House of Representatives
29 November 1939

15th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1698

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

2nd Australian Imperial Force: Departure Overseas - Empire Air Scheme : Details op Training.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

by leave - Shortly before the war began, the Government announced that it proposed to raise a force amounting to a division for service at home or abroad as occasion might require or permit.I have now to inform honorable members that this force will proceed overseas when it has reached a suitable stage in its training, which it is anticipated will be early in the new year. When it has had further training overseas, it will, by the European spring, takeup its place in a theatre of war.

As I have repeatedly stated on behalf of the Government, we regard the protection of Australia itself as of primary importance; indeed, it is naturally the first aim of any Australian. ‘ defence policy; but our second aim must be, and is, to make the best possible contribution to thevictoryof the Empire and the allied cause, wherever and whenever that, contribution is needed. The circumstances at present are that there has been relatively little land fighting between the British and French on the one side, and the Germans on the other. But it would be over-optimistic to imagine that this stage of affairs will continue indefinitely, or that there will not he fighting on a great scale in Europe before we are many months older. Whilst we all feel the completest confidence as to the outcome of this fighting, we should be blinding our eyes to the -facts if we did not realize that Germany has an enormous and welltrained -army, magnificently equipped, and that an effort of the first magnitude will be required to defeat it.

At the same time, the Australian Government agrees with the other British’ governments in thinking that greater significance will attach to air warfare in this war than in the last. For that reason we have been collaborating with the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand in a great Empire air-training scheme, the details of which I hope to be able to announce to honorable members in a few days, but the substantial effect of which, will be to give, ultimately, a commanding superiority to the air forces of the British Empire and France. At this stage,, I can say that, as a result of the negotiations in Canada, it is clear that a substantial amount of Australia’s share in the Empire air scheme will be completely carried out in Australia itself. This will necessitate bringing to Australia -both instructors and aircraft, and it will mean that during the whole period of the scheme this country will have in training, and in use, air forces and aircraft immeasurably greater than anything that we have previously contemplated. In other words, for the duration of the war, the Empire air scheme will achieve the dual purpose of contributing powerfully and progressively to the success of the air arm in Europe and of giving to Australia itself, through its own air defences, a great measure of protection against attack. Moreover, we are building up an incomparably better trained Militia and an increased Royal Australian Navy. I should add that adequate assurances have been given to the Government with respect to the capacity and availability of the Royal Navy, which is, after all, our first line of defence, to give to us protection against any major aggression. In these circumstances, the Government is of opinion that it is possible, and that, being possible, it is most desirable, to send the special division abroad.

What I have said will, I hope, afford the most eloquent answer to that broadcast German propaganda which keeps on hoping day by day that the British dominions a-e not at one with Great Britain itself. Once more, an answer to that foolish hope will be made by Australian soldiers in Europe, by thousands of Australian airmen, and by the Australian Navy, which has, since the outbreak of war, co-operated fully with the British Navy in the work of keeping the seas as clear as possible of the enemy. I lay on the table the following paper : -

Special Military Force - Ministerial statement; and move -

That the paper be printed.

Mr CURTIN:
Leader of the Opposition · Fremantle

T2.36]. - The announcement by the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) brings us face to face with one of the most important considerations of policy in relation to the safety of Australia. The right honorable gentleman, having said that the Government regards the. protection of Australia itself as of primary importance, went on to say that, naturally, that was the first aim of any Australian defence policy. Nothing has been said to-day, or, indeed, recently, which would justify the assumption that that primary purpose of Australian policy has been adequately achieved. There confronts us to-day the fact that there has been no final determination as to the relationship of countries to one another in respect’ of the war. As a matter of fact, within the last few days, the disposition of neutrals in respect of the policy of the Allied powers has been such as to give grounds for disquietude. The Australian press, which will be the only source upon which I shall draw in this connexion, informs us that neutral countries, including Japan and Italy, as well as Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, have protested to Britain against the reprisals on German exports carried in their vessels. Then followed a cable from London, dated the 26th November, which stated -

The Japanese Foreign Office issued a statement that the British blockade of German exports violates the assurances Britain gave Japan, and suggested that if her vital interests were affected. Japan would be compelled to institute counter measures.

I draw no very sinister deductions, I hope, from those announcements which, apparently, are reliable, other than to repeat the declaration which I made on behalf of the Labour party following the declaration of war, that we needed to have some greater guarantee in respect of the safety of the Commonwealth than the then circumstances suggested before it would be at all reasonable for any government, regardless of its policy generally, to contemplate any diminution of the man-power resources of this nation. - 1 say that to-day. I do not believe that the unusual course of this war has yet reached the stage which makes the probability of the immunity of Australia from raid or invasion less likely than was the case during the first or second weeks of the war. As a matter of fact, what has taken place in the course of- the campaign at sea gives to the ordinary man in the street the conviction that there is no part of the British Commonwealth of Nations which at present can feel assured, that it may not, become the target for attack by our existing enemies. Then, there is the further possibility which, I hope, will never mature, that the countries which have so far remained neutral may not continue to do so. I am not satisfied that the sides have been finally chosen in. this terrible conflict, the full magnitude of which is at present utterly unpredictable. I return to the predicate of my first declaration, and to that which the Prime Minister himself announced as the first obligation of the Australian. Government, namely, to ensure, beyond all reasonable doubt, insofar as it lies in our power, the safety and security of the people of this Commonwealth, and the inviolability of the coasts of Australia. 1 make no criticism of any of the dominion governments, or of the Government of the United Kingdom itself, but I am not unwarranted in directing attention to the statement of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, delivered in March, 1938, when he was outlining the objectives of British defence policy. Those objectives were quite rational, having regard to the position of the British Prime Minister. This is what he declared them ro be -

  1. Protection of Great Britain itself.
  2. Protection of the trade routes by which Britain obtains feed and. raw materials.
  3. Protection of all British territories overseas, including military, naval, and air bases.
  4. Co-operation in defence of territories of any allies she might have in case of war.

Honorable members may recall that there was a certain difference of opinion in Australia as to the real meaning of Mr. Chamberlain’s statement, and the then Prime. Minister of Australia (Mr. Lyons) asked for fuller information as to what was meant. Various opinions were exchanged in this House, and were expressed by commentators in the public press. One commentator wrote -

The House of Commons attached great importance to Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration that the maintenance of naval bases at strategic points in various parts of the world - “ was not as vital as the defence -of our own country because, so long as we are undefeated at home, even if we sustain losses overseas, we may have an opportunity of making them good afterwards “.

That is the statement of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain. T. do not, mention it in order to criticize it, or to dispute it. I agree that it was a. perfectly rational statement, to como from the British Prime Minister, having regard to the geographical position of the territories and dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations,, and having regard also to what I conceive to be the paramount duty of the Government of Great Britain, namely, the defence and safety of the citizens over whom it is governing. Now, that is our position also. I say quite candidly that the outlook at present is obscure. While there must be, on the part of all the dominions, the utmost determination to win the war, none the less, when it comes to a question of how the various forces of the dominions shall be employed in defence of the British Commonwealth, then it seems to me reasonable that we in Australia should look at the matter from the same relative- point of view as did the Prime Minister of Great Britain. On previous occasions, sufficient has been said in this House to warrant adherence to the oft-repeated statement emanating from this side that the maximum of our man-power resources is the minimum of . our defensive requirements. In this very chamber, on the 28th April, 1938, the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker), since deceased, whose judgment, was greatly respected here and throughout, the country, made this statement -

I cannot imagine any circumstances in which Australia could send overseas an enormous expedition such as was despatched during the last war. The world position is such that we cannot afford to denude Australia of defence.

The present Minister for External Affairs (Sir Henry Gullett) stated, on the 29th April -

Every body must subscribe to the statement made yesterday by the honorable member for Wakefield (Air. Hawker) that one cannot possibly visualize stripping this country of its manhood as was. done in the Great War.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– Oh!

Mr CURTIN:

– The quotation continues - lt may be that we could send two or three divisions somewhere overseas, but they would be volunteers and we could always be certain if (jutting volunteers. [ have extended the quotation in order to cover completely the point as the Minister put it. I make this statement’ here, however, that the very first division sent abroad represents a -commitment on the part of Australia to expeditionary forces. There will go up the cry, “ If one division, why not two? If two, why not three ? “ I recall that, during the last war, the early belief in Australia was that our contribution in men would be approximately that indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement to-day. The number grew, however, until it reached five divisions. Over 300,000 men left Australia, making it necessary that 400,000 volunteers should be raised in this country. Moreover, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), in pressing the case for conscription, said that conscription was necessary in order to maintain the strength of those divisions overseas; that the maintenance of their strength called for so many reinforcements each year, fixed according ro a casualty and wastage formula. It would appear that, in order to maintain five divisions totalling 100,000 men, at least three times that number of men had to be sent overseas. Therefore, if this dreadful prospect that confronts the world should endure for any length of time, Although there may bc no suggestion that more than one division should be formed for service abroad, it will, on our previous experience, require a great many more than 20,000 men to keep that division at strength, with the result that there will be a continuous flow of men overseas. Thus, the prospect that we face to-day, after this announcement that one division is to be sent abroad, is that 100,000 men may easily be required, within the next year, to go overseas. I have not. the least doubt that the call for volunteers will be responded to handsomely, but I believe that we are venturing upon a course which will, despite any hesitancy on the part of the Government or any understanding of the problem on the part of the Government, gather so much momentum, because of its very nature,, that the restraint which the Government would wish to. exercise in order to maintain the man-power of Australia, could not be exercised effectively. The Government would itself become the victim of its own programme.

Senator Brand, who holds the rank of general in the forces, on the 7th October, 1938, said :-

It was unnecessary for the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Curtin) to broadcast to the world that no Australian soldier would be sent to fight overseas.

He went on to say : -

The world situation to-day is quite different from what it was in 1914. There is no likelihood of the formation of another Australian Imperial Force. All our industrial, economic and service defence preparations have one objective - home defence.

That was said in- the Senate by a very distinguished, experienced, and much more competent student of the problem of Australia’s defence than I could ever hope to be. In the same place on the 13th September, 1939, he said: -

Honorable members should not think for one moment that I am visualizing an expeditionary overseas force. I have already said that the despatch of such a force voluntarily enlisted, is a remote possibility.

He went on to say: -

No government would dare denude this country of its virile manhood unless some extraordinary development warranted such action.

I shall not weary the House with a recital of authorities that have examined the problem of Australian defence. I know that the most skilled men differ as to how this cam best be ‘accomplished, but I direct attention to the Prime Minister’s statement, that -

At the same time, the Australian Government agrees with the other British Governments in thinking that greater significance will attach to air warfare in this war than in the last.

Also -

It is clear that a substantial amount of Australia’s share in the Empire Air Scheme will be completely carried out in Australia itself.

I welcome all of that, but I say to the right honorable gentleman and to the country, that the very men who will rally to the colours for the overseas expeditionary force - the young men with adventure in their hearts and courage in their souls - are the very men who in the very nature of things would go into this expanded Australian Air Force, for I cannot imagine that in the recruitment of men for the Air Force compulsion would be exercised. I do not believe that even this Government, which would compulsorily train men for’ military service, would compel service in respect of the air arm of the defence system. 1 believe that that will be of a voluntary basis, because in the very nature of things only the volunteercould be expected to be effective in the Air Force. The Prime Minister would agree.

Mr CURTIN:

– The right honorable gentleman quite agrees.

Mr Brennan:

– Up to the present.

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1934; ALP from 1936

– So, I should not say that. I accept the right honorable gentleman’s statement. There is complete agreement in our estimates as to what would be the kind of men which would be the most efficient for the equipment of the Air Force, the extent of which may be even far greater than: present plans contemplate. Very good, but from where shall we get the men for this’ Air Force if we take out of the pool 20,000 of the most ‘adventurous and most, physically fit men, with I submit behind it all the time a commitment that we shall keep that division at full strength, and probably all the time under the pressure to send more divisions. It is widely known that Australian soldiers are first-class soldiers in any theatre of war. The Allied command would welcome not one, but two or three divisions of our men for military service overseas.We should thus be weakening the available man-power for the equipment of our own indispensable air arm. I put it to the House therefore, that the declarations that have been made by this party that we ought not to send men overseas, is a declaration that has behind it, as things stand, adherence to the necessities of the safety of this Commonwealth. I believe, too, that it is rather early in this struggle for Australia to contemplate a division fighting on the Western Front.No information has been divulged to the House, as to the extent of the forces of other dominions or of the United Kingdom itself which are at present engaged in the western theatre of war.

Mr Beasley:

– The only excuse that the Prime Minister has offered is that it is necessary for us to send troops overseas in order to answer German propaganda.

Mr CURTIN:

– Military, air and naval plans have to be based on merit, and not upon providing some demonstration in answer to statements that are made. For the information of the German people and the German High Command and German propagandists, who believe that in. any part of the British Commonwealth ofNations there is not adherence to the . cause of the Allies in this war, insofar as this party is concerned I give them a complete answer.

Mr Anthony:

– How does that express itself?

Mr CURTIN:

– In action for the defence of this Commonwealth.

Mr Lane:

Mr. Lane interjecting,

Mr CURTIN:

– One thing that the German High Command would never fear is the loud voice of somebody who merely sits in his place.

Mr Lane:

– The honorable gentleman’s party has a loud voice but it never says where it stands.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! These interjections must cease.

Mr CURTIN:

– I need not bother with, these interjections. The problem of Australian defence still remains, ‘as the Prima Minister has said, a problem of very great difficulty, and I should have preferred to have some clearer exposition of’ what is to be the ultimate alignment of nations in this struggle before I consented. to the stripping, even in any degree the manpower resources of this country.

Mr Hutchinson:

-Would the honor; able member agree even if he knew the position of Australia was safe ?

Mr CURTIN:

– Am I to assume that it is safe now ? Doe’s the honorable gentleman agree-

Mr Hutchinson:

– Don’t get round it.

Mr CURTIN:

– Both of us can ask questions of the other based on hypotheses which are probably only mere controversial points. I refuse to do that. The present alinement of powers justifies me, as I see the problem, in refusing at this juncture to expose this territory and its population to what may not at present but may soon be a direct menace to its safety, f leave it at that. There does not appear to be any need for me to say that we dislike in principle the obligation to serve in overseas theatres of war. I know that the Labour movement has made it quite manifest that the terrible loss to this nation involved in s’uch policies becomes in itself an economic problem which has not only to be considered, but also to be provided for. This represents the first instalment of a policy which, in its magnitude, can lead to difficulties that neither this nor any other Government can at present forsee, and which can so weaken the economic and financial resources of this country, in addition to depleting its man-power reserves, as to create a situation which, should a dire emergency arise during next year, would find us unequal to meet, as effectively as we otherwise might be able to meet, any attack made against us. To test the feeling of the House, I move -

That all the words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words “ this House is of opinion that Australia’s man-power is required for the defence and safety of the Commonwealth, and is opposed to the despatch of expeditionary forces.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Leader of the Country party · Barker

, - It is evident from the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) that, officially or unofficially, he was in possession of information which I was not able to glean until three minutes before -the House mct.

Mr CURTIN:

– I had only the same knowledge as the honorable member.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I do not mind that because the attitude of the Country party on the defence question has been particularly clear. We have believed for a very long time, in season and out of season, that it is necessary to have a full-blooded scheme of compulsory military service and training for the defence of this country. Having, in addition to that responsibility, another responsibility towards those other member nations of the British Empire of which we form a part, we believe that it is necessary for this country to take such steps as should be deemed desirable by those in authority to see that, if the necessity should arise, we should be able to take our part with our sister dominions in whatever military activities are required in any other sphere of operations. Out of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) there arise two, or probably three, important questions. The first is the last matter with which the right honorable gentleman dealt, that is, the capacity and the availability of the Royal Navy which, after all, is our first line of defence, to give us protection against any major aggression. I assume - and I am sure the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong - that since the outbreak of this war, and as a foundation for this statement, the. Commonwealth Government has received more specific and more concrete assurances in regard to the mobility of the British navy than were formerly given.

Mr Menzies:

– That assumption is well founded.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The other point is in regard to air force activities. I hope that the decision announced by the Prime Minister to-day will not be followed, as a previous decision in regard to an expeditionary air force was followed, by another pronouncement that this expeditionary force will not go overseas at all, or that it will not be available for despatch overseas. I agree that no one among us to-day can forecast what the state of international relations will be when the European spring, to which the Prime Minister referred, breaks next March. The 21st March is a rather significant date in that part of the world. In view of the specific reference to the coming spring in the northern hemisphere on the first page of the Prime Minister’s statement, we are entitled to draw the very definite inference that the destination of the 6th Division will be the Western Front.

The other point which I wish to make in regard to this statement is that I hope that we shall be speedily informed by the Government that it will commence almost immediately the enlistment of a 7th Division so that, when the time comes for the 6th Division to depart from these shores, there will be in training another force of equal strength to take its place.

Mr Gander:

– And another one after that?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Yes, if necessary. There should be no hedging and no differences of opinion in regard to this question; either we are in this war or we are not. If we are not going to take a part in it, if the feeling of the Australian people in regard to this matter is represented by the Opposition in this House - and I challenge that contention - the proper thing for the Opposition to do is to say straight out that it believes that the country should be neutral, and leave it at that. The country will then know where it stands. For the Leader of the Opposition to contend, as he did a few minutes ago, that the minimum man-power necessary for the defence of this country is the maximum we have av:lii able/ and then to take the attitude that his party will not, by any legislative enactment whatever, consent to a system of compulsory military training of this country, is to enunciate a policy which the people will turn down with scorn and contempt. For such a policy the Leader of the Opposition cannot even get the unanimous support of his own party outside this Parliament. This question is one of very grave importance to the whole of the people of the Commonwealth. Before this fight is finished we do not know who the combatants may be, but we do know that if the British forces are beaten in a main theatre of war, then they are beaten in all theatres of war. That is the position. Therefore, the only honest and logical attitude for any party to adopt is that of honorable members opposite when dealing with industrial matters, the old policy of “ one in, all in “. Either we are all in this struggle or none of us is in it. The issue is so clear and so unmistakable that there cannot be two opinions on it. I have no hesitation in summing up these brief remarks with the very definite statement that the Australian Country party will not support the amendment moved by the

Leader of the Opposition, just as it is as firmly convinced that the people on the first opportunity presented to them will make it clear that they also do not support it.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I also oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin).

Mr Ward:

– I am surprised !

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) is hardly likely to be surprised. The amendment is in keeping with the isolationist policy advocated by the Labour party during the last election campaign. That attitude was bad enough then, but the party’s advocacy of isolation in a time of war makes it doubly condemned. The attitude of the Australian Labour party is in strong contrast with that of the Labour party of the sister dominion of New Zealand which would be less able to defend itself than Australia should trouble come. The Government of New Zealand set an example to Australia by making a prompt pronouncement soon after the outbreak of war that it intended to send a division overseas. If Australia is to do no more than supply goods to Great Britain, if it is only to sell its wool and other produce at profitable prices, it will be doing less than neutrals even, for neutral coun-. tries at least have had to mobilize all their forces for home defence. Australia is not doing even that.

I am sorry the Government has been - rather tardy in this matter, but I applaud its decision to send a division overseas. This means that Australia will be playing a more effective part than hitherto in the war. In attempting to prevent this action the Labour party is not even standing up . to its own slogan “Unity is strength”. We all know that if Great Britain, which is bearing the brunt of this war, should fail the British Empire must fail. Australia should give the strongest support to Great Britain and not be the weak link in the Imperial chain. If in the last war Australia had taken -the attitude that the Labour party now desires, its name would now have been held in contempt, instead of being admired for the part the Australian Imperial Force played in the last war.

Mr McHugh:

– The honorable member for Balaclava should read the speech delivered on this subject by my predecessor, the late honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker).

Mr WHITE:

– That deceased gallant gentleman played his part in the last war as did the present honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McHugh), who has interjected, but he delivered the speech to which the honorable member has referred at a time when the world situation wa= entirely different from that of to-day At that time the anti-Comintern Pact was in existence; Germany was vilifying Russia, and declaring it untouchable ; and Japan was a part of the scheme of things. The Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis was then a force. But matters have developed in an entirely different way. The axis did not continue to work.

If there should be a further change in the “ line up “ of nations and Australia were threatened, we could still take adequate action to defend ourselves, for, since 1903, the Defence Act has provided that all men from 18 to 60 years of age are liable for service in time of war. We are now in a time of war, yet only a very few men have so far been called up, and they will not go into camp until January. Further measures can be taken at any time to provide for the defence of Australia if this country is challenged within its own borders.

The Government is doing now what T advocated at the first meeting of this Parliament after the war broke out. My proposals were not received favorably in Parliament at that time. In fact, they were given only a very small measure of support. I am quite satisfied that if my view had been accepted at that time the 2nd Australian Imperial Force would have been recruited in a very much faster time because uncertainty as to its departure held volunteers back. We have been told that the expeditionary force will not go into action immediately. I presume that there will be some intermediary training ground. It may be in Egypt, India or Singapore, where our men will be able to relieve the British regulars who are so urgently needed on the Western Front.

Mr Conelan:

– Why were we not told that?

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member cannot be told everything.

Mr Conelan:

– We are not told anything.

Mr WHITE:

– The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated that the expeditionary force would not go into action at once. We can infer from his remark that it would not go into action until the spring, that it will go into training camps elsewhere, just as the 1st Australian Imperial Force did in Egypt in the early days of the last war to help to fight the Empire’s battles, and thus be more readily accessible wherever needed. That is, I think, the idea that actuates most Australians. Party politics should not come into the matter. Labour should cooperate with the Government just as in the Motherland the British party is unanimously co-operating with the Government and doing its best to assist in the national effort that is being made. It is a pity that the Australian Labour party is not doing the same thing.

I am pleased to learn that something in the nature of a compromise is being agreed to in regard to the proposal to provide an air expeditionary force. Originally the Government stated definitely that it would send an air expeditionary force of six squadrons to assist the Allied Forces. After that statement was made, many of our people set to work to make arrangements to. join the proposed air force, but unfortunately the Government changed its mind when the Empire air scheme was announced. I have, on other occasions, declared my view that Australia could both co-operate in the Empire air scheme and provide an air expeditionary force. There has been a clamour for the fulfilment of the promise that was made to recruit an air expeditionary force, and I am glad that the Government has seen fit to heed it. [ am pleased, also, to know that under the Empire air scheme Australian units will be preserved so that the traditions created by Australia in the last war may be preserved and augmented. I am glad that a force of at least the strength mentioned by the Prime Minister will be provided, and that a large proportion of young Australians will be trained in the Air Force to carry on the traditions of this country. At the same time, units are to be raised to undergo advanced training in Canada .to co-operate with other Empire units. I trust that we shall be given some additional details and some elaboration of the plans of the Government. I trust also . that there will be no change of front on this subject, and that what has been said will happen actually will happen.

In the matter of home defence, the Government should lose no time in inviting more men1 to join the Militia in calling up more men compulsorily. There are many ready to enlist in the Militia, and thousands of others who have had no training whatever who should be called up in quotas so that our maximum manpower may be trained to defend their country. The decision which the Government has announced to-day will be applauded throughout the Empire.

Mr Gander:

– Does the honorable member propose to go?

Mr WHITE:

– Yes, I am going as before. I have already offered.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

.- We are-

Mr White:

- Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I should like to reply at greater length to the interjection of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander).

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member had already sat down and I had called the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. In any case, the interjection of the honorable member for Reid was out of order.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– We are all seised with the seriousness of the position which faces us. There is no difference of opinion among the members of any of the political parties as to the tragic circumstances which have led to the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) . After all that has been said on this subject during the last year or so, I do not think that any one in this House would be so foolish as to suggest that any of his colleagues are disloyal or would decline to do all that they could do to defend Australia. No honorable member should, in the circumstances which face us, and with the knowledge we have of one another’s point of view, charge a colleague or any member of any party with disloyalty because we differ from each other upon this vital matter.

Many honorable members on this side of the House have, like members of the general public outside, lauded the Prime Minister, up till now, for the way in which he has conducted the affairs of the “country in this difficult period. The absence of war hysteria, the calmness of the people, the prevention of propaganda of the filthy and ridiculous type which saturated the country in the early days of the last war, and the absence of that terrible hymn of hate, have been notable and gratifying. We have all been pleased with the way in which the Prime Minister has endeavoured to bridge over this period without any atmosphere of hysteria. We have been glad, too, that until now the right honorable gentleman has continued to repeat the statement he made in the first days of the war, that men would not he sent outside of Australia for war service. He also stated earlier that the Government would not reintroduce compulsory military training. I am aware that some honorable members have always honestly considered that that was the only policy that could be effectively adopted for the defence of Australia ; but they have been in the minority until now, although they have not ceased to try to persuade Parliament to agree to & change of the national policy in this respect. ‘During the last twelve months, efforts have been made to demonstrate the effectiveness of the voluntary system. Unfortunately, some persons who were quite obviously opposed to the voluntary system did their best to nullify these efforts and kill it by joint desire. No person in this country, irrespective of his politics, can honestly say that the voluntary system has failed. I defy any supporter of the Government to show that in any arm of the defence forces of this country sufficient men have not come forward under the voluntary system. Indeed, so great was the chaos and disorder resulting from the inability of the authorities to deal with the rush of volunteers that they refused to accept any more men. In spite of that fact, the Government has reintroduced compulsory military training.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is nothing in the statement before the House relating to compulsory military training.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The Leader of the Country party was allowed to discuss it. It is difficult to dissociate the various phases of this subject. After the most definite statement to the Parliament and the people that it did not intend to send men outside Australia, the Government, acting with unprecedented haste, promised to send an air force overseas. Now it has gone further for it has promised an. expeditionary force of infantrymen. No good reason for the change of policy has been given. It would appear that a handful of men, who all along have done their best to sabotage the voluntary system for the defence of Australia, have gained a victory. Encouraged by the action of the Government of New Zealand, the jingoistic element has at last had its way. New Zealand has always been out of step with Australia; it was a conscriptionist country when Australia declared in favour of no conscription. In the Cabinet of the sister dominion to-day are men who were gaoled and deprived of the franchise for ten years for opposing conscription. There is no reason why the Commonwealth Government should submit to a minority of its own followers merely because the Government of New Zealand has adopted a certain policy. Evidently the sensible members of the ‘Cabinet, who in their own hearts are against compulsion, have been overridden by the jingoistic element. It is well known that some of the leading Cabinet Ministers, whom I would describe as the sanest of its members, are opposed to sending men out of Australia, and also to compulsory military training; they are convinced that the voluntary system has not failed. I do not think that any one would charge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) with disloyalty: He has given reasons why, in this matter the advice to follow the lead of Britain should be accepted. Leading men in Great Britain have, during the last two or three months, made it clear that the best thing the Dominions can do in the present conflict is to put their own houses in order and supply the Old Country with necessary commodities. Only about three or four months ago Lord Chatfield, who is associated with Britain’s naval activities, made the definite statement in the House of Lords that Australia should look after itself. He went on to say that the British navy would not be able to look after Australia, and that, therefore, Australia could help best by looking after itself.

Mr Anthony:

– Is not the British navy protecting Australia to-day?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Lord Chatfield went on to say, “ The Dominions must be strong enough to defend themselves “. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Chamberlain, was even more blunt and definite. He said that Britain’s first duty was the defence of its own country, and then, if undefeated, it could help the Dominions. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Street),’ speaking in this House a few months ago, made <a statement which he believed was in line with British thought when he said that the British navy would protect Australia. Later, that statement was denied on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr Street:

– The honorable member is wrong. My statement was said to be substantially correct.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I shall not say more on the subject until I have assured myself of the truth of my statement. It cannot be denied, however, that leading naval and military experts have repeated that the best thing that the Dominions can do is to look after themselves, by becoming as self-contained as possible, and that by so doing they would render the best possible service to the Empire. I do not presume to understand the technicalities of naval, military, or air warfare, but the views of those who do know such things are in conflict with the intention of the Government to send out of Australia two-thirds of the air force raised in this country. One of the greatest difficulties that confronts Austraia to-day is the absence of technicians and artificers, particularly in the engineering trades. Fitters and turners are necessary for the development of our defence organization, but the sending abroad of a large air force will drain this country of qualified men in those trades. Not only trained technicians, but also a large force of maintenance men will be sent from Australia under the Government’s proposal, because, at the moment, Britain is just as short of these men as we are, although -when the war is over, there will be too many such men for the work that will then be available for them, and another problem will have to be faced; The Government’s proposal means that from 20,000 to 30,000 men will he sent from Australia for the Air Force alone. That, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, will weaken to danger point any defence plan of our own. I strongly advocate that we should do all that is possible to defend this country against an invader, and I am quite sure the men of Australia will do that on a voluntary basis, but both inside this chamber and outside it, I shall oppose, even to the point of stretching the law to breaking point, any proposal to send Australian soldiers to fight on foreign battlefields.

Mr Blain:

– What about New Guinea ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Recently a bill to extend the Defence Act to include some of the territories of which Australia, rightly or wrongly, has taken control, was passed by this Parliament, and to-day the protection of those territories is an obligation which falls upon the manhood of Australia. When we now talk of defending Australia, those territories are included.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– There has been a change of opinion among the Opposition since the bill was before the House.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– While the debate on that measure was proceeding, members on this side expressed the fear that the proposal then before them was the first step towards compulsory military service andconscription for service overseas. In reply. Ministers gave repeated assurances that the Government had not the slightest intention to re-introduce compulsory military service into Australia or any of its territories. We were told that any force which might be sent to New Guinea, Norfolk Island, or any other territory of the Commonwealth, would be raised voluntarily. With that legislation on the statute- book, I recognize that any plan for the defence of Australia provides also for the defence of those territories, but, until recently, I always believed, because of the definite statements made by the Government, that any forces raised for that purpose would be recruited on a voluntary basis. I thought that the success which attended the raising of a volunteer force to serve at Darwin would have satisfied ‘the Government, but, notwithstanding such evidence of the sufficiency of the voluntary system, the Government has completely changed its policy, and now Australia is to have compulsory military service within its borders and its territories, and, in addition, a force is . to be sent overseas.

Mr Francis:

– It will consist of volunteers.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– At the moment that appears to be the intention, but one of the worst features of the new plan is that it is now obvious that the whole scheme has been prepared for a long time. It was decided to raise 20,000 men to send overseas, and to rely upon voluntary enlistment for home defence. Immediately that proposal was put forward there was a clamour from all sections of the community against the rates of pay and conditions prescribed for volunteers, it being recognized that the pay was, relatively, only about half of what had been given in 1914. The Government realized that it might have to defer to that clamour and improve conditions, but as that would have made it necessary to impose further taxation on the rich people of the country, it took steps to undermine the chances of success of the voluntary system, so that something cheaper could be put in its place. A system of compulsory training for home defence was instituted, and it was decided to call up young men of only 21 years of age, who would be ready almost at once for despatch overseas. They were to be called up, and sent into a longterm camp where they would have to accept whatever pay and conditions the Government chooses to givethem They are of the right age for service overseas, and this, taken in conjunction with the refusal of employers to make up the difference between civil and military pay, is expected to induce them to volunteer for service abroad. Moreover, the duty of the employers in future will be to dismiss all employees of 21 years of age, and not to employ others in the same age group. Thus the whole scheme is laid bare. It is a system of economic conscription designed to force young men to enlist for service overseas. Men will not be able to get jobs because they are 21 years of age. Those who are 19 will be able to get them, and those who are 23 or 24 will be able to get them, but for those who happen to be just 21, no jobs will be available. They will be wanted overseas to fill the gaps in this division which is to be sent away. I am opposed to economic as well as military conscription. Honorable members on this side of the House pointed out, during the debate on the Supply and Development Bill, what was likely to happen, and our predictions have been fulfilled. First of all, the Government compelled the entire population of Australia to register. The people were classified according to age groups, and particulars were collected regarding the .number of engineers, fitters, &c, who may be available for service in the Air Force and other arms. Finally, we come to the young men with no skill at all, who are for the most part unemployed, and those are the young men who are to be sent overseas to add to and keep up the numbers of the . advance guard.

Mr Stacey:

– Nobody will be sent.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– If the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr Stacey) had ever been a casual worker in this country, depending on the basic wage, and enduring long periods of unemployment up to -as much as twelve months, he would know something of the force of economic conscription. He has not had the experience and cannot understand it. I have looked at this matter in every way, as an Australian, and as a Britisher who is a citizen of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I can find no reason why our men should be sent overseas. Recently, in company with the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) and Senator Brand - one of the most gallant soldiers who ever left Australia - I visited some of the mental asylums where returned soldier patients are confined. We saw terrible sights there. In those institutions there are thousands of men who are so mentally upset as the result of their war experiences, that they have to be kept like wild beasts behind iron bars. And they are only middle-aged men.

Mr Nairn:

– That is a gross exaggeration.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– It is not. In one institution we saw hundreds, and there are many such institutions throughout Australia. In my own State there are scores of men who have been lying on their backs for the last twenty years as the result of war injuries, and who will never walk again. I have attended meetings of the blind and partially blind among returned soldiers, and these, for the most part, are still only middle-aged men, some of them twenty years younger than I am. Honorable members on this side of the House are forever trying to get from the Government more generous treatment for such men, but always they are met with the excuse that the Government had not sufficient money. Yet, almost before the first shot has been fired in this war, honorable members opposite are carried off their feet by their war enthusiasm or for political reasons, and are preparing to hound another division of young men overseas. The people of Australia do not want it. For my part, I am totally opposed to it. The Government has insulted the courage of the people of Australia by instituting the system of compulsory military service, and now it is proposing to make thousands of men go overseas when they ought to be left here to defend their own country.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), and the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), bring this country to a critical stage in its relation to this war. We have now arrived at the transition period between preparation against the possibility of war, and actual participation in the war. The Leader of the Opposition has lost no time in indicating tha attitude of those who sit behind him, and those for whom he speaks in this Parliament, towards the participation by Australia in this war in which the British Empire is engaged.

The statements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can be considered properly only when viewed against the background of Australia’s war aims and Australia’s war responsibility. There canbe no division into compartments of Australia’s war aims. No distinction can be drawn between Australia’s war responsibility and the responsibility of the British Empire. There has been a good deal of talk lately regarding the war aims and peace aims of the Empire and its component parts. I say without hesitation that, once the country is committed to war, there is only one aim - the winning of the war. That is where this country stands to-day, and that is wheremy party stands. There is no possibility of any sane discussion upon the subject of the security of this country considered separately from the victory of the British Empire in the main theatre of war.

Mr Brennan:

– What about ending the war

Mr McEWEN:

– That is a very cheap and irrelevant interjection. It is about as useful as the contributions we have had from the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) during the last few years when this Parliament has been confronted with the imminent need for strengthening the country’s defences. I have heard the honorable member indicate that he believes that if this country had not a trained man, or a single item of arms or ordnance, we should have nothing to fear from any aggressor.

Mr Brennan:

– The honorable member never heard me say that.

Mr McEWEN:

– I have heard the honorable member say that in substance on many occasions.

Mr Brennan:

– That is a lie!

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Batman must withdraw that remark.

Mr Brennan:

– Yes, in deference to the rules of the House, I withdraw it, but the honorable member’s statement has not a particle of truth in it.

Mr McEWEN:

– I pass that issue by saying- -

Mr Brennan:

– Withdraw it! Withdraw that most offensive remark that you dared to make about me. Withdraw the statement that I would leave this country without one single defender.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not an unparliamentary remark.

Mr Brennan:

– It is most offensive.

Mr McEWEN:

– I did not say that.

Mr Brennan:

– Then have the decency to withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Batman must cease interjecting.

Mr Brennan:

– Only I must withdraw?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The statement of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) was not unparliamentary.

Mr Holloway:

– It was offensive.

Mr Brennan:

– It is foul.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Is not the word “ foul “ unparliamentary ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask honorable members to preserve order. I did not hear the word complained of.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The honorable member for Batman said that the statement of the honorable member for Indi was “ foul “. I object to that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member to be silent.

Mr McEWEN:

– I have no desire to deliberately misrepresent the honorable member for Batman.

Mr Brennan:

– That is just what the honorable member wanted to do.

Mr McEWEN:

– Having listened to many speeches of the honorable member for Batman, the impression I have just given is that which was left in my mind, and I believe in the minds of other honorable members also.

Mr Brennan:

– That is accounted for by the honorable member’s stupidity and malice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask honorable members not to interject again.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I desire to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) to resume his seat. Exchanges between honorable members have led to grave disorder. Because of the -many interjections made, I am unable to hear some of the remarks complained of. I ask honorable members not to continue in that way, and I shall ignore everything that has passed.

Mr McEWEN:

– I was proceeding to say that, in my opinion, there is no possibility of any sane man attempting to subdivide the responsibilities of this country in regard to its defence and its security. One cannot discuss the security of Australia solely from the aspect of home defence. The security of this country will be equally challenged and its fate undeniably sealed should the British Empire be defeated, wherever this war is fought. I welcome the pronouncement that this country is actively to participate in the war. Until to-day we have had no indication from the Government of any proposal for active participation by Australian forces. There is no room for doubt or division of opinion amongst Australians that we desire to do everything possible to safeguard the security of our own country, but this country, with its meagre population of 7,000,000 people in an area of 3,000,000 square miles, on its own material resources and by its own efforts, could not provide for its effective defence should it ever be threatened by a powerful and populous nation. Our security lies in the supremacy of the British Empire and in closest co-operation with the component parts of the Empire. Our most cherished thought is “ Australia for Australians “. For us to realize that ambition we must closely co-operate with the other members of the Empire, wherever they are fighting, for victory or defeat of the British Empire spells victory or defeat for Australia.

It would be unwise, however, to contemplate the despatch from this country of the only men who are mobilized for permanent military service during this war period until advanced preparations have been made for the replacement of those men by at least an equal number of men enlisted for the duration of the war, and trained on a full-time basis, the basis upon which the 6th Division is being trained at present. I agree with the honorable gentlemen who doubt whether we have yet seen the final alinement of nations in this struggle. During the early stages of the last war, nation after nation was joining either of the two sides, and it was not until about two oi’ two and a half years after the start of that war that the last major power joined in the hostilities. There is still the possibility of there being added to our enemies in this struggle the forces of some other major nations. This nation, while it is playing its part in the general defence of the Empire, which is the most intimate part of the defence of Australia, needs adequate resources for the immediate defence of Australia. It is not fair to the Militia or to this nation itself to rely on part-time trained militia men for our first defence against a local attack. This country should never during a period of war or threat of war be without a fully-trained and equipped body of men, permanently enlisted and ready at any time and at a moment’s notice, to act as first-line troops to repel an invasion. The members of the 6th Division meet that requirement. They provide the first shock troops for home defence. Now it is properly intended that the 6th Division shall be despatched abroad. Concurrently with the declaration of that intention, there should have been a pronouncement that at least one further division would be immediately enlisted for service during the duration of the war. The military advisers of the Government would be the best people to decide the adequate number of men - itwould necessarily depend on the line-up of the nations in this struggle - but, certainly, not less than 20,000 men should be maintained in camp in this country.

I view with dismay the attitude that has been disclosed by the Opposition on this matter of participation by Australia in the war. During the last election campaign, the Opposition was charged by certain of its opponents with standing for a policy of isolation. That charge was hotly refuted, but the amendment that was moved to-day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) proves to the hilt that it was well founded. There can be no isolation for this country in defence. There can be no question of defending Australia on one basis, New Guinea on another basis, and participation in the general struggle on yet another. There is only one basis, as my leader (Mr. Archie Cameron) has said. That is the basis of “ all your resources in “. for there can “be only one aim - ultimate victory. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition gives expression to the principle held by the Opposition and asks honorable members of this Parliament to express their opposition to the despatch of any ‘expeditionary forces abroad. The amendment calls upon Parliament to say, “ We are opposed to the despatch of expeditionary forces overseas “. In other words, if Parliament were to agree to the amendment, we should be saying that Australia is prepared to be at war when the British Empire is at war, but is not prepared to fight except within our own shores, and that, regardless of the fate of the British forces, this country will not send any forces abroad to help them. I regret to hear that opinion expressed by the Opposition. It will receive no support from the Country party, or, I think, from the Government. The Country party has stood for the policy of compulsory military training for the home defence of this country. This is an opportune time to reiterate that policy. We believe that the first obligation on every citizen is to be trained for the defence of his own country and that the first obligation of the Government is to see that the citizens are trained. That is the only policy which will provide for our defence at home. At the same time the fate of this country will be equally sealed if the British Empire is defeated abroad. The only way in which to see that it is not defeated is byfacilitating the despatch of those Australians who wish. voluntarily, to go abroad to fight for the defence of their own country and their own kinsmen-

Mr Frost:

– The honorable member was a minister in a government which refused to re-introduce compulsory military training.

Mr McEWEN:

– I certainly was not.

Mr Frost:

– The honorable member has been in favour of compulsory military training only since he was kicked out of the Cabinet.

Mr McEWEN:

– No.

Mr Beasley:

– The honorable member was a member of the Lyons Ministry which decided not to re-introduce compulsory military training.

Mr McEWEN:

– Never. I was a member of a government which did not bring in universal training for certain reasons. The reasons were that at that time the advice of the highest authorities was that it was impossible then to introduce the system.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Compulsory training is not involved in this matter.

Mr McEWEN:

– Never have I varied from the attitude which I take at present in respect of universal training. The Prime Minister’s pronouncement is welcome, but it should never have been made without a concurrent pronouncement of steps for the enlistment to replace the 6th Division.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- This subject is fraught with great importance to the whole of Australia, and every honorable member has his responsibilities to the people whom he represents. We should be able to discuss the subject calmly and deliberately without heated exchanges and attempts at misrepresentation of views. The amendment, moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), which I formally seconded, is expressed in these terms -

That all the words after “ That” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words “ this House is of opinion that Australia’s man-power is required for the defence and safety of the Commonwealth, and is opposed to the despatch of expeditionary forces “.

The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) said he viewed with dismay and surprise the attitude of the Opposition, but if he had listened to the utterances made by the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions since the outbreak of war, he would realize that they have been uniformly consistent and have been made in such a way that the attitude of the Opposition on this question could not be misunderstood. Speaking in this House on the 6th September, the Leader of the Opposition said -

The Australian Labour party is concerned primarily for the defence and safety of the people of this Commonwealth who are involved in this war, and it is also concerned for the safety and integrity of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which Australia is a part.

On the 5th September, the honorable gentleman declared -

In this crisis, facing the reality of war, the Labour party stands for its platform. That platform is clear. We stand for the maintenance of Australia as an integral part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, the party will do all that is possible to safeguard Australia and, at the same time, having regard to its platform, will do its utmost to maintain the integrity of the British Commonwealth.

On the 15th November, in the course of a definite statement dealing with the despatch of an expeditionary force, the honorable gentleman said -

I am opposed to an expeditionary force leaving Australia. If peace should fail our dangers are increased, and while this uncertainty confronts us, then most certainly we should not agree to the depletion of our manpower.

Again, during the present month, speaking in reference to a ministerial statement made by the Prime Minister in this House, my leader said -

He (the Prime Minister) said that, first, the Government stood for victory. Obviously it would be ridiculous to be fighting for defeat, and the Labour party takes no exception to, and inevitably endorses, the statement that, while the war continues, it is expected that the whole of the members oi the British Commonwealth of Nations will do their utmost to achieve victory. Most certainly nothing will be done on this side of the House which would contribute to the defeat of the British Commonwealth, for our undertaking is to maintain its integrity. Our duty in construing that obligation is to have paramount consideration for the safety of this portion of thu British Commonwealth. That, we venture to say, is not only the duty we owe to our own people, but also the responsibility we incur as the trustees in this part of the British Commonwealth for what shall be done here.

On that occasion, as on all occasions, the honorable gentleman spoke in a way that could not be misunderstood by any section of the people who desired to view this matter impartially and as one above the realm of party politics. It is unfortunate that, at a time like this, when feelings run high, there is a desire to misrepresent the views of public men. The Leader of the Opposition was, I think, justified in stating to-day that the present alinement of powers was such as to occasion some anxiety as to the future, and that nothing has happened to mitigate in any way that anxiety, which was expressed by leading members of the Government at the outbreak of the war, as to the possible future alinement of the powers. “We know that the Government did not then envisage the sending of an expeditionary force overseas. History proves that there is every justification for the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that this is the first instalment of a policy which will lead to the despatch of subsequent divisions overseas, and that to raise a sufficient number of men to reinforce the divisions sent overseas must inevitably lead to strong demands for the introduction of conscription. One honorable gentleman opposite said that there is no intention on the part of theGovernment to do anything of that sort.

Mr Gander:

– The Leader of tho Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) said to-day that he would send ten divisions abroad.

Mr FORDE:

– According to the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander), the honorable gentleman said that one is quite inadequate, and that, if necessary, he would agree to the sending of ten divisions abroad. That would mean the sending of 200,000 men, and subsequently, reinforcements. In the present world situation, with the incomplete alinement of powers, as admitted by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen), he would be a bold man indeed who would say that we could afford to send ten divisions abroad and reinforce them from time to time. There has been a great change of opinion in -regard to this allimportant question on the part of the Leader of the Country party in recent months. Speaking on the 24th February, 1939, at a dinner in Brisbane given by the Queensland Country party in honour of the then Leader of the Australian Country party (Sir Earle Page), the honorable gentleman said -

Two plain facts must be boldly stated: the first is that Australia cannot again participate in a European war by sending an army.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It is not an army; it is a division.

Mr FORDE:

– I -am told that the honorable member said that, if necessary, he would agree to send ten divisions abroad ; that is, 200,000 men.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I did not mention ten divisions.

Mr FORDE:

– I believe that the honorable member said, in effect, that the Government is fiddling while Rome burns, and that, if necessary, ten divisions should be sent overseas. Speaking to his friends gathered around the festive board in Brisbane, the honorable gentleman is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 24th February, 1939, as having said -

Britain may well be so fully occupied in a European conflict that we may have to depend on our own resources for an indefinite period. Our first duty is to defend ourselves, our second to supply other British countries with the means of living and waging war.

That policy is substantially what we stand for to-day; our first responsibility is to our own people and to out own shores. There are many ways in which we can assist .the Mother Country. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out on numerous occasions that we can make a very valuable contribution to the cause by providing Great Britain and our allies with foodstuffs. We have the land necessary to produce the primary commodities, and the factories to manufacture munitions and war materials. Admiral Lord Chatfield, Minister for Co-ordination of Defence in Britain, said on the 7th February, 1939:- “The dominions must be strong enought to defend themselves.” I wish at this stage to refer to a statement made by another prominent member of the Country party, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson). Speaking on the 16th June, 1939, the honorable gentleman said -

I know that thousands of people in my electorate and thousands of others firmly believe that a statutory obligation to serve overseas does not exist.

Whilst I am a member of this Parliament, I shall use my endeavours to see that no alteration is made in our defence policy in that respect. The people are quite prepared to support a policy under which the manhood of this country may be compelled to serve for home defence, but would oppose an expeditionary force going to New Guinea, Norfolk Island or anywhere else where the British Hag may ‘be raised.

That statement was made by a member of the ‘Country party who was selected by his then leader (Sir Earle Page) to occupy an important position in the last composite Ministry. The honorable . gentleman did not mince matters. I am not criticizing him for his outspokenness ; I believe that every honorable member has the right to speak his mind on such am important question in a deliberative assembly such as thi®; but the honorable gentleman’s remarks make one suspect that a great change has taken place in the- opinions of certain members of the Government and of the Country party within the short period of a few months. The right honorable the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Hughes), speaking in this House on the 5th October, 1938, said, in effect, that it was problematical if any overseas expeditionary force would ever reach its destination. I asked him if he would have sent Australian troops to a war over Czechoslovakia. He replied, “I doubt. if any Australian troops would ever get to Czechoslovakia.” I quote these statements of honorable members opposite to show that grave doubts existed in their minds as to the wisdom of sending an expeditionary force overseas in any circumstances. I have the greatest respect for that ex-Queenslander, Senator C. H. Brand, whose name is highly respected in Bundaberg, of which I think he was a native. He attained great heights as a military expert during the last war, and was one of the generals of whom the highest military authoritiesspoke with the greatest praise. Speaking in the Senate on the 13th September, 1939, the honorable senator said -

Honorable senators should not think for one moment that I am visualizing an expeditionary overseas force. I have already said that the despatch of such a force, voluntarily enlisted, is a remote possibility. No government would dare denude this country of its virile manhood unless some extraordinary development warranted such action.

That is a very clear and definite statement which cannot be misunderstood. The former honorable member for Wakefield, the late Mr. Hawker, speaking in this House on the 28th April, 1938, said -

I cannot imagine any circumstances in which Australia could send’ overseas an enormous expedition such as was despatched during the last war. The world position is such that we cannot afford to denude Australia of defence.

Speaking in this House on the 19th September, 1939, the then Minister for Defence, now Minister for the Army (Mr. Street), said -

The Government of the United Kingdom has, itself, recognized that at the present juncture the best contribution that Australia can make is to defend itself. Great Britain itself is not asking for volunteers at the moment.

In spite of all that has been said by honorable members opposite concerning this important matter, they now attempt to make it appear that the Leader of the Opposition has done something wrong in moving bis amendment. Who has changed his opinions? Has the Leader of the Opposition changed his views and the policy of the Opposition, or has the Government, under pressure, changed it3 policy in regard to this matter?

Mr Beasley:

– ls it possible that the Government is playing the enemy’s game in seeking to deplete Australia of its manpower ?

Mr FORDE:

– I do not believe that the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) is serious in suggesting that. If there be room for the opinion held by the Minister for the Army since the outbreak of the war, that we should send an expeditionary force overseas, even with the present uncertainty ^regarding the present and future alinement of powers it is also right that the Leader of the Opposition, who has been consistent all along in his attitude towards this important matter, should move this amendment. In taking up that attitude, the Leader of the Opposition has tuned in with a man who stands probably highest in British statesmanship, the right honorable the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Nevillo Chamberlain, who stated that the objectives of the British defence policy could be summed up concisely in the following four points: -

  1. The protection of Great Britain itself.
  2. The protection of the trade routes oy which Britain obtains food and raw material.
  3. Protection of all British territories overseas, including military, naval and air bases.
  4. Co-operation in defence of territories of any allies it might have in case of war.

We have no quarrel with that policy; but surely it is only consistent that the Federal Government should place the protection and defence of Australia first.

Probably the Prime Minister of Australia is able to give us some” information which we do not now possess. J.f he has certain information which he has not disclosed to honorable members, he is not being frank with us. He has a responsibility, not only to honorable members, but also to the country, to be as frank as is consistent with, national security.

The Government has changed its attitude on this subject, but the Opposition has been consistent. We stand foursquare with Britain and the Allies in this struggle; but we believe our first respon sibility is the protection and defence of Australia. In view of the possibility of the invasion pf Holland, and the uncertainty of the future of the Dutch East Indies, their importance to Australia and peace in the Pacific, the minimum of our requirements for our own defence is the maximum of our man-power. From time to time, we have quoted expert military opinion on the issue. No one can deny that very many military experts hold the view that Australia should maintain its -man-power so as to be in a reasonable position to defend itself. Now, -with the full realization of the responsibility of our declaration, and of our obligation to the people of this country, we repeat, with all earnestness and sincerity, that we believe that it is in the best interests of this country, and in accordance with our declared policy, that Australia should,, in the present unsettled state of affairs in the east and abroad, retain its capacity to defend itself as one of the outposts of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I am amazed that any member of this National Parliament should oppose the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), and should resist a policy which will enable Australia to join forces with other parts of the Empire for defence purposes. While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), were speaking, my thoughts went back to that great Labour champion, Mr. Andrew Fisher, who led the Labour party at the time of the outbreak of the last war and in 1915 won an election for Labour with the great slogan, “We are behind the British Empire to the last man and the last shilling “. Oh, for the shades of Andrew Fisher! And oh, for Labour’s policy of 25 years ago ! I call upon such honorable members of the Opposition as the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins), who served in the last war in the same unit as I did, and other honorable gentlemen opposite who served in the war, to say why they did so. Did they serve to suit themselves, or to . suit Australia, or to assist the Empire at large? When the Estimates were under consideration last year, the Leader of the Opposition declared, with conviction, that Australia needed for its defence, a big navy and a large air force. He said, in effect, that he would build thousands of aeroplanes if he could. Why ? To defend Australia, of course! But where can Australia be best defended? I pray that we may never be called upon to defend this country on its own shore. Australia can best be defended beyond its own borders. We have always been proud to regard ourselves as part and parcel of the great British Empire, and we are proud to-day to be associated with the other members of the Empire. In view of the interjection of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), while the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) was speaking this afternoon, I feel justified in reminding him that when the Estimates for the Navy were under consideration in 1936 and a plea was being made for the strengthening of both the Navy and the Air Force, he said that the British navy was an evil influence in the world.

Mr Brennan:

– I did not say that.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– This country depends for its very life upon its association with the British Empire. Apart altogether from sentimental reasons, however, we should see the wisdom of maintaining our association with the Empire merely for business considerations. It pays Australia to remain a partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

In the last war, the Australians who served did not regard themselves as belonging to New South Wales, Victoria, or any other State; they were primarily Australians. For the first time in history, Australia was a united nation. I wish we could introduce that same principle into the political arena.

Mr Mahoney:

– The honorable member has not been in favour of that policy.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I am in favour of doing the very utmost to assist Australia to become a great nation ; but we shall not do it merely by standing on a soap-box and making speeches. We shall do it only by co-operation. Apparently the Labour party wishes it to be understood that it is not in this fight.

Mr Mahoney:

– Who said that?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The policy of the Labour party, as declared by the Leader of the Opposition, suggests it. Labour does not desire any Australian troops to be sent abroad, but it must realize that if we are to maintain our place in the Empire, we must assist the Empire. Thousands of our young men would be glad of the opportunity to go abroad to fight for the Empire in the death struggle in which it is now engaged. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition, in. his heart of hearts, has any enthusiasm for the policy he is enunciating. He is probably just as good an Australian as any other member of this Parliament ; but he and his colleagues must realize that the safety of Australia depends upon the safety of the Empire. Honorable gentlemen opposite do not seem to be very greatly concerned because other parts of the Empire are in jeopardy.

Mr Mahoney:

– Be fair!

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already called the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) to order!

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I have some very close relations overseas. My daughter and her young family are living in a locality where they are in constant fear of attack. The district in which they live has frequently been raided from the air.

Mr Mahoney:

– We cannot help that!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Denison must cease interjecting. I shall not tolerate his further interjections.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I suppose all honorable members of the House have relations overseas, and particularly in the United Kingdom. We ought, therefore, to be concerned, about their safety. I wish that the Australian Labour party would adopt the same attitude as the Labour party of New Zealand. The New Zealand Minister for Defence, who is now overseas, and also the Prime Minister of that dominion, in his own country, have made it clear that New Zealand is in the war because it is realized that New Zealand can only continue to exist in its present state while the Empire continues to exist.

Mr Gander:

– What did the honorable member say about the Government of New Zealand after he had had a trip to that dominion?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I have never accepted hospitality from a government and then criticized it on my return, to my own land. The legislative policy of the Government of New Zealand and the administrative methods adopted internally are a matter for the people of New Zealand, just as our internal policy is a matter for us. May 1 remind honorable members opposite that the Premier of one of the Canadian States, who adopted an attitude very similar to that of the Australian Labour party, was given his answer by the people within the last month? That honorable gentleman went to the country and said, in effect, “ We shall not go into “this fight at all. The Empire is at war with a European power, but we are not at war”. He had 66 followers behind him when he faced the electors, and he returned after the elections with only eleven.

Mr Green:

– Is the Canadian Govern ment organizing an expeditionary force?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– Yes. Every part of the Empire has declared its readiness to assist in this struggle. I do not believe that the Australian Labour party would object, for a moment, to go to the assistance of New Zealand if that country were attacked.

Mr Forde:

– Hear, hear!

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I believe that our people would also readily go to the help of Canada if it were attacked.

Mr Mahoney:

– That is not the point.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– Why then should we object to assist Great Britain when it is being attacked? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Who is to decide when Australia is safe and when it is unsafe? All parts of the Empire have been in collaboration with the Government of the United Kingdom since before the Munich Pact of September,1938. Daily, and” at times, almost hourly, conversations are being carried on and numerous conferences are being held. Our Minister for Supply and. Development (Mr. Casey) is at present in Great Britain.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The two hours allowed under the Standing Orders for this debate have now expired.

Motion (by Mr. Street) -by leave - agreed to -

That Standing Order No. 119 be suspended to enable the debate to be continued.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The Leader of the Opposition must be well aware that his is the only voice that has been raised within the Empire against collaboration.

Mr Beasley:

– What does the honorable member know that we do not which warrants him making such a statement?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– We know what is going on. It appears that only the Australian Labour party holds the view that there should be no collaboration. In every other part of the Empire political parties of all descriptions and under a variety of names have indicated their desire to stand by the Imperial Government in this time of serious trouble. The experts of the Empire have decided that the time has arrived when’ it is desirable that an expeditionary force should be sent from Australia.. They have also declared, in effect, that our own internal position, from the defence point of view, is safer than it was even two or three months ago.

Mr Beasley:

– Who has said that? 1 have not seen any published statement to that effect, nor have I heard any speaker declare it.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The Empire experts hold that view.

Mr Anthony:

– Do not the facts of the situation declare it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This subject cannot be debated by means of interjections.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– My only dissatisfaction with the present Government is that hitherto it has seemed to me to lack a spirit of Empire co-operation. It should have taken a good deal earlier, some action in the form now proposed. However, I commend the Prime Minister for his utterance this afternoon. The Empire experts having formed the view that expeditionary forces are desirable from the outlying parts of the Empire, Australia should fall into line. I regret that the Australian Labour party should, alone, be out of step. We can undoubtedly protect our own shores best by fighting away from them.

The Labour party has suggested that the Government is endeavouring to introduce conscription for overseas service. I should oppose such conscription as strenuously as any honorable gentleman opposite. During’ the last war, Australia enlisted more than 400,000 men by voluntary methods, and more than 300,000 of our men actually embarked. Our men were proud to take the part they did in the war. Honorable gentlemen opposite, like ourselves, have expressed their high appreciation of the services of those men and have repeatedly, in this Parliament, requested the Government to do everything possible to assist ex-soldiers who are still suffering from the effects of their service. I am just as much opposed to war as any man on the Opposition side of the chamber; I hate it as much as any man on two legs, and any man who does not hate it has no right to exist as a human being. But the only way in which we can make this country and the Empire safe is to be always prepared to defend ourselves. I wish, in common with members of the Labour party, that we could convince the peoples of other nations of the advisability of disarming.All honorable members must recall the great fight made by Sir Arthur Henderson and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald for “peace at any price”. That .was an ideal with them and the Labour movement of the Old Country and I give them credit for it. They said that they were in favour of disarmament and they tried to the utmost of their powers to persuade other countries, as well as the British Empire, to disarm. The British Empire disarmed very expeditiously to a tremendous degree but immediately afterwards, other countries, and Germany in particular, began to rearm. That, continued until the time arrived when the British Empire found itself in a most difficult, and dangerous position. In building up a defence plan, surely Empire co-operation is needed. Surely it is obvious that this country, with its small population, cannot wholly provide all of the tilings that it needs for its own defence. How many naval vessels could Australia build in order to defend its shores adequately and efficiently? If we depended upon Labour’s policy for the defence of this country in the air and on the “water, we should soon learn that we could not alone bear the expense necessary to defend this part of the Empire. Our wry association with the British Empire gives us that measure of protection that we all want and that would be needed if we were ever attacked. I deplore the fact that we do not in this House to-day unanimously agree to the motion submitted by the Prime Minister and thus give to the world the glad news that this country feels that it has reached not only manhood but also nationhood, and is proud to be associated with the other dominions in inviting men to enlist for overseas service on behalf of the Empire.

Mv. WILSON (Wimmera) [4.38].- I approach this question with some diffidence. In differing somewhat from the policy of the Government in this matter one takes the risk of being branded as disloyal. I say that because of the disposition that I have noticed on the part of honorable members on the Government side of the House to adopt that attitude towards those who disagree with Government policy. The announcement made to-day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that troops are to be sent overseas to serve on the Western Front does not seem to be backed up by the demands of the situation as we understand it. So far as I can see, the policy of the Government is one of “ gradualism “. The Prime Minister began his career as Leader of this’ Government as a very moderate militarist; indeed his complex in that connexion was such that it might have been regarded as one of direct opposition to war and all that it implies. But, for what reason I do not know, we have witnessed a gradual retreat from that point and we have also seen from time to time a. forward move towards a more active participation of this country in actual hostilities. I shall not criticize that attitude; there may be great justification for it but it is a matter for regret that all members of this Parliament, who are held responsible by the nation, cannot be told some of the reasons for the action that has been taken. Only last Sunday night, from a British broadcasting station, a list of British casualties since1 the beginning of the war wasannounced. From my memory of those figures, 1,500-ocfd men have been lost at sea, 300 have been lost in the air, and one has been lost on the land. It is difficult to reconcile those statistics with the Government’s haste to send men overseas. One might well wonder whether Australia is entering into competition with the other dominions to see who shall earn the greatest prestige by making the earliest and most imposing offers to send troops overseas. That may or may not be so; but whatever may be the motives behind the Government’s action, I assert a,gain that this Parliament should be taken into the confidence of the Government in a greater degree than at present. If, in order to do so, it might be wise to have a session of this Parliament in camera, I would seriously suggest to the Prime Minister that that be done. If the Government has sound reasons to advance for the action that it has taken, that would be the very best way in which, to secure the fullest co-operation of honorable members on all sides of the chamber. I shall not further elaborate my reasons for being diffident about casting any vote on the question of sending men overseas at this juncture; when the opportunity has presented itself in the past I have always declared my horror of war and my belief in its futility.

If the Commonwealth Government has entered into some form of collaboration with the British Government I should like to know upon what basis that Government is prepared to consider terms of peace. That is something which has not been uttered, and the only way in which we could speak freely about it would be to hold a session1 of Parliament in camera. I should like to know also whether the Mother Country has expressed any desire at this juncture for Australia to send troops overseas. If it has not done so, then, in view of all the circumstances as T see them, the move is premature. Since we are unaware of the eventual alinement of nations bordering on the Pacific and elsewhere, we can ill-afford at this time to deplete Australia’s man-power. I regret the attitude that has been adopted by certain honorable members on the Government side of the House, who attribute ulterior or disloyal motives to honorable gentlemen on the Opposition side when they disagree with the policy of the Government. A difference of ideals may exist, but there is just as much sincerity on the one side as on the other. We should be extremely careful about deciding to send men away from our shores at this time. I hope that before the time comes for them to depart the reasons for taking that action will have ceased to exist

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HentyMinister for External Affairs and Minister for Information · UAP

– I need scarcely say that I am opposed to the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin). I strongly believe that in” a debate of thi3 kind we should endeavour to keep as clear of party politics as possible, and I propose to’ do that in my brief remarks. As I see the position, and as I think the Government sees it, there is in reality only one battle-ground in this war; it is widespread, but it is one. At the present time there is no such thing as a series of battle-grounds spread over the countries involved in the conflict. In other words, we cannot have an isolated battle-ground in Australia; we cannot divorce our contribution from the war in Europe. Shots fired in Europe to-day at French troops or British troops are fired just as surely at the fate of this country as they are at the ultimate fate of France or Britain. I am not speaking controversially; I am simply stating the facts as I see them. The three or four millions of French people who are mobilized at the present time and the already substantial and rapidly-growing British army on French soil are fighting for Australia just as surely and as literally as they are fighting for France and Britain; if they lose, we lose, and if they win, we win. If France should fail and be overwhelmed, then the position of Britain would become precarious indeed. If Britain should go down, one does not ‘like to dwell upon the fate of France. I come nearer home. If Britain should fail in this war, I ask the House “ What then becomes the position of Australia?” This first year of the war in France is a critical year in which France and Britain are in danger. One gives away no secrets when one says that the combined French and British forces are to-day very heavily outnumbered on the Western Front; that is a well-known fact. In the air, the German forces greatly outnumber the combined forces of Britain and France. We should face up to the position, and recognize the consequences of a defeat in Europe in the first year of this great encounter.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Britain has over 1,000,000 troops under canvas ready to send to the front.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– The fact remains that the German armies to-day are substantially stronger than the combined armies of Prance and Britain. They are standing face to face on that unequal basis, and it can be said that the Allies are on the defensive. The position will probably begin to improve within a few months, but for probably a full year the advantage will lie with the enemy.

If this be a struggle common to the whole Empire, and if we are to make the most valuable contribution possible, to save not France or Britain, but ourselves here in Australia, now is the time to contribute every man who can possibly be spared, while leaving Australia, so far as we can foresee possible happenings, completely safe. In my opinion, a division sent now or within the next few months will be worth five divisions sent in two or three years’ time. When the forces arrayed against Germany begin to outnumber the German forces, victory will be in sight. But the present-is the critical year of the war. The fate of this country and of our children is just as clearly involved in this struggle as are the soil and the people of France and Britain. To me, it is plain that the only thing .for Australia to do is to lender all the assistance that we can give. That is true of the Empire as a whole. There has been some disposition during this debate to belittle the effect of a single division, but I do not think we can exaggerate its effect. The moral effect in Europe will be incalculable, not only upon the enemy, but also upon Britain and France, and perhaps, most of all upon those supremely important people, the neutrals. I do not speak boastfully of what the Dominion troops accomplished in the last war, when I say that their prestige in Europe was amazingly high, and that their light burns as brightly to-day as it did at the close of the war 21 years ago. The effect in Europe of the news that from all parts of the British Empire troops are moving to the scene of greatest danger will be profound. Moreover, the contribution of a division from Australia, and of one or more divisions from Canada, plus the great air force contribu tion, will mean no small addition to the fighting strength of the Allies. I go so far as to say that if it had not been for the Dominion troops as a who-e, the war of 1914-18 would have been lost before America participated in the struggle. History has a habit of repeating itself, and it may be that in this war the contribution of the Dominions will be not only an important factor, but, in fact, a winning factor also.

I come nearer to Australia. What would be the position here if Britain failed in this critical year? Not only to-day, but at all times, Australia has depended for its safety on the British navy. Had not the taxpayers of Britain provided the British navy we could not have kept this country white, and Australia to-day would be a coolie country containing only a small number of white “ bosses “.

I shall get away from the aspect of nationhood and shall touch . on the economic aspect. At this moment, our whole economic structure is at stake. That structure depends for its continuance upon British seamen of the Royal Austalian Navy and the mercantile marine providing convoys for the transport of Australia’s surplus produce. There are some who say that we should not venture beyond Australian waters, that this should not be a co-operative effort. But what if Britain adopted a similar policy? What would then happen to our surplus of wool, wheat, butter and other , products? I say without hesitation that in such circumstances most of our surplus production would rot valueless in this country and that we in Australia should know unemployment on a scale hitherto not experienced, and be able to present a feeble resistance indeed against an invader. These truths are so obvious to me that I am almost ashamed to give expression to them. We are engaged in. a common struggle; the war must be fought on a co-operative basis. Actions designed to protect Australia and Australia’s trade are being taken as far away a« Iceland. Only this week hundreds of British seamen lost their lives in a struggle to make safe the transport of Australian produce to the only open market for it. Those men fought for Australia as surely as if they had been defending our shores from immediate attack. I repeat that should British seapower or the armies of Britain and France fail, this country would collapse economically, and in a short space of time we should lose a great portion of our territory, as well as our nationhood as we know it to-day.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

.- The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) which is now before the Blouse is one of the most important that has been made during the life of this Parliament. During the recent recess, the policy of the Government underwent many changes. Early in the war, and in the months preceding the declaration of war, Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, said that there was little or no possibility of an expeditionary force being sent from Australia. Some Ministers even went so far as to say that the proposal to send troops overseas would not be considered because the position of Australia was so uncertain. As other honorable members have pointed out, it is difficult to say at this juncture who the enemies of the British Empire in this war may yet be, and for that reason the duty of the Australian Parliament is primarily to ensure the protection and welfare of this country and its people. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) said that we would not be able to defend this country and that it was futile to talk about defending it.

M-r. McEwen. - I said no such thing.

Mr CLARK:

– The honorable gentleman said that we were not able to defend this nation.

Mr McEwen:

– I said that of our own resources we would not be able to defend ourselves against a powerful and populous aggressor nation.

Mr CLARK:

– Notwithstanding that statement, the honorable member advocated that this country should be denuded of its manhood, thereby making it less able to defend itself. In order to defend Australia, we must so train its manhood as to provide a valuable force in this country. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) pointed out, the maximum force that we could raise in Australia would be the minimum force required for its defence. For that reason we should not send troops overseas. Jingoistic talk of sending troops abroad may sound all right, but this policy seriously weakens the defence of Australia. The policy of the Labour party provides primarily for the protection and welfare of the people of this country. This party does not wish to see Australia denuded of its manhood and made an easy prey to any aggressor who may come to deal out death and destruction. In view of the world outlook on international conflicts it is inadvisable even to contemplate sending troops overseas. During the last few months, there have been many rapid changes in international affairs. Not many months ago, Great Britain was negotiating with Russia for an agreement designed to protect Poland, but even while those negotiations were in progress, Germany entered into an agreement with Russia which resulted in the present war. Germany then felt that it was free to attack Poland without danger from Russia. I point this out in order to show the changes that are constantly taking place in international opinion. A little while ago, we were reading of how British nationals were being ill-treated by the Japanese in China, and Japan was regarded as an unfriendly nation that might attack Australia. However, with the signing of an agreement between Russia and Germany, we were told that public opinion in Japan had become more favorable to Britain. Unfortunately, such opinion is not very reliable, and there is still the possibility that Australia may be confronted with other enemies, not confined within Europe as they were during the last war, but in a position actually to attack this country. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, some of the nations have not yet decided what part” they will play in this war. Some, though they may be neutral to-day, may be our enemies to-morrow. I should be sorry if that were to happen, but it would be unwise to ignore the possibility. Australia must protect itself, and the manhood of this country should not be sent overseas.

Some time ago, the Government stated that there was little likelihood that Australian forces would be sent away. Then we were told that a force of 20,000 men was to be raised for service either at home or abroad. Later, it was stated definitely that the force would be sent overseas unless something unexpected occurred to keep it at home. The next announcement was that a body of 550 members of the Air Force was to be organized for service abroad, and a little later that number, we were told, was to be increased to 3,200 men. Thus, stage by stage from being told that no force was to be sent at all, we are now informed that a whole division is to be dispatched, in addition to more than 3,000 members of the Air Force. In fact, the only limit to the number of airmen who will be sent away seems to be the resources available for training them in Canada. It is generally recognized by authorities that the Air Force should constitute the chief defence of Australia against attack. It is the most mobile force we have, and is most suitable for the defence of a large, thinly-populated country like Australia. In spite of that, however, the Government proposes to deplete the country of those who would be most suitable for serving in our Air Force at home. The Government’s decision is not dictated by consideration of what is best for Australia, but has been influenced by interests overseas. I ask the Government why it has decided now to send a contingent overseas when the position is substantially the same as it was some time earlier, when it was announced that no force would be sent.

At the beginning of the last war we were told that only a small contingent would be sent away. Then larger and larger forces were despatched, and then the question arose of reinforcing them. Australia made a tremendous effort during the last war, because of the encirclement of the enemy at that time it was comparatively safe to send men out of the country. It is no longer safe to do so, and therefore I protest against the Government’s latest proposal. The Labour party believes that it is merely a step in the direction of introducing conscription for overseas service. During the last war, when difficulty was experienced in keeping up the flow of reinforcements, the Government of the day tried to introduce conscription. I have no doubt that the same thing will be attempted to-day. The original ex- peditionary force of 20,000 will swell co one of hundreds of thousands, and the Government will bring in conscription in order to reinforce it. It is evident that the word of the Goverment in these matters cannot be relied upon, seeing that it is now proposing to send a force abroad, although a little while ago it declared that it had no such intention. Neither can the word of the Government be relied upon when it says that it will not introduce conscription. At the present time, the Defence Department is having difficulty in getting a sufficient number of suitable recruits. That is because the Government is not offering sufficient pay, and the conditions are most unsatisfactory. At first, the pay of volunteers was fixed at 8s. a day, but that was later reduced to 5s. for those volunteering for service overseas. I maintain that any man who serves his country in the Army should receive at least the basic wage, as do those who serve their country in munitions factories. During the last war, the wage paid to a married soldier with two children was just about equal to the then basic wage, but to-day a married soldier with two children will receive very much less than the basic wage.’ The Government has resorted to compulsory service for home defence, because it wants to force young men into the Army at low rates of pay. It proposes to run this war as cheaply as possible by compelling men to accept niggardly conditions. Once there is- a force serving overseas, it will try to bring pressure to bear on men here to join for reinforcements. Therefore, the Labour party opposes the Government’s proposal to send men overseas, because it recognizes in that the first step towards the conscription of the manhood of Australia, as was attempted by an anti-Labour Government during the last war. On this occasion, however, because the Government has a majority in both Houses of Parliament, it can introduce conscription without a referendum. That is why we demand a vote on this proposal which, if given effect, will endanger the safety of Australia by laying it open to attack from its possible nearby enemies and will be the fore-runner to the implementing of conscription for overseas service.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I rise to express my appreciation of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that the Government has, after having considered all of the circumstances, agreed to give to members of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force the privilege of going overseas to fight for their country - a privilege and an opportunity for which they have been eagerly waiting. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has moved an amendment to the Government’s proposal, the effect of which would be to deny to these men the right to go overseas to defend their country. The Labour party says that no man shall leave Australia to help to defend Australia. In other words, the Labour party says that it will do nothing to help in this contest, nothing to co-operate with the rest of the Empire; that it is prepared to sit down and allow Australia to do just about as much as a neutral country. Are they unmindful as to what has happened to Poland and the neighbouring small States? This, too, would be our tragic fate if Labour’s policy of isolation were adopted. I do not believe that that opinion is shared by any considerable number of persons in Australia. I have frequently advocated that the 2nd Australian Imperial Force should go overseas as soon as the Government believed that the position in the Pacific justified it. No doubt the Government has examined the situation carefully, and its decision now to send abroad a force of 20,000 volunteers indicates that the position is sufficiently satisfactory. The right honorable the Prime Minister has made this quite clear.

That being so, I believe that it is now our duty as Australians to strike in this war where our efforts will be most effective in achieving victory, and in bringing about an early peace. By sitting still and doing nothing but a measure of training in Australia we should be bringing about not only our own destruction, but also that of the British Empire. All nations making up the British Empire must stand together, or they will collapse individually. We cannot save ourselves by refusing to take part in the war, other than by sending foodstuffs and materials to Great Britain. Any neutral country would be prepared to do that. Even the sale of our primary produce to Great Britain is possible* only because we enjoy the protection of the British navy. We cannot expect, and no decent Australian would wish, to go on for very long selling our produce to Great Britain if we are not prepared to raise a hand to help in this time of crisis. Without the British navy plus our own Navy we could not convey our primary products overseas, and would lose all of our market. We must do our best to bring about* the earliest possible peace with victory, and we can do that only by playing our part in full and by sending forces overseas. It is better that we should fight the enemy in his own country than in Australia. If Great Britain goes under, then we should be worn down in this country by a brutal enemy and we would soon become a vassal State. If every part of the British Empire pulls its weight in the war in- Europe, we shall have no difficulty in achieving early victory, but if we are content to sit here and let Britain down, ignoring our plighted word and obligations, we shall have in this country eventually all of the horrors of war about which members of the Opposition talked so eloquently to-day. The Opposition talks about the horrors of war in order to intimidate our people, but those of us who have had the misfortune to experience those horrors are anxious that they should be kept away from our own country. The only way to do this is to defend Australia in the other man’s country. We must go into this war to win it, because if we muck about and emulate the ostrich by putting our heads in the sand and imagine that we are safe, we shall have a rude awakening. Having regard to the calibre of our opponent, I realize that in order to defeat him we must give of our best. If Great Britain were defeated in Europe, what would be our future? Within a short space of time we should suffer the realities and horrors of warfare in this country. Our coast-line of 12,000 miles embraces 3,000,000 square miles of territory. To defend that and to defend our trade routes so that we may send our produce abroad and thereby maintain our solvency, we are dependent on the British navy, and our own Navy. Once we allow the command of the seas to be taken from Britain we shall lose all of the privileges and liberties we enjoy to-day, because, if Britain goes down, we go down. “We shall become a vassal State. Those who advocate that Australia should take no active part in this war, ignore the interests of every man in this country, as well as the interests of the British Empire and democracy, and all that democracy stands for. Those in this Parliament who advocate that we should do less than neutrals and merely stay here and lookafter ourselves are not worthy of the confidence reposed in them. Our duty is to strike where we can strike most effectively, and that is in our enemy’s own land. I agree, however, that as a corollary to the despatch of the 6th Division overseas, a. further 20,000 men should be called up for service either here or abroad. The 20,000 members of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force who make up the 6th Division volunteered their services. I emphasize that. They volunteered to serve either here or overseas, and there are thousands of men - I have met hundreds myself - who are anxious to be trained for the defence of this country. All of our Militia units have long waiting lists, and now that our men are to go to the war, recruiting sergeants will be rushed by men anxious and willing to defend Australia outside Australia so that the horrors of war shall not come here. The Labour party, by supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, proves that it is not a shadow of the Labour party which gave such a valuable lead to Australian defence in 1912, 1913, and 1914. Simultaneously with the enlistment of another 2nd Australian Imperial Force division, the strength of the Militia should be increased in order to allow the men who are on the waiting lists to join up.

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– There are no waiting lists in the Militia.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The honorable member does not know what he is talking about. On my desk in the party room is a letter to me from the Minister for the Army replying to my request that he allow the men at Coolangatta and Southport, who are waiting to join up with the Militia, to go into camp and fill the gaps in the Militia units caused by the extraordinarily large number of men in that area who have transferred from the Militia to the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. Only now, has the Minister for the Army given permission for that to be done. Unfortunately, the camp breaks up on the 4th December, and there will be no chance of the men being absorbed into the Militia in time for them to receive camp training.

Mr Conelan:

– There is no waiting list at all.

Mr FRANCIS:

– What I have said proves that there is.

Mr Conelan:

– Then when are they going into camp?

Mr FRANCIS:

– They will not be able to go into camp until the next camp period,which, I understand, will be beginning in January next for three months. No one who advocates that any part of the British Empire should stand aloof in isolation has the interests of the Empire at heart. The people of Australia will not stand for isolation. I now ask that the Labour party, which was once a great party, review its policy, because it is dangerous to Australia and to the Empire, encouraging to the enemy, and damaging to the Labour party itself.

In the last war, there was no fighting force which was spoken of in higher terms of admiration and appreciation than the Australian Imperial Force. If time permitted, I could read what Kemal Pasha, of the Turkish command, had to say, in a tribute which he paid to the Australians who were engaged in the Gallipoli campaign. No higher tribute has ever been paid to any fighting force. Marshal. Foch, saying good-bye to the Australian Imperial Force, gave it the credit for having stopped the enemy, driven them back, shattered them, and brought about the Allied success. Ludendorf said that the 8th August, 1918, was the darkest day in the war from the German point of view, because the Australian efforts in that engagement had turned the whole war. I saw the young men of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force last Monday, and I forecast that they will be as good as, or perhaps even better than, the 1st Australian Imperial Force. Their arrival at the scene of the conflict will create such a psychology in the minds of our German opponents, that it will be one of the greatest contributions that the Empire can make to an early solution of our difficulties and ready peace. Any political party that wants Australia to stand aloof; that refuses to assist in the efforts for world peace; that refuses to fight; that insists. on Australia isolating itself in this conflict, will get its just deserts when the people of Australia realize what such a policy means.

Mr FROST:
Franklin

– I support the amendment, and regret” the tone of the remarks from the Government benches. Honorable members opposite are trying to make political capital out of the intention of the Ministry to despatch troops overseas. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), for instance, declared, not once, but half a dozen times, that the policy of the Labour party was for isolation.

Mr Francis:

– -So it is.

Mr FROST:

– I regret that the honorable gentleman said that, because during the last election the tag “ isolationist “ was sought to be applied to members of the Opposition, but without success. Since this war started, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has stated clearly that the Labour party stands behind the British Empire.

Mr Anthony:

– A long way behind.

Mr Francis:

– What is the Labour party doing?

Mr FROST:

– We are solidly behind the British Empire. The British Government realizes that Ave have done everything we can do to assist it. Hitherto, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has been in complete agreement that troops should not be sent overseas. He would have been in agreement to-day, but for the dictatorship of the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron). That honorable member is the man who has forced the Prime Minister to proclaim to-day the intention to send the 6th Division overseas. Before Parliament went into recess, the Prime Minister said that there was no necessity for conscription or universal training. Last November, after the Tasmanian Labour party had declared in favour of universal training, I advocated the re-introduction of compulsory military training in this chamber. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Street) said, “ We do not need universal training. I do not believe in it “. The then Prime Minister, the late Mr. Lyon3, did not believe in it either. Nor did the Cabinet. Last September, I said to the Minister for the Army, “ If you had taken my advice last year and had universal training, a lot of your difficulties would have been solved “.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind honorable members that universal .training is not mentioned in this statement.

Mr FROST:

– Universal training has been mentioned by many other honorable members.

Mr SPEAKER:

– And the Chair has called them to order.

Mr FROST:

– I bow to your ruling. Honorable gentlemen opposite have stated that we rely on the British navy to keep our trade routes open. We never have been able, and never will be able, to protect our own shores.

Mr Anthony:

– Why not?

Mr FROST:

– Because it is impossible for a nation of 7,000,000 people to compete with a navy of a first-class power. We could never have a navy sufficiently strong to do that. During the recess the former leader of the Country party, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), said that Australia should have two first-class battleships which cost about £15,000,000 each. Of what use would be these battleships in the defence of Australia ?

Mr Anthony:

– If the Admiral Sheer came out here their value would soon be apparent.

Mr FROST:

– During my visit to England in 1935 I had the opportunity to see a naval review at Spithead. Among the party which I accompanied were some of the most able men who had taken the greatest interest in the defence of the Empire. One of them in saying to me that the Australian Navy was quite large enough for present requirements asked. “Do you think that Australia could ever possess a navy as large as that which we are now reviewing?” There were 16i> naval vessels partiicipating in the review some of them costing over £11,000,000 sterling to build and equip. They would, of course, cost a lot more in Australia. What opportunity have we to build up a navy of that description? Even if we had so many naval vessels we could not man them. However, I fail to see the need for a large navy to defend Australia, and we are certainly not contemplating attacking other countries.

Mr Anthony:

– Without the protection of the navy, how would the honorable member get his apples to Great Britain?

Mr FROST:

– The question of transport of primary products abroad seems to be constantly troubling honorable members opposite. If we are able to sell our fruit, wool, wheat, meat and other primary products to Great Britain it is because the British people need them; if they need them they should be prepared to keep the trade routes open. I regret that the Prime Minister, after delivering bis statement on this important subject, has not seen fit to remain in the House to hear the views of honorable members in regard to it. In the past it has been customary for the responsible Minister to remain in the House during the whole of the discussion. I deplore the absence of the right honorable gentleman during this debate. I am entirely at a loss to understand why this change of policy has been decided upon by the Government at the present juncture. We are informed in the press that, apart from a few sporadic raids, there is little activity on the Western Prout. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) has revealed the small number of casualties sustained in the war so far. Although no one wants to hear of large-scale slaughter in this war, the figures disclosed by the honorable member reveal that very little in the way of serious hostilities has yet been attempted. Having regard to that, I fail to understand why the Government now proposes to send the 6th Division abroad. Of what possible use can these troops be put to when there are already over 6,000,000 troops in France and another 4,000,000 in Great Britain who have not yet gone into action?’ It was reported in the press recently that some of the French troops have been demobilized until after Christmas, and that .many British troops will be allowed to leave for their homes for’ Christmas holidays. It appears to me that in making this decision the Australian Government is merely trying to get in ahead of New Zealand, the Government of that Dominion having announced its decision to send a contingent of New Zealand troops abroad some time ago. At a time like this, when transport by sea is fraught with danger, to say the least it is a risky undertaking to send troops abroad before they are required. This country is justly proud of the Australian troops who served during the last war; they gained renown for themselves and their country on every front on which they were engaged ; and the new generation is willing and anxious to emulate their example. I have two sons in the Militia and I know that the young men offering their services to their country at the present time are of a splendid type; but what is troubling me and every other Australian is how we are to get our troops to the other side of the world. Military and naval strategists tell us that it is far too dangerous to send an expeditionary force abroad at the present time. While he was addressing the Empire Parliamentary Association in England in 1935, Mr. Anthony Eden,, whom I regard as one of the most outstanding British statesmen, was interrupted by a Canadian representative, who asked “Will the Empire not again need expeditionary forces from the Dominions ? “’ Mr. Eden turned to him and said, “Weshall never need another expeditionaryforce; it would never be safe to convoyexpeditionary forces overseas again. The man-power of the Dominions will be needed at home. The Dominions can best contribute to the cause of the Empire by becoming self-supporting. If they should’ be attacked, we would then knowthat they would be able to stand upagainst an enemy, at least for a time.. It would be a great relief to the MotherCountry to know that, through their own factories, the Dominions could supply the whole of their requirements. If the Dominions are attacked the British navy will be able to come to their assistance in time, but they may have to rely upon their own resources for a couple of” months”. At that time Mr. Eden wasoccupying the important post of .Minister for Foreign Affairs and was handling theAbyssinian question ; he had everything, at his fingertips.

I regret that an endeavour has been made to make political capital out of this proposal. At a time like this what is needed most is unity. It must not be forgotten that, if the Empire were fighting to the last ditch, its fate in the long run would be decided, not by capitalists and politicians, but by the working people. It is the workers who have played the greatest part in all wars; they will always continue to do so. I regret exceedingly that honorable members opposite, particularly the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett), saw in this debate an opportunity to make political capital out of the action of the Leader of the Opposition in moving his amendment, and attempted to mislead the people into a belief that the Labour party is disloyal to the interests of the Empire.

The honorable gentleman said that there are more German troops than French and British troops on the Western Front. We have been waiting for the honorable gentleman to give us .some information which we have not already gleaned from the press; but it is a pity that he waited until now to make such a statement. How does the Minister know that his figures are accurate? Surely, if there are fewer French and British troops than German troops on the Western Front, the Allies could quickly rectify that position within a few hours. It ill becomes the Minister to make an attack on the British and French military authorities in this way. I regret that the honorable gentleman has also seen fit to make sneering remarks regarding what he refers to as Labour’s policy of isolation. We all know that the Government has been forced to see the wisdom in Labour’s defence policy and that, to a great degree, it has adopted that policy as its own. I have the fullest confidence in the British Government and in those who are charged with the responsibility of shaping our destinies in this war, and I am surprised that the Minister should attempt to bolster up his argument in favour of sending an expeditionary force overseas in such a way. Why should anybody be sent outside this country at a time when its man-power is most urgently needed because of our inadequate defence preparations? Before we offer criticism of others we should first of all put our own house in order. Australia may be attacked at any time. We know that close to us in the Pacific is a potential enemy with a first-class navy and highly-mechanized army. If that army ever invaded Australia what possibility would we have of being able to stand up against its highly-mechanized units? If an Australian expeditionary force of 20,000 men is sent abroad many additional thousands of men will have to be trained in Australia to replace wastage. The futility of the Government’s defence policy is best shown by the failure of its recruiting campaign. In a great number of districts throughout Australia, men who offered to form regiments were turned down; they were unwanted. Many of the. men who volunteered during the recent recruiting campaign are still ill-equipped. They are also making great sacrifices. They were told, at first, that they would be required to go into camp for sixteen days. Afterwards, they were told that they had to enter camp for a month. They were to receive 8s. a day for their sixteen days, but they are to get only 5s. a day for the month. Later, they will be expected to spend three months in camp, also at 5s. a day.

Mr Conelan:

– It is a breach of faith !

Mr FROST:

– I agree with the honorable member. I believe that everything possible is being done to disparage the voluntary enlistment system. Personally, I do not believe that it has failed. 1 was an advocate of compulsory military training, but when the Government said, “We do not want compulsion; we believe in the voluntary method”, I did everything in my power to assist in the campaign. In my own district, the Channel, 87 per cent, of the eligible men enlisted. I believe that that was one of the best averages in the Commonwealth.

Mr Anthony:

– Does the honorable member still believe in compulsory military training?

Mr FROST:

– I have done my best r,o assist the voluntary movement. The Government has twisted, not because the voluntary system failed, but because the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) has taken certain action. That honorable gentleman made a speech prior to the opening of Parliament to the effect that when Parliament reassembled he would “ stand the Government up “. He did. so with the result that within a week the Government announced that it intended to adopt compulsory military training as from the beginning of next year.

I support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. In our existing circumstances I think it would be both wrong aud unsafe to send Australian troops overseas. Leading authorities have been cited as opposed to the provision of an Australian expeditionary force. So far as I can judge, such a force is not needed, and until it is needed, [ shall support the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- I shall not dwell at any great length on this subject, for to me the Government has taken an obvious step if it is of the opinion that the security of Australia will not be jeopardized by the sending of troops abroad. Some speakers, particularly honorable gentlemen opposite, have referred to statements made on other occasions by Government supporters indicating their opposition to the recruiting of an expeditionary force. I must remind them that the circumstances of today are entirely different from those of the early days of August last. At that time we had a “ line-up “ of the Axis Powers, Italy, Japan and Germany. It appeared at that time that Russia might be with us. But the situation has entirely altered, and in existing circumstances, there seems little likelihood that Australia’s position will be jeopardized. We are not in the difficulty that we thought we might be in just prior to the outbreak of the war.

We are in this war for good reasons. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) said so, and, in fact, I have yet to hear an honorable member on either side of the House say otherwise. The plain fact is that we are committed to the issues which face us, and there is no evading them. If we desire to continue to live with the measure of freedom that we have had hitherto, and in the enjoyment of our possessions, we must wage the war to the maximum of our ability. Further, if we are to render our best service, we must rely to a large degree upon the judgment of those responsible for directing the Empire’s defence. Until recently, I, myself, felt that it might be injudicious to send troops abroad, but I have come to the conclusion that for three reasons, at least, we should do so if it is at all possible for us to do it. It is necessary for us to enter the firing line in order to retain our self-respect as a nation. Those who are in a fight cannot retain their self-respect unless they feel at the bottom of their hearts that they are doing their utmost to bring it to a successful conclusion. We are committed to this war and we should fight in the interest of our national honour. Secondly, we should send our troops because even a relatively small force of 20,000 men might, at a critical juncture, turn the tide of battle. Marshal Foch, in his book, or in some other connexion, stated that the tide of the last war was turned in 1918 by the stand made by the Australian troops at Villers Bretonneux. Even a small force may play a significant part in the winning of victory. We must take our part in the war, also, because, if our turn should come to be menaced, and if the future of our country should be endangered by an aggressor, we would expect the British navy and other available arms of the British forces, or, it may be, of the forces of other dominions, to come to our aid. Unless we take our place in the fight now when we are able, we shall have no right to expect others to - come to our assistance in our time of need. There can, therefore, be no evasion of the moral issue. A responsibility rests on us to do our utmost, by sending troops across the water, and by other means within our capacity, to do our part to win the ultimate victory.

Members of the Opposition have adopted the attitude that Australia should not send forces abroad and so impair its manpower resources, which they think is not desirable at this stage. I agree that that point of view is justly arguable; but if honorable gentlemen opposite stand on that ground they will find some difficulty in reconciling their position with that adopted by the Leader of the Opposition at a meeting which he addressed in the Sydney Town Hall quite recently. The honorable gentleman on that occasion said -

The first and most powerful contribution that Australia could make to the integrity of the British Commonwealth of Nations was to make sure that the Commonwealth was at least assured of the maximum capacity to defend itself.

That remark won cheers for the honorable gentleman. Seeing that he expressed that opinion, it seems to me that the logical consequence is that he should take steps to require every able-bodied man in Australia of appropriate age to be trained. Wars cannot be won by words. Highly-trained mechanized troops must always defeat a disorganized rabble. Experience in other countries has shown conclusively that trained troops always w in a victory over untrained men. If an aggressor came to Australia, it is undeniable that our men would have to face highly-trained troops. If our boys had not been trained, they would not have a chance of victory. It appears to me that there is grave inconsistency between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the Sydney Town Hall and the speech he has delivered this afternoon. If we could win the war and give effective help to Great Britain by making attractive alliterative allusions or by the use of a dictionary, the Leader of the Opposition might well contribute to the victory. He said in his Sydney Town Hall address -

Australia inevitably, unequivocally and inflexibly is on the side of Britain in this struggle.

What can that sentence mean unless it be that we should enter the war with the whole of our capacity, and wage it “ inevitably, unequivocally and inflexibly “ ? Instead of finding support for such a policy we find ourselves faced by honorable members opposite with “ifs” “buts” and “whys”. The honorable gentleman has made it clear that he believes that we should defend Australia only within our own shores.

In my opinion, neutral countries arc doing as much as, or more than, Australia Ls doing at present, for they, at least, have manned their frontiers. Holland is prepared to open its dykes and flood its land. Moreover, every Dutchman has a rifle on his shoulder. The South American republics and also Argentina are alert. Argentina is supplying grist for the Allied mill and is also sending meat and butter to Great Britain in addition to providing for the defence of its own shores. We have a greater responsibility than any neutral country to assist Great Britain.

In answer, to the suggestion that Australia cannot afford to send troops abroad because of the fear that it may be attacked, I would say that if this country were assailed in the next three, six or twelve months, its only hope of successful resistance would be through the intervention of the British navy and other arms. The Singapore Base is our first bastion. We should have to rely, in the event of an attack, upon British help. I submit, therefore, that now, while we are able, we should use all of our resources to assist Britain to wage the war and to prevent an attacking force from approaching our shores. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Frost) admitted that Australia could not possibly maintain a navy ; he did not say that we did not need one or that we did not want one, but’ that, because we did not have a large enough population or sufficient monetary resources, we simply could not maintain a full naval force. I frankly agree with him. Should Britain go down in this struggle the whole structure of the Empire must collapse. For that reason it is necessary that we should take every possible step to ensure that victory does ultimately come to our side. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) asked by way of interjection earlier this afternoon “ Is there any victory in war ? “ There is no victory for any one, but there is defeat for the vanquished ; for them there is oppression, loss of freedom, loss of life and the ultimate possibility of the loss of nationhood. There may be no victors, but there are certainly the defeated and the oppressed. We have only to read of what is now happening in unfortunate Poland to realize that. I have here an extract from the .Sydney Daily News, a journal representing a section at least of the Opposition party, which contains an item received from its “ own cable service “. I do not know whether that service is more reliable than any other cable service, but the headings over the message say “ Poles butchered : Shocking lust for blood : Gestapo strikes again “. The message begins with the following statement : “ The blood lust of the Nazis, evidenced so shockingly in Prague’ last week, has now swept to Poland “. It continues with a horrifying account of what is happening in a civilized country whose people were desirous of maintaining their freedom and who gave their lives in hundreds of thousands in an effort to achieve that end. So far they have lost, and their defeat will be permanent unless the Allies succeed in the present struggle. What is happening in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries, may conceivably happen here, if not during this war, at some future date. A time may come when we shall appeal for assistance from friendly nations who may thereupon ask: “What did you do to help us when we needed help just as vitally as you need it now? “ The people of Australia have slept peacefully for 150 years and no enemy foot has ever been set upon its shores. That state of affairs has continued, and can continue indefinitely, only through the maintenance of the integrity of the British Commonwealth of Nations; if the British Commonwealth of Nations goes down, Australia must go with it. Therefore I welcome the decision of the Government to do what the men who enlisted in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force expected it to do - that is to send them abroad. The 20,000 men who enlisted in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force - a fine body of young men, irrespective of the reasons which impelled them’ to enlist, be they unemployment, love of adventure or any of a dozen other reasons - had only one desire and that was to go abroad and “get into it”. In justice to them and Australia and the cause for which we are fighting, it is the imperative duty of the Government,’ or the authorities who have the responsibility of deciding these matters, to send that force abroad if they consider that the position is sufficiently secure within Australia. But I issue this warning: that if an Australian expeditionary force does go abroad again-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It will.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I said “does”; I do not agree with the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) in that respect. The Government might decide to change its mind at Christmas time or in January or February, because of certain eventualities that might arise then; the situation must be gauged from the conditions operating in the future. If the 2nd Australian Imperial Force does go abroad, I trust that the Australian Government will ensure that the men are not used as shock troops, but take their part properly in the firing line with the forces from the other Allied countries. I believe that the reputation established by the 1st Australian Imperial Force may be used as an excuse to send the Australian troops first into every attack, causing the ultimate destruction of the division. I do not believe that any of our men would quail at the thought of going into the hottest part of the front line, but consideration must be had for them, and for Australia as well.

Mr Gander:

– Reinforcements will probably be sent from Australia.

Mr ANTHONY:

– That follows quite obviously upon the sending abroad of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. If there is to be real fighting, reserves must be sent. Many will be killed and wounded, and the gaps they leave in the ranks will have to be filled ; it is quite possible that eventually the 20,000 will swell to twice or thrice that number.

Mr Beasley:

– The honorable member apparently favours the sending of many more men.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I believe that our forces will have to be maintained at full strength, in common with every British or French division sent into the lines. I am not afraid to face that issue; it is plain common sense, and if the. members of the Opposition consider that they are the first to discern that fact I hasten to disabuse their minds.

Mr Gander:

– Does the honorable gentleman believe that, if we cannot get troops voluntarily, we must conscript them?

Mr Beasley:

– What does the honor- . able member say about that?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am very glad that the honorable members have raised that point. I give an emphatic “ No “’ to the question of the honorable memberfor Reid (Mr. Gander).

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Chair, at any rate, is not pleased with theseinterjections.

Mr ANTHONY:

– My knowledge and experience are no greater than that of” other honorable members in this House. We all believe that, if men are required to fill the ranks in France, Palestine, Mesopotamia, or anywhere else, plenty of young men in this country will be ready to go without coercion.

Mr Brennan:

– Then why does the honorable member favour compulsory military training?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I favour compulsory military training in the interests of home defence. In order to carry out the principles laid down by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) and other members of his party, one of our first duties is to ensure the security of Australia itself, and that can be done only if the manhood of Australia is trained. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the minimum requirement of Australia is the maximum number of men that can be provided. If that be so, the maximum number of men must be efficient andcapable of bearing arms and fighting as soldiers should they ever be required to do so, which God forbid. I applaud the action of the ‘Government. It should not be necessary to stage a very lengthy debate on this matter ; it appears that the sides are alined, and that there are two parties in this House which favour a contribution to the Empire’s war effort by way of service abroad, and one Which is not diffident but hostile to such action. There is also one gentleman, the honorable member for Wimmera . (Mr. Wilson), who does not appear to know where he stands.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to8 p.m.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.- The debate so far shows clearly that a number of honorablemembers supporting the Government have seized this opportunity towrap themselves in the Union Jack, and declare their unstinted loyalty to the British Empire, while at the same time charging members of the Opposition with being un-British and refusing to play their, part as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Similar tactics were adopted during the last war, but they were employed to-day for the first time during the present conflict. Evidently, any criticism of the Government’s policy in the conduct of the war is to be used as a basis for levelling charges of disloyalty at the Opposition. With all the force at our disposal we throw back the accusation of disloyalty. The Opposition has a perfect right to question the decisions of the Government and to express its own policy; and it will do so irrespective of the accusations levelled at it. I suggest, however, that propaganda of’ this character is not likely to be so successful on this occasion as it was for a period during the last war.

Mr Blain:

– Is it propaganda?

Mr BEASLEY:

– It is political propaganda of the worst kind to bolster up the policy of the Government by claiming for its supporters greater regard for this country than is displayed by members of the Opposition.I suggest, however, that honorable members opposite are playing this game far too soon, because the memory of what took place during the last war is still fresh in the minds of many people in the community. When mention is made of sending away an expeditionary force, our minds immediately recall the highsounding phrases used 25 years ago when men were told that the war -in which they were asked to engage was “ a war to end war “ and “ to save the world for democracy “. They were told, moreover, that when they returned the land would be fit; for heroes to live in. Many of those who were fortunate enough to return know only too well that those promises have not been kept, whilst the widows and children of others who failed to return plead, often unsuccessfully, for conditions which will enable them to live as ordinary citizens, much less than as the dependants of heroes. I put it to honorable members who indulge in thiskind of propaganda in an attempt to injure the Opposition that their tactics are not sound ; they will not get away with it, however hard they try. So . far as I am able to judge, there is ‘no great enthusiasm for the present war. Opposition members who come in contact with the masses of the people have yet to find an atmosphere in favour of war. In the circumstances, honorable members who indulge in the practices to which I have referred would be well advised to be careful how they parade their so-called patriotism. The electorates are much calmer than many people, particularly in this House, realize.

Through the courtesy of the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) I have had an opportunity to peruse the statement delivered this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). 1 have studied it in an attempt to understand why the Government has decided to send abroad an expeditionary force. Both the present Prime Minister and his predecessor said that only extraordinary circumstances could justify the sending of troops from Australia. We were told that it was not at all likely that an Australian force would be sent abroad. Men with military experience,’ like Major-General Brand, who is a member of the Senate, have declared that it would be unwise to send troops out of Australia. I believe that the honorable senator is as competent to express an opinion on this subject as is any one else. The statement of the Prime Minister does not indicate that the Government is in possession of any further facts as to conditions in Europe or elsewhere which would warrant a departure from the policy that was announced only a short time ago.

During this discussion some Government supporters have referred to advice received from experts. Indeed, the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) devoted much of his time to that aspect of the question. I do not know what the supporters of the Government were told in the party room, but the House as a whole has not been informed of any advice from experts which would justify a departure from the previouslyannounced policy of the Government. We, in this Parliament, are entitled to know what, if any, expert advice has caused the change, and who are the experts who tendered such advice. It may be said that such information should not be made public; but if the argument that certain expert advice justifies a change of policy is used for political purposes against the “Opposition, it may be that the so-called experts are experts only in a political sense.

Mr Makin:

– The Minister for External Affairs (Sir Henry Gullett) has been impressed bv German propaganda.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I believe that to be so. No one would say that the Prime Minister is an expert in military matters. As a citizen, he has certain views in relation to the war and the sending of an expeditionary force to Europe, but apparently his views are not regarded as the advice of an expert. To-day, for the first time since the war began, we heard from the Minister for Information that the forces of the Allies, both as to the number of men and their equipment, are inferior to- the German forces.

Mr Riordan:

– If a member of the Opposition had made that statement, he would have been branded as anti-British.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is so. It would have been said that he was assisting the enemy and injuring the cause of the Allies.

Mr Makin:

– The Government takes its cue from Berlin.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I do not believe the Minister’s statement.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– His statement in relation to the Air Force was common knowledge.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Only at the time of the trouble in relation to Czechoslovakia. Mr. Chamberlain was accused of agreeing with Hitler when he might have resisted his proposals, and it was then stated that the Munich Agreement was entered into only because the British forces were not prepared and that the French air force was in an unsatisfactory condition due to the instability of French administrations over a number of years. We were told, however, that the position would be rectified within six months, and I believe that that has been done by the supply to France of aircraft first from Britain, and later from the United States of America. ‘Such actions brought the air strength of the Allies to a standard of efficiency at least equal to that of Germany. Consequently, I do not believe the statement made this afternoon by the Minister for External Affairs on this subject. That is the sort of stuff that is being used to justify the policy of the Government when it- finds itself at variance with the Opposition. I further believe- that propaganda of this kind leads to suspicion and distrust in the minds of the people, who believe that the truth is being withheld from them. It is strange that this statement should have been made here to-day by the Minister. Obviously, the information must have been in his possession for some time if it is true, and if it was good enough to use it in this debate in reply to the Opposition and as a means of bolstering up the Government’s ease, it ought to have been made available weeks ago. There is certainly no reason why it should not have been made available yesterday when the Minister’s own Department of Information was under discussion. We have in this country many skilled workers, and many manufacturing organizations, who could have turned their hands to the manufacture of aircraft six months ago if they had been given the opportunity. If the situation abroad really is as has been stated, steps should have been taken to remedy it long ago. The Government should not have been content merely to trot out a statement about ‘ it now as a justification for sending an expeditionary force overseas, for I believe it is the only reason why this propaganda is being used to-day. For my part, I do not believe the statement.

The only reason advanced by the Prime Minister for sending this force overseas that I can find in this statement of to-day was expressed in these words, “It is a most eloquent answer to the German propaganda “.

Mr Thompson:

– Does the honorable member not think that a force should be sent?

Mr BEASLEY:

– No, I do not. That, as I have said, is the only reason that has been advanced in justification for sending the troops abroad. . Everything else that honorable members have said about the opinion of experts, and about loyalty and patriotism, is mere shadow sparring, quite unsupported by the facts.

It looks as if this war is being fought largely by propaganda. The Germans have been distributing leaflets in France to the effect that Britain is prepared to fight to the last Frenchman. We should not allow this kind of propaganda to succeed in luring away from the dominions the best of their man-power so that they may, perhaps, be destroyed on the high seas by German submarines or mines, leaving us in a bad way from the aspect of our own protection.” After all, the most vital need in this struggle is to be able to defend ourselves. The Government proposes to send one division, but the Leader of the Country party has said that that is not enough. He would have us send four, five, six, seven or more divisions.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I did not say. that. I said that we should be prepared to send more.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Once this division is sent away, the door will be opened for the sending of more and more men. Evidently the Country party is in favour of it, and no doubt it will be able to exert influence on the Government in that direction.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It will be the Government’s declaration before long.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I thank the honorable member for the information. Of course, once the division goes into action,, and there are casualties, the cry will go up for reinforcements. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) made the point that Australians were not to be used in this war for jobs which other forces were not asked to do. Probably he had in mind the futile attack on Gallipoli in which the best of our men were mown down because of the deplorable strategy of those in command. How do we know that the same sort of thing will not be allowed to occur again ?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That is a risk which must be taken in all wars.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes, but we have a right to expect intelligent direction from those in control, so that there will not be unnecessary loss of life upon hopeless undertakings.

Mr Makin:

– The Government and the Country party would again gamble with the lives of Australian soldiers in that way.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The Opposition would gamble with the fate of the Empire.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The point is that reinforcements will be needed to make up losses, and the old cry will go up again for more and more of our men to be sent overseas. In this decision to send a force abroad, we see the beginning of the horrors that must follow. The Leader of the Country party has demanded a full-blooded policy of military training and conscription.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I did not say conscription.

Mr BEASLEY:

– It follows, no doubt, that he would favour a full-blooded policy of conscription for the enlistment of reinforcements.

The Labour party has no need to apologize for its attitude on this subject. It has nothing to run away from. We believe that conditions in this war are entirely different from those which obtained in the last war. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) said, the teams have not yet been picked - the sides have not yet been chosen. No one knows yet what the sides will finally be, and it may be some time before the position is defined; that is, if it is ever actually defined while the .war goes on. Several countries are watching developments closely, including certain eastern countries which are awaiting developments, such as the possible” invasion of Holland, before determining their attitude. If that occurs, Britain will have to come to the defence of Holland, and then, if the Dutch East Indies are attacked- by an eastern power, Australia will find itself in the very midst of the horrors of war with its manpower 12,000 miles away. Honorable members opposite are, apparently, prepared to risk that possibility. Because the sides are not yet finally chosen, and the maximum of our man-power is the minimum of our requirements for the defence of Australia, the Labour party believes that we should keep our man-power in Australia. In this war, the battle-field will not necessarily be confined to the Western Front. It may be at our own door. We may have to fight here in defence of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I throw that statement back at those honorable members opposite who say that our battles are being fought for us on the other side of the world. I put it to the Government, whether it is prepared to admit it or not, that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia to-night who view with horror and dismay the proposal of the Government to send the best of our man-power out of Australia when they may so soon be needed to defend our own homes, our own property and our own women and children. We are a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, a part that must be defended in common with every other part. The economic assistance which we shall be able to render in this war will probably be more valuable even than 20,000 men on the Western Front. This war may not be decided by shot and shell, by rifles or bayonets. So far, at any rate, Britain is not attacking German towns, but is using the weapon of the blockade in an attempt to force the German Government to effect a settlement. The point is that the same weapon will be used against Britain by the Germans, with perhaps, increasing effect. While Britain may be able to cut off Germany’s sea-borne trade, Germany is in the position of being able to draw supplies from Russia. We have been informed that 20 to 30 trains a day are crossing from Russia into Germany, carrying supplies of food and other material to replace what Germany is no longer able to obtain from overseas. As I have said, in this war the battle front for Australia is here at home. Suppose matters should develop in the East as they may quite possibly do. What would be the position in regard to the primary products which are so important to Britain’s economic welfare if our resources were to fall into the hands of an eastern power? The same thing applies to those mineral resources that we have not fully developed. Seven million of us with governments to burn have failed in our duty in that respect, but give a foreign power the opportunity to work those resources and there will be unprecedented development. Within a year or so a foreign power would do in this country what it would take us 30 or 40 years to do. If we should send from this country five, six, seven or more divisions, as the Leader of the Country party would have us do, and the world situation developed in such a way - as may happen - as to mean that a foreign power would direct activities towards this country, not only would Australia be cut off from the rest of the Empire, with all the sufferings that that would mean, but also the heart of the Empire would be cut off from Aus.tralia: and it would no longer be able to get all the resources that it is at present getting from us. Ensured delivery of primary products and raw materials to Great Britain from Australia, I repeat, is more important than 20,000 men. When I refer to “ man-power “ I do not refer absolutely to the military aspect. Indeed, I refer more to the industrial aspect. Man-power is required here in our workshops and our primary industries.

The Labour party does not want the horrors of war in Australia at our own door. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) said that the best way to keep the horrors of war away from us was by sending our men to the theatre of war. That is no argument. That very action may be the means of bringing war here. It may have an effect opposite to that which the honorable member said that it would have. This war is a battle of wits and diplomacy. After the signing of the Russo-German Pact, anything can happen. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that what was said yesterday does not count to-day if it suits a power, in order to gain territories or minerals, to depart from a pact or treaty. The circumstances of this war are entirely different and it is impossible to use the past as a gauge, because the words of rulers can no longer be trusted. Whatever part we play in this war has to be played in this country. I reciprocate the amazement of honorable gentlemen opposite at the Labour party’s policy. I am amazed to think that this Government would dare to take the step that it has taken. The Government has walked out on the Australian people and left them helpless to meet anything that may come out of the East. Honorable members opposite have cried “ Isolationist “ at members of the Opposition, but there is no question of isolation. It is for the dominions to do their duty in this conflict .according to their ability. The part that we must play is to ensure that Great Britain gets the goods that it needs and to ensure that it is necessary that we be able to defend our land. Talk about isolation is utter balderdash. It ranks with a cheap kindergarten jibe and cuts no ice with the people.

We have a duty to defend our own country, our ‘ own women and children from a peril near at hand. During the meal hour some of us had talks with people in Sydney. I can sum up their attitude thus : “ Are they sending our own men away? Is that the attitude of the Government? What are they doing to defend us against peril? Is that their attitude? “ All that we could say from this end was “ Yes, that is the attitude “. We are to 3end not one division, but several divisions, hundreds of thousands of men, before the war is over. I repeat with emphasis that the Government is walking out on the people. The Labour party will stand loyally by its own country.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I have just listened to a delightful speech in favour of Nazi-ism by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). Although I am continuously criticizing the Government on other matters it is an expression of the obvious for me to declare that I support the Government in its decision to send a division overseas - no one minds an expression of ‘the obvious if it is expressed with vigour - and it is again an expression of the obvious to criticize this isolation, this compartmentalism of the Labour party, as expressed through its mouthpiece, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin). Let us face the facts. The Labour party is running away from them. To a degree, I sympathize with its members, because I do not believe that they, the great majority, of them, are sincere. They speak with their tongues in their cheeks. Some of them, however, are sincere. The Leader of the Opposition trusted that, despite the fact that the BerlinRomeTokyo axis had been rent asunder, there was yet prospect of the three splines of that differential being mended. The Leader of the Opposition stated in no uncertain terms that we cannot visualize the nations which may be against us.

Mr Curtin:

– That is in the Prime Minister’s statement, not merely in mine.

Mr BLAIN:

– I am glad of that reminder. Every sane person would agree that the British Empire cannot expect any more major nations to come in on its side, yet so obtuse is the thinking of the Leader of the Opposition that, knowing this fact, he has utilized it to suggest that that is why we should not send troops overseas, whereas it is the very reason, in my opinion, why we should do so. This war will not be merely a war of economic pressure, and we ill U: t have our men at the scene of hostilities if we are to be able to defend our homes.

Posterity will owe a debt of gratitude to the French nation and Clemenceau Ramsay MacDonald failed us in our time of need, but not Clemenceau. Australia went to sleep for 20 years. The French people did not. They are the only nation that has got inside the mind of the Hun. Let us bow our heads in thanksgiving to the French for having saved the world. An Australian monument stands at Villers Bretonneux to-day, but when this war is over - we shall have to build monuments as high as the Pyramids to commemorate what the French have done while others slept. If the Labour party hangs back now it will not do as it claims to do, namely, keep the war away from Australia; it will bring the war right here. The speeches of honorable members opposite represent delightful propaganda for the German cause. Doubtless it is already pulsating through the ether that Australia does not want to fight for the Mother Country. The Labour party has nothing to be proud of in acting in the way it is doing. When the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) talked to-day about the horrors of war tears rolled down his cheeks like pebbles and scoria sliding down the slopes of a’ mountain. Sentiment will have no effect on the German people other than to convince them that Australia, from the defence point of view, is a huge joke. It will also keep the neutrals wondering how we stand. There must be an end to the Labour party’s policy of compartmentalism .

Honorable gentlemen opposite would appear to believe that they come here not as representatives, but as delegates. When I go back to the Northern Territory, no doubt, two or three people will nsk me, “ Why do you speak on matters that do not directly concern the Territory ? “ I shall answer them that I was elected to this Parliament as a representative, not as a delegate. Apparently, however, members of the Labour party regard themselves as delegates. Perhaps they v ould wish this House to be described as the House of Delegates. But in my electorate the men are straining at the leash and champing at the bit to get away to the war. They are not cringing, groaning and biting the dust and grass roots. .No,, they are anxious to do something as “ dinkum “ Australians ! There are many men who are not willing to enlist for home defence. They think that it is tinkering at the thing. They realize that it is better to meet the enemy before he meets us. But if the policy of the Labour party is allowed to take charge in this Commonwealth we shall have the battle-ground extended to New Guinea, the Malay Peninsula and the Malay Archipelago. That is what will happen* The French have done their job and it is for us to do ours. Let us say to the French, “ Thank you “.

Mr Holloway:

– Thank Clemenceau for his rotten peace treaty?

Mr BLAIN:

– The honorable member does not understand the German mind or political policy; perhaps he does not desire to understand them. He reminds me of the midshipman who, on first going to sea, promised his mother to say his prayers each night and to keep a diary. Exchanging confidences with another midshipman, the lad produced his diary which showed an entry relating to the previous night - “ Said my prayers “. The other lad said, “ But you did not say your prayers last night “ and was met with the reply, “ No, but it will read well at home “. It is obvious that honorable members opposite do not realize how or why they are elected to this Parliament. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition, when he was conferring across the table with the Prime Minister, say in respect of the Air Force, “ There is no need for compulsion in the Air Force “.

Mr CURTIN:

– And the Prime Minister agreed.

Mr BLAIN:

– Yes, the Prime Minister rightly agreed. Then the Leader of the Opposition said. “We shall provide the articles to feed them and provide the machinery for destruction “. In other words, it means that to the young bloods of Australia, with the look of positivity on their brows, is to be left the job, while the friends of the Labour party content themselves with making munitions for them. There is no need for compulsion to get young men to join the Air Force. Honorable members generally agree that

Australians of the finest type are attracted to the Air Force. But the honour of manning our fighting planes is not sought by those who, while perhaps wearing uniforms, hide their carcasses in the safety of the workshops. I am surprised to learn that it is to the young lads of from 18 to 25 years that the airman’s job is to be left to carry out Labour’s so-called defence policy, while those who support the Labour party are to sit back in safe jobs. If that is all the supporters of the Labour party can contribute to the safety of this country Australia might well be ashamed of them. As I have said before, Aristophanes, who wrote the comedy, The Frogs, in 400 B.C., defined shame as “ the apprehension of a vision reflected from the surface of public opinion”. The people of Australia will never forget the exhibition given by the members of the Labour party in this House to-day.

Debate (on the motion by Mr. Rankin) adjourned.

page 1737

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Price: Further Ministerial Statement

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

hy leave - I desire to make a further statement with reference to the wheat industry. A few days ago the Government announced that it had made certain financial arrangements in relation to the new season’s harvest. That announcement produced a good deal of discussion, some of which was based upon misapprehension of the position, but some of which proceeded very naturally from the distressed condition in which this great industry undoubtedly finds itself.

Towards the end of last week, I received two deputations, consisting of honorable members and senators, one deputation being led by the honorable the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) and the other by the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Scholfield). The members of each deputation showed a full appreciation of the magnitude of the financial responsibility undertaken by the Government in relation to the .payments already announced, but they all urged that, having regard to the real need, the greatest possible first payment should be provided. It is fair to say also that honorable members recognized that at this stage no indication of what the ultimate harvest realization might be was feasible.

In the light of the representations made the Government has once more exhaustively considered the problem. I want to make it quite clear that we are fully appreciative of the importance of th’1 wheat industry, and that we keenly sympathize with the difficulties by which wheat-farmers, through no fault of their own, find themselves surrounded. Our attitude all through has been that we should go as far as was humanly possible in attempting to relieve the position. The matter is one of intense difficulty all round. It is estimated that there will be a marketable harvest of approximately 160,000,000 bushels; that total is being compulsorily acquired and its marketing is a matter for the Australian Wheat Board. But I must state quite plainly, not for the information of honorable members who appreciate the position, but for the benefit of some farmers who may have been misled on this matter, that the marketable harvest is by no mean3 marketed, and that, in fact, it may very well be that a considerable proportion of it will remain unsold at the end of the selling season. Local consumption will account for approximately 30,000,000 bushels, while quantities which are estimated at between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 bushels may be sold for stock feed. The making of further sales will depend upon the obtaining of overseas markets and, what is not less important, the obtaining of the necessary shipping to transport the wheat to those markets. We are still in negotiation with Great Britain and with foreign countries.

The simple position is that, if wo are able to sell and deliver such a quantity of the new wheat as will recoup the advances to be made and leave a margin for further distribution, the Government will be more than pleased, and would then be in a position to consider the question of supplementary assistance. But if the sales overseas are of small volume and the total receipts from the harvest, therefore, fall short of the advances now being provided, the loss will fall upon the Government and, as honorable members will see, that loss may, in certain contingencies, amount to millions of pounds. I say this because, while the genuine desire of every member of the Government is to do the best possible for the wheat-grower, it is plainly unreasonable to expect that we can, at this stage, even hazard a guess as to what the ultimate return to the grower will be. In the light of all these considerations, we have once more given the most earnest thought to representations made by honorable members and by others who speak for the wheat industry. In the result I am able to announce that we have arranged not only that the amount of the advances will be increased to 2s. 10½d. a bushel for bagged wheat, less rail “freight, and 2s. 8½d. a bushel for bulk wheat less rail freight, thus giving an average return of 2s. 6d. a bushel on bagged wheat at the country siding, but also that, the advances “will be paid in one amount as soon as practicable after delivery of the wheat.

These advances, financed by the Commonwealth Bank, are guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government and will involve a gross liability of approximately £23,000,000. Sales for local consumption plus flour tax will bring in approximately £7,500,000, while local sales for stock food may, as estimated, produce something over another £1,000,000. The balance represents a possible liability to the Government, which would, of course, be reduced by the making of overseas sales, but which will remain at an unprecedented level unless those sales achieve substantial proportions.

I most earnestly say to honorable members that these financial proposals represent not only a fair but also a generous approach to the problem by the Government, and I would welcome the co-operation of honorable members in bringing about a general realization of this fact. After all, some regard must be paid to maintaining some limit upon the accommodation to be provided by the Central Bank, which, in connexion with this war is already shouldering vast and growing responsibilities. Irresponsible talk of limitless millions would, if given effect, produce a grave inflation of costs and prices, and the damaging impact of such a policy would be most felt by primary producers who cannot pass on their increased costa, and who, in the last resort, have the most vital interest in the financial stability of the nation.

I may add that all of the factors to which I have referred give rise to a well-founded fear that large stocks of wheat will remain unsold at the end of the season, and that substantial losses will be incurred. For this reason, it will be clear to honorable members that the policy adopted by the Government in the present emergency cannot be regarded in any sense as a permanent policy, or even as applying for the duration of the war. It is for the 1939-40 season only, and the Government will review the whole position at once. Honorable members are well aware that, in August last, I placed before the Premiers the Commonwealth Government’s plan of stabilization of the wheat industry. That plan envisaged stabilization of prices - subject to the limitations of government finance - and stabilization of production during such time as special financial assistance was necessary. Both of those principles are sound, and must still be regarded as the permanent policy. “We have had to adopt special measures this year because, under war conditions, we are faced with a bountiful harvest, and with grave marketing difficulties, and have not had the opportunity to adjust the industry to those conditions. It is most, important, however, that these special measures should not be allowed to obscure the position, or to confuse the market realizations for wheat with the grant of financial assistance.

The function of marketing should remain separate from the function of financial assistance. One is the physical job of storing and selling the wheat; the other is a problem of government finance. The physical job of storage and marketing, usually performed by the merchants and the voluntary pools, is handled, in wartime, by a special body established under the National Security Act, namely, the Australian “Wheat Board. It seems desirable that that board should, in respect of any harvests which it handles after that of 1939-40, operate on a commercial basis, making such advances as the market prospects justify, and adjust- ing its accounts with the growers according to ultimate returns, including the flour tax.

The responsibility of governments will thus remain clearly defined in its two divisions, namely, the grant of any special financial assistance, and the adjustment of production, as far as possible, to existing . world conditions. If we look at the position in this way, we see clearly that the Commonwealth Government’s plan of stabilization still stands, particularly as regards the control of production. We cannot continue to provide large sums of public money to support the wheat-growers, while they go on producing unsaleable grain. Such a procedure would be demoralizing and unsound.

It follows from what I have said that to sow heavily for the 1940-41 harvest, would be merely to aggravate an already alarming problem. The Government will, therefore, take into early consideration, with the State governments and its own advisers, the question of restricting production next. year. I say this because, quite plainly, as we see the facts at present, it is most unlikely that finance could be available for the 1940-41 harvest on lines similar to those which are now approved for 1939-40.

Mr Curtin:

– I suggest to the right honorable gentleman that this statement which he has just read “should be made an order of the day for an early date - if possible, to-morrow - in view of the fact that the House has not yet determined the examination of the wheat question as previously submitted to it.

Mr MENZIES:

– If the honorable member so desires, I shall move that the paper which I have just read be printed so that he may secure the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Curtin:

– And the discharge of the other debate?

Mr MENZIES:

– Not necessarily. To provide an opportunity for the discussion of the statement which I have just made, I lay on the table the following paper : -

Wheat Industry - Financial Assistance, Marketing and Stabilization - Ministerial Statement, and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Curtin) adjourned.

page 1739

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

2nd Australian Imperial Force: Departure Overseas - Empire Air Scheme - Details of Training.

Debate resumed, from page 1737.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- I am very pleased to support the decision of the Government that Australia is to take its rightful place, in this war as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is quite obvious to me that the Government must have received some information that the danger to Australia from the East has been removed, or that the British navy is prepared to defend us from any attack from that quarter. I was reinforced in this opinion when I heard the reply that the Prime Minister gave to a. question on that point by the Leader of the Country Party (Mr. Archie Cameron). The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) has stated that Australia has no enemy which would make an attack. It is remarkable to me, therefore, that he and his party should flatly decline to consent to any troops being sent from Australia to assist the Empire. On the 1st December, 1937, when defence was being considered in this chamber, the honorable gentleman made these remarks -

The reason why I maintain that much money is being wasted on defence is the very simple and sound one that no enemy is threatening Australia.’ … I have repeatedly asked, “ Where is the enemy, actual or potential, to meet which the people of this country are being scarified and penalized with oppressive taxation ? “

To-day, the honorable gentleman and bis party are saying that Australia must retain every man to defend Australian shores and in order that more wheat; wool, butter, meat and other commodities may be produced and marketed at enhanced prices. We are to allow the young men of Great Britain and France to fight for us while we dodge like curs behind them !

Mr Clark:

– Is the honorable gentleman drawing military pay at present?

Mr RANKIN:

– Yes, and I am earning it, which is more than can be said of the honorable member in respect of his pay as a member of this House. Our sister dominion of New Zealand, where there is a Labour Government in office, has decided that New

Zealand shall take its share in the war. It is not prepared to take shelter behind the British navy or to allow the people of Prance to fight unaided for it. It seems to me that some members of the Opposition would not even stand behind those who fight for them if an enemy came here. They would fall on their knees and crawl to the enemy!

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), for whom I have a great regard, said to-day that various hospitals and asylums in Australia were still full of men of the old Australian Imperial Force. He added that in some instances these unfortunate men were being kept behind iron bars like wild beasts. I remind him that the young men and women of Czechoslovakia were taken from their schools and universities and thrown like dogs into compulsory labour camps by the Germans. If Great Britain were to be defeated in this war, its young men and women would be similarly treated and so, for that matter, would our own young men and women. There can be no answer to these contentions. The only place where we can effectively fight in this war at present is in the European theatre. If Great Britain and France should be defeated, Australia must be defeated.

Mr Pollard:

– There will be neither victors nor vanquished at the end of this war.

Mr RANKIN:

– The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) is talking absolute bosh. He took his part in the last war, and he knows, as well as any of the rest of us, that if Great Britain had been defeated on that occasion, he would not be in this House; nor would he have been permitted to make such wild statements as he is in the habit of making in Ballarat, and at Woodend, where he lives.

Mr Pollard:

– And the honorable member would not have been able to make such stupid statements!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr RANKIN:

– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley)said to-night that every man should be kept in Australia because of the danger that might come to us from the East. I ask him if the people of the Dutch East

Indies, who are friendly to us, were to be attacked, would the honorable member be agreeable for us to go to their aid? He must know very well that if an enemy conquered the Dutch East Indies, it would be a jumping-off place from which to attack Australia that would be justas effective as Darwin itself. Surely, the conscience of the honorable member must prick him. He and his party have opposed the taking of adequate defence measures for Australia. They are against compulsory military training, and everything else that would make for the effective defence of the land which we love.

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– That is quite incorrect.

Mr Green:

– It is bosh.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Honorable members must not interject. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) did not interject when other honorable members were addressing the House, and he shall have the protection of the Chair while he makes his speech. I insist upon honorable members maintaining silence.

Mr Pollard:

– Hear, hear!

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) offends again, I shall name him.

Mr RANKIN:

– The Australian people are proud of their membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That being so, there is only one attitude that we can honorably adopt. We must take our fair share in this war. I have, disagreed with a good many of the defence proposals of the Government, but I am glad to say that I agree with the attitude that it is now adopting. Australia has sheltered behind the British Navy for more than 150 years. Because of the existence of the British fleet, no foe has ever set foot on our shores. I believe that the great majority of the. young manhood of Australia would be proud of the opportunity to serve the Empire overseas. I am in command of a division of our young men. They are good material - as good as, if not better than, the first Australian Imperial Force. The young men of to-day have had better chances and better education, and they are being given a . better training. I believe they will willinglyfight for the ideals they believe in, the land of their birth, and the Empire to which they belong. In fact, they are . being held back at present. Honorable gentlemen of the Labour parry claim that they represent the working class, but it seems to me that they know very little of the spirit of the working :l.ass. The working people of to-day are of the same true metal as were those of

1914-18.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Fifty per cent, of diem are unemployed.

Mr RANKIN:

– That is not so. The young men of to-day are of the same gallant material as those of 1914, and [ believe that they will accept the opportunity to take their stand beside the men of Great Britain and* .the sister dominions. I believe, if necessary, that we should be prepared to send five divisions of infantry and two divisions of cavalry to this war as we did to the last. Unless we are prepared to do at least as well as we did in the last war in this regard, we shall declare to the world that, as a race, we are deteriorating.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

. -The statement made to the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) this afternoon is of great importance, because of three features. In the first place, it indicates that Australia is prepared to co-operate with Great Britain to the utmost extent in this war. “We shall not be satisfied to be merely passive supporters, and suppliers of the materials necessary for the conduct of the war. We wish to take an active part in the struggle in which the Empire is engaged, for we believe wholeheartedly in the principles that are at stake. The statement is notable, also, because it has again brought into prominence the attitude of the Labour party in respect of the war. The debate to-day has shown clearly the degree to which the Labour party is prepared to support the principles for which the Empire is fighting. The third important feature is that it indicates that the British Empire considers that it is in n position to protect every part of the dominions. This assurance is very gratifying. I have no hesitation at all in. saying that, if the governments of the various dominions felt there was any prospect- of jeopardizing their ‘ own countries by taking the active part that they are taking in the war., they would be adopting a different policy.

On other occasions, certain honorable members, in debates in this chamber, have extolled what they have described as the remarkable degree of unanimity between the Government and the Opposition in regard to the war. I have challenged the accuracy of this view. Moreover, I have challenged the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), or any member of his party, to say, in quite simple terms, that if Australia were proved to be perfectly safe from attack, and if the international situation were such that men could be sent from Australia to the war without militating against the effectiveness of our defence measures, they would be agreeable to co-operate in sending a force overseas. My challenge has fallen on deaf ears, for my simple and plain question has remained unanswered. Apparently, it does not matter to honorable members of the Opposition whether the Empire is brought to its knees or not, or whether the principles which we desire to uphold are defeated or not. They intend to stand by the attitude that they have adopted. Certainly we have not heard anything about the last man and the” last shilling in respect of this war. While the Leader of the Opposition waa speaking this afternoon, I asked him a question in such terms as I have mentioned. The only reply I got was that he was not prepared to argue a hypothetical case. Surely the principles for which we are fighting, and upon which our Empire stands, are worth defending! Perhaps it is not so strange that the Leader of the Opposition should decline to answer my question when one considers the curious composition of his party. I have no reason at all to doubt that some honorable gentlemen opposite are- as loyal to the Empire as any. honorable member on this side of the House; but there are elements among members of the Opposition, and apparently they are in the majority, who have not hesitated, on more than one occasion, . to refer in this House to Great Britain as a “ foreign imperialistic power “.

Honorable Members Interjecting. - : Who said that ? ‘

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Honorable members opposite are aware that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has made that statement at different limes. I refer them to a speech made by the honorable member for East Sydney during the first week of the current sittings of Parliament, in which, if anything, he sought to mis-represent the British attitude towards the war and British actions before and since the declaration of war; in fact, he appealed to this Government and the Empire to call the nations together, as being the most sensible thing to do to end this conflict, in order to make terms with Hitler and Nazi Germany. The honorable member for East Sydney is a member of the executive of the Australian Labour party. Another honorable member, one who occupies a high place in the Labour party, an exAttorneyGeneral of a Labour government - I refer to the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) - stated -

Not only do I object to soldiers being enlisted, equipped, and sent’ overseas, but I also object to their bearing the uniform of Australia in conflicts on foreign battle-fields because the consequences must necessarily be the embroilment of Australia in a spirit of ill-will with countries with which we have no quarrel.

Mr Green:

– When was that statement made?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– It was made shortly after the commencement of the present sittings of this Parliament and was reported in Hansard, No. 22.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– What about the statement that the honorable member himself made?

Mr SPEAKER:

– These interjections must cease.-

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– That statement still holds good, and I say to honorable members opposite who have been interjecting, that there is no reason to challenge any one bearing my name as to the stand he takes in relation to the Empire. I shall not again be led astray in my remarks by the interjections of honorable members. I point out that there are undesirable elements in the ranks of the Labour movement, elements which distinctly tend to shape the policy enunciated to-day by the Leader of the Opposition and for which the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) made such a gallant attempt to apologize this evening. The people of Australia should be made cognizant of these facts because this political battle will eventually be determined not in this House, but outside by the electors. 1 have no doubt that when the policies of the different parties represented in this chamber are placed before them the” people will reject the claims of those honorable members who say . that in no circumstances will they send even one man to defend the principles for which the Empire entered the waT. After all, the Opposition entered this war, as did the Government and its supporters, free and unfettered, with its eyes open to the consequences of the conflict.’ There was a remarkable degree of unanimity in favour’ of the actual declaration of war on Germany. I believe that nobody will challenge me when I say that we are fighting this battle not for the Polish Corridor, for Danzig, or for Poland as a whole, but to defend those free institutions which we, as British people, have built up over the centuries and which would undoubtedly be destroyed by the victory of Nazi-ism. We are fighting against a policy that would throw international affairs back to the jungle of two or three centuries ago and would remove relations between nations from the plane of decency to the lowest ‘level that one could possibly imagine. We are fighting also for self-preservation. If the Empire goes down, Australia will not long remain a free country. In view of the fact that we are fighting for something that is of value to every man and woman in Australia, and as the Empire and France are the two major forces fighting on the allied side, is it to be said that Australia will sit passively at home and say that it will sell the Empire anything it wants at a price and that it will profiteer, but that it will not send a single man to support the cause overseas? Dictators sometimes ask themselves whether the British peoples are decadent and have forgotten how to stand up for their own rights and privileges. One can imagine the psychological effect of the repetition in Germany of some of the statements made bv members of the Opposition. It would be definitely adverse to the allied cause. I recall that in the. days preceding the Munich Conference of last year, a statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) to the effect -that not one man would leave Australia to fight for the British Empire. I ascertained afterwards, and every one knows this to be true, that almost within a few hours reports appeared in newspapers being sold on the streets of Berlin and other German cities stating “ The Leader of the Australian Labour party says Australia will not fight “. If anything can damage the cause for which the Empire is fighting it is a statement that will lead other nations to believe that the Empire is not united.

I have said that the statement made by the Prime Minister also gives a form of assurance, in fact in one respect a very definite assurance, that’ the Empire believes itself to be in a position and strong enough to protect every one of its dominions and territories. I direct the attention of honorable members to a most significant part of the Prime Minister’s statement, in which he pointed out that he had received an assurance from the British Admiralty that Australia need have no fear of any nation contemplating a major act of aggression towards it. When it comes to a question of sending troops overseas we. should trust the Government, because it is the only body which knows, at a time like this, all of the facts of the position. Not only this Government but also other dominion governments, with the possible exception of South Africa, have taken action along these lines. The reasons for the delay in taking such steps in South Africa are well known. Does the Labour Government in New Zealand believe that by sending troops overseas it is necessarily going to jeopardize the safety of that dominion? I do not think so. I give the Prime Minister of New Zealand and his colleagues credit for being responsible men in possession of facts which, apart from any desire to assist the Empire overseas in the major field of conflict, influence them not to lay their country open to attack by any word or action. I could say the same thing about Canada, and I believe that this statement by the Prime Minister is an intimation to the people of Australia from the Government that the situation here is sufficiently clear to permit us to send troops overseas without endangering our own country. Although 1 admit that international relations have not been completely clarified, Australia’s main concern is whether on the sea we are able to cope with any attack that may be made or whether the very superiority of our forces would prevent any enemy from even contemplating an attack upon us. I do not suggest that we should send division after division away from Australia without receiving some further indication of the state of international relations; I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government to do so. I believe, however, that when the 6th Division leaves, another one should be called into existence, and be ready for service at home or abroad. We must leave to the future a decision as to whether further divisions are to be sent abroad.

In another significant part of the Prime Minister’s statement it is announced that Air Force training activities are to proceed at a faster pace and on a larger scale than has ever before been contemplated by the Australian people. Not only is there to be an enormous expansion of training activities, but also the Mother Country is to send to Australia aeroplanes of the most modern type. Therefore, two assurances are given in the Prime Minister’s statement; the first is the assurance by the British Admiralty that Australia need not worry about the possibility of an attack by a major power, and the second is the assurance that the Air Force is to be expanded to a degree not contemplated prior to the war and is to be equipped with the latest fighting aeroplanes.

Mr Rosevear:

– What is the value of the latter assurance in view of the fact that experts state that Britain has not yet caught up to Germany’s air strength?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– It is safe to say that in numbers we have not yet caught up to Germany, but this programme is far-sighted, and the Allies have prepared a scheme of air force expansion that involves not only catching up to Germany’s production - and I would say at the moment that Britain’s rate of production is already ahead of Germany’s rate of production - but also the formation of an air armada that will be more than a match for Germany or possibly any two European powers.

I was amazed this evening to hear the honorable member for West Sydney express surprise that Germany has at the moment forces numerically superior to those of Britain or France.

Mr Mahoney:

– That is what the “ Minister for Propaganda “ said.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– I can under stand the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett) making such a statement, but I cannot understand any Australian being so devoid of interest in current international affairs as to believe that we are at the moment equal numerically in armed strength to Germany. It is common knowledge that the German nation, even without the additions of Czechoslovakia and Austria, has a greater population than France. We know that France has a system of compulsory military training, but on sheer strength of population we must necessarily expect that France is not able to put into the field the same number of men as Germany. Surely honorable members realize also that Britain, the other partner to the alliance, has only recently introduced a system of compulsory military service ? The British Government only commenced to call up men in July last. Until that time the British military strength was a standing army of between 180,000 and 200,000 permanent soldiers, and a territorial army. For any honorable member to express surprise at an utterance that a child of seven attending, a State school would have been capable of making, is a rather extreme admission of a lack of interest in affairs of which I thought every honorable member was aware. We have entered this war of our own free will and volition, a free part of the British Empire. We have entered the conflict in order to fight for principles which should be as dear to us as life. We should know that if Great Britain goes down in the conflict we and all those institutions which have arisen since Magna Charta will go down with it. I believe that if the British Empire does go down - and the Opposition would not send a man abroad to save it - civilization will be seriously retarded and the white race will be in jeopardy.

Mr. DRAKEFORD (Maribyrnong) astonishing change of policy on the pari of the Government, after statements of. policy made by the Government at the beginning of the war. In September last the Minister for the Army (Mr. Street) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) seemed to be in agreement that it would not be necessary to send men out of Australia, but now the Government has announced a change of policy for which it has offered no explanation. The honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) professes to believe that there is something in the Prime Minister’s statement to show that circumstances have altered since the Government’s policy was announced earlier, but I cannot discover in it, nor do I think any reasonable person can discover, any justification for the change of policy. The Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) and the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) and others have consistently advocated the re-introduction of compulsory military training and the sending of troops abroad, but the Government made it plain that, it was not even giving consideration to those matters. The general public believed that an expeditionary force would not be sent from Australia and that it was not desired ‘by the United Kingdom Government, and it will want to know what altered conditions have led to this change of policy. The position overseas is no more definite to-day than when war was declared on behalf of Australia before the Parliament was consulted. Unlike the Canadian Government, the Commonwealth Government did not trouble to consult Parliament before declaring war, and since then it has ignored the rights of r members, as representatives of the people. The Opposition has not been taken into the confidence of the Government, nor has there been a secret meeting of Parliament at which any altered circumstances, necessitating a change of policy, have been announced. The cables reveal that there are possibilities of Australia being endangered because of action recently taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, and, in the circumstances, it would be dangerous to send a force overseas from this country. An Eastern power has made it clear that it desires the essentials for carrying on its war with another power in the ‘.East, an’d that if it cannot obtain its requirements from the country which previously supplied them, it would have to look in- other directions. Should it do so, Australia may have to face an entirely different situation in which all its available resources in man-power will be required’. I realize that the Government may get secret information from time to time which it cannot broadcast to the world. The Prime Minister lias told us on a number of occasions that the Government is in constant touch with the Government of the United Kingdom, but he has never indicated that circumstances had arisen to justify so great a change of policy. In my opinion, that change of policy arises not from information obtained from overseas, but from a desire to obtain a political advantage. Until the Parliament is taken into the confidence of the Government, :111( members are treated as the true representatives of the people, we cannot come t.o any other conclusion. We are willing io sit whenever necessary in. order to assist the Government in the defence of this country, but we are simply called together to listen to a series pf statements fin bodying a reversal of policy in support of which no arguments are advanced. Although Australia has not been asked to send troops overseas, the attitude of the Government appears to be that it will send them as a demonstration of Australia’s loyalty, and an answer to German propaganda that the British dominions are not wholeheartedly behind Great Britain in this war. Every dominion is wholeheartedly behind the United Kingdom Government in its efforts to defeat Nazi-ism, but the Australian Labour party has declared that it, believes that the best contribution that wo can make is effectively to defend Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition- (Mr. Curtin) said -

The safety” of the .Australian people impels us to recognize , our inability to send Australians overseas to participate in a European £’:1 r.

Thu . man-power of Australia must he conserved. Our immense, area and tremendous coastline ‘automatically limit our resources to such an- extent that the maximum of our man-power constitute.”,. the minimum required for our own safey.

The. statement needs to be repeated be cause honorable members opposite have expressed amazement at the attitude of the Labour party. They should know that the platform of the Labour party is available to any one who is interested in it. That platform is clear as to the party’s attitude towards sending troops overseas. Under the heading “ Defence “ it sets out -

Adequate home defence against foreign aggression.

No raising of forces for service outside the Commonwealth, or participation or promise of participation in any future overseas war, except by decision of the people.

There was ample time to obtain the opinion of the people regarding the proposal to send troops overseas but the Government did not avail itself of the opportunity. Instead, it changes its policy, and then its supporters express amazement at the attitude of the Labour party, and insinuate that its members are disloyal. I remind them of the statement, of the Leader of the Opposition -

The Labour “party is opposed to sending troops overseas. Wc are pledged to this policy and we are determined to maintain our view* and principles for which’ we have stood and fought.

Labour has repeatedly said that, in maintaining Australia un violated, wc render the best possible service to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Of what avail would it be to Britain if, our man-power having been sent abroad, she lost this great storehouse of grain, wool and manufactured products?

To-night, the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) amplified that statement and I do not, therefore, need to go over the ground that he haE covered. The people of the United Kingdom will depend largely on Australia’s productive power to carry on the war and the blockading of enemy ports. That work is being done effectively. The British Navy will be required to keep open the lines of communication. The allegation by honorable members on the Government side that assurances had been given that the British Navy could protect Australia is without substance and contradicts what has been said by authorities over-seas. In this connexion the. Leader of the Opposition said -

Britain will look to Australia for many things which, in the aggregate, will be of mora assistance to her than an expeditionary force. And she will not look in vain.

Honorable members opposite profess to believe that all that we on this side are prepared to do is to offer food and, perhaps, munitions and other goods to the allied forces, without accepting any risk. That is the impression which one gathers from the speeches of those honorable members who delight in flag-waving and making insinuations against the Labour party. The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) said that Australia once bad a Prime Minister who, when the Empire was in’ danger, offered “ the last man and the last shilling”. The honorable member would willingly offer the last man, but he would not be so free with his offer of the last shilling. He is prepared to send men overseas, and produce also, if it can be sold at a profit; but if it were suggested that the wealthy section of the community should send £20,000,000 overseas as a demonstration of loyalty, I think that the honorable member for Parkes and those who support his views would not volunteer. We can best assist Britain by supplying to it necessary commodities and by protecting Australia by increasing its trained man-power to the degree necessary to provide for the adequate defence of this country. The’ honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony), who is a returned soldier, frankly admitted that the sending of an expeditionary force meant also the sending of reinforcements later, but other honorable members opposite were not so honest. The sending of the original force and of reinforcements from time to time would rob Australia of its man-power and retard its development. There is nothing in the cables to justify the Government’s reversal of policy and no other explanation has been offered. I have a great regard for the opinions on military matters expressed by the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin), arising from his service and experience as a soldier, but I remind him that Senator Brand, his colleague in another place, who also held high rank and has had a great deal of military experience, said not long ago -

It was unnecessary for tlie leader of the Labour party (Mr. Curtin) to broadcast to the world that no Australian soldier would be sent to fight overseas. The world situation to-day is quite different from what it was in 191.4. There is no likelihood of the forma turn of another Australian Imperial Force. All our industrial, economic and service defence preparations have one objective - home defence.

He is not likely to change his opinion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in quoting from debates in the Senate.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I believe that the views of the gentleman to whom I have referred warrant the utmost respect. He also said -

Honorable members should not think for one moment that I am visualizing an expeditionary oversells force.

He said further’ -

No government would dare to denude this country of its virile manhood unless some extraordinary development warranted such action.

He went on to say -

Australia’s defence problem is different altogether from that of New Zealand or any other Dominion.

I invite the Minister for the Army (Mr. -Street) to say what extraordinary developments have taken place to justify the Government’s change of policy. What really has happened is that the drum-bangers and flagwavers have pestered the Government to such a degree that finally it has given way. So far the Government has not shown that an extraordinary position has arisen justifying its change of policy. Perhaps a man prominent in newspaper circles which have advocated ‘ sending expeditionary forces ever since war was declared, may have had some influence on this change of policy. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Hughes) made a pronouncement on this subject. He said, in effect, it was problematical if any overseas expeditionary force would .ever reach its destination. The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) asked if the right honorable gentleman would have sent Australian troops to a war over Czechoslovakia, and he replied that he doubted if any Australian troops would ever get to Czechoslovakia. Members of the Country party and of the United Australia party have frequently made statements of the same kind. Until the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett) entered the debate, it was not at all clear why the Government was altering its policy. Now it is quite clear. After a party meeting the Prime Minister announced that it was decided to send a force overseas, the obvious purpose being to confound the Labour party. I am prepared to make an issue of this, and I believe the people will back the Labour party. It would appear that the new Department for Information must justify its existence somehow, and its view seems to be that the sending of an expeditionary force overseas is the best way to convince the German people that the dominions are behind Britain in this war. In fact, the Minister has informed us that if we do not take this step, the Germans would be justified in assuming that we were not prepared to back Britain. In one breath he says that we should take no notice of German propaganda, and in the next he tells us that the best way to answer that propaganda is to send an expeditionary force abroad.

The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) and the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) referred to what the New Zealand. Government proposes to do. They suggest that the Labour party in this country should be prepared to follow the lead of the Labour Government in New Zealand. There has always been a difference in outlook amongst workers in these dominions on this question. Honorable members opposite are ready enough to draw comparisons with New Zealand when it suits them, but they do not. suggest that we should follow the example of the New Zealand Government in its national security legislation, which gives the people of New Zealand the best social conditions available anywhere in the world. They do not. suggest that Australia should follow the example of New Zealand in regard to the payment of soldiers.For instance, in New Zealand, a married soldier with two children receives a total of £411s. a week, which compares favorably with the basic wage. Is it any wonder that there was a rush of volunteers, and that, when it was proposed to raise a force of . 6,000 men, more than sufficient enlistments were received in one day? It is true that the Commonwealth Government has recently made slight increases in soldiers’ pay, but conditions here still compare unfavorably with those in New Zealand. Evidently, the Govern ment is prepared to sweat Australian soldiers, notwithstanding that, in the last war, the men who went from this country were supposed to be the best soldiers in the world. This attitude has adversely affected voluntary enlistment and no doubt was intended to do so. There are some honorable members opposite with military leanings who have been continually harassing the Government to alter its policy in regard to the despatch of an expeditionary force.

Mr Rankin:

– Probably the honorable member would wait until we were defeated before he would agree to a change of policy.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Can the honorable member point to anything that has happened since the original statement of policy was made that would justify this change of that policy? The Minister for Information is merely trying to justify his department at the expense of the effective defence of Australia. Some time ago, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) made a statement which was practically identical with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. He said -

The Government of the United Kingdomhas itself recognized that at the present juncture the best contribution that Australia can make is to defend itself. Great Britain itself is not asking for volunteers at the moment.

Has the Government of Great Britain asked for volunteers since then?

Mr Street:

– It has. That statement, referred to the calling of volunteers in Great Britain, and volunteers were called for there some time ago.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I refer to Australia. I shall read the Minister’s statement again -

The Government of the United Kingdom, with which the Commonwealth Government is in daily touch, has itself recognized that at the present juncture the best contribution thai Australia, can make is to defend itself.

Has the United Kingdom departed from that policy?

Mr Street:

– The phrase “ present, juncture “ is the important one.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I ask the Minister: has the British Government changed its policy, or made any request to the Commonwealth Government regarding this matter? The Minister remains silent. I protest against the way in which the elected representatives of the people arc being treated by the Government. If the Government is in. possession of special information on these matters, it should, be divulged to Parliament, and not merely to its own supporters. I emphatically protest against the way in which the Government has treated members of the Opposition since war broke out. Surely we are. to be trusted as much as Government sup-‘ porters. The Government must be aware that the Labour party in this House and in the Senate represents more than half of the electors of Australia.

The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) referred to what he described as the inadequacy of our defences in the event of an attack. He said that if we should be attacked within three months, or six months, or even twelve months, our case would be practically hopeless. If that is so, who is responsible? No one but the United Australia party and the United Country party combination, which have had complete control in both Houses of Parliament for the last seven years. He would not make that admission, of course, during a debate on the Defence Estimates; but it has slipped out in the course of this’ debate. Apparently, those honorable members who speak of the need for defending Australia overseas recognize that the Government has neglected to take measures for the adequate defence of Australia at home. The policy of the Labour party on this point is well known. There never has been any ambiguity about it, and it is humbug to profess amazement at its attitude at this stage. The great majority of the people recognize that the best contribution we can make to the defence of the Empire is to defend Australia itself, without sending any troops overseas. I agree that, in the present state of the world, we must spend money on defence. “We must see that our men are trained, and I believe that there will be no shortage of volunteers for the defence of Australia if they are offered the same rates of pay as are provided in New Zealand.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I am strongly opposed to the raising of forces for overseas service. I have listened to flic supporters of the Government, both

Country party and United Australia party, and their arguments are, of course, what might be expected, having regard to the interests they represent. They represent those who have everything to lose, whereas we represent the great mass of the people who have only their lives to lose - and that, according to honorable members opposite, is nothing. Most honorable members who favour the despatch of an Australian expeditionary force do not represent areas where economic pressure will be brought to bear to force men to enlist. At the outbreak of the last war, economic conditions in the area I represent were much better than they are now, and men enlisted in greater numbers than anywhere else in Australia. At that period they considered they had something to defend; at least they had employment, a little home and contentment. Things have changed for the worse since then. Many pleas have been made in this House on behalf of the coal industry, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Nothing has been done, yet a small section in this Parliament has, by holding a gun to the head of the Government, been able to wring from it one concession after another for those whom they represent. Certain sections, by reason of their political associations, can get all that they require, but the other sections are left to starve. That has been my experience in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must debate the question - before the Chair.

Mr JAMES:

– I should debate it if you would not interject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order 1

Mr JAMES:

– The section of the people that has been treated so unfairly is being subjected to economic conscription. There are three military camps around the northern coal-fields because the authorities know that in that area there is a vast number of unemployed. We see these unemployed drifting into the military camps simply because they are better off in camp than they are on a miserable dole. Thai is economic conscription at its worst. The honorable member for. Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) declared “to-night’..’ that the workers will enlist. : Certainly’ they will enlist if they live i something to defend. But what have they to defend* For eleven :011(1 years thousands of our young men have never, had the opportunity to do a day’s work. They are the people whom the Government expects to defend this country. Defend a country that cannot defend them by giving them a decent job ! Give the young men work. Give them a stake in the country and they will enlist. They will certainly fight for anything for which they consider to be worth while fighting. But thousands of them, boys who are utterly dependent on their fathers, because they cannot even get the dole as the result of the permissive income regulations, have asked me what they .have to fight for. 1 cannot answer them. I challenge any man to answer them. That is the position of boys and young men whose fathers fought in the last war. A life of workless misery is what they have inherited from the war to end war, the war to save democracy and the war to make this country fit for heroes.

Shortly after the outbreak of the last war, the ambassador from France to England delivered a report to the French Chamber of Deputies in which he said that Great Britain was sending six divisions of soldiers to France. The deputies were critical. “Was that the best that Great Britain could do, was their question. The ambassador replied, “I do not care if it is only a platoon of lancecorporals. Thousands of others will follow.” That will bb the position into which this country will be led- by this Government’s decision to send the 6th Division overseas. That division will need reinforcements. The country is pledged to the boys in the 6th Division to keep them reinforced. The Prime Minister has said that there will be no conscription for overseas service, but we have heard that before. In the last war we had a similar assurance from the then Prim£ Minister, the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), and there was a similar pledge from the then Prime Minister of Great Britain. Mr. Asquith; but before twelve months had elapsed, both of them had gone back on their words and declared that the national peril had forced them to change their views. That will be the excuse offered by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) for the imposition of conscription when the flow of reinforcements to the 2nd Australian Imperial Force dwindles. Conscription, will b.e the, order of the day. I am. extremely doubtful even that the Government will .give. :the people an opportunity to vote upon the matter. In view of the adverse decision -by the people on the last occasion .when conscription was put to the vote,’ I .should say that this Government would prefer to take its courage in its hands and force a conscription measure through Parliament within 24 hours without even letting the people know tha’t it intended to do so.

Mr Rankin:

– If the Admiral Scheer drops a shell or two into Newcastle, there will be no lack of reinforcements from there.

Mr JAMES:

– There would never, bc lack of reinforcements to defend this country. The Australian Labour party stands for the adequate defence of this country.

Mr Gregory:

– In what way?

Mr JAMES:

– In a very big way. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has no right to be talking of sending young boys away to fight. A man like him in his dotage talking about sending boys away ! Boys who have never had any opportunity to work! If I had my way, every member of this Parliament would be the first to defend this country; honorable members have something to defend, whereas the workers have nothing.- Let us go first. “We have lived our lives, whereas the boys on the threshold of manhood do not know what life is. If we commit ourselves to send a voluntary force overseas, that commitment would tend towards bringing about the conscription of our people. It was owing to the Labour party that conscription was beaten in 1916-17. The Labour party was split on the conscription issue then, but there will be no split on this occasion. We are united against foisting conscription on the people. Labour’s policy is very clear. It says that no force shall be raised for overseas service unless the raising of such a force is first assented to by the people. If the people do assent to the raising of a voluntary force or encourage such a force to go overseas, they will be in duty- bound to see that that force is reinforced. That will ultimately lead to conscription. In the last war we raised a magnificent army, but it was not raised entirely voluntarily, because there was a great deal of moral and economic persuasion - conscription - just as there is moral conscription in industry to-day. The owners of industry are asking the ages of boys for whom one might be seeking a job.’ If they are of military age .there is no job for them. Eighty per cent, of the mothers and fathers left behind when our boys last went overseas became conscriptionists, but their sons did not. They did not want to force any body to join them in the blood, mud and slush. Ridicule, jibes and insults, white feathers and the like, were all employed in the last war in order to compel men to go to war. The same thing will happen again, even if we do not actually have conscription, and I think we shall.

Apart altogether from the conscription aspect, there is the economic aspect. Whenever the Government acquires property, it has to pay for it at the market prices, but it does not pay the market price when it acquires human life. It does not pay the soldier the basic wage, which is the market value of a boy’s life in industry - industry which is far safer than warfare. The Arbitration Court has prescribed margins to compensate for dangers that exist in some industries. Nothing is offered to the soldier in compensation for danger. No! The soldier is asked to fight for absolutely the smallest wage, the wage that would be offered to a boy on leaving school - that is. a boy fortunate enough to get a job. The least that the Government can do in this case is pay the men in the Army a little more than the basic wage. The man-power of Australia must be conserved. Our immense area and tremendous coast-line automatically limit our resources to such a degree that the maximum of our man-power constitutes the minimum required for our own safety. No one to-day can foresee what will be the eventual line-up of nations in this conflict. Who can say what will be the attitude of a mighty nation in the Pacific which until recently was allied with Germany and Italy in what was known as the anti-Comintern Pact? What is likely to be the reaction of that great nation to the British reprisals against the indiscriminate sowing of magnetic mines and the unrestricted sinking of neutral vessels by German U-boats? Our neighbour in the Pacific has already protested against the declaration by the British Government of the measures that it proposes to adopt as a counter to unrestricted mine warfare. Who knows but that these measures may not result in throwing that mighty nation in the Pacific into the arms of Germany and Italy? At present friendly relations exist between that nation and Australia, and at the moment there is hanging in the King’s Hall a painting depicting the convoying of Australian troops by its warships during the last war. .Having ‘ regard to the insecurity of our position, and our remoteness from the heart of the Empire, we should be careful not to deplete our manpower, at any rate until the alinement of nations in this conflict is made apparent. Is it not rather strange that the Government should now come to a decision to send an expeditionary force overseas when, only fourteen days ago, the Prime Minister announced in the House that the war was a peculiar one in that hostilities had not yet commenced. It must be obvious that, at that time, the right honorable gentleman had no intention of sending troops outside Australia. We then urged that every means. should be sought to explore the possibilities of peace. It would be far better to seek an honorable peace before hostilities commenced than to wait until thousands upon thousands were lying dead on the battlefields, and countless thousands were maimed or doomed to a lingering death. What, has happened to bring about this decision on the part of the Government? Has the Prime Minister some information which he has not disclosed to members of this House? The decision is all the more extraordinary in view* of the published statements in the press that Great Britain would never again call upon Australia to send an’ expeditionary force overseas, and that the best contribution the Dominions could make to the Empire cause would be for them to supply the necessary foodstuffs to the Mother Country and ‘to take measures designed to enable them to be self-supporting. As recently as the 19th

September last, the present Minister for the Army (Mr. Street) said in this House that the best contribution Australia could make in the war was to put its defences in order to enable it to defend itself. He said then that Great Britain was not asking for volunteers to go overseas. If the Prime Minister has information which justifies the changed policy of the Government, he should at least take the Leaders of the parties in this Parliament into his confidence. If he did so, in all probability much of the hostility that exists to-day regarding the Government’s policy would be wiped away. Owing to his silence, however, we are compelled to work in the dark. In view of the opinion expressed by prominent members of both branches of the legislature, that it is not desirable that Australia should send an expeditionary force overseas, why does not the Prime Minister take the leaders of the various parties into his confidence now?

The Government badly muddled the recruiting campaign. Mcn in my electorate were recruited, passed as medically fit after a stringent examination, and then notified that they would be called upon at seme future date to attend for attestation. “What a vast difference there is between the methods adopted now, and those adopted during the last war. Then, a man who enlisted was attested, sworn in and placed on the pay roll on the same day. The Government’s bungling in regard to recruiting was particularly noticeable in areas where the quotas were filled rapidly. The surplus men were told to go to some other distant town, but no inquiry was made as to whether they had sufficient funds to do so. Many men who applied to the recruiting officers were refused time off to attend to some private business matters. This displays how indiscreet’ the officers were despite the fact that the Prime Minister requested private employers not to penalize those who desired to render military service. If this sort of thing happens in connexion with voluntary enlistment, to what degree will it happen if enlistment is made compulsory. In the coal-fields districts, where so much unemployment prevails, those recruits who were on relief work on entering camp found that as soon as they received their first military pay the dole allowance to their wives was stopped. When they returned home after doing their training they were told that they would have to re-register for employment with the State Employment Bureau, and in some cases their names were placed at the bottom of the list for emergency relief work. The Government asks private employers not to penalize their employees . who render military service. Why does not the Prime Minister, under the powers conferred upon the Government by the National Security Act, issue a regulation prescribing that the Government of New South Wales in particular shall not penalize unemployed relief workers who go into military camps ‘to do their training ?

The Labour party has every right to claim that our first duty is the protection of our own people. Some honorable members in this House have been courageous enough to say that they would like to see as many as seven divisions sent from this country. In view of the uncertainty as to the eventual line up of nations, we say that it is our first duty to conserve the man-power of this country for its defence.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I have listened with a great deal of interest and concern to this discussion, and I join with the members of the Opposition in stating that, in our opinion, this is but the commencement of a campaign that will culminate in an effort by the Government to impose conscription for overseas service on the people of this country. As has been said by another honorable member on this side of the House, the Government must accept full responsibility if the defences .of this country are in a precarious position. If we examine the facts of the situation we must recognize that one of the greatest difficulties which confront this country in regard to adequate defence, is the lack of man-power. Prior to. the war Australia had, I believe, the highest percentage of natural increase of population of any of the white countries of the world. The rate of natural increase of population has gradually declined. One of the factors which has brought about this result has been the failure of anti-Labour governments to ensure the economic security nf the people. The result has been that children have not been brought into the world because of the absence of a guarantee of a. decent standard of living. There is no real reason why every man, woman and child in Australia should not be adequately provided for. Despite the fact that the Government has neglected to give attention to our internal situation, with the consequence that our population is practically stationary, it is now proposing to send away thousands of our young and able-bodied men. This must immeasurably increase the difficulties of this country in years to come, as these young men are the potential fathers of the next /generation.

The Government has also failed to maintain friendly relations with some other nations and so has contributed to the danger of our position. Earlier to-night, the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) cited certain passages from my speeches, but he did not quote me fully. I have repeatedly said in this House, and elsewhere, that the anti-Labour governments of Australia have paid undue regard, in their defence programmes, to the imperialistic desires of certain British leaders. A defence policy has been evolved which is designed to please the imperialists overseas rather than to provide adequately for our defence. Australia should undoubtedly have done its very utmost to maintain friendly relations with certain powerful nations bordering on the Pacific. This Government and its predecessor in office, however, have followed a policy which, without benefiting Australia, has antagonized some of our powerful neighbours. The policy has been evolved, in my opinion, in consequence of the representations of British manufacturing interests. Not long ago the Lyons Government introduced a policy which was termed “ trade diversion “, the purpose being to’ transfer some of Australia’s trade from what were described as unprofitable countries to good-customer countries. This undoubtedly did a great deal to antagonize Japan. It also imperilled our relations with the United States of America. Manifestly, it is desirable that we should preserve the best possible relations with the United States of America. Although members of the

Government have not said so in specific terms, it cannot be denied that they would depend to a considerable degree upon help from the Navy of the United States of America if this country should be attacked. But why should the Government count on any assistance from that quarter ? The American people have every reason to be displeased with the attitude of this Government in respect of trade, for there has undoubtedly been a discrimination against the United State* of America in some of our tariff enactments. More favourable treatment has been accorded to Japan and Germany than to the United States of America in certain respects. It is problematical, therefore, whether the United States of America would feel disposed to assist Australia in the event of our being attacked.

One reason which the Prime Minister gave in his statement to-day for the altered policy of the Government’ in respect of the proposed expeditionary force was that it would be an answer to enemy propaganda. It was alleged that great stress was being laid in enemy countries on the fact that no dominion troops had yet appeared in the war zone. German propagandist agencies were said to be using this fact to support a claim thai the Dominions were not behind Great Britain in the war. I ask, however, what would be the probable effect of our sending a division of 20,000 troops abroad? I suggest that the enemy propagandist agencies would at once compare the size of this force with the size of the forces sent abroad in the last war. They would use such a comparison to support a contention that the Dominions were nothing life; so strong in their support of Great Britain in this war as they were in the war of 1914-18.

Mr Blain:

– One division would al least be something.

Mr WARD:

– The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain), like the members of the Government, must know full well that it is not the intention of the authorities to restrict our expeditionary force to one division. The statement of the Prime Minister referred to only one division, but that was because the Government knows very well that if its full intentions were to be announced immediately there would be such a great outcry that it might have to abandon the whole project and might even suffer defeat itself. So reference has been made to only one division. But once that division gets abroad appeals will be made for a second, third, and fourth division. The right atmosphere will ‘have been created to gain support for the original division. A,s the Government has control of the press to a greater extent now than during the last war, and as it also has facilities for broadcasting which were not available at all during the last war, it will be able to see that reports are published of happenings, or alleged happenings, abroad which will inflame the public mind. It will then call upon the people to support “ the boys in the trenches “. That is the kind of thing that was done during the last war with such success that it almost influenced the people to give an affirmative vote to the conscription proposals.

There is no certainty, despite what has been said by honorable gentlemen opposite, that the British Navy will be able successfully to convoy Australian troopships during this war. The situation on this occasion is entirely different from that of the last war. The dangers will be very much greater on this occasion; for, in consequence of the operation of Government policy, we cannot now count upon Japan as an ally, and the Japanese fleet will not be available for convoy purposes. The Government has not done anything to gain other allies. Its whole policy, as I have shown, has been to antagonize our powerful Pacific neighbours. Moreover, in this Parliament as in the British Parliament, the Conservative elements have, over a number of years, strongly resisted every suggestion that better relations should be encouraged with Soviet Russia. All such proposals have caused these Conservative die-hards to lift up their hands in horror. We have been told that such ideas amounted almost to treachery. What has been the result? To-day we find many public men in this country, and also in Great Britain, denouncing Soviet Russia because it would not make an agreement with Great Britain. The actual facts, of course, are that neither in Great Britain nor in Australia has there been any encouragement to such efforts, as have been made to put the relations between Soviet Russia and the British Empire on a more friendly footing. One of the difficulties that has to be acknowledged in regard to this subject, is that all- of the proposals put forward would have benefited British interests to a far greater degree than Russian interests, If a friendly arrangement could have been made with Soviet Russia, we should not have been facing the prospect of difficulties with Japanese imperialists, for the Japanese would not have had any inclination to move southwards. This Government is entirely responsible for the unsatisfactory position in which we find ourselves in this respect to-day.

It has been said frequently in this Parliament that the Singapore naval base provided a sufficient guarantee for Australia against aggression. But let us examine the facts. The Leader of the Opposition said only a few days ago that the British authorities had plainly stated that, even if Great Britain were to lose, for the moment, its control of certain southern possessions, the situation would be all right so long as it maintained its footing and won a victory on the main battlefront. In that event, it was stated., it could later recapture any possessions that it might have lost temporarily. Evidently, therefore, British interests do not hold the belief that the Singapore naval base provides adequate protection for Australia. I have said on other occasions in this House and elsewhere that, in my opinion, the main purpose of the Singapore naval base was not to protect Australia, but rather to protect the eastern possessions of Great Britain. Singapore is 1,577 nautical miles from Ceylon, 1,440 from Hong Kong, and 1,902 from Darwin. It is also 2,900 miles from Yokohama and 1,314 from Manila. It is 2,080 miles west of the direct line from Yokohama to Sydney. Obviously, therefore, the Singapore naval base cannot be a very effective instrument for the protection of Australia. If Great Britain should unfortunately become involved in a war with Japan, desperate resistance would no doubt be offered to any attack upon Hong Kong, but it is doubtful whether. Britain could maintain its footing there against a combined land and naval attack, particularly as at present Britain has no very great naval ‘strength available at

Singapore. In al] the circumstances, the so-called change in our situation compared with that of a fortnight. ago, which the Government alleged is the reason for its sudden decision to send an expeditionary force abroad, will not bear examination.

Honorable members on this side of the House have -exposed the conditions imposed upon men who served in the last war, particularly those in our asylums and hospitals. Returned soldiers have not been cared for in the way that was promised before they enlisted. One honorable member, speaking in support of the Government, made some wild statements in regard to conditions prevailing in other parts of the world, but he produced no evidence to substantiate his claims. He merely made propaganda statements calculated to inflame the minds of the people so that they would believe that, however damnable conditions might be in Australia, they were much worse elsewhere. That does not mitigate the fact that thousands of men who served in the last war have been deserted and neglected by this Government and its predecessors of the same political complexion. This Government must answer that charge brought against it by the Labour party. It. has seized upon every miserable pretext to prevent returned soldiers from obtaining pensions, and to compel widows and dependants of those who died to adopt a standard of living much below that of the ordinary citizen. The Government has not done one thing to assist those people. “Whenever members of the Opposition have appealed for an extension of the provisions of the Repatriation Act, the Government has stated that no money has been available and that it has been doing the most that any government could be expected to do. Nevertheless, as soon as the war drums beat, the Government decides to expend £66,000,000 in one year; it may even expend a larger sum. The Government should make a clear declaration of its attitude towards repatriation matters. It has rejected application after application for pensions for ex-soldiers on the ground that the men were suffering from disabilities which existed prior to their enlistment. Despite the fact that recruits underwent most stringent medical examinations before being accepted, there have been innumer able cases of the Government rejecting applications for pensions for the reason I have mentioned. In order that the men who enlist in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force will know at least that they are not to return to conditions similar to those to which men returned from the last war, the Government should state now that any man enlisted will be accepted without reservation as 100 per cent, physically fit. It should further state that any disability from which a man might suffer in after life will be accepted by the Government as being due to whatever service he renders in the war zone or with the armed forces. By doing that the Government would accept complete responsibility for the maintenance of those men who return and who, because of disabilities, are unable to earn their own livelihood. Instead of doing that, however, it wants to assist the profiteer to get his pound of flesh from the peoples who will suffer most in this conflict of nations. It wants to get its soldiers as cheaply as possible and then, even should they survive and return to this country, they will come back to conditions worse than they left.

Honorable members on the Government side of the chamber have said that no form of conscription exists in Australia to-day, and that men who have enlisted in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force have done so voluntarily and because of patriotic sentiments. Some of them may have done so, because they have believed certain propaganda, but many of them were compelled to join the forces because the future appeared hopeless for them. Many of them had been out of employment for years, and many had wives and young families dependent upon them. They were forced to join the 6th Division in order to maintain themselves and their families. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) said that 50 per cent, of the men who enlisted in the. 2nd Australian Imperial Force were unemployed prior, to enlistment. General Blarney, who, 1 understand, is now in charge of this division, said, when answering criticism of the fact that uniforms were too large for recruits, that after the men had been given a few feeds and’ a little exercise they would fill out the uniforms quite comfortably. To my mind that proved conclusively that many of these men were underfed and, in fact, half starved, before they enlisted. How can any one suggest that that was not a form of economic conscription ?

Mr.Rankin. - All men become fatter after receiving military training.

Mr WARD:

– That is not the case in every instance. Men who have led easy and sheltered lives and have become soft and fat would lose much of their weight under training conditions. Large numbers of the unemployed were unable to fill out the uniforms provided for them when they first enlisted simply because they were underfed.

Unfortunately, many of the matters about which I have complained in this House have resulted from a policy, imposed on this country and accepted by anti-Labour governments, of government from Whitehall rather than from Canberra. Because of that, anti-Labour governments have failed to bring about the adequate defence of Australia. Had they set about a policy of social reconstruction at the end of the war in1918, and had they established conditions superior to those prevailing in other countries, a different position would have existed to-day. Instead of many Australian men and women having entered into childless marriages, with a consequent reduction of our birth-rate until our population is practically stationary, many millions of energetic, robust Australians would now have been ready to defend this country. Had the birth-rate continued at the same rate of increase as prior to the last war, we would have had a population of at least 10,000,000 instead of 7,000,000. This Government must accept those facts. It says that we must build up our defences, but there are still, in the State of New South Wales alone, 70,000 unemployed and able-bodied men whom this Government admits it is unable to place in productive employment. How can the Government suggest that in these circumstances it is putting forward the maximum effort for the defence of Australia? As I have already stated, the 20,000 men in the Sixth Division do not represent the full number that the Government intends to send abroad ; and I ask. military experts and alleged military experts in this chamber to tell me whether the sending of 200,000 Australian men into a European battle-field will make any difference to the ultimate success or otherwise of what are known as the Allied forces. That number of able-bodied and well-trained Australians would be a very substantial contribution to our defence. Any country that, desires to attack Australia must experience grave risks in connexion with the convoying of its troops, the maintenance of lines of communication, and the despatch of supplies to these shores. Australian troops numbering 200,000 within Australia would provide much more effective defence than 200,000 Australian troops in Europe.

If the Labour party were in control of the Commonwealth Parliament, it would embark upon a policy contrary to that enunciated by this Government by first establishing social justice. Had this Government established social justice, there would be no need to talk about compulsion for defence purposes. The Government has started from the wrong end of the programme according to Labour’s point of view. We believe that if a Commonwealth Government is to take the right course, it must immediately put forward the maximum effort possible to end this war and do its utmost to bring about peaceful relations with other nations, particularly those bordering upon the Pacific. The Government has applied a policy of what it calls trade diversion, but which is actually trade war. Trade diversion, or trade war, eventually leads to actual armed conflict; Australia must recognize that. When a Government deliberately alters Australia’s trade relations with other countries and discriminates to the detriment of certain nations, it antagonizes them and makes enemies of them. This Government , has, by this policy, deliberately antagonized Japan andthe United States of America ; and it has flouted the Soviet Republic by rejecting every proposal submitted by that nation for the conclusion of some pact or peace arrangement. The Leader of the Opposition was right when he said that, the minimum requirement for the defence of Australia was the maximum amount of man-power that Australia could provide.

I appeal to members ofthe Opposition to continue theircampaign to prevent this Government from shipping young Australians abroad to foreign battle-fields, because immediately afterwards there will be demands for reinforcements until eventually we shall be faced with a campaign for the conscription of man-power for overseas service. I warn the Opposition not to place reliance upon the statement of members of the Government about the White Australia Policy and the part played by the British Navy in maintaining it. A White Australia policy was accepted in this country not because of the efforts of honorable gentleman opposite, and the parties that they represent, but despite them. They were opposed to its introduction and were in favour of the importation of coloured labour, not because they had any liking for coloured races, but ‘because they wanted to obtain cheap labour. The Australian Labour party supported the White Australia policy, not because of any particular dislike for coloured people, but because it wished to prevent the introduction of cheap labour which would break down the conditions that had been established for workers in Australian industries. We may say that the White Australia policy is to-day in danger through the depletion of our own man-power as the result of sending able-bodied men overseas. We recall that in the conscription campaign during the last war, the then Prime Minister (Mr. W. M. Hughes) was so sure of success, that before the results of the referendum had been announced, and even before some of the votes had been recorded, ships loaded with coloured labour were actually waiting in Sydney Harbour so that the positions left vacant by the Australians who were’ to be shipped to the battle-fields overseas could be filled immediately. Honorable members opposite cannot successfully deny these facts. The Labour party is determined to use all of its endeavours to ensure that. Australia is adequately defended. We believe that in order to do so we must retain our manpower “in this country and we shall continue our campaign against, the Govern ment whenever and wherever we are able to do so. Under a state of war, the Government has great powers and the present Government is unscrupulous enough to use them to the full. It will stifle the right of free expression. It has established a department of information, which the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) rightly described the department for propaganda. Labour must use all the means at its disposal to combat the decision of the Government, and knowing the ready response which it will, receive from the Australian public, it will, despite its handicaps, defeat the conscription plans of the Government.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I do not believe that; the proposal to send men abroad is made as an earnest of Australia’s- support of Britain in this war, because it is obvious to the Governmentthat the Australian Labour party, which represents practically half of the electors, if not more than half of them, is determinedly opposed to the sending of men overseas.- Consequently, all that can be gained from such a debate is that theworldwill be made aware that the representatives of half of the Australian people are resolutely opposed to the raising of a force for service abroad. As an evidence of Australian opinion, this action of the Government is illusory, because it only means that half of the people want to send men abroad, whilst the other half does not. I think that what has happened is that the character of the war is changing, and, instead of relying on theblockade and a policy of economic exhaustion, Britain and France now propose to take the offensive on land on the Western Front, and to attack the Siegfried Line ; and for that purpose the maximum, force that can possibly be raised is tobe raised. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) warned the House against the danger of wasting Australian lives in wild adventures. We all know that Australian lives were wasted during the last war in the adventure at ‘the Dardanelles, which in time will rank’ with the charge of the Light Brigade.” There is danger of lives being wasted to-day. It has been said by one? who appears to be a competent authority that it cannot be hoped to make any impressionon the Siegfried Line except at the cost of 1,000,000 lives. It is said that Britain and France . would hesitate to do that, because, it is not certain that they would achieve their objective, and that if the effort were made and the aim not achieved, they would be so weakened that they would have to accept either a negotiated peace or a German victory. Similarly, it is said that, an attack on the Maginot Line would involve Germany in the same risk. The economic blockade having proved to be not so successful as was expected, it is now intended to move against Germany by land. In that move., the young men of Britain and France are to be sacrificed. We are asked to share in that sacrifice. I believe that that is a wild adventure in which we cannot afford to waste the lives of the rising generation. This country has suffered too much by sending to the last war the best hearts and brains of the generation that rose to manhood from 20 to 25 years ago. This country, and, indeed, all of those countries which participated in that war, are the poorer for the loss of those lives. Australia will not again suffer the loss of its young men if my vote can prevent it.

A great deal is said of what the Labour party did in 1914 and what Mr. Andrew Fisher then said. In the circumstances which’ then existed his famous remark was a perfectly natural one to make. Up to that time the Australian Labour movement had never experienced a great war. But war came upon the movement suddenly, and it thought that the issues were clear. Mr. Andrew Fisher, believing that Australia was asked to fight to preserve the liberties of the peoples of the world, made the statement that Australia was in the- war to the “last man and the last shilling”. Most of the members of his party approved what he said. We are more sophisticated to-day; we understand more about the machinery of making wars and carrying them on. We are not prepared to take things at their face value as people did 25 years ago. What happened on that occasion? Australia adopted the course of raising, by the voluntary system, a force to be sent overseas. At first it was easy to get men. A great number of people followed the lead of the Labour leader and his colleagues. Large numbers of young men offered themselves freely, but others did so largely because industry soon became dislocated. Vast numbers of men were thrown out of work, and businesses closed down. At that time, I was a member of the Parliament of Victoria. The Government of that State provided relief work for men. Some of that work consisted of shovelling earth out of a furrow only for it to be replaced in the furrows the next day. Numbers of unemployed men joined the colours, but . many of them did so only after fruitless attempts to obtain other employment. Men were obtained for the army, and the country was pleased with its effort. After a time, newspapers and various organs of public opinion clamoured for more men to be sent, lt was not so easy to get them Attempts were then made to mobilize public opinion, and moral and economic force was used to get mcn to enlist. The censorship was developed to its highest form. It was an offence for a person to say anything which, by any stretch of the imagination, could be interpreted as an attempt to discourage a man from enlisting. Under regulations which were issued the merits of the war could not be discussed. That meant that people were forbidden to discuss the war at all. because if they did so, some of their remarks might easily have been construed as discouraging men from enlisting. A rigid censorship is the natural corollary to the so-called voluntary system of enlistment. If there is free discussion of a war and of the various issues involved it is not so easy to get men to engage in war as if only one side is placed before them. One of the arguments in favour of conscription was, that, under conscription, there would be more freedom of speech, because it would be possible to get men by compulsion and they would not have to be persuaded. That argument wa* placed before a Labour executive of which [ was a member by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) who then, as now, was Attorney-General. We were told that if we agreed to support conscription the censorship and also the War Precautions Regulations could be relaxed, and we would be able to speak more freely upon the various issues. The first product of the voluntary system was that liberty of speech and the right to assemble were taken away. People were nol allowed to discuss conscription. A band of soldiers took the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) out of his bed to thu Trades Hall and told him that if he did not open the door they would break it open in order to get from within a manifesto which had been prepared not against recruiting, but against conscription. He opened the do.or and the soldiers destroyed all copies of the manifesto that they could find: Other members had similar experiences. There was a reign of terror. It soon became clear to the members of the Labour movement who had been in some doubt as to the merits of conscription that conscription should be opposed. The result of those repressive measures was that people who, despite their doubts, had been prepared to support the Government, were converted into its opponents. The first result of the so-called voluntary system was the rigid system of censorship under which we lived at the time. The second result is legal compulsion - conscription. I believe that that will be the natural result of the voluntary system in Australia on this occasion. The honorable members for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) and Richmond (Mr. Anthony) have said that they do not, expect that the Government will be satisfied with sending one division overseas, but will send several divisions. They expressed the hope that it would do so. Those divisions, if sent, will need to be reinforced, and in order to obtain reinforcements it will be found that moral and economic pressure will be applied. Honorable members will recollect, what happened during the last war. Every man was required to submit, a return stating whether he was prepared to enlist, if so, when; and if not, what were his reasons. Those returns were given to local committees in each district. Men were put through the third degree until they consented to go. If they did not consent, their employers were communicated with, and church authorities were encouraged to fulminate against them. Many of them were induced to enlist as so-called voluntary recruits. Despite the rigid censorship, and the economic and moral pressure, the appeal for men failed, and then came the demand for legal compulsion. At that time we were faced with

Mr. Blackburn the opposition of not only the people whobelieved in compulsion for compulsion’s sake because it would keep the worker quiet at his work and force him to accept whatever conditions were offered, but also hundreds of thousands of people whom we represented - the mothers, fathers, sisters and wives of men who had gone to the war. These people said if it was good enough te ask their men to go it was good enough to compel others to go. I am prepared to believe that the Prime Minister does not desire to introduce conscription; but I also believe that if he considered it necessary to °do so, he would revise his opinions just as readily as Mr. Asquith and the right honorable member for North Sydney did in the last war. Ail that any Minister can say is that his present intention is this or that. He cannot, definitely pledge himself for the duration of the war. If he gives a pledge, and attempts to keep it, he will be set aside if his m pledge is found to be inconvenient. “We must face these facts. Labour has learned by experience. It underwent a severe searing experience during the last war. Labour believes that the enlistment for overseas service carries with it as a natural and inevitable corollary, the obligation of legal compulsion in order to reinforce the forces already sent. After the defeat of the second conscription referendum in 1917, the Labour party, at a conference held in Perth in 1918, adopted the following resolution: -

No raising of forces for service outside the Commonwealth, or .participation or promise of participation in any future overseas war except by decision of the people.

I was secretary of the committee which drafted that resolution. As it was drafted, it finished’ at the last repetition of the word “ war “. The remaining words were added by the conference because it considered that New Zealand was so closely associated geographically and racially with Australia that, if that Dominion were attacked, it might be desirable for Australia to send forces to its assistance, and thus the express prohibition was qualified. It was made sufficiently elastic to permit the people to authorize the sending of forces to the defence of New Zealand. With that qualification the resolution was adopted, and that policy has been adhered to by the Labour party ever since. The

Labour party says, in effect, “Once we consent, upon any pretext, to the raising of forces for overseas service, we consent to the reinforcement of those forces by legal compulsion “. There is no avoiding that position. I am confident that this force of 20,000 men - if it is not annihilated at the beginning in such a way as thoroughly to arouse the people of Australiawill be the precursor of other forces which will follow. We shall see repeated the experience of 1916 and 1917. There will be the suppression of all information that bears against the policy of the Government, and the release only of such information as supports it. Moral and economic pressure will be employed to compel men to enlist for service overseas. ‘ And when that fails, as it will, there will be resort to legal compulsion. If theAustralian Labour party must choose between supporting the raising of forces for overseas service, and an immediate negotiated peace, I know which I would choose. I believe that the cause of Great Britain is right. I do not want an immediate negotiated peace, -because I believe that such a peace would be tantamount to German victory; but I would rather have such a peace than agree to the despatch of forces overseas, because I believe that, by so agreeing, I would be consenting to the bringing of greater ruin and destruction to our country than could be effected by even an unfavorable peace. I do not care what the results to the party may be, or to myself. I lost my seat in the State Parliament for saying the things that I am saying now, and for supporting the policy that I am now supporting. I have never regretted that. I was out of Parliament for a number of years. I have returned to Parliament by an accident, and now I am faced with the same experience again. I would rather sec the party smashed over this issue than see it yield or abate one jot of its principles. The Labour party has been smashed before, not for sticking to its principles, but only because it shrank from what it feared was an unpopular decision. It may be unpopular to-day to say that we will not agree to raise forces for overseas service, but I believe that, in the long run, such a policy will be popular. However, whether our attitude be popular or not, I believe it is right to oppose the Government’s proposal. I believe that we should be disloyal to the people whom we represent if we gave one moment’s consideration to the policy of raising forces for service overseas.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.- I am opposed to the proposal of the Government to deplete the man-power of this country by sending forces overseas to fight on foreign battle-fields. The experience of the last war has taught us what we mayexpect if we agree once again to the sending of an expeditionary force overseas. Even to-day, more than twenty years after the last war, exsoldiers are walking the streets looking for work, many of them suffering from war disabilities ; and very little consideration do they receive from the Government. Those who join this expeditionary force need expect no better treatment. The Government proposes to send a force of 20,000 men, and it is, I understand, still 1,700 men short. That is a clear indication that there is no great anxiety to seek service overseas. We know that 50 per cent, of those who have joined the 2nd Australian Imperial Force have done so for economic reasons. Many of them were unemployed, and some are considerably over the statutory age of 35 years. [ know of two men in my own electorate who were accepted, one of them 43 years of age, and one 44. If the department had been able to fill the quota with younger men, these two would not have been accepted. If this force is sent overseas, the Government will feel obliged to maintain reinforcements, and this will eventually raise the issue of conscription. Those who are qualified to speak with authority on military and international affairs have asserted that the Government should not send one man out of Australia. We certainly should not send away the best of our manhood, thus leaving the country at the mercy of a possible enemy. Senator Brand stated recently that he was opposed to any force leaving the shores of Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has himself said much the same. He did not go to the last war.

Mr.Rosevear. - And he will not go to this one.

Mr MULCAHY:

– That is true. The charges brought by honorable members opposite against the loyalty of members on this side of the House will not bear investigation. No party has a monopoly of loyalty, and members of the Labour party are just as anxious that the Empire should be victorious, as is any one on the other side of the House. We believe, however, that the policy of the Labour party, if given effect, would contribute materially to the successful prosecution of the war. During the last war Australia lost 60,000 men, and many of those who returned are in military hospitals suffering from war disabilities. It has been part of my work for many years to visit the Randwick Military Hospital, where I have seen men coughing up their lungs as the result of injuries caused by poison gas. Mr. Lloyd George has stated that many of those in charge of operations on the Western Front during the last war were incompetent. They obtained their positions through “ influence, and they were responsible for the needless sacrifice of thousands of lives. Young men were thrown into the Gallipoli campaign who did not know how to load a gun. We know that in some of the camps where men are being trained in Australia at the present time, there is only one rifle for every four trainees. I made that statement in the House some time ago, and it was denied, but I have since verified it. The same officer has told me that it is a fact that there is still only one rifle to every three or four men. How then can these men be trained to go overseas to battle, and if they are eventually equipped, what will be left for the defence of Australia? I agree with the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) that the Government is walking out on the people. The people are being left to the mercy of any potential enemy invader. I do not agree with the. contention that it may not be proper to oppose the sending of a force overseas; because this party claims that it is not in the best interests of Australia that people should leave Australia te fight in foreign battlefields when from day to day we’ do not know how the international position will develop. With the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), I agree that eventually this Avar will end with some sort of negotiation, but I do not believe that at the moment we should seek negotiation. Wha’t I hope for is that when this war ends, however it ends. the boundaries between the states of Europe will be like the boundary between United States of America and Canada, on which there is not one armed soldier. I hope that the Government will reconsider its policy and, with the Labour party, have a policy directed, at the adequate defence of Australia.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- My vote will be cast with the Government because the Government went into all aspects of the subject before reaching its decision. The gravamen of the complaint of the Opposition is the Opposition’s contention that the despatch of forces overseas would sacrifice Australia, but I do not subscribe to that belief, because T am informed that, having been constantly in touch with the Government of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth Government is assured that the men of the Sixth Division can, with safety to ourselves, leave our shores. With honorable members opposite, of course, I believe that our first duty is to protect Australia, but it is far better that we should fight this war in Europe than in Australia. An Australian expeditionary force will be of material assistance to the United Kingdom. Canada, New Zealand and other dominions will be sending men, and it is up to us to do the same. We have done everything possible to make Australia as safe as possible. In that connexion the Government has done good work. The cost will be heavy, but the mad dogs of Europe will have to be cheeked. For the future safety of the world we have to meet Hitler and his followers face to face.

Mr Rosevear:

– “We” do not; “we” are over age.

Mr PRICE:

– That is so, but we as a people have a duty to the Empire, and the action that is now contemplated is a step in the direction of fulfilling that duty. The same remarks apply to the action taken by the Government in respect of our cooperation in’ the Empire air-training scheme. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Opposition’s point of view. The position so far as the East is concerned is better than it was a few months ago, and the tension in Australia has eased considerably. Consequently, we are in a better position., to participate actively in the current conflict. Our trade routes have to be protected, and for that protection we rely on the Australian Navy and the naval might of Britain.

In my opinion the Leader of the Opposition was ill-advised to move the amendment to the motion, and I regret that he saw fit to do so, because I should like to see the Labour party in step with other parties in the House in the prosecution of the war.

Mr Conelan:

– The moving of the amendment has given honorable members opposite a great opportunity to wave the flag.

Mr PRICE:

– I am doing no flagwaving by declaring that our paramount objective should be to bring the war to a speedy and successful conclusion.

Mr Conelan:

– “Why does not the honorable member enlist?

Mr PRICE:

– Because I do not come within the age limit. The interjection is unfortunate because the honorable member is well aware that neither of us is eligible. If I were of age, I should probably enlist.

Mr Rosevear:

– “I wish to God that I was twenty year3 younger ! “ Most of us feel like the honorable member who interjects.

Mr PRICE:

– In my opinion, the policy of the Government will, substantially contribute towards winning the war, and accordingly I shall vote for the motion. I am of the opinion that the Royal Australian Air Force can render yeoman service abroad. I agree with the idea that our Air Force should complete its training in the Canadian scheme and I hope that the Royal Australian Air Force will retain its identity. It is my fervent hope that hostilities will soon pease, that the Allies may be victorious, and that once more the world will become a p’easant place in which to live.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- To the motion, moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), for the printing of the paper concerning the despatch of an expeditionary force overseas, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has moved an amendment to the effect that the House is of opinion that Australia’s man-power is required for the defence and safety of the Commonwealth, land is opposed to the despatch of an ex peditionary force. I propose to support

Uac amendment because, in my opinion, the Government has made a most dangerous decision in view of the generally unsettled condition of the world. While it is all very well for Government supporters to declare that, in order to demonstrate our loyalty to the Empire and to fulfil some remote moral obligations, we should despatch soldiers to. a theatre of war, I contend that Parliament should have regard first and foremost for the security of Australia. For that reason. I believe that this decision is the most dangerous that the Government has yet made. Nothing that the Prime Minister has said, and no assurances that any member of ‘ Cabinet has been able to give to the House, have removed the difficulties which existed at the outbreak of war. Up to date none of them has ventured an opinion with respect to our relations with other countries, particularly those neutrals which, at the beginning of the war we regarded as potential enemies. No Minister has been able to guarantee that they are not still potential foes.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, there existed the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis which was, in effect, a treaty between Italy, Germany and Japan under which the three countries undertook to assist one another against aggression. While it is true that, up to the present, Italy and Japan have taken no parkin the war. it is equally correct that the treaty between the three nations has not been repudiated. There is nothing in the world to assure us that if France and Great Britain were to suffer a severe reverse on the Western Front, those Powers will not become active participants on the side of Germany. Until we can be assured that there is no possible danger of intervention by them, the Government is taking the most dangerous ofrisks in deciding to adopt a policy of denuding .Australia of its potential defenders.

The international situation is infinitely different from what it was in 1914 when the British Empire had on its side powers that are to-day potential enemies. In addition we had an assurance that, because of the naval superiority of Great Britain, troops which we’ despatched to the theatre of war would be conveyed there in safety. We also had a guarantee that there was no possibility of an invasion of Australia by any enemy or powerful neutrals. Such a situation no longer exists. But despite the fact that conditions are not so favorable in that respect as they were in 1914, the Government proposes to pursue exactly the same course that it took 25 years ago. In other words, it intends to send, as a first instalment, an Australian expeditionary force of 20,000 men. Although it lias been hinted that the despatch of these troops is possibly as far as the Government intends to go, I recall that a similar hint was given in 1914. We were assured on that occasion that, only a small expeditionary force would be despatched abroad, but, that small force” ultimately exceeded 400,000 men. As the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) indicated, that great army was raised not only for all sorts of motives, but also through pressure which was brought to bear on the men. Ultimately, in order to increase that colossal number a government of similar calibre and outlook to the present Administration sought to inflict conscription upon- our manhood. What 1 desire to know is whether the British Government has asked the Commonwealth to provide the proposed assistance, or whether the Commonwealth is offering- the aid as a gesture to Great Britain. On more than one occasion we have asked the Prime Minister to elucidate the matter, which is of the utmost importance, because if this assistance were asked for by Great Britain,, it must be obvious to all that the Allies are in a difficult position. If the assistance was not asked for by Great Britain the Government has no right to denude the man-power of this country. We have been told by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) that the 20,000 troops from Australia will render material help. I do not know whether the honorable member seriously believes that the Government intends to send only 20,000 men. He did not indicate whether he was in favour of sending only 20,000 men, or that number of men only as a first instalment of a large army such as was sent abroad during the last war. It appears ridiculous to believe, as some honorable members have professed to believe, that on the Western Front, where before this war is concluded, possibly 20,000,000 men will be under arms, the 20,000 troops from Australia will affect the final result.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– They might.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– That is too absurd to be considered for a moment.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Military history records that small forces very often achieve vital decisions.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The honorable member differs considerably from military experts, who base their opinions on past wars. All military experts believe that so perfect are the Maginot and Siegfried Lines that any nation which seeks to break through either must suffer a colossal loss of man-power., yet, the Leader of the Country party thinks that what the experts say must result in the slaughter of millions of men can be achieved by 20,000 men from Australia. ‘ I do not believe that the honorable member is serious in the matter; he is probably more concerned about some glamour that his party might get from the fact that it is supporting what is, I believe, a stupid action on the part of the Government. It is obvious from the speeches of members of his party to-day that they do not appreciate the danger of sending men away from Australia. It appears that they are trying to estimate only how many votes they are likely to get from those people in the community whose judgment may be affected by their loyalty and patriotic fervour in sending somebody else to fight on foreign battlefields. They are concerned not with the question of whether this expeditionary force will be effective, but whether the decision to send such a force abroad will be popular with the electors. The best test of the popularity of this decision is to be found in the way in which men have responded up to date to the call for service in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. The Government had no difficulty in building up the Militia Forces to the full strength of 75,000 men; in fact, the Minister for the Army has boasted that the Government was so successful that it had practically suspended recruiting. I deduce from that that the young men of Australia are prepared to defend their country’ only inside Australia. Compare the success of the recruiting for the Militia with recruiting for the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. Despite the fact that the age limit was raised and a very loose medical examination was prescribed - so loose that many hundreds of enlisted men after the second examination were demobilized - only one State in the Commonwealth provided its quota for the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. That indicates very clearly that, whilst the men of Australia are prepared to enlist for the defence of their country inside Australia, there is no great urge among them to go overseas to fight. Therefore I say to those honorable members whose judgment has been swayed apparently by the thought that it might be popular politically to advocate the sending of a force overseas, that they will find that they have been mistaken. Confirmation of the truth of this statement is to be found in the fact that eligible men have shown no great enthusiasm to enlist for service overseas.

A little .while ago I referred to the uncertainty that exists, not only in the mind of the Government, but also in the minds of honorable members supporting it, as to the position that would arise in the event of men being sent outside Australia. I have before me a circular which was issued by the Department of Information, which reads -

The 2nd Australian Imperial Force has been constituted by the decision to raise a 6th infantry division to be known as the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. This force is being voluntarily recruited for service in Australia or overseas. The 2nd Australian” ImperialForce will,, when trained, be sent abroad unless circumstances render that course impracticable.

What I want to know - and on this point the Government has not yet been able to satisfy me - is what circumstances make it doubtful whether it will be practicable to send the 2nd Australian Imperial Force overseas. When this circular was issued, did the Government fear that shipping communications might be interrupted or that naval protection of the convoys would not be possible, or did it fear that the international situation was such that it would be wrong to send men outside Australia? These important questions have not yet been answered. To-day we had a hint from the Prime Minister that he had some assurance of naval protection by the British fleet. I do not know what assurance he received, but I do know that it would appear from reports that have come from various parts of the world that the British fleet has already a handful of work. Grave doubt exists in my mind as to whether, even with the preponderance of ships at the disposal of the Admiralty, satisfactory guarantees could be made that Australia would be safe after its man-power had been depleted, as is proposed. In making a statement on the wheat industry, the Prime Minister made a significant admission to-day, that even if we were able to sell our wheat overseas, there would be no guarantee that we would be able to ship it abroad. If on the day he makes his announcement that we have been given some kind of naval guarantee of protection the Prime Minister also makes an announcement that we cannot ship our commodities abroad with any assurance of protection, it -seems to me there is something wrong. If convoys cannot be provided for our primary products, I cannot see how they can be provided for troops or for the protection of Australia.

I cannot see,- either, how the British Government can be in a position to assure Australia of additional protection from the air, as hinted by the Prime Minister, seeing that expert commentators tell us that Great Britain and France are building aircraft at a. great rate to overtake the estimated superior strength of the German Air Force and are also engaged in an intensive campaign to train pilots. This does not look as though Great Britain is in a sufficiently sound position to offer help to Australia or the other overseas dominions.

The Prime Minister’s statement is not clear concerning the details of the proposal to send an expeditionary force abroad. Has Great Britain asked for such a force, or has it been offered by Australia ? Apparently the only reason advanced by the Prime Minister for the despatch of troops overseas is that it is to counteract certain German propaganda. It seems that German propagandists have said that the Dominions are not behind Great Britain in the war. I can foretell the reply that these same propagandists will make to the despatch of a force of 20,000 troops. I can also see that if the war continues for any length of time our 20,000 troops may become 500,000. That will be the price we shall have to pay to contravert German propagandist stories.

It appears that while the Ministry for Information is busily urging the public not to “fall” for German lies, the Government is itself being stampeded into sending an expeditionary force abroad regardless of Australia’s safety. The Labour party is not alone, nor are Labour members alone, among honorable members of this Parliament in questioning the wisdom of sending an expeditionary force from Australia. The views of many honorable members opposite on this subject have been referred to during this debate. I wish to direct attention to a statement made by the present Minister for the Army (Mr. Street) when he was Minister for Defence. On the 19th September last he stated -

The Government of the United Kingdom has itself recognized that at the present juncture the best contribution Australia can make is to defend itself. Great Britain has not asked for volunteers at the moment.

That is a clear indication that the Minister thought it inadvisable to send men overseas from Australia.

Mr Street:

– The point . about the volunteers in Great Britain was that Britain was not at that juncture asking for volunteers for Britain in Britain, but it has since done so.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It has conscripted men. The Minister was, however, referring to the sending of troops from Australia.

Mr Street:

– I stick to what I said as referring to that juncture.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I wish to know whether the Minister has changed his mind on this subject, and if so, why ? On his own showing, the Government of the United Kingdom declared that the best contribution Australia could make was to provide for its own defence. That is the view of the Labour party, although I have no doubt that it will mean that we shall be charged with being isolationists, whatever that word may mean. It is quite possible that the view expressed by the Minister for the Army on the 19th . September was influenced by the view of the

Prime Minister of Great Britain, who, in March of last year, said that the best way to defend the British Empire was for the people living in the various Dominions of the Empire to provide for their own defence. He made it clear that the Government of the United Kingdom considered that its first duty was to protect Great Britain. His words were -

Our first main efforts must have two main objectives: We must protect this country and we must preserve the trade routes upon which we depend for our food and raw materials. . . .

Our third objective is the defence of British territories overseas from attack, whether by sea, land or air. I would remind the House that our position is different from that of many continental countries in that we have the necessity at all times of maintaining garrisons overseas in naval bases and strategic points in different parts of the world. . . . In wartime there would undoubtedly be substantial demands for reinforcements to be Bent to these strategic points, but, taking them in order of priority, they are not as vital as the defence of our own country, because as long as we are undefeated at home, although we sustained losses overseas, we might have an opportunity of making them good hereafter.

It is quite clear from what I have said that the Labour party holds a similar view concerning our obligation to defend Australia as the British Government holds concerning its obligation to defend Great Britain. No point of honour is involved so far as the Labour party is concerned. Our obligationis to provide for the adequate defence of Australia. In view of the uncertain situation in the world to-day, and the fact that nobody can guarantee that when the war is in full swing there will not be anattack on Australia, the chief obligation of the Government is to defend Australia as an integral part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is of no consolation for us to know that the Prime Minister of Great Britain has said -

As long as we arc undefeated at home, although we sustain losses overseas, we may have an opportunity to make them good hereafter.

That is a clear indication that Mr. Chamberlain meant that, if any of the colonies were lost, there might be another little war to get them back. We should keep the manhood of this country here to defend it against aggression. Because of the fact that the Government has made one of the most dangerous decisions in it? chequered career, and “because I fear that our real danger lies in the weakening of our man-power,I support the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition.

Thursday30, November 1939

Motion (by Mr. Thompson) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 30

Majority…… 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr.

Curtin’s amendment) stand part of the motion.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 28

Majority……5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1765

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That Government business shall take precedence over general business at the next sitting.

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 28

Majority…. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.33 a.m. (Thursday).

page 1766

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: - 2nd Australian Imperial Force: Rejects

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Of the members of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force in each State who, on being medically re-examined, were found to be medically unfit for service, how many were found to be medically unfit as the result of malnutrition?
  2. In each State group, what were the medical grounds on which these men were discharged as medically unfit, and what was the number in each group?
Mr Street:
UAP

– The information is being obtained and will be furnished to the honorable member as early as possible.

Censorship: Employment of Superannuated Postal Officers

Mr Beasley:

y asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that retired officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department in receipt of superannuation are being employed or considered for employment in the Censor’s Office, Sydney ?
  2. If so, what payment will be made to these retired officers for the work?
  3. What is the reason for employing these retired officers in preference to unemployed men?
  4. What is the character of the work required to be carried out by these retired officers?
  5. Will the Government consider the question of giving unemployed men first preference for the work?
Sir Henry Gullett:
UAP

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

  1. No. 2, 3, and 4. See answer to No. 1.
  2. In case of qualifications being equal an unemployed person would receive preference.

Purchase of Canadian Wheat by British Government.

Mr Forde:

e asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Has the British Government purchased any wheat from Canada since the outbreak of war?
  2. If so, what was the price paid?
Sir Frederick Stewart:
Minister for Health · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has informed me that the Commonwealth Government is not in possession of this information.

National Insurance Expenses.

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

n asked the Acting Treasurer, upon, notice -

  1. What is the total amount that has been spent on the royal commission appointed to advise regarding the payments to be made for the treatment of persons under the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act?
  2. How much has been spent in administrative and other expenses?
  3. Are there any persons at present employed under this act?
  4. What is the total amount, including compensation, paid to approved societies?
Mr Spender:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Beasley:

y asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. What is the total cost, to date, incurred by the Government in connexion with its scheme of national insurance?
  2. Willhe set out the costs under their various headings?
Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

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

Canberra : Purchase of Road Metal in New South Wales.

Mr Gregory:

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

  1. Is the Government purchasing crushed ore for concrete or road purposes from districts outside the Australian Capital Territory?
  2. If so, from what places is the stone being purchased ?
  3. What is (a) the price paid at the quarry, (b) the rail freight, and (c) the cost of cartage ?
Mr Perkins:
Minister without portfolio administering External Territories · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following information . -

  1. One order was placed on the 16th October, 1939, for the supply of a quantity of3/4-in. blue metal.
  2. Kiama, New South Wales. 3. (a) and (b) the price paid was 16s8d. a ton f.o.r. Canberra, and (c) cartage 4s. 41/2d. a ton, delivered on site.

Oil Research Funds

Mr Paterson:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

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

What amount remains unspent or unallotted of the £250,000 provided under the Petroleum Oil Search Act 1936 for the purpose of encouraging the search for oil?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– Approximately £50,000.

Apples and Pears

Mr Spurr:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

r asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Has the Apple and Pear Board made arrangements for cool storage space to hold over portion of the crop?
  2. If so, how much extra space has been secured above that in use last season?
  3. Has the board secured sufficient space to keep a regular and plentiful supply of apples all the year round?
  4. Will the cost of cool storage space held for apples and pears be borne by the producer, the consumer or the Government?
Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– The Minisfor Commerce has supplied the following information : -

  1. In centres where storage is available the Apple and Pear Board, or the State committees of the board, will make arrangements for cool storage space.
  2. This information is not at present available.
  3. The best possible use will be made of all available space.
  4. The cost of storage, as a marketing cost, will be a charge against realizations.

Wheat : Overseas Sales - Queensland Crop

Mr Thorby:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Is the Minister in a position to advise the House if any overseas sales of wheat have been finalized recently?
  2. If so, will be state (a) the terms and conditions of sale, (b) the quantity sold, and (c) the nationality of the buyer or buyers?
Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information : -

Apart from the sales of 200,000 tons of wheat and 50,000 tons of flour to the United ‘ Kingdom Government, the only overseas sales of Australian wheat since the war have been approximately 20,000 tons to India, and asmall parcel to South Africa. These sales have been of “ old “-wheat. No other overseas sales or contracts for sales have been finalized.

Mr Wilson:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Since the outbreak of war, what quantities of wheat have been sold to Great Britain, and at what prices, from the following countries: - Australia, Canada, United States of America, Argentina, Rumania, Russia and from any other countries?

Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information: -

Australia has sold 200,000 tons of wheat to the United Kingdom since the outbreak of war. The price was 17s. sterling a quarter c.i.f., freight and insurance on British Government account. The Commonwealth Government is not in possession of information regarding sales of wheat to the United Kingdom by other countries.

Mr Fadden:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Australian Wheat Board has acquired the Queensland wheat crop under its acquisition regulations?
  2. If so, what reasons can the Minister adduce for this apparent breach of the undertaking given to a deputation of millers and growers that the Queensland Wheat Board would be permitted to deal with the Queensland crop along the lines that have hitherto constituted the system and activities of the said board?
  3. Is he in favour of such action being taken after the assurances given to the deputation, and after the Queensland board had announced conditions of sale, and had already taken in some 2,000,000 bushels classified in its own special manner as the outcome of many years of experience, and after it had acquired 780,000 bags for its growers?
  4. In view of the Queensland Wheat Board’s statement that it could dispose of the crop in Queensland on terms more satisfactory than obtainable elsewhere, but that its acquisition by the Australian Wheat Board will mean a distinct loss to the Queensland growers without conferring any advantage on other States, what action does he propose to take to remedy such condition?
  5. What circumstances does he consider justify, not merely the breach of the undertaking given to the deputation, but also the transference of the handling of the crop from the Queensland State board, which has been functioning since 1920, and was constituted to meet the peculiar and unique conditions of the industry in Queensland?
Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information: -

  1. Yes.
  2. and 3. The Government did not give any undertaking that it would not acquire Queensland wheat. The Australian Wheat Board was quite ready to agree to the exclusion of Queensland wheat, but the decision to include it was one of Government policy.
  3. and 5. The emergency created by the war has necessitated the acquisition of various commodities throughout Australia. The exclusion of commodities in any one State from orders of acquisition would create anomalies and complaints from producers in other States. In the case of wheat, the proceeds of the flour tax, and the financial assistance afforded by the Commonwealth Government, are being paid into the pool to be distributed by the Australian Wheat Board. The exclusion of any wheat from acquisition would, therefore, be impracticable.

Wool Appraisement Centres

Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

e asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. How many places have been appointed as appraisement centres by the Central Wool Committee?
  2. How many bales of wool are estimated to pass through each of such centres?
Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information: -

  1. Sydney, Newcastle, Goulburn, Albury, Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat, Brisbane, Adelaide, Fremantle, Hobart, Launceston.
  2. This information is not at present available.

Unemployment Relief Works

Mr James:

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

With reference to the published statements that many unemployed will be absorbed in defence works: -

What amount of money will be provided for works proposed in the Newcastle and coalfields districts?

Will the works be carried out under the supervision of the Commonwealth Works De- * partment or by the State Government?

If by the Commonwealth Works Department, will he arrange for that department to send immediately an officer to the northern district of New South Wales to engage at once the necessary labour and so provide them with work over Christmas?

In engaging such labour, will preference be given to the unemployed who have not been given employment under the State Government’s permissive income regulations which have precluded them from relief work and food relief?

What amount of money is involved in contract works being carried out in the localities mentioned?

What method is adopted by the successful contractors in engaging thenecessary labour ?

Are local unemployed tradesmen and labourers given preference or are they brought from other districts?

If brought from other districts, will his department specify in future contracts that unemployed in the locality where Commonwealth works are being carried out should be given preference?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The information is being obtained.

Defence Board of Business Administration.

Mr Menzies:
UAP

s.- Yesterday the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked me a question, without notice , regarding the remuneration which will be paid to Sir George Pearce in his capacity as a member of the Defence Board of Business Administration.

I desire to inform the honorable member that Sir George Pearce will be paid a fee of £500 per annum for his services as a member of the Board, and the prescribed travelling allowance should he be required to travel in the course of his duty as a member of the Board.

Governor-General’s Residences

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 16th November, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What was the cost of remodelling the Governor-General’s residences at Canberra and Sydney to prepare them for occupancy by His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent?
  2. What is the total amount that has been spent to date in fitting up Yarralumla House?
  3. What is the total amount that has been spent on the Governor-General’s residence in Sydney (Admiralty House) to date?
  4. What was the cost of the upkeep for 1938-39of (a) Yarralumla House, and (6) Admiralty House?

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

  1. Canberra, £42,867 to Slat October, 1939; and Sydney, £5,005 to 31st October, 1939.
  2. Building, remodelling,&c, £108,719; furniture and equipment, £17,450. Total at 31st October, 1939, £126,169.
  3. Capital expenditure, £28,055 to 31st October, 1939; maintenance, £40,204 to 31st October, 1939. 4. (a) Yarralumla House, £6,641; (b) Admiralty House, £3,025.

Labour Conditionsin the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– On the 15th November the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) asked the following question, without notice : -

Will the Ministerfor the Interior take action to have applied to the employees of private carrying firms in Canberra the terms of the award governing the employment of Commonwealth transport drivers? I have been informed that employees of private firms have been required to work very long hours, and even to work on holidays and Sundays, without receiving overtime.

The Minister for the Interior has now advised me that the nonpassengercarrying vehicle section of the Industrial Board’s award covering transport employees was extended to private employers and employees by Determination No. 16, which was notified in the Commonwealth Gazette of the 23rd November, 1939.

ClosingofUnofficial Military Canteen.

Mr Street:
UAP

t. - On the 23rd November the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked who was responsible for the closing of an unofficial canteen established outside the military camp at Ingleburn, New South Wales..

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the canteen referred to was closed by the owner of the land on which it was situated.

Ammunition for Rifle Clubs.

Mr Street:
UAP

t. - On the 23rd November the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) asked whether it would not be possible to increase the issue of ammunition to rifle clubs.

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that, after careful consideration of the position, it is unlikely that any change of the present policy in respect of the issue of small arms ammunition will be warranted prior to the end of the present financial year, but he may rest assured that the question of removal of portion of the restrictions as soon as practicable will be kept in mind.

Cockatoo Island Dockyards: Leave Conditions of Employees.

Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– On the 23rd November the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) asked whether the principle of granting a fortnight’s annual leave or one day’s leave for each month of service, which applies to employees at Garden Island, could ‘be also applied to workers engaged ina similar class of work at Cockatoo Island Dockyard.

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the men employed at Cockatoo Island are not in the employ of the Commonwealth Government, which does not fix their conditions of service. The question of annual leave is therefore one for the consideration of the company that engages them.

Price of Petrol

Mr Forde:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the price of petrol is about to be increased by 6d. a gallon?
  2. Is it a fact that under the existing rate of taxation on amount of 8s. 6d. is paid in tax on every twelve gallons of petrol placed by a motor car user in the car tank?
  3. Before the Government makes any increase of duty’ on petrol that would necessitate an increase of the price to the consumers, will he take into consideration, the great hardship that would be inflicted upon the thousands of retail salesmen, country insurance agents. radio salesmen, farmers and other primary producers, if the price of petrol should be increased to the amount mentioned in the newspapers ?
Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. All phases of the question are considered before the Government decides upon an increase of duty on any commodity.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 November 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1939/19391129_reps_15_162/>.