Customs House, Sydney, for the convenience of men who seek employment with the Works Department?

The Minister for the Interior has now supplied the following answer:-

Instructions have already been issued for this to bc done.

Services of Mr. Inigo Jones.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s.- On the 31st May, the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Scully) asked the following question, without notice: -

Has any decision been reached by the Government with a view to securing the services of the Queensland astronomer, Mr. Inigo Jones, who has specialized’ in long-range weather forecasts for many years and whose forecasts over- recent months have been very accurate and,, consequently, appreciated very much by men on the land throughout Australia? When I asked a question of the Minister’s predecessor on this matter, I was informed that an investigation would be made. Has that investigation been completed?

The Minister for the Interior advises that the inquiry is still proceeding.

Wireless Broadcasting: Ownership of B Class Stations

Mr Harrison:
UAP

n. - On the 3rd’ May; the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) asked the Postmaster-General the following question, upon notice: -

Will lie furnish a statement showing the ownership of B class broadcasting stations in the various States, and bring up to date the return quoted in Hansard on the 25th August, 1937?

I now produce the desired statement, which shows that there are 97 commercial broadcasting stations in operation. Of the 97 stations, 35 are operated by companies which have no interest in other stations, and 10 are operated by companies which are substantially interested in or control one additional station in each case. The remainder are dealt with hereunder : -

Advertiser, Adelaide (Advertiser Newspapers Limited) : This company holds the licence for 5AD, and controls the companies holding the licences for 5MLT Murray Bridge, 5PI Crystal Brook and 5 SE Mount Gambier. The company also holds 112,732 shares (in a total of 365,327) in News Limited, which controls 2BH Broken Hill.

Ago, Melbourne (David Syme and Company Limited) : Members of the Syme family hold 1,500 shares (in a” total of 6,000) in 3AW Melbourne, 2,900 shares (in a total of 4,975) in 3HA Hamilton, and controls the companies which operate 3TR Sale and 3SH Swan Hill.

Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited: This company (a) holds the licences- for 2AY Albury, 3BO Bendigo, 4CA Cairns and 4TO’ Townsville; (6) owns all the shares in the companies which operate 2GF Grafton and 2GN Goulburn; (c) by agreement with the licensee conducts the service of 2CH Sydney; (d) holds 3,800 shares (in a total of 5,000) in 4WK Warwick, 2,500 shares (in a total of 5,000) in 7LA Launceston,. 800 shares (in a total of 6,500) in 2SM Sydney, 400 shares (in a total of 4,975) in 3HA Hamilton; (e) holds the licence for 4PM Port Moresby, Papua.

Argus, Melbourne: The Argus Broadcasting Services Proprietary Limited, holds the licences for 3SR Shepparton, 3UL Warragul and 3YB Warrnambool. The Argus also holds 200 shares (in a total of 45,000) in 3LTZ Melbourne.

Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Proprietary Limited, Sydney, and/or its associate company Commonwealth Broadcasting Company (Queensland) Proprietary Limited control 2UW Sydney, 4BC Brisbane and 4RO Rockhampton, and hold the following interests in other stations: - 4GR Toowoomba - 1,663 shares (in a total of 3,300), 4MB Maryborough- 530 shares (in a total of 1,000), 4SB Kingaroy- 1,000 ordinary shares (in a total of 3,395 ordinary and 2,515 preference shares).

Courier-Mail, Brisbane (Queensland Newspaper Proprietary Limited) : This company controls the company holding the licences for 4AK Oakey and 4BK Brisbane.

Denison Estates Limited holds 12,764 shares (in a total of 24,230) in Broadcasting Station 2GB Proprietary Limited (2GB Sydney). The 2GB company has interests in other stations, namely, 3AW Melbourne - 900 shares (in a total of 6,000), 5DN Adelaide- 3,747 ordinary and 1,000 preference shares (in totals of 8,405 and 4,000 respectively). The 5DN company, by agreement with the licensee, operates the service of 5RM Renmark.’ In the case of 2UE Sydney, 13,000 shares are held by Sun Newspapers Limited in a total of 30,000.

Findlays, Tasmania : 7BU Burnie - A. P. Findlay holds 2,000 shares, P. A. Findlay holds 1,000 shares, F. M. Findlay holds 1,000 shares, S. H. Findlay holds 100 (in a total of 4,270 shares). 7DY DerbyA. P. Findlay holds 600 shares, P. A. Findlay holds 200 shares, K. A. Findlay holds 100 shares, F. M. Findlay holds 300 shares (in a total of 2,700 shares). The 7BU company holds 1,000 shares. 7HO Hobart - Findlays Proprietary Limited holds 947 shares, S. H. Findlay holds 494 shares, A. Findlay holds 203 shares (in a total of 4,932 shares). 7LA Launceston - Findlays Proprietary Limited holds one-quarter interest.

E. Gold holds the following interests in the stations named : 4GR Toowoomba - 1,637 shares (in a total of 3,300), 4VL Charleville- 311 shares (in a total of 627), 4ZR Roma- 250 ordinary shares (in a total of 942 ordinary and 1,000 preference shares).

Herald, Melbourne (Herald and Weekly Times Limited) : This company holds the licences for 3DB Melbourne and 3LK Lubeck. The company also holds the following interest in other stations: - 5AD, 5MTJ, 5PI, 5SE- 182,900 ordinary and 100,000 preference shares (in totals of 553,330 and 168,000 respectively) in Advertiser Newspapers Limited, which controls the stations. 2BH - 7,500 shares (in a total of 365,327) in News Limited, which controls the station. 4AK, 4BK - 15,000 shares (in a total of 450,000 shares) in Queensland Newspapers Proprietary Limited, which latter company controls the stations.

Macquarie Broadcasting Services Proprietary Limited has interests as under: - 2CA Canberra - 2,037 ordinary shares (in a total of 2,700 ordinary and 1,950 preference shares). 2GB Sydney - 3,000 shares (in a total of 24,230). 2HR Singleton- 2,000 shares (in a total of 5,500). 2 WL Wollongong -3,500 shares (in a total of 7,008).

News Limited, Adelaide, controls 2BH Broken Hill and holds 114,843 ordinary shares (in a total of 553,330 ordinary and 168,000 preference shares) in Advertiser Newspapers Limited, which controls SAD, 5MU, 5PI and 5SE.

Transcontinental Broadcasting Corporation Limited controls the company holding the licence for 2KA Katoomba, and operates 2BS Bathurst by agreement with the licensee. There is also a liaison between this company and the licensee of 2KM Kempsey by virtue of the interests of common shareholders.

West Australian Newspapers Limited, Perth, holds the licence for 6IX, and has equal shares (with Musgroves Limited) in the company which holds the licences for 6ML Perth and 6WB Katanning.

Whitfords control 6AM Northam, 6PM Fremantle and 6KG Kalgoorlie.

In no case is there evidence of any infringement of the provisions of Wireless Telegraphy Regulation 48a, which limits the number of stations controlled by any person or firm. It is perhaps opportune, also, to mention that many of the so-called networks or chains of stations are not under common control, but are simply associations of stations arranged for the simultaneous presentation of special programmes to attract large advertisers having widespread Commonwealth interests.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 June 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1939/19390601_reps_15_159/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 1 June 1939

GRIFFITH ELECTORAL DIVISION

Return to Writ

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

COUNTRY PARTY.,

Mr CURTIN:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr STACEY:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

VALIDITY OF WHEAT LEGISLATION

Mr PROWSE:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Sir EARLE PAGE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHN LAWSON:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS

Mr HUTCHINSON:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Sir HENRY GULLETT:Minister for External Affairs · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr MAKIN:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr STREET:Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr LAZZARINI:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND POTATOES

Mr FROST:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FAIRBAIRN:Minister for Civil Aviation · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

ALLOWANCE POST OFFICES

Mr McHUGH:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HARRISON:Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

GUN PRACTICE IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr STREET:UAP

QUESTION

AIR FORCE RESERVE

Mr WHITE:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr FAIRBAIRN:UAP

SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939

Mr CASEY:Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

Mr CASEY:Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

Mr BLACKBURN:Bourke

Mr Beasley:

Mr BLACKBURN:

Mr Lane:

Mr BLACKBURN:

Mr Lane:

Mr BLACKBURN:

Mr Lane:

Mr BLACKBURN:

Mr SPENDER:Assistant Treasurer · Warringah · UAP

Mr Curtin:

Mr Blackburn:

House of Representatives
1 June 1939

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Minister for External Affairs · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Civil Aviation · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr McHUGH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HARRISON:
Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr STREET:
UAP

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
UAP

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

Mr SPENDER:
Assistant Treasurer · Warringah · UAP

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribynong

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

Mr WARD:
East Sydney