View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
24 April 1945

17^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
PAINTING INDUSTRY IN QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- PETROL
QUESTION
- REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
QUESTION
- ELECTRIC LIGHTING RESTRICTION’S
QUESTION
- QUEENSLAND SHEARING DISPUTE
QUESTION
- NEWSPAPERS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
QUESTION
- GROVELY CAMP INQUIRY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SER VICE
QUESTION
- DIVISION OF IMPORT PROCUREMENT
QUESTION
- CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
QUESTION
- SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- MR. J.S. TEA SD ALE
QUESTION
- CURTIN GOVERNMENT
GRANTS TO STATES
QUESTION
- PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES
QUESTION
- VISIT OF PARLIAMENTARIANS TO BATTLEFIELDS
AUSTRALIAN ARMY
- Equipment
- Equipment of Australian Troops - Ministerial Statement
- Further -
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Housing : Canberra : Permits
- War Correspondents
- Merchant Seamen
- Aborigines
- Release of Internees
- Legal Services: Briefing of Counsel
- Meat Industry : Supplies for Great Britain : Rationing

Mr.Speaker(Hon.J.S.Rosevear) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1020

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) agreed to -

That the House,at its rising, adjourn to

Thursday next, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1020

PAINTING INDUSTRY IN QUEENSLAND

Mr.CONELAN.- For the protection of young children, a Queensland law provides that paints used for surface painting in that State shall not contain more than 5 per cent. of lead.Willthe Minister for Munitions take steps to hare the supply of zinc to Queensland increased, in order to meet the requirements of this substitute for lead?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall have pleasure inendeavouring to increase the supply of wine for the purpose mentioned.

page 1020

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr SMITH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Inview of the recent announcement that the quality of the petrol sold on the Australian market is to be reduced, will the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping state whether or not there is tobe a corresponding reduction of price?

Mr BEASLEY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I understand that the quality reduction is tobe from 80 octane to 70-72 octane. I am not quite familiar with the distillation process involved in the production of a lower octane petrol; but if it means less distillation and the use of less lead, the question of the honorable gentleman calls for examinationby the department, and I shall ask that it be made.

page 1020

QUESTION

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

High Court Decision

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– The High Court yesterday gave judgment in a case in which the Treasurer’s right to require the purchase of bonds as a condition of consent to aland transaction was challenged. It is not clear from the necessarily abridged press report whether the High Court decided that the provision requiring the deposit of bonds was invalid because it was not a part of the regulations, or whether the court expressed the view that, even if it were part of the regulations, it would still be invalid. Can the Treasurer explain what the judgment really means, and whether an amendment of the regulations is proposed ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not very clear, either, as to what the position is. I understand that three judgments were delivered. One, which represented the opinion of two of the judges, including the Chief Justice, was that the regulations themselves were valid. Two other judges held that the regulations were invalid, while another two judges expressed no opinion at all on the question of validity.

Mr Menzies:

– They all agreed that the Treasury was in the wrong.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– There was no unanimity regarding the regulations, but there was complete unanimity on the point that the conditions were not good in law - that, I think, is the correct term. I have spoken to the Solicitor-General, but I have had no opportunity, nor has he, to study the judgments. I shall have them examined, and an answer to the honorable member’s inquiry prepared. I might add that what was referred to during the hearing as a restriction was regarded by the Treasury as a concession.

page 1021

QUESTION

ELECTRIC LIGHTING RESTRICTION’S

Carnivals and Night Sports

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Munitions say when it is proposed to lift the ban on the use of electric light for night carnivals and sports meetings?

Mr MAKIN:
ALP

-At a recent meeting of a Cabinet sub-committee held to discuss coal stocks I raised the matter of restriction on the use of electric light for carnivals and night sports meetings. I point out that, in view of the approach of winter it is necessary to build up stocks of coal. A very close watch is being kept on the position, and I can assure the honorable member that his suggestion will receive sympathetic consideration. Where electricity is being generated from black coal it is not so easy to relax lighting restrictions as when the current power is produced by other means.

page 1021

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND SHEARING DISPUTE

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the United Graziers Association of Queensland in. which it is stated that, because of the shearing dispute in that State, the industry is in chaos, and the shearing schedule is 3,000,000 sheep behind? If so, will the Prime Minister state what action the Government intends to take to deal with the situation?

Mr CURTIN:
Minister for Defence · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have had such a telegram. As I have been engaged on other matters I referred it to the Department of Labour and National Service, and I suggest that the rest of the right honorable gentleman’s question be addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service.

page 1021

QUESTION

NEWSPAPERS

Political Affiliations

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Information seen a statement by the president of the Australian Newspaper Proprietors Association that that association is non-political? Is the president of the Australian Newspaper Proprietors Association the general manager of the Sydne Morning Herald? Did the Sydney Morning Herald omit from its news columns on Monday any reference to the tribute paid to the Prime Minister by Archdeacon Robertson? Did the Sydney Morning Herald in the same issue devote considerable space to the publication of a circular criticizing plans proposed for New Guinea and Papua by the Minister for External Territories?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I did look in vain in the columns of the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday for the tribute that Archdeacon Robertson deservedly paid to the Prime Minister and his advice to people like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) to stop their organized campaign against the right honorable gentleman. I also noted that the Sydney Morning Herald omitted the statement by the Minister for External Territories. These omissions arc all a part of the policy of suppression, distortion and misrepresentation engaged in by the Sydney Morning Herald particularly, and other papers. I have noted from time to time the statement by Mr. Henderson, president of the Australian Newspaper Proprietors Association that that organization is non-political, but its only effect on me has been to tickle my risible muscles. The gentleman referred to is the very person who on two occasions within six months last year deprived the people of Sydney of their newspapers.

page 1021

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Equipment Reports in Army Newspapers - Releases.

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister ensure the presentation of an impartial report of the debate on Army equipment in. army publications supplying a regular news service to the troops by instructing the Director of Army Public Relations (Brigadier Rasmussen) that no censorship of such reportswill be allowed except on the grounds of security?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I am not the editor of the publication. I have been the editor of a newspaper and know that, regardless o f censorship or anything else, what goes into a newspaper is finally and irrevocably decided by the editor. I will not issue any instruction, because I do not believe any such instruction is necessary.

Mr Rankin:

– The right honorable gentleman has not been reading these publications then?

Mr CURTIN:

– I have not, but, if it can be shown to me that the editor of an Army publication is guilty of bias and unfairness in respect of political matters or subjects of debate in this Parliament, I shall ask the Public Service Board, or some other authority, to conduct an inquiry, and, if he is found guilty, I shall say at once that he is unfit for his position; but while he is fit I shall not interfere with him.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister ensure that in any review of the claims of members of the forces for release to industry, consideration shall be given to servicemen who have already been examined and recommended for discharge by man-power authorities?

Mr CURTIN:

-Certain categories have been prescribed as having priority for discharge. In addition there are numbers of other servicemen who are given preference for personal reasons. I do not want it to be assumed that there is no steady and constant discharge of men from the services. There is ; but each case must be dealt with on its merits and the plan as it now stands cannot be altered until a review is made, I hope, after June.

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Acting-Minister for the Army have investigated the case of Q121115 Sapper Slade, A.R.S.? I am informed that Sapper Slade was released to industry in December, 1942, and was given permission to change his employment in 1944 because of sickness. He was recalled to the Army and served until he received his discharge - No. 81016- on the 13th July, 1944. Subsequently he was court-martialled and sentenced to seven months detention at the Grovely Detention Camp. If that information is correct, will the Minister take steps to rectify this injustice immediately?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall refer the honorable member’s question to my colleague, the Acting Minister for the Army, for consideration.

page 1022

QUESTION

GROVELY CAMP INQUIRY

Report of Mr. Justice Reed

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– If the final report by Mr. Justice Reed on his inquiry into the Grovely Camp has been received, will the Minister representing the Minister for the Army say when it will be available for honorable gentlemen to peruse?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I understand that the Acting Minister for the Army has not yet received the final report. However, I shall bring the honorable member’s question to his notice, and ask him to consider it as soon as the report reaches him.

page 1022

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Resignation of Mr. W. J. Cleary

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a recent report in a Sydney newspaper in which the former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr. W. J. Cleary, is stated to have said, at a farewell gathering to officials, that “ because of certain happenings, he could no longer rely on the loyalty of some people whom he had trusted, and he felt that it was time for him to get out “. Mr. Cleary is also reported as having said that some months ago he had unsuccessfully sought an interview with the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform me why that interview did not take place? Has he any information to give to the House regarding the reason for Mr.Cleary’s resignation ?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I know of no occasion upon which Mr. Cleary, or any other head of a great Commonwealth instrumentality who, after having submitted his representations to the Minister controlling the department, sought and was refused an interview with. me. As a matter of fact, the personal relationship between Mr. Cleary and myself has always been most courteous and friendly. I do not recall any request that Mr. Cleary has made for an interview with me. It could happen that Mr.Cleary sought an interview when it was impracticable for me to meethim, but, in that event, I should have suggested some other date. As to the reasons for Mr. Cleary’s resignation, I know no more about them now than I did when his resignation was announced.

page 1023

QUESTION

PUBLIC SER VICE

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council inform rue whether it is a fact that, whilst certain members of the Commonwealth Public Service are making a contribution to the war effort by working 81 hours a fortnight, although the normal working week is 36¾ hours, retrenchment is steadily increasing?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– I was not aware that retrenchment wasbeing made in the Commonwealth Public Service. Last week, in answer to a question asked by the honorable member forFawkner, I informed the House that the Government had decided, subject to the approval of the Public Service Arbitrator, and under certain conditions, to compensate officers who worked additional hours by paying them overtime rates. In working81 hours a fortnight, Commonwealth public servants are rendering a service which, I am sure, the community greatly appreciates. I regard it as wrong and improper for public servants who worked those long hours for a period, to be deprived of their employmentnow, and I shall discuss the matter with the Public Service Commissioner.

page 1023

QUESTION

DIVISION OF IMPORT PROCUREMENT

Mr CONELAN:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs inquire, and advise the House, regarding the steps that have been taken, or are to be taken to allow Australian importers to import goods direct from overseas manufacturers instead of through the Division of Import Procurement?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– My own experience in this matter has particular reference to textiles. When I was in the United States of America, I found that many of our difficulties arose from the fact that we were working on a governmenttogovernment level, whilst other countries, such as Canada, were working through ordinary private trading channels, and were able to do better business than we had managed to do. I considered that the time had arrived for us to return to the system under which Australian merchants were permitted to order their goods from manufacturers in the United States of America.

Mr.Conelan. - What about Australian orders placed in Great Britain?

Mr BEASLEY:

– My remarks are equally applicableto that trade, but I have not the same knowledge of it as I have of our business with the United State of America. However, I have made certain recommendations to the Minister for Trade and ‘Customs, and understand that, during his visit to the United States of America, he reached conclusions similar to my own. In my opinion, the alteration should be made without further delay.

page 1023

QUESTION

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that the trade union movement is averse to the infliction of capital punishment, will the Prime Minister take up with the trade union executive the question of obtaining its permission to make representations to the States of the world for Australia to press for the death penalty for Hitler and the gang of ruffians surrounding him?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The trade union movement of Australia has never expressed an opinion on the subject of capital punishment.

Mr Abbott:

– Labour governments have never enforced the penalty.

Mr CURTIN:

– I belong to a State which has had a Labour government in office for more years than a Country party government is ever likely to be in office. In that State the law prescribes capital punishment for certain offences.

Mr Abbott:

– But the law is never carried out.

Mr.CURTIN.- It is carried out.

Mr Abbott:

– Then it is a very backward State!

Mr CURTIN:

– Thelaw on this subject is within the authority of the States. In some States where Labour governments are in office, capital punishment is the law, and in some other States, where Labour is also in power, it is not the law. I do not propose to make any representations on the subject.

page 1024

QUESTION

SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether, in view of the fact that an acute shortage of doctors and nurses exists in some rural areas, he will askhis colleague to establish a pool of medical practitioners and nurses from which rural needs may be served ?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– This subject has been examined by the Social Security Committee of which the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) was chairman. The committee made certain representations to the Government, and these were down for Cabinet consideration last week. Unfortunately that item on the business sheet was not reached. It is hoped, however, that a scheme will be evolved to meet the situation referred to by the honorable member.

page 1024

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Release of Personnel for the Royal Navy Air Arm.

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Air aware that flying personnel of the Royal Australian Air Force have sought permission to transfer to the Royal Air Force for service with the Fleet Air Arm, because, among other reasons, machines are not available for them to fly with the Royal Australian Air Force? If, for this reason, or for any others, these men cannot continue flying in the Royal Australian Air Force, will permission be given to them to serve with theBritish Fleet Air Arm ?Will the Minister indicate the policy of the Government in this connexion?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– A similar question was asked me on this subject last week. I said then, and I say now, that certain individual members of the Royal Australian Air Force had apparently expressed a desire to become pilots with the Fleet Air Arm. The matter has been investigated, up to a point, with the result that it has been ascertained that ‘ we have no ships of a suitable nature for such training. Discussions have taken place between representatives of the Air Board and the British Fleet on this subject, but no decision has yet been made. I suggest that resort to the newspapers by some members of the Royal Australian Air Force who desire such a transfer is not the best method to get the matter settled. The honorable gentleman said that the Government had no policy on the subject.

Mr Spender:

– I asked for a statement of Government policy.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable gentleman is entirely wrong in saying that the Government has no policy, and he is in a position to know better than to ask such a. question.

page 1024

QUESTION

MR. J.S. TEA SD ALE

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Information been drawn to page 787 of the 1944 edition of Who’s Who in Australia, on which it is recorded that Mr. J. S. Teasdale, who we know is the informant of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) on wheat matters, has been a member of the AustralianWheat Board since September, 1939? If so is that statement correct?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– The publication Who’s Who in Australia is a product of the Murdoch press, and like most publication? of that press, it is frequently inaccurate. My attention has been drawn to the biography of Mr. Teasdale in Who’s Who in Australia, and the statement which the honorable member has quoted in regard to his membership of the Australian “Wheat. Board is inaccurate. He was appointed to the Australian Wheat Board in 1939, but was either withdrawn, or withdrew, in 1942. He was re-appointed to the Board in 1944. I believe that he is the informant of the honorable member for Indi and other honorable members opposite who are conducting the campaign against the Scully wheat plan.

page 1025

QUESTION

CURTIN GOVERNMENT

Mr RANKIN:

– Did the Minister for Information look in vain for a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 19th April, headed “The Record of Mr. Curtin’s Broken Pledges”? If not, will he read the article, take it to heart, and send a marked copy to Archdeacon Robertson ?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I do read the columns of the Sydney Morning Herald. but most of the material which they contain I treat with disdain. That is the manner in which I shall treat the article referred to by the honorable member for Bendigo. I do not intend to insult a very worthy gentleman in the person of Archdeacon Robertson by asking him to read the editorial out-pourings of the Sydney Morning Herald.

page 1025

GRANTS TO STATES

Mr.GUY. - Will the Treasurer ascertain and advise the House of the date on which the committee that was appointed to inquire into the method of calculating the Commonwealth grants to claimant States last met, and the reason for the delay in the presentation of its report?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I assume that the honorable member is referring to a committee appointed by the Government party.

Mr.GUY. - Yes, commonly known as the “caucus committee”. As it is using public money, its report should be public, and we should have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is an additional question which, in the circumstances, is out of order.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– No parliamentary committee is dealing with this matter. The body referred to is purely a party committee, and it will make a report to the party on whatever aspects it may choose to investigate. What a party committee reports to the party is not the concern of this Parliament. Public money is not involved.

Mr Guy:

– Who paid the expenses of the members of the committee when they visited Tasmania?

Mr Curtin:

– They paid their own expenses.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That, too, is an additional question.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– No money from the Commonwealth Treasury has been expended in connexion with the work of the committee; therefore, what it does is not the concern of this Parliament.

page 1025

QUESTION

PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES

Sales Tax on Show Catalogues.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– As the Treasurer is aware, many pastoral and agricultural societies are resuming the holding of annual shows. These bodies are greatly perturbed at the amount of sales tax that is levied on catalogues and other printed matter which they require, and they ask for relief. I have been requested to ask the honorable gentleman to state whether or not their wish can be met; also, whether or not a refund can be expected of any tax already paid?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I should imagine that the sales tax mentioned is being levied under aCommonwealth law, and that the granting of the request for exemption from it would involve an amendment of that law. I am prepared to examine the matter. I cannot hold out much hope of a refund of tax already paid.

page 1025

QUESTION

VISIT OF PARLIAMENTARIANS TO BATTLEFIELDS

Mr CONELAN:

– As parties of legislators from the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United States of America have been permitted to visit the battlefields in Europe, will the Prime Minister favorably consider a visit by members of this Parliament to theatres in which Australian troops are fighting?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I undertake to give consideration to the matter.

page 1025

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Equipment

Debate resumed from the 22nd March (vide page 775) on motion by Mr. Curtin -

That the following paper be printed: -

Equipment of Australian Troops - Ministerial Statement

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister and Minister for Defence · Fremantle · ALP

– In regard to the equipment of the Australian Military Forces, statements were made by the Acting Minister for the Army (Senator Fraser) in the Senate on the 7th March, 1945, and the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), on his behalf, in this House on the 22nd March, 1945. As the House adjourned for the Easter recess on the following day, it was not possible to debate the matter before Easter. Accordingly, I moved that the Minister’s statement be printed. The Governmentwelcomes the fullest debate on this matter, for, as I said at the time, it. has no tiling to hide.

In view of the publicity which the matter continued to receive, I issued a public statement on the 5th April, .1945, following a report by the CommanderinChief of the Australian Military Forces, General Sir Thomas Blainey, who had recently visited each of the operational areas.

I asked the Acting Minister for the Army to visit the operational areas, and ;ave to him an open letter to members of the forces, explaining his mission and inviting them to tell him anything they considered he should know. The Acting Minister for the Army has furnished to me two reports, one dealing with equipment - the subject before the House - and lie other on additional matters concerning the welfare of the troops which came to his notice. I shall table his report in. equipment. . Th.c matters referred to n the other report are being considered by War Cabinet, and by myself as Minister for Defence.

The essence of the criticism is, that Australian forces are not adequately equipped, and that the present operations should not have been undertaken in the circumstances. Some critics go further, and say that those operations should not be carried out at all, but that Australian forces should be employed in more offensive action elsewhere. .1” shall leal first with the latter aspect. I have explained previously that Australian combat forces are assigned to the CommanderinChief of the South-West Pacific Area in accordance with the terms of his directive, which was issued to him with the approval of the five governments concerned. Under that directive, each government retains the right to refuse the use of its forces for any project which it considers inadvisable. I mention this because it is fundamental to the Government’s agreement to General M’acArthur’s plans for the use of Australian forces. The directive also provides that the commander of the forces of each government hall retain the right of appeal, and freedom of communication with his government. This means that General Blame’ can put before the Government his views on General MacArthur’s plans for the use of Australian forces. In actual practice, the established procedure is for General. MacArthur to discuss with me the contemplated use of Australian forces, which 1 report to War Cabinet and the Advisory War Council. General Blainey has direct access to me on matters relating to operations. The Chiefs of Staff attend all meetings of the Advisory War Council, at which they give a review of the progress of operations, and can be questioned on any matter relating rn their services.

Upon my return from London. General MacArthur discussed with me last June his contemplated . plan of operations. 1 said to him that I was anxious that the Australian forces should be associated with his advance, and that they should be represented in the operations in the Philippines. In saying this as the head of the Government, I was certain that 1 was expressing the overwhelming view of i hp Australian people. General MacArthur expressed his appreciation, and said that he would keep me fully informed of his plans, so that I should lie in a position to express agreement or otherwise. I shall explain later how our non-participation in the Philippines campaign was entirely due to the great and rapid success of the earlier phases of the operations.

Early in July, 1944, I reported my discussions with General MacArthur to War Cabinet and the Advisory War Council. Both of those bodies considered that, in regard to the operations against the Philippines, there should be no variation of the existing assignment to General MacArthur of the operational control of the Australian forces. General MacArthur and General Blarney were informed of this decision. In July. 1944.

General MacArthur issued instructions to General Blarney, and stated that the advance to the Philippines necessitated a redistribution of forces and combat, missions in the South-West Pacific Area, in order to make available forces with which r,o continue the offensive. He desired the Australian forces to relieve the American forces, and to take over from them in Australian and British territory and mandates .in the South-West Pacific Area, and approved the strength of the forces to be provided in those regions. General MacArthur also asked that, in addition, two divisions should be made available for the advance to the Philippines. A time-table was laid down for those steps. The Government considered that it was both logical and appropriate that Australian forces should take over the islands which formed a part of our outer screen of defence- and which were mostly our territory. In addition, we would have two divisions for the spearhead offensive, and this would ensure the Australian flag going forward with that of the United- States of America.

On the 7th September, 1944, General Blaine) attended the War Council and outlined the re-distribution of land forces being made to comply with General MacArthur’s directions. In regard to operations, he referred to Bougainville and said that the Japanese were getting a fair amount of supply from the country itself. The Torokina perimeter had been an inactive area since it was established by the United .States forces. Their aim had been merely to establish a base, but General .Sir Thomas Blarney stated, that perhaps Australian forces would not be quite so passive.

On the 21st September, 1944, General Blame) again attended the War Council when there was a discussion on the part t.o be played by the Australians in New Guinea and adjacent islands. He indicated that large-scale active operations were not contemplated at present. Enemy strength and positions would be probed, and the extent of further operations would then be determined. The Advisory War Council considered it advisable that the public should be authoritatively informed as to the part to be played by Australian forces in these operations, and it was agreed that General Blarney should make a broadcast on this subject, including such information as to the strength and disposition of Japanese forces as might appropriately be revealed. In the course of his broadcast on the 26th September, 1944, General Blarney said -

In those territories, according to our latest information, some 90,0Od Japanese, bv-passe( in the advance, still remain to be dealt with - a largo enemy, you .will agree. But they are still 1K),000 Japanese, who will fight to the death. And large bodies of troops are essential to contain them in their present positions until such time as their destruction is determined upon and can be carried out.

On the 38th September, 1944, with the Chief of the General .Staff present, there was a further discussion of the role of Australian forces in future operations. On the 19 th October and the 16th and 30th Novermber, 1944, the Chief of the General Staff outlined the progress of the Australian forces in taking over fromthe United States forces. Operational control in all areas was assumed in November, 1944.

I atn .unable to furnish details of the operations orders issued by General Blarney to the commander of the First Army without divulging information of value to the enemy. I can say that they are prudent, and-, while seeking to preserve the aggressive spirit which is essentia] against the Japanese, stress the importance of keeping casualties to the minimum. Proposals for ‘ larger operations are subject to the approval of the Commander-in-Chief.

At meetings of the War Council from December, 1944, onwards, the Chief of the General Staff furnished reports on the progress of operations in New Guinea, New Britain and the Solomon Islands. General Blarney has informed me that these operations were discussed fully with General MacArthur. He states that no specific instructions have been given by General MacArthur in regard to them. He adds that it would not be in accordance with the acknowledged system of command if all details of operations were submitted for approval, except when specifically required. This is confirmed by General MacArthur, who states that a local commander in such situations has considerable freedom of action as to methods to be employed. He has expressed the following views: -

T consider that the local missions have been carried out with skill aud energy and constitute an excellent accomplishment. I am of the opinion that the equipment of the troops is sufficient for the accomplishment of the assigned missions and that the provision of air transport has proven adequate. In all material ways, the enemy has been completely outclassed.

It has been argued that more passive measures should be adopted. On the other hand, opinions have been expressed that the liquidation of the Japanese along the lines being followed’ is the best way to free our forces from a prolonged commitment; to re-adjust their disposition to the man-power situations ; and to provide that our efforts in certain other directions will be more effective than they are at present. Some authoritative views have gone so far as to advocate that the whole of the Australian land forces should be employed in New Guinea, New Britain and Bougainville until the Japanese are liquidated. The Government accepts full responsibility for the operations that are being carried out. They are being conducted successfully, and, though war entails human costs in the form of the lives of gallant men, casualties are remarkably low. From the Srd November, 1944, to the 4th April, 1945, we have lost 317 killed and 1,394 wounded and missing, against 5,549 Japanese confirmed killed and probably 6,55S unconfirmed killed.

In the Philippines, the Americans are clearing the Japanese from the whole of the islands to free the native people, to obtain the use of the resources of the islands, and to free their forces from a prolonged and continuing commitment. We are following precisely the same principle, except that by the re-adjustment of our man-power position, we hope to produce a more balanced effort appropriate to this stage of the war. The Netherlands Government is also organizing its forces to participate in a similar liberation of the Netherlands East Indies. There is no difference of opinion between the Government and its military advisers on the use of the forces. The forces located in New Guinea and adjacent islands and those allotted for forward offensive operations are the strengths sought. and approved by General MacArthur for his plans in the South-West Pacific Area.

I now refer to the reasons why the Australian forces did not participate in the Philippines campaign. The original agreed plans for the use of the Australian forces in this campaign provided for an operation against Aparri on the north coast of Luzon, immediately preceding the landing at Lingayen Gulf. The developments of the campaign, however, made it possible to move directly against Lingayen, omitting the Aparri operation, with consequent material and vital saving of time. It was then planned to use the corps as the final reserve in the drive across the central plains, north of Manila, but the enemy weakness which developed in the tactical situation obviated this necessity. The position is best described in a letter from an Australian general referring to his disappointment that Australian forces had not participated in the Philippines campaign. He said -

Unlike many critics, it would be ungenerous of us to complain, because we have been successful beyond our expectations.

This is the answer to the criticism of the absence of the Australian Army from the forward operations. General MacArthur has been so successful that he did not find it necessary to call upon a part of our forces to undertake their allotted tasks. As a consequence, the critics focus their attention on the operations by the remainder of our forces in New Guinea, New Britain and the Solomons and assert, most unfairly to the gallant troops, that it is unworthy backyard warfare. Some critics even say that Australian forces should be employed in areas other than the South-West Pacific Area. My answer to this is that General MacArthur’s plans are subject to the approval of the combined Chiefs of Staff. They exercise general jurisdiction over the grand strategic policy, including the allocation of forces. It will be soon enough to talk about the wider use of our forces when the tasks in the South-West Pacific Area are completed. In the meantime, I am content to be guided in their use by the advice of the commanders who have to their credit an uninterrupted run of successes and victories.

I shall now deal with the criticism that the Australian forces are not adequately equipped for the operations in which they are engaged. I shall traverse the main conclusions of the Acting Minister’s report under each operational area.

In regard to engineer equipment in New Britain, the Acting Minister says -

The base areas were inspected, showing that equipment of all descriptions were available in quantity. Repair workshops were equipped with the regular machinery and the commanding officer of the engineers in the area expressed satisfaction as to the supply position. The general officer commanding stated that, as a preliminary to the use of heavy mechanical equipment, it was essential for working parties to prepare the way by survey and cutting paths and tracks in interior areas. He instanced, as an example, that a battalion of troops were operating on the north coast no more than 50 miles fromJacquinot Bay, but it was necessary to travel 500 miles by sea to relieve them with other troops or to supply them. There was a native track over the mountain ranges, and construction of a road was under review, butthis would be a major engineering problem of some magnitude and difficulty, and, with whatever equipment could be made available, would take a considerable time to organize and complete. The troops farther away in the fighting along the southern coast towards Gazelle Peninsula were moving forward too rapidly to make heavy engineering use possible, even if desirable. His main problem was getting essential supplies to forward areas by small craft, and not road construction.

The Acting Minister’s report on fighting equipment says -

The general officer commanding advised me that he was fully satisfied with the quantity and quality of the weapons of all natures pro vided for the fighting troops in this area. He stated that he had been with the fighting troops since the beginning of the war and could not ask for more suitable or efficient fighting equipment.

With reference to fighting equipment in Bougainville, the Acting Minister reports -

The general officer commanding advised me that never before in his experience had he been in command of troops as well equipped for modern fighting in jungle warfare as the troops under his command at the present time. He had every confidence, not only in the quantity, hut in the quality of the equipment which he thought could not be surpassed by any army in the world fighting under jungle conditions. He had seen the American equipment and definitely would not exchange the Australian equipment for it.

In respect of mechanical engineering equipment, the Acting Minister says -

There was a quantity of heavy engineering equipment available in the Bougainville area, which, taking the shipping problem both generally and locally into consideration, could not be improved upon. While roads were being extended, our fighting troops were up far along the coast to the north and. south, and it was necessary to supply them with their main reinforcements by sea and air. For the further prosecution of the campaign, additional mechanical engineering equipment for this area was on the way, and the general officer commanding assured me the position of supply was improving, and it would not be long before the full supplies of all his future requirements would be on the spot.

With reference to fighting equipment in. New Guinea, the Acting Minister says -

As in the New Britain and Bougainville areas, my investigations at Aitape show that the fighting equipment in the possession of the troops was sufficient in quantity and quality for the operations in which they were required to he engaged.

In respect of mechanical engineering equipment, the Acting Minister reports -

The mechanical engineering equipment in this area was of good quality, but the unprecedented shipping difficulties that were encountered in this area held up the despatch of certain of the equipment that was allocated to it. For its normal duties as an operational formation, the equipment of all natures available to the division at Aitape would have been quite adequate, but, owing to unforeseen circumstances of the weather and loading and unloading, the division was required to undertake duties that were definitely outside its normal functions, resulting in a heavy strain being placed on its plant and equipment. The elements also were against them, in that, quite unexpectedly, the coastal area that had been used by the Americans for some months after their original occupation without encountering any major difficulties in unloading cargo, suddenly developed a raging surf due to the incidence of trade winds, which made it impossible for days at a time to operate any cargo to or from the ships in the harbour. Combined with this, the rivers, as the result of unprecedented storms on the Torricelli ranges, became raging torrents, resulting in some streams rising overnight to the height of 20 feet, which, according to the natives in the locality, had never before been known by them. This resulted in bridges being washed away, and road surfaces being completely obliterated, while, in some instances, camp areas were submerged in the torrent, with unfortunate loss of life through drowning, and valuable equipment of all natures being carried into the ocean without any possible hope of recovery. At this time, the engineering units had completed nearly 53 miles of road along the coast, necessitating the construction of bridges over 35 large streams. Many of these bridges were washed away in the deluge, and, in one instance, a bridge that had been constructed over 100 feet in width with heavy engineering equipment, was found in the morning tobe standing on high ground, and the course of the stream deflected from an inland swamp to the sea over three-quarters of a mile distant. The engineer commanders stated that the destruction that occurred at this time over such an. extensive area would have dismayed and discouraged the hearts of any but the most intrepid engineers, but the boys rose to the occasion.

The position was further complicated by the fact that, after the arrival of: our troops at Aitape, the evacuation of a large body of American troops and their equipment for the Philippines campaign had to he given priority. The Acting Minister states that at one time 75 American ships were in the harbour, which greatly delayed the unloading of three ships with supplies for the Australian forces. I explained earlier that the releases of American forces for the offensive against the Philippines was vital to General MacArthur’s plans, which, owing to the resistance of the Japanese being weaker than had been anticipated, progressed ahead of schedule.

The Acting Minister’s report proceeds -

The throwing out of gear of the shipping arrangements, due to the circumstances above referred to at Aitape, resulted in many instances in unbalanced supplies. In the normal course, further ships would have proceeded in rotation to Aitape from the mainland with essential supplies of a balanced nature to complete the cargoes in the ships that had already arrived there. It would have been unreasonable for these additional ships with full cargoes, which were destined for Aitape, to have been permitted to journey to that area when it was known that it would result in their remaining at the port for an indefinite period, particularly when shipping was in such short supply. No further ships or cargoes were despatched to Aitape until it could he ensured that they could be handled in the port. Practically the whole of the complaints from the Aitape area could be attributed to this cause It was stated, for example, that engineer and other units had experienced some difficulty in maintaining their vehicles in service because of the shortage of spare parts.

I shall return to the question of shipping after dealing with the Acting Minister’s conclusions. To sum up, I quote the following conclusions formed by the Acting Minister : -

Fighting Equipment. - I feel, therefore, that I am justified in reporting to you that there is no substance in the allegations that have been made in regard either to the quality or the quantity of the fighting equipment available to the troops in all of the operational areas.

Mechanical Equipment. - As is contained in the report, it is my view that the quantity of mechanical equipment is in accordance with requirements of the Army in respect of the operations it is conducting. The labour of troops would be lessened if additions could he made in respect to the heavy mechanical equipment type, as distinct from fighting equipment, which, with the exception of New Britain, appears to me to be capable of expansion. I would point out that the Army has been undertaking the construction of a considerable air strip in New Britain from within its own resources, due to the fact that a Royal Australian Air Force “Works Squadron with its equipment could not be shipped from the mainland.

As indicated by the Acting Minister, the Commander-in-Chief has furnished the following comments: -

The requirements of any particular type of equipment must be considered in relation to the actual situation, which varies so much in each particular area of operations. For instance, if ample mechanical equipment of all kinds was immediately available in the forward areas, a well-constructed and paved roadcould no doubt be quickly completed. In the type of operations that we are carrying out, however, no such provision is necessary, and, in fact, would be a waste of resources to attempt. Suitable types of mechanical transport, such as the jeep and trailer, and the heavier six-wheel drive vehicles, enable us to operate in the forward areas without the necessity for any more than a cleared track. This requires very little mechanical equipment, and in most casesto bring this mechanical equipment forward would hinder the provision of more immediate requirements such as ammunition, supplies, &c. The relative importance of these requirements is not always recognized by junior ranks who comment on supposed shortages.

In regard to small craft, the Acting Minister’s conclusions were -

The amount of shipping has been inadequate since the beginning of the war. This affects the ability to make it available in the areas where it is required. In respect of the provision of small craft, the facts are that, immediately on my return. I consulted the CommanderinChief on this question, and he advised me to the following effect:-

In the provision of smaller types of watercraft for transport within the operational areas, it should be noted that General Head-quarters acceptedadefinite commitment for the provision ofthe necessary craft from United States resources, and this has been carriedout until quite recently. Australianproduced small craft are now becoming available in greater quantity, and are gradually relieving the United States craft in the area. The use of United States equipment in the areas in which we have relieved United States forces has also been provided for underthe arrangements for carrying out the relief and although an immediate shortage of Australian equipments may have been apparent, the requirements wereforeseen and the administrative commitments accepted by General Head-quarters.

The Acting Minister’s report continues -

I consider that the quantity of small craft available is insufficient, with the exception of New Britain where they have ample small craft to meet all their requirements. The reason for the shortage of small craft is due to the lack of shipping to convey it from the mainland to the operational areas, and not to the lack of provision of small craft itself.

On the lack of shipping facilities, the Acting Minister’s report says -

All the major difficulties that are being encountered by the higher command in the conduct of operations, in the provision of supplies, and any matters affecting reasonable amenities to the troops (which are a source of irritation to the troops) can be attributed to the shortage of shipping which is a world-wide problem, and transport facilities from the mainland of Australia to these operational areas, and, to a lesser extent, the absence of the relatively smaller type of craft which are essential to then transport them from the main base installations to the troops in the operational and advanced areas. The Government has been consistently pressing on the highest plane to meet this shipping deficiency.

I amplify the last sentence of the Acting Minister by saying that, throughout the war, therehas been no more vexed question for all the United Nations than the shortage of shipping. There has never been sufficient to meet all demands. In Australia we have done what’ we could to help ourselves by undertaking a construction programme in addition to extensive repair work and a large building programme of small craft not only for ourselves, but also for the American forces. The shipping position in regard to the needs of operational areas has been constantly before the Government since our troops took over from the Americans in November, 1944. Representations have been made to General MacArthur with a view to additional shipping being made available to the Australian shipping authorities from sources under his control, whilst negotiations are in progress with the British and United States authorities for the allocation of additional shipping capacity from overseas for Australian requirements. Also, as a result of negotiations which have been in progress between General MacArthur and myself, the forward movement of amphibious equipment will be accelerated and the continuity of their supply for further operational activities by our troops is definitely assured.

I referred earlier to therole of our forces in these islands; to the justification of the limited operations that are being undertaken; and to General MacArthur’s opinion that the operations are being skilfully carried out. Our forces have won successes and not- suffered reverses. They have inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and suffered relatively light casualties themselves.

Mr Holt:

– Has the right honorable gentleman the statistics of illness casualties ?

Mr CURTIN:

– I shall supply them later. The results, therefore, indicate that there is no justification for the allegations that the forces are not adequately equipped for the operations in which they are engaged and that the operations should not have been undertaken in the circumstances. While we make claims about our nationhood and status, I cannot but feel that we play down some of our great achievements. I think this was definitely the case during the first New Guinea campaign when the land forces in the South-West Pacific Area were predominantly Australian and saved the mainland from a direct assault by the Japanese. The same criticism can be made in respect of equipment. As I stated on the 5th April, 1945, the Australian forces are pioneers in the development of both personal and unit equipment, as well as drugs and medical treatments required in jungle warfare. The Australian Army pioneered in New Guinea the technique of jungle fighting whichhas been adopted since in all areas in which Allied forces have fought the Japanese. All these developments have been made available to all the Allied forces. They have been studied by many British and Allied missions, and Australian officers have been made available to instruct Allied forces in Australiandeveloped fighting technique and the uses of Australian-developed equipment and medical supplies. Yet critics assert that our equipment is poor in type, quality and quantity. I have certainly shown that these charges are unfounded. They are unfair to those responsible for the equipment and maintenance of the forces, to the gallant troops using the equipment, and to the peace of mind of their relatives at home.

In conclusion, I refer to the tribute paid to the troops by the Acting Minister. He says -

I desire to emphasize that I found far more to admire than criticize in the manner in which the Army, as a whole, is performing its job in

New Guinea, New Britain and the Solomons. No praise is sufficient for the members of the forces who are lighting the enemy- in the forefront of the b.attle. They have three enemies to contend with - the jungle, the weather, and the Japanese - and while they exhibited the greatest bravery and tenacity in battle with the enemy, I sometimes wondered whether the jungle conditions, combined with the storms and torrential rains that in one night sweep away the work of months in the destruction of bridges and roads, is not the most formidable enemy of them all. For this reason, I think it would be correct to commend the engineer units equally with the fighting forces, and, as I have already stated, the men of the fighting forces wore voluble in their praise of the engineers. . The members of the Army .Service Ordnance and other service ‘ branches of the Army are also performing their duties efficiently in many places under the most difficult and trying circumstances. All troops of the fighting forces’ will, I feel sure, agree with me when I extend a special word of praise for the work of the bakeries section.

As the head of the Government, I wholeheartedly agree with all that the Acting Minister has said. I agree with ut,’ not because I have been to the battle areas, but because, as head of the Government, I have been able to bring to consultation the heads of the services whenever I have felt it desirable that I should see them. Since General MacArthur arrived in this- country, I have had the most intimate and’ constant association with him in the carrying out of the - directive which ‘ five governments have given to him. I have also had constant and intimate consultations with the Commander-in-Chief, General Blarney. I say to the House that governments and commanders can “be criticized. It is right and proper that this House should make the most careful, most minute and most meticulous examinations of the questions of how far the resources of this country are being used to support our fighting men; whether or not there has been any failure whatever, and, if there has been failure, what effect it has had in lessening the efficiency of our fighting men. There is no need for political hatreds or animosities to intrude into this subject, for the men who are fighting belong to all parties. The Opposition not less than the Government would be animated, I am certain, by the highest purposes in ensuring that our men are given the utmost equipment with which to fight. I claim for this side of the House no monopoly of concern for the welfare of our fighting men, but I will accept no charge of neglect of them.

Mr Abbott:

– The right honorable gentleman will when he has heard me.

Mr CURTIN:

– Nor will I listen for one single moment to any assumptions that the officers of the highest status with whom I have been constantly in association have knowingly misled me. I refuse to accept any such accusation. I am certain that they do know. In any event, it is the responsibility’ of the Government and not of the Opposition, olof military commanders, to determine the role that the fighting forces shall be given, and the equipment that shall be made available to them. As head of the Government, I accept without reservation, that it is the primary duty of the Government to provide the maximum equipment, of which this country is capable; but war is a grim business, and the best laid plans often fail to mature. The enemy often has something to do with our lines of communication. From the beginning of this war, all the allied countries have been battling against the shortages which unpreparedness inevitably caused, not only in one of the services, but in all the services. That shortage we are manfully endeavouring to overtake; we overtake it when the enemy no longer will be capable of fighting.

I lay on the table the followingpaper: -

War - South-West Pacific - Report to the Prime Minister by the Acting Minister for thi; Army on his visit to Operational Area? (5th-16th April, 1945).

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– In view of the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister (Mr.

Curtin) this afternoon, one wonders why tins debate has been delayed for so long - that it has been delayed there is no doubt. Notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), who represents the Acting Minister for the Army (Senator Eraser) in this chamber, prior to the Easter adjournment, and the subsequent statements of the Commander in Chief, Allied Land Forces, General Blarney, it is obvious that r ne Prime Minister was not satisfied. So lie took the opportunity to send the Acting Minister for the Army to the battle!”ronts in the islands to the north of Australia to find out whether these statements were correct. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister had not tabled the report of the Acting Minister for the Army prior to this debate, and so given to honorable members an opportunity to analyse it very carefully and to base their observations upon its contents. However, it has been tabled at the earliest possible moment.

– If the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Beasley) were to offer me a seat on the War Advisory Council I should respectfully decline the appointment, because I believe that it serves no good purpose whatever, but is merely used by the Government asa cloak to cover administrative deficiencies. Referring to an operation to capture Toll plantation in which Australians took part, an officer told me that although 36 Aus- tralian lives were lost, the only result was the capture of a plantation of no strategic value whatever. He told me that ten Australians had between them one Bren gun, one Owen gun, and a number of rifles. The officer in charge had a . 38 pistol with eighteen rounds. When an American officer asked to see the pistol he found two rounds still in it.

He asked why that was so, and the Australian officer said, “ That is what was issued to me”. The American officer then said, “You poor cow; you Aussies do not have anything”. Honorable members may know of the trouble that was experienced in connexion with the 38 pistol because the ammunition could neither be extracted nor ejected from it. A lot of money was expended and thousands of rounds of ammunition were manufactured in Australia, but the project had to be discontinued. Another officer who accompanied American forces on landings farther north said that the only thing which saved the Yanks was the number of automatic weapons issued to them. He went on to say: “If a like number of Aussies had been engaged in that operation, they all would have been wiped out, because they would not have had the necessaryfire-power”. Another officer said that although there was a. good road from Finschaven to Scarlet Beach, the Australians marched every foot of the way, and were three months on the journey, during which time they had no cover. He went on to say that during that period the American Army was equipped with tents, canvas stretchers, and jungle hammocks, and that when on patrol they wore non-skid rubber boots, whereas the Australian soldiers had boots with leather soles and whenever they came to a steep decline they had to sit down and slide because they could not stand on their feet. Honorable members can see in my office the non-skid robber boots issued to American soldiers and also the leather-soled boots issued to Australian personnel. An Australian officer who accompanied American forces said: “In the Admiralty Islands a body of fanatical Japs broke through seven interlocking defence lines. The following morning 150 dead Japanese soldiers were counted “. He went on to say that if the place had been defended by Australians, equipped as he knew Australians were equipped, they all must have been wiped out. He further said that at Scarlet Beach there was a single line of Australian soldiers equipped with rifles, 6 feet apart. They could not hold the position because of lack of equipment and had to be withdrawn later. There is no better fighting man in the world than the Australian soldier, but, unfortunately, our men are not given sufficient fire-power. When we are told that American forces would have seven interlocking lines of defence compared with a double interlocking line in the case of Australian troops, we havesome indication of the fire-power of the two armies. Another officer referred to the establishment of bases in New Guinea. I do not propose to make his name available to the House, but I give my assurance that all the officers whose remarks I am quoting to-day are responsible officers whose statements I believe to be true. This officer spoke of the great lack of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, earth scoops, barges, amphibious jeeps, “ clucks “, and tractors. He mentioned that in the swampy country at Bougainville amphibious equipment is necessary. This officer went on to explain the need to equip with semi-automatic rifles men who engage in patrol work. He said that invariably the first man in a patrol was hit whenever contact was made with the enemy. Because of that risk, the leader of the patrol was changed regularly. He said that men on patrol did not have sufficient weapons of a semi-automatic type, and that for lack of such equipment many Australian lives had been lost. Jungle warfare calls for mobility combined with a maximum striking power. The Japanese realize this. I have seen some of their equipment and it is of excellent quality. The Japanese have more modern equipment, particularly automatic and semiautomatic weapons, than the Australians have.

Mr Calwell:

– Rubbish !

– He was on the spot, and recorded what he actually saw.

Mr Dedman:

– Is he an expert?

Mr HARRISON:

– Well, he was a member of the Australian Imperial Force. This is what he said -

Shortage of heavy equipment among Australians on Bougainville and New Britain is only one phase of a dearth of supplies - it extends right back to the machine shops which keep the armies in the field.

Australian Imperial Force men who said this to-day, described the Australian Military Forces as the greatest scrounging organization ever built upby a modern nation.

Two engineering craftsmen, a gun fitter and an enginefitter from the Lae area workshops made these points -

The workshops had no material with which to repair 25-pounders needed in the front line, and anti-aircraift guns required to protect concentrations against Zeros. To repair the guns craftsmen took oxy-welding torches down to a Japanese boat - the Kyoto Maru - which had been beached at Malahang Beach afterbeing bombed and cut steel plates from her side and wrenched bronze fittings from the engine-room. They toiled to repair the guns in workshops beneath notices which warned them that scroungers were saboteurs and that heavy penalties would be imposed for the offence. [ Extensionof time granted.]Here is what Gordon Holland wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald -

The supply of engineering equipment to Australians provides one of the most marked contrasts with American standards. Lack of landing barges and unsuitable beach points along the Aitape coast made construction of roads essential to maintaincommunications with the fighting units. All types of war supplies had to be carried over (10 miles of coastal road. The paucity ofbulldozers, graders and other road-making equipment in a forward area where communications had to be gouged out of the jungle and old Japanese tracks conditioned and widened to permit supplies being brought forward restricted the infantry’s advance to 1 mile a week.

A road had to.be cut out of the hillside nearMatapua 2 so that supplies could be taken forward. Infantry newly out of battle, under an engineering section, slogged with picks and shovels for several days, chopping away at the hillside, and graded the roadby hand when it could have been completed in half the time and with half the labour had adequate engineering equipment been avail- able .

John Scarlett wrote, in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 20th of this month, as follows: -

An engineer major told Senator Fraser the standard issue of bulldozers was out of proportion to the long distance covered by the Australian advance.

The major said that only by “ cannibalizing “ their own trucks were they able to keep transport on the roads. This was because sufficient spare parts have never been available. Senator Fraser emphasized to all troops with whom he talked in operational areas the Government’s inability to obtain shipping. Senator Fraser told an engineering major that lack of shipping had made it impossible to move four or five thousand tons of heavy equipment from Australia tobattle areas.

I point out that the Prime Minister made no reference to that matter, although the despatch passed the censorship and was published in the press. My information is to the effect that our men engaged in establishing bases have bulldozers, but they are light ones. If they are put up against a tree, they back away. The American bulldozer ploughs through it. The Australianshave 5-yd. scoops, whereas the Americans have 12-yd. scoops. Our graders are not of a useful type. The roads constructed by the Americans are properly made whereas those constructed by the Australians are not. All these deficiencies pyramid, to the disadvantage of our forces.

My next comment is upon the statement ofthe Prime Minister on the report furnished by the Acting Minister for the Army in regard to shipping. Senator Fraser drew attention to the fact that ships could not get to Aitape, and that supplies could not be taken through the surf because the necessary equipment was not available. This substantiates my statement that the necessary equipment is not available, because when the Americans have to pass through surf in order to land on a beach, they use the amphibious jeep, the duck, and the amtrack. We have not the equipment that is needed in such circumstances.

Mr. A. E. Dunstan, Sydney Daily Telegraph war correspondent, has reported in these terms -

The value of up-to-date equipment wasstrikingly illustrated while I was at Aitape.. Off-shore lay a ship loaded with petrol and supplies which could not be got ashore - except in a dribble - because we had no suitable craft to unloadher. True, there was one boat, but it could not get through the surf when it was rough - and the surf at Aitape usually is. The ship had been lying off Aitape for seven weeks. It had on board 10,000 drums of petrol urgently needed for air operations in support of the Army. During the time I was at Aitape, they managed to get off 400 drums in. three days. Inability to get the drums off had been compelling the Royal Australian Air Force officers to take careful stock of their petrol position every time they went on a strike.

An officer told me that the Australian troops are relying entirely on an American barge company. We have a few barges which do not stand up to the work, and when the American diesel barges leave shortly we shall have none that is capable of meeting requirements. Yet the Acting Minister for the Army, because he has been informed by one or two officers that “ everything in the garden is lovely “, tries to convince us that the information furnished to him is first-rate and correct! It is neither.

The Prime Minister has said it is well known that there is a world shortage of shipping. That is not preventing the American forces from obtaining the maximum of equipment that they require to carry out major operations; they are provided with all the shipping that they need. The landing at Iwo lima furnishes proof of that. The Monthly Review of Statistics issued by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics shows that £15,693,000 worth of consumer goods entered Australia in 1942-43, and £15,055,000 worth in 1943-44. If shipping is available to bring to Australia goods of a luxury class, and is not likely to be provided for the transport of the equipment that is required by our troops in New Guinea, the position is indefensible. In the light of the statistics, all statements in regard to insufficiency of shipping fail completely to carry conviction.

Mr Beasley:

– Does the honorable member know by whom the shipping is allocated ?

Mr HARRISON:

– I know that if the High Command decided that Australia should be given priority in regard to shipping for the transport of war equipment, that shipping would be provided. It should not be utilized for the transport of millions of pounds’ worth of luxury commodities.

– No, because I have often found that questions are unanswered or meet with evasive replies. In the right honorable gentleman’s absence, I ask the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction to give me a plain “ yes “ or “ no “ to three questions. The first is whether he will give an undertaking that instructions shall bo issued, through the secretary of the Department of Defence, to the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Land Forces in the South-West Pacific Area, General Blarney, that there shall be no inquiry, inside or outside the Army, as to the identity of soldiers from whom 1 have derived the information that I intend to place before the House. Will the Minister give me an answer to that question ?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:

– Order! The honorable member is inviting interjections which are disorderly.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am asking the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction questions which I would rather put to the Prime Minister. If the Minister considers that he cannot answer that question, which has a vital bearing on discovering the truth in regard to the alleged shortage of equipment, I ask him to send for the Prime Minister in order that I may put it to him. Mr. Speaker,

I ask you to put the question to the Minister, because, apparently, he refuses to answer, although I merely ask that the soldiers who have given information to members of the Opposition be treated in the same manner as those who gave information to Senator Eraser. The Minister’s refusal either to answer me, or to send for the Prime Minister in order that he may, will, despite the cachinnation of the sorry, dishevelled Government supporters, create a bad impression among the people of Australia.

The second assurance which I seek from the Minister is: Will the Government ensure that there shall be no victimization of any suspected personnel? Will the Minister answer that question? It is a plain blunt question, and demands a plain blunt answer. The Minister usually does not lack inspiration when he replies to questions. If he does not desire to reply to it, will he send for the Prime Minister, because this matter is vital to the lives of Australian troops fighting in New Guinea ? The Minister apparently is tongue-tied ; he does not seem; to be able to give me the assurance that I seek.

My third question is: Will the Government issue instructions that there shall be no censorship, within or without the Army, of letters addressed and posted at civilian post offices in Australia to soldiers serving in camps, not being detention camps or military prisons, within the Commonwealth of Australia? Will the Minister answer that question?

Mr Dedman:

– I shall ask the Security Service to consider it.

Mr ABBOTT:

– What threat to national security can there be in allowing to pass uncensored the private correspondence of a soldier, written by his relatives or friends in Australia, to a camp within the ‘Commonwealth, not being a military prison or detention camp? I am glad that the Minister answered my third question. His reply shows the sort of things that are going on in some sections of the Army. I asked those three questions for a definite purpose. Through fear of some internal gestapo in the Army many soldiers will not tell the true story to the people’s representatives so that they may tell it in this forum of the nation, the only place in the Commonwealth where no restriction is imposed on freedom of speech. The “ ranks of Tuscany “ will probably burst into laughter again when I .say that letters received by soldiers in camp in Australia, posted in civilian post offices in Australia, are being censored. The soldiers are terrified.. They believe, and I believe, that these letters are subjected to an internal censorship within Army camps. I am glad that some high officials of1 the Department of the Army are listening to this debate. My only regret is that some high Army officers are not present, so that they may assure the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, who is wriggling like a worm on a fish hook, that these things are not being done. A few days ago, I received a letter from an Army officer who is serving in Australia. He wrote : “ Whatever you do, do not write to me on paper bearing the crest of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Write on plain paper, and do not sign your name”. Because of the conditions which he believed existed, he would not sign his name to his letter. I know that gentleman, and I believe that ho is perfectly reliable and trustworthy. Despite the fact that the Government will not give the undertakings that I sought, and has one method of treatment for soldiers who tell their story to the Acting Minister for the Army, and another method of treatment for the men who tell their stories to members of the Opposition, I intend to expose the terrible conditions which exist in the battle areas north of Australia. The urgency of this matter has never been realized by the Government. The matter was raised, first, in the .Senate by Senator Mattner early in February, and in this chamber by the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) on the 21st March. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction replied to the honorable member for Deakin’s question on the following day. The matter was urgent because soldiers’ lives were involved. If the statements about the position in the northern -battle areas were correct, the -situation required- immediate remedy in order to save valuable lives. Many of the soldiers fighting in those areas are the sons of Anzacs. Will Ogilvie, in a poem in London Punch, in 1915, described the Anzacs as the “ bravest things God ever made “. The lineal heirs of those Anzacs may rightly adopt the title for themselves. I brook no contradiction when I say that our Australian troops are still the “bravest things God ever made”. But because they -are brave and have the hearts of lions, should they be asked to fight like Zulus, with assegais? Should not they be given the modern equipment that they require to tackle their bloodthirsty and treacherous foe in the jungles of New Guinea ? Unfortunately, one month’s delay has already occurred since first this matter was raised in this chamber. During the debate last Thursday, when I attempted to discuss the lack of equipment available to Australian troops, the honorable member for Bourke. (Mr. Bryson) asked me whether I was a new military genius. I have never posed as a military genius. I know little about the finer points of military strategy except those that one knows from his own common sense. But I will say this, and possibly it does not apply to the honorable gentleman, that no one knows of war who war has never seen. Let the honorable member snigger, and laugh, and howl at me! War is a dreadful thing - when seen at close quarters. He will not understand the horrors of war .by going to motion picture theatres, or examining pictures distributed to honorable members in the course of a debate, or by reading newspapers and periodicals. Even books such as Zola’s La Debacle, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and his terrible stories of the Siege of Sebastopol, and Henri Dunant’s story of the Battle of Solferino, which was one of the bloodiest scenes of carnage in the history of the world, cannot convey to the reader the real horror of war. When a person goes to the cinema, he sees the sights of battle on the screen, and hears the roar and noise of battle through the amplifiers; but the soundstrip cannot convey to the nostrils the smell of battle and the horrible stench of corpses. In the last war I was, at first, a stretcher bearer. On my arrival in Egypt, I was drafted to No. 1 Australian General Hospital, at Heliopolis, as a wardsman. Only ten -months previously the building had been a casino, the centre of probably the most fashionable gatherings in Europe. At night, diamonds had flashed and glittered among the fashionablydressed crowd, and gambling and gaiety of the type which some people find very attractive held sway. But, as a wardsman, I heard not the music of a jazz orchestra, but the groans of wounded and dying men. [ shall describe some scenes that are etched upon my memory in such a. way that they will never disappear. I remember night after night attending to men-

Mr Sheehy:

– What has that got to do with this war?

Mr ABBOTT:

– Does not the honorable gentleman realize that men are wounded and die in all wars? Does he not understand that I am describing actual experiences? I have in my mind one Australian soldier, from Melbourne. [ assisted every night in dressing his wounds. He had one great hole about 3 inches in diameter in his hip-joint, the blackened bone of which could be seen. He was slowly dying of gangrene, and he ultimately passed away in my arms. He lied because of inadequate equipment to bring wounded men back from Gallipoli to hospital. I have in mind, also, a great, strong man of the South Wales Borderers in the 29th Division. He suffered from blood poisoning and died slowly, in terrible agony, because of inadequate medical equipment for treating such cases.

After my experiences in the hospital in Egypt I went as a stretcher bearer to Gallipoli and saw stark death in the trenches and on the beaches. In war men die not only from bullets, bayonets and shell fire but also from disease. It is not a pretty sight to see, as I have seen, men dying from dysentery or dying while they are on the latrines. I think of the conditions that existed on the Aquitania as she brought away wounded and sick men from Gallipoli. I saw ten corpses a day passed over the side of the vessel. My final reference to my own experience relates to actual combat in the battle of the Somme. I submit this vignette to the House in order to show the necessity for providing absolutely the best possible equipment for our troops. I have in mind a small’ place where some of the hottest fighting of the Battle of the Somme occurred. I remember going forward to look for an observation post, and I came across a mass of corpses of men lying head to toe. They had been shot down three or four days earlier, and there had been no opportunity to bury them. It was a cold morning and the dead men still had the white rime on their chins. That was not a pretty sight.

I do not desire such experiences to occur unnecessarily in New Guinea. There is enough inevitable suffering in the dreadful drama of war without adding to it by failure, on the part of governments or persons in authority, to t;ike every possible step to ensure that equipment shall be available, and that lives shall not be lost unnecessarily.

In discussing this subject I realize that I am addressing an audience far larger than that immediately before me. I 3ny to the mothers of Australia that I believe on the evidence submitted to me, and that presented to the House this afternoon, that there has been the grossest mismanagement in New Guinea. I say to the mothers of Australia what was said by probably one of the greatest of Englishmen, Ruskin, in an address on “War” delivered at the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich about the middle of the last century, and published in his volume The Crown of Wild Olive, that the women of England and pf Europe, if they would make a stand, could put a stop to all wars. I hope that the mothers of Australia will make such a stand that they will cause the members of this Government to cringe and whine and shake in their shoes for having sent our men to forward areas without proper and adequate equipment.

No troops can fight without proper equipment and without the means to prevent unnecessary suffering. On 1)he 22nd March the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) denied without any equivocation whatever, and the Prime Minister has also denied this afternoon, that there has been any shortage of equipment. In case honorable members are a little short in their memories, I shall refer them to the Hansard report of the speech of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. Unlike some honorable members, I shall not delve into the pages of old Hansards. I am concerned, at the moment, not with past experiences, but with the necessity to do everything possible to preserve the lives of the Australians fighting in New Guinea. I shall read extracts from the Minister’s speech in order to refresh their minds.

The honorable gentleman said on the 22nd March-

I have consulted the Acting Minister for the Army, and now state that the Australian military forces are fully equipped according to the establishment and equipment tables-

I ask honorable members to mark those words carefully. Later in my speech I shall give details which will demonstrate beyond question that that statement was false. I shall refer to Australian troops in parts of the New Guinea area which the Acting Minister for the Army did not visit. I have studied the honorable gentleman’s itinerary, and therefore I know that he did not visit those areas, where it was very dangerous indeed to go.

Mr Fuller:

– That is just what we would expect from the honorable member

Mr Lemmon:

– It is a filthy remark.

Mr Lazzarini:

– It is the most unworthy imputation I have ever heard in this House.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The statement of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction proceeded - which have been progressively expanded and brought up to date throughout the war, and particularly in the light of operational experience in jungle warfare. These equipment tables have been designed to save man-power, as well as lives which otherwise might be unnecessarily expended in operations against the enemy.

I ask that that remark also be noted. The Minister went on -

The provision by the Government for the equipment of our forces has no “pinch-penny” basis. On the contrary, the best and most modern equipment for tropical warfare is being provided twice and even thrice, so that whatever contingency may arise the troops will have adequate reserves and replacements upon which to draw.

That is the story which the Minister told to the House on the 22nd March. It differs somewhat from the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister, in whose speech there were certain admissions. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction stated, without any reservation or equivocation, that there was no shortage of equipment, and he spoke on behalf of the Acting Minister for the Army, the Commanding Officers, and the heads of various departments. He went on to say -

The first, and probably the most important, factor is that of terrain.

Later the Minister said -

For instance, in the swamps and razorback of Bougainville, where our troops in five months have recaptured one-third of the islands by swift drives north and south much tilling in of swamps and cutting down of hills would have been necessary before heavy equipment could be moved forward sufficiently to be of reasonable value to our advance. . . Similar conditions exist in the Aitape area of New Guinea.

The honorable gentleman said further -

. it is not because we do not possess the mechanical equipment but because of the impossibility of putting it to effective use in the terrain in which the Australian forces ar<” fighting.

From that statement one would think that this type of equipment could not be used in any of the terrain in which the Australian forces are fighting. Quoting a correspondent writing from Bougainville the Minister went on to say -

This sort of joh could only be done the waxit is being done, even though it is the hard way.

The Minister said also -

Australian troops, however, benefited by such circumstances in November last when a purely Australian base was established after the landing of an Australian force at Jacquinot Bay, New Britain.

Then, in the picturesque language which his countryman Robert Burns might have used, the Minister said -

There, swiftly, competently and effectively, they carved out a base making extensive use of mechanical equipment, and their headquarters area does not lose in comparison with the American equivalent.

I shall have something more to say about these matters, but first I should like honorable members to bear clearly in. mind the Minister’s claims - twice or thrice the equipment necessary; war equipment tables continuously brought up to date; the swift carving out of a base with the extensive use of mechanical equipment ; and favorable conditions at Jacquinot Bay. I could tell the Minister how much equipment there was at Jacquinot Bay for the first few weeks. The Minister said further -

The Commonwealth Government does not and will not neglect the needs of Australia’s fighting men.

So mindful has the Government been of Australia’s fighting men that very few Ministers have ever visited the forward areas to see the conditions for themselves.

Then the Prime Minister himself said -

have no objection to the matter being considered bythe House. The Governmenthas nothing to hide. I suggest that the Minister should table the statement and I shall then move that it be printed.

In his speech to-day the right honorable gentleman went even further. He said that he was completely satisfied from the report of the Acting Minister for the Army that the Australian troops were fully equipped. The evidence which 1 shall adduce will show that there is quite a lot wrong with the equipment of our troops in the northern battle areas. My first quotation is from the Sydney Morning Herald of the 21st March. In that journal, John Scarlett, a New Guinea war correspondent, stated -

It is only the guts and push of our frontline troops which have enabled them to overcome the obstacles that confronted them for so long.

Everywhere in forward areas, improvisation is the order of the day.

That was not written in November, 1944.

Mr Dedman:

– Does the honorable member call that evidence? Would it be admitted as evidence in a court of law?

Mr Anthony:

– It is as good as the evidence of the Acting Minister for the Army.

Mr ABBOTT:

– It would be considered better evidence than that of a witness who treated a court with contempt by refusing to answer questions as the Minister for PostwarReconstruction has done.

Mr Dedman:

– I am not in a court of law.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The Minister ought to be. The correspondent wrote further -

Many tent shelter halves are not waterproof.

Surely that is definite evidence. If the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction believes that Mr. Scarlett was lying, let him prosecute the correspondent for having made untrue statements. Let the Government use some of its sleuth-hounds of the Criminal Investigation Branch as they have been used recently in circumstances to which I need not refer. The correspondent continues -

It is to be hoped new model watercraft expectedsoon are an improvement on the early models in heavy surf.

An American barge skipper told me recently while we watched Australians unloading his bargeas it shuddered and tossed at the edge of the usual big surf, “ Our guys would cry from here toFrisco under these conditions “. That was not a crack at his own troops. It was a tribute for our men from one competent to criticize.

Then Mr. Scarlett tells his own story, and surely this must be accepted as evidence because he uses the personal pronoun “ I “. He says -

Yesterday I stood by the surf at the mouth of a flooded river. With the water swirling to their shoulders infantrymen were towing and pushing a raft to the opposite bank. The raft was made of big logs lashed to 44-gallon drums to float it.

They had loaded it high with kits belonging to others who had already waded across. Big breakers thundered on the black beach, and as the spread of the waves gushed over the sand pits and up the river mouth the men were hard put to control their raft.

Further -

An engineer officer said, “ I’ve got floating equipment for only a 100-ft. gap, and we’ve crossed 30 decent sized rivers”.

Perhaps the Minister will say also that this statement is not evidence -

He added that over 70 miles of road he had seen only four bulldozers. A 30-mile stretch was worked by one grader drawn by an outofdate tractor.

Yet the Minister claims that in these areas the terrain is unsuitable for the use of mechanical equipment! The Acting Minister for the Army could have bought his whitewash in Australia and saved the country the expense of transporting him to and from tie battle areas. There are some honorable members opposite, such as the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Breen), who have had some association with the road-making activities of shire councils in their own electorates. They know quite well that if any modern shire council were so recreant to its trust to the ratepayers as to endeavour to carry on its job with inferior road-making equipment, the councillors would go out of office at the next elections just as honorable members opposite will lose their seats at the next general elections. [Extension of time granted.]

As further evidence of the necessary equipment which our forces lack, I shall quote from an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 24th March last, under the heading “A.I.F. lacks necessary equipment”. The war correspondent in this case is Gordon Holland, who has just returned from New Guinea. Probably that is the reason why his article was published, instead of being lost in the amazing intricacies of our censorship system.

He says -

Troops are forced by circumstances to improvise. A cavalry commando unit at Aitape reconstructed almost all its signal equipment with scrounged materials. The signal sergeant remarked, “ I don’t know what we are going to do now that the Yanks have gone! “

Lack of landing barges and unsuitable beach points along the Aitape coast made construction of roads essential to maintain communications with the fighting units.

The most equipment ever seen working along the 60 miles between Aitape and the forward infantry was five bulldozers and throe graders.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr ABBOTT:

– During my earlier remarks, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction seemed to complain that my observations were not first-hand evidence, because they were based on statements published in the press, although the writers had made themselves responsible for them. I now propose to furnish evidence supplied to me by fighting men from the battlefronts in the north who have just left the combat areas. I shall endeavour to please the Minister by supplying him with further facts, and I hope that he willbe convinced of the truth of the terrible story about the lack of equipment on the New Guinea battlefields. I shall refer first to the report by the Acting Minister for the Army, and the itinerary which he followed in his visit to the north. Any comments I may make as to where he went and where he did not go cast no reflection on his personal courage, because I believe that it is as good as that of anybody else. As far as I can ascertain, the Minister’s visit was a personally conducted Cook’s tour, and it was arranged by the Army authorities, but the Minister was unable to visit the forward areas where the rank and file have to carry on the war against the Japanese under almost intolerable conditions. To quote the words of General Blarney in his broadcast a few nights ago-

It is war at its worst, and in theworst country imaginable. It is the jungle war of the last three years, fought in swamps, over precipitous razor-back ridges, along stormbattered beaches.

The Minister left Laverton on the 5th April, and went straight through to Amberley. He spent the 6th and 7th April at Mareeba. On the 8 th he was at Nadzab and Jacquinot Bay. On the 9th April, also, he was at Jacquinot Bay. On those two days he seems to have spent 2 hours 25 minutes in. that area, in which he may have visited the front line. Beyond that brief period there was no possibility of hisbeing in the front line. On the 10th April he was at Soraken, and he seems to have visited the front line for 90 minutes. On the 11th April he was with a certain general, whose name, for security reasons, I shall not mention. On the following day, the Minister visited Nadzab, Lae and Aitape. On the 13th April he was at Aitape, and on the 14th April at Moresby. On the 15th April the Minister returned to Brisbane, and he was back at Laverton on the following day. Reading the Minister’s itinerary one finds that almost the whole of his time at the front seems to have been spent with generals, and not with the rank and file who are suffering from the shortages of equipment.

I shall refer particularly to the statement in the Prime Minister’s report concerning the shipping difficulty at Aitape, and also to what the Acting Minister for the Army reported in that regard. It is only fair to let honorable members know that any trouble through the congestion of American shipping in the port when the Americans were moving forward to Philippine bases took place in November, 1944, and can be no excuse for the disgraceful conditions in the Aitape area in March, 1945, four months later.

On page 1 of the Minister’s report he made the following statement about equipment : -

I discussed with the general officer commanding the general situation and sought hie views on the equipment position. He repeated without any suggestion on my part the statement* that had been made by the general officers commanding at Atherton, New Britain and the Solomons, that during the whole of his experience in the Middle East and Australia he did not know of any division that wag as well and as suitably equipped as hi*-

T ask honorable members to mark the concluding words - when it proceeded to Aitape to perform its operational task in that area.

He does not say that the division is well equipped to-day. There seems to be a most extraordinary state of affairs in this area. I have not seen the like of it in any other army, and I served in the Australian Army in the last war and also in the British Army. There seems to be a most extraordinary fear among members of the Australian Array, from high officers down to the lower ranks, with regard to the divulging of information. I shall read an extract from a letter which I have received, and f hope that its contents will be conveyed to the people of Australia. It is from the mother of a captain in the Army. She wrote to me on the subject of leave to the men in Bougainville and New Britain, and stated -

I am sure you will not divulge my name or my son’s, particularly his unit or rank. He seems very worried I wrote to you and seems to think he might get into serious trouble if it were known.

That captain and his mother, and others right up to the rank of general, are afraid that they will get into trouble if they tell the truth. Here is an extract from a letter received, by Senator Mattner -

Apart from the shortages mentioned by you, it seems unbelievable but true that we cannot procure a replacement of shirts worn out on tropical service due to weather conditions. Perhaps shirts are being kept in reserve for another job.

I think that it will be generally admitted that grenades are necessary for fighting. Early in 1945, a unit which was fighting against the Japanese in a forward area asked for Mills 36, 4-inch grenades. The regimental quartermaster said that only 500 such grenades were in reserve for the whole division, a quantity that would be exhausted by a small unit in a few hours of fighting. Consequently, the troops of that unit could not get any grenades. It may be said that the Japanese did not have grenades, but is that any reason why our men should not have had them? Will the Minister say that 500 grenades for a whole division is twice and thrice the equipment table?

Most people will also agree that ammunition is necessary for the waging of war. The unit to which I have referred asked for ammunition, but could not get it because of a shortage of aeroplanes to transport it to the troops. Early in 1945 a relief unit brought 100 rounds per man and 250 rounds for the automatic weapons, as well as two grenades per man. The brigade asked that ammunition be sent by aeroplane as natives were not available to act as carriers, and the nearest dump was some days’ march away. It took nearly two days to get permission to have the ammunition sent by aeroplane. That is the kind of thing that is taking place in New ‘Guinea, the kind of thing that the Government defends. Lt is significant that the Acting Minister for the Army did not go into the Torricelli Range.

I shall now refer to transport difficulties. I am told that there are two Douglas C 47 aeroplanes to supply the division, and also that there is a shortage of native carriers because the Army authorities will not agree to employ the number required, and cannot feed them. Recently one unit, before it pulled out, was waiting for aeroplanes to drop the next meal. There was no reserve of food or ammunition. Yet the Minister speaks of “ twice and thrice the equipment table “ !

On the subject of native carriers I shall quote what the Prime Minister said to-day as one reason for the New Guinea campaign. The right honorable gentleman said -

Iti the Philippines the Americana are clearing the Japanese from the whole of the islands to free the native people, to obtain the use of the resources of the islands, and to free their forces from a prolonged and continuing commitment. We are following precisely the same principle.

I am informed that the most thickly populated as well as the most fertile part of New Guinea is the area south of the Prince Alexander Range and the Torricelli Range, and north of the Sepik River. The Japanese are living on the gardens that they have taken from the natives whom they have intimidated and made to work for them, but I am told that if we will feed the natives and their “ Maries “ they are willing to work for us. We do not receive their help because of our inability to supply rations to them. Any strategic plan which envisages help from the natives cannot be carried out if the natives cannot be fed. A unit comprising approximately 300 men would need 150 native carriers in very rough country, yet the Army will allow only 30 natives, of whom one must be a “boss boy” and two others for the representative of Angau. That leaves only 27 natives available to do the carrying for the unit. The only way to get the necessary labour is either to submit faked ration returns, or for the unit to share its own rations with the natives. All that the natives need is bully beef and biscuits. The Prime Minister speaks of the Government’s noble aim in respect of the natives, but his Government cannot feed them properly because they have made no transport arrangements to do so. And still the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction speaks of “ twice and thrice the equipment table”!

The country in which the unit to which I have referred is fighting is like the green hell of the Grand Chacao of Paraguay, or the dense rain forest country in Northern Australia, or the worst country in New Guinea. In such country it takes sixteen men to carry a wounded person on a journey occupying five hours. Will honorable members opposite shriek with laughter when they hear that? Owing to the shortage of native labour, due to our failure to feed them, the troops have had to carry out their own wounded men. My friends tell me that if we do not employ the natives and feed them, they betray us to the Japanese and lead the. enemy to our positions. Yet the Government has said that one reason why we are waging war in New Guinea is to release the large island population that is being held under starvation conditions by the Japanese! The New ‘Guinea campaign would appear to be waged to satisfy the personal vanity of certain members of the Government, and others. How hypocritical is the Government’s profession when we realize that not only are we not releasing the natives from the Japanese, but that we are -actually causing -them to stay with the Japanese even though they are starving. I have been told that American barges were the only ones at Aitape, and that they were manned by United States personnel and were not under the direct control of our forces. I am also informed that fairly recently, three ships were lying off Aitape for nearly a fortnight because there were no barges to unload them. [Further extension of time granted.’] The people of Australia should know what is going on in the north. There are plenty of aeroplanes on our civilian air routes in Australia, but they are for civilians. The men who are fighting in the north are forgotten by the Government, but not by their loved ones. I am told that the Sepik natives are intelligent and understand war, but they tell our men thai there are not sufficient Australian troops, and they are angry with us for not feeding their starving women and children.

In isolated areas Auster Cubs were used for getting out men who were suffering from serious stomach wounds and could not be treated at advanced dressing stations. This service operated for about a fortnight. The planes were withdrawn about the 25th March, although, I am told, men were urgently in need of treatment at that time. My friends believe that the Cubs were sent to either Moratai, or the mainland. The point I make is that when those machines were urgently required, they were not available. Although it was said that Moths were to be sent to this area no plane had arrived when my friends left that area. Consequently, men suffering with stomach wounds were carried over rough tracks hy sixteen carriers, the journey taking five hours or even longer. My friends have been told that only one Liberty ship a month is allocated for Aitape. They believe, although they are not certain, that this would just meet ordinary normal maintenance. From another quarter, I am informed that a division requires 1,000 tons of supplies a day for all purpose.?. I have a recollection that the war supply tables put it at 15 cwt. a man a week. If these statements are true, the logistic plan for this campaign has broken down, and, consequently the strategical plan cannot be carried out. This means that the objectives mentioned by the Prime Minister this afternoon cannot be attained until the present position is remedied. Earlier, I referred to the supply of canvas gaiters. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 21st March, John Scarlett supported the testimony I have received from my friends on this subject. Any one who has spoken to soldiers upon their return from New Guinea will agree that the view of the men is that the ordinary canvas gaiter is useless, and that a special type of gaiter is required for troop? operating in that area. Up to two years ago gaiters of the type issued to the United States forces were used and they were very good, but they were withdrawn and gaiters made to a new Australian design were substituted. My friends understand that these gaiters have been in production for twelve months, but they .say they have not yet been issued to the troops in the forward areas. They say that when the Australians were there, the only way our mcn could get gaiters was to obtain them, from the Americans for beer or money. I have not referred to the lack of any heavy equipment which it might be contended could not be utilized in jungle warfare. I now refer to the supply of machetes which are essential for jungle warfare. They are used for slashing the light scrub and kunai grass to clear pathways. They are not expensive. I am told that they cost a’bout 3s. each at Port Kembla where they are manufactured. My friends- say that no machetes are available in the New Guinea area. A unit of 900 men whose war establishment entitles them to 450 machetes could muster only 50 over the last three months. The unit indented these from Divisional Ordnance, but were not successful in obtaining them. That is the story that has been told to me on the subject by men who have returned from New Guinea, many of whom I have, known from their boyhood.

The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) in his statement dealing with the establishment of a base at Jacquinot Bay, New Britain, said -

There, swiftly, competently and effectively they carved out a hase making extensive use of mechanical equipment and their headquarters area does not lose in comparison with the American equivalent.

– If honorable members on this side of the House had received such letters from parents of men in the fighting services, would they not have brought the matter to the attention of the Government, at the caucus meetings at which members of the Opposition sneer so often ? Yet, not one Government supporter - and that includes myself - has received one letter from a constituent making complaints about deficiencies of equipment. I also, as the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, have a great many contacts among returned soldiers. Not long ago, I visited two branches of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, and discussed with it.he members of them the question as to whether or not there were shortages of equipment, and I did not receive any indication whatsoever of any member of those two branches having received any communication about the matter. So that it would seem to be curious that, the honorable members for Wentworth and New England can quote so many letters and statements alleged to have been made by members of the rank and file of the fighting services.

Mr Harrison:

– Why did not the Minister agree to the request of the honorable member for New England in regard to persons whose names might be mentioned?

Mr DEDMAN:

– I am not. here to answer questions. The honorable member for Wentworth produced, a number of photographs. I had a look at them. They prove absolutely nothing. He showed a big photograph of a beach on which a great deal of equipment was being landed. I witnessed an exactly similar scene of Australian equipment, being landed when I was up there. The weakness of the honorable member’s case was so great, that he was reduced to producing a photograph of Gona. All honorable members know how long ago it is since operations were in progress in the vicinity of Gona.

Mr Harrison:

– I could not procure information from the Minister’s department in less than three weeks.

Mr DEDMAN:

– I understand that the honorable member has a room full of samples of equipment of different kinds. Evidently, he has sorted it out, for purposes of display, just as a shop-walker would sort, out his wares. I also understand that photographs have been taken of those samples of equipment, and have been reproduced in the Sydney press. 1 am advised by army officers that equipment of those types, the photographs of which have appeared in the Sydney press, is all obsolete and was discarded months ago.

Mr Harrison:

– I challenge the Minister to have a look at it, and then repeat that statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated his case in his own way, and the Minister did not, interject once. The honorable gentleman is not entitled to carry on a continuous fire of interjections. He has given and. he must take.

Mr DEDMAN:

– Let us look at the nature of the allegations, as distinct from the type of evidence that has been brought forward. The honorable member for Wentworth stated quite explicitly that the troops in certain areas were short of small arms of certain types. He mentioned . .45 calibre revolvers and submachine guns. As a returned soldier, he ought to know that there is such a thing as maintaining a balance of fire-power within units. This matter is dealt with quite adequately in paragraph 34 of the report of the Acting Minister for the Army. I cannot do better than quote it-

At Torokina a demonstration was given to me on active service lines of infantry platoons on patrol, showing how the balance,of weapon fire had been preserved by a proper allocation of Bren gun. Owensub-machine gun, rifle, grenade and rifle fire. The generalofficer com- manding advised me that the troops have a liking for the light sub- machine gun, but if these were supplied, it would throw the firepower of the sections out ofbalance and, tactically, would be unsound.

All of the individuals in a section, a platoon or a company cannot be armed with small arms of the one type; there has to be a certain number of each type. Merely because every individual has not a .45 calibre revolver or a sub-machine gun, is not to say that the troops in that particular area are not properly equipped.

The honorable member went on to say that the troops ought to have been equipped with certain up-to-date appliances, such as bazookas. I think he also mentioned flame-throwers. For certain purposes, there are alternative weapons which can be used ; and in some instances these alternative weapons are better from an all-purpose point of view than would be, perhaps, a weapon of another character. For the purposes for which the Americans in other theatres have used bazookas and flame-throwers, the Australian forces have been equipped as an alternative with trench mortars. This matter is adequately dealt with in paragraph 58 of the report of the Acting Minister for the Army, from which I now read -

Flame-throwers in jungle warfare are particularly vulnerable and can only be used for special tasks. The commander on the spot is the only one who can decide when these weapons should be used, and, so far in the operations undertaken, very little opportunity has arisen for their employment.

P.I.T.A. Weapon (British equivalent of the American bazooka).

A pool of 300P.I.T.A. weapons (the equivalent of the American bazooka) was held by First Australian Army prior to the commence ment of the present operations and were available for use. However, the weapon is primarily designed for a tank attack role and the fuses of the bombs at present held by the Australian Military Forces are not suitable for a general purpose role (i.e., to engage soft objects such as bunkers and soft earth). This applies equally to the American bazooka.

A general-purpose fuse has now been developed in the United Kingdom and 50,000 bombs which were ordered many monthsago are now awaiting shipment ex United Kingdom.

The point is that, as an alternative weapon, the Australian forces have been equipped with the trench mortar, which is a better all-purpose weapon, and serves the same purpose as the bazooka.

The honorable member for Wentworth then discussed heavy engineering equipment. In that regard, I have myself had some interesting experiences as a soldier. When I was fighting in a campaign on the north-west frontier of India a year or so after the last war, there were those who said that if tanks and other modern equipment were brought to that area it would be possible to clean up the tribesmen very quickly. Well, the equipment was brought there and tried, but it proved to be a complete failure. Mechanized equipment designed to move freely in open country is quite useless in mountainous country such as that on the north-west frontier of India, and that country is similar to much of the country over which the Australian forces are now fighting in New Guinea. Again, J say that I have been there, and I have seen the countrywhere our men are fighting.

Mr Rankin:

– Would not transport planes be of value there?

Mr DEDMAN:

– They would be of no value at all in that country.

Mr Rankin:

– Would they not be useful for dropping supplies?

Mr DEDMAN:

-The honorable mem- b er spoke of transport planes, and whenI answer him he begins to talk about dropping supplies. Transport planes are generally used for the transport of troops, not for the transport of supplies. The honorable member for Wentworth com- p ared Australian equipment with that of the Americans. The role which our troops are filling in New Guinea to-day is totally different from that played by the Americans whenthey were there.

When I was in Aitape, all the Americans were doing was to hold- a limited area surrounded by a defensive perimeter. Our troops, on the other hand, have advanced beyond the perimeter, and are pushing the Japanese back into the Torricelli Mountains. .It is true that in the .area immediately around Aitape the country is comparatively flat, and therefore -suitable for the use of heavy mechanical equipment, but such equipment cannot be used .in the advance through the Torricelli Mountains.

I observed when I was there that when heavy engineering equipment was required by our troops it was made available to them on the same scale as to the Americans. I visited two areas in the north. I landed at Hollandia, which had, at that time, been in our possession for three weeks. Immediately after the Americans landed there they sot to work to reconstruct the air strip, which had been badly dam-aged in the taking of the place, and within 24 hours of the construction corps beginning the work the strip was in operation. That was a magnificent achievement by the Americans. It was paralleled by the Australians some time later at Tadge, in the Aitape area. “Within 24 hours of their taking possession of the air strip they had it repaired, using the same kind of equipment as the Americans had used. Members of the Opposition say that our men lack such heavy equipment, but if that were so they would not have been able to repair this air strip in such ft short time.

I turn now to the statements of the honorable member for New England. Of course, he repeated many of the allegations of the honorable member for Wentworth, and to those I have already replied, but he added one or two of his own. Actually, he was so hard up for arguments with which to support his case that he had to descend to a discussion of the shortage of shirts. Tt is quite, true that there were occasional shortages of such things. There were also shortages among the civilian population. It must be obvious that, having regard to the difficulties which confronted our forces at Aitape, there may have been periods when there was a shortage of supplies. The honorable member for New

England mentioned machetes, alleging that the Americans were equipped with them while our .men were not. The truth is that .the machetes were manufactured in Australia to the order of my colleague, the former Minister for Supply and Shipping (Mr. Beasley), and supplied to the Americans by us. He brought samples of these knives to a meeting of the Production Executive over eighteen months ago. Our troops are equipped with them in the same way as the Americans are. They have a special purpose, which is to cut kunai grass. If the honorable member had been to New Guinea he would know that this grass grows only in certain areas. In other areas the country is covered with jungle, including comparatively heavy timber, and there machetes are of no use at all. The weakness of the case put forward by the honorable member for New England is demonstrated by the fact that he was reduced to quoting Sepik. River natives as an authority for the statement, that wc did not have enough troops in that area.

Having discussed the evidence adduced by the two members of the Opposition who have spoken, I now propose to offer some evidence in rebuttal. In the first place, we have General MacArthur’s statement, submitted to the Prime Minister himself, that he is satisfied that all the troops in the areas under discussion are adequately supplied with equipment - and all the troops, including the Australians, are under General MacArthur’s command.

Mr Holt:

– That assurance was given after the Minister’s statement was tabled.

Mr DEDMAN:

– That is true, but that does not invalidate the argument, and does not affect the value of General MacArthur’s statement. The Opposition has alleged that our troops are inadequately equipped, and that allegation is completely answered by the statement of General MacArthur that they are adequately equipped. We also have the statement of our own CommanderinChief. General Sir Thomas Blarney. In case some honorable member opposite may say that we ought not to pay any attention to General Blarney, and particularly lest the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) should be tempted to make such a statement, I propose to quote what the honorable member for Warringah said when he was Minister for the Army. It is reported in Hansard of the 25th June, 1941, as follows : -

The real question is whether our troops were, as an infantry division, properly equipped. As to this, the Government must depend upon the advice ithas received from General Sir Thomas Blarney, General Officer Commanding the Australian Imperial Force in the Middle East. Upon him, I am sure honorable members will agree, complete reliance can be placed. The information received by the Government is that the condition on which it was stipulated our troops should be employed was. in regard to all essential equipment, fulfilled. In respect of such vital items as 25-pounder artillery and anti-tank 2-pounder guns, they were completely equipped.

Thus, we have first of all a complete and unqualified denial by General MacArthur, who says that there is no lack of equipment. Then we have the statement by our own Commander-in-Chief, General Blarney, to the same effect. Then, in the report of the Acting Minister for the Army to the Prime Minister, it is recorded that in all the areas which he visited every officer, from the commanding officer downwards, whom he interviewed, said that the equipment available to them was completely adequate. If I were to go through the report, paragraph by paragraph, it would be seen that the commanding officers of the many formations visited by the Acting Minister for the Army all said to him, without qualification, that the equipment which they had at their disposalwas complete and adequate.

The honorable member for New England said that the Acting Minister for the Army interviewed officers only, and did not give the rank and file an opportunity to make any statements on the matter. First, is it suggested that every one of those commanding officers, right up to the commanders of divisions, to whom the Acting Minister for the Army spoke, was so spineless that he would not have said that there were deficiencies of equipment, if that were so, merely because General Blarney had made the statement that they were fully equipped ? If honorable members opposite do say that they are making a charge against every officer interviewed by him. But it is not true that he did not meet and talk with large numbers of the rank and file. I have read his report, and I have had the benefit of long talks with him since his return. I was naturally very interested in this question. He mixed freely with the troops, without having any officer in his company, and, with the exception of one unit, one section as a matter of fact, at Aitape, he found no proof whatever of the allegations made by Opposition members. I said earlier that it was remarkable that no member on this side of the House had received letters complaining about the shortages of equipment, but. just before this debate began, there was handed to me an unsolicited letter from a student at Moore Theological College. Sydney, in which he says -

A news item in yesterday’s press referred to a statement by Mr. Harrison concerning the individual Australian soldier’s lack of equipment.

As a recently discharged member of the

Australian Imperial Force with overseas service I wish to say, that, in my opinion the Australian soldiers are very well equipped indeed, and their weapons compare favorably with those of our Allies.

At no time did I hear Australian soldiers complain about the quality of their weapon and equipment.

But, however long I may talk onthis subject, there is in the casualty lists at the end of the Acting Minister’s report a stronger proof than could be adduced by any honorable member in a lengthy speech of the complete falsity of the allegations made by the Opposition. From time to time great emphasis has been laid on the fanatical fighting qualities of the Japanese, and we believe that is true. Had our soldiers been illequipped the casualties suffered by them would have been high compared with those suffered by the enemy; but let me restate what has already been stated by the Prime Minister. Casualties inflicted on the enemy from November last to the date of this report total 5,549 killed in the three areas - Aitape and But, Bougainville and New Britain - compared with 371 Australians.

Mr Holt:

– Killed or counted dead ?

Mr DEDMAN:

– Confirmed as killed. In addition there were 6,558 Japanese believed killed. Can it be said that an army formation ill-equipped could have had so few casualties as 371, and at the 3ame time have inflicted such high casualties on the enemy? That is the most complete and damning answer to the allegations of honorable gentlemen opposite.

Mr Abbott:

Prime Minister; comparable with the conflict taking- place in the Philippines? It must be perfectly obvious that the Philippines will be the main base for the malor offensives against the Japanese homeland and the Chinese mainland. If one keeps that fact prominently in mind, he must realize the futility of comparing the operations in the Philippines with the operations in New Guinea, Bougainville and. New Britain. I am not convinced by the. argument that, because something is- being done in the Philippines, it is the proper thing to do in the New Guinea area. It is true that the Japanese troops must be contained in the islands to the north of Australia. After the enemy in New Guinea had been overwhelmed by the brilliant strategy of General MacArthur, we were told that the Japanese were to bc left to “ wither on the vine ‘*. I think that I am correct in saying that that phrase was used by General MacArthur himself. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) also liked it. Incidentally, he was the originator of the phrase “ mopping-up operations in the islands to the north of Australia “.

Mr Menzies:

– It was criticized in a broadcast recently.

Mr SPENDER:

– That point, is easily forgotten. The Japanese troops’- in the islands to the north of Australia were to be left to “ wither on the vine “, and it must be obvious to any one who studies this matter objectively that whilst the Japanese must be contained there and prevented from doing any harm, they do not constitute a real threat to the safety of Australia. Nor does their immediate elimination have any vital bearing on the rapid and ultimate determination of the war.

In July, 1944, the Prime Minister, on his return from overseas, had a discussion with General MacArthur, in which it was agreed that Australian troops should take over areas that were then occupied by American troops. What was the position at that time? As the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction said, the Americans had established substantial bases in various parts of the South- West Pacific Area and Australian troops proceeded to occupy them in accordance with this arrangement. In July, 1944, the Prime Minister said that General MacArthur had issued instructions to General Blarney, stating that the advance to the Philippines necessitated a redistribution of forces and combat missions in the South-West Pacific Area in order to make available forces with which to continue the offensive. He desired the Australian forces to relieve the American forces and take over from them in Australian and mandated territory, in the South-West Pacific Area. In September, 1944, General Blarney attended a meeting of the Advisory War Council, and outlined the redistribution of land forces which was being made to comply with General MacArthur’s direction. General Blarney said that the American aim had been to establish a base and added that perhaps Australian forces would not be quite so passive. General Blarney said also that large scale active operations were not then contemplated. Enemy positions would be probed, and the extent of further operations would then be determined. Last November, the Chief of the General Staff outlined, the progress made by the Australian forces in taking over from American forces and the operational control in all areas was assumed by Australians in that month. When I returned from abroad shortly afterwards, I commented in this House upon the two matters about which I am now speaking. The first was whether Australian troops could be better employed elsewhere, and I asked whether they should be used in the Philippines. The Prime Minister said that he was not able t’i furnish details of the operational orders issued by General Blarney to the commander of the First Army without divulging information of value to the enemy, but he added -

I can say that they are prudent, and whilst seeking to preserve the aggressive spirit which is essential against the Japanese, stress the importance of keeping casualties to the minimum. Proposals for larger operations are subject to the approval of the Commander-in Chief.

I ask: What are those larger operations to be? It is true that for security reasons we should not discuss them in detail, but only in broad outline. However, what impresses me as important is this: Is it intended to eliminate 90,000 Japanese, using the Australian troops that are now opposed to the Japanese, or is it intended to employ additional troops? In my opinion, the proper course is to contain the Japanese troops in the islands so that they cannot possibly break out, and when the war against Japan is ultimately brought to a conclusion the garrisons in the islands will either surrender, because Japan will have capitulated, or be crushed by overwhelming forces directed against them. That is only common sense, and if any other course is to be adopted, I record publicly my opposition to it.

Mr Beasley:

– Is the honorable member opposed to the campaign in the islands to the north of Australia?

Mr SPENDER:

– I am not opposed to the type of campaign to which the Prime Minister referred, namely, offensive probing, but I am not aware of the full extent of the operations. The point has arisen as to whether the Commonwealth Government now proposes to dispose of the 90,000 Japanese troops in the islands, or contain them in the islands, or ultimately crush them with overwhelming; forces. This matter is vital to Australia. The Government has large numbers of men in the services. It is futile for members of the Opposition to declare that what they allege is true, and for the Government to reply that their allegations are completely false, because every one knows that the administration of the Army and the other services is capable of improvement. I do not make that statement in criticism necessarily of service Ministers. -As a former Minister for the Army, I know the difficulty of maintaining control over all the things that can happen in a department. However, this Parliament is the forum where attention should be directed to these matters, and the discussion should not necessarily become a political debate. We know that some Australian troops who are now in New Guinea have served in the Army since the outbreak of war. and that tens of thousands of A class operational troops who have been trained for from two to four years have never been outside Australia. That arrangement does not convince me that everything is satisfactory in the Australian Army. Regardless of who is responsible, those are questions which must be faced.

It does not convince me that those in control of the Australian Army are beyond criticism. Some of the troops, to whom I referred, left families of young children at the outbreak of the war. The men are now older, and their families are growing up. They have seen very little of their homes for five years. At the same time, thousands of well-trained troops, with considerably less service than those men, have never been outside Australia. Who is responsible for that? I am not concerned with fixing the blame. I merely draw attention to the fact ; and the fact cannot be disputed. The best use has not been made of our man-power in the Army, as is evidenced by the example that I have cited. It is futile for the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction to assert that everything is satisfactory in Army administration, just as it is futile for me to defend allegations made without foundations. These matters merit the closest attention of honorable members. More and more, we are drifting to a stage where the word of a military adviser is accepted without question.

Mr Beasley:

– What is the view of the honorable member, in the light of the successes in the Philippines?

Mr SPENDER:

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · IND UAP; UAP from 1940; LP from 1944

– That is so. I intend to submit to honorable members certain statements that were made in a letter that I have received on this subject. In order to show that the writer has dealt with the subject fairly and dispassionately, I shall quote the introductory paragraph of the letter. It reads -

I hesitate to tread on this dangerous ground, because the fact that in any given instance our equipment is not as good as the American is no proof that ours is insufficient, for instance, the Americans have a mechanical post-hole digger for sinking holes for poles to carry signal wires, while we dig our holes by picks and shovels. But in many cases the mechanical equipment is not warranted, because there is not the quantity of work to justify it. Further, it is often not possible for us to buy or ship the equipment we would like to have. Nevertheless, there are some cases in which lack of equipment is indefensible.

It is strange that I should find such a marked, parallel between the allegations that have been made by honorable mem: bers on this side of the chamber and the contents of this letter. The writer shows, in the remarks that I have just cited, that he has approached the subject in a genuinely unbiased manner. He con cedes that there is something to bc said for the Government’s attitude in regard to heavy equipment. He proceeded as follows : -

In November, 1944, there were no bottles for insect repellent available in New Guinea. The repellent is a most important anti-malaria precaution and troops are bound to use it every two hours between sunset and sunrise, except when they are under mosquito nets. When a bottle became empty it was necessary to take it to the quarter-master’s store and have it refilled from the bulk supply. If a bottle was broken it could not be replaced, and as one is ordered to carry bottles always after dark, breakage’s are common.

That may seem to be a small matter, but many small matters make a big aggregate. I have cited that passage because it deals with allegations that have been made in the House, and for which the Acting Minister for the Army has said that there was no foundation. The writer of this letter has shown that there is foundation for the complaints. He went on -

In November and December, 1944, there were no anklets or gaiters available in New Guinea. These are essential as a protection against mosquitoes and scrub typhus mites, and are ordered to be worn at all times by all ranks. Yet I have seen men whose gaiters were worn out or the straps of which had broken, quite unable to replace them.

In November, 1944, the issue of shirts and trousers was reduced to two per man. Thi* is a serious thing in New Guinea, because the heat and dirt make it essential to change at least once a day and yet rain may make it impossible Co dry washed garments for three or four days on end. The reduction in the issue was also accompanied by an order that men with more than two shirts or pairs, of trousers were to return the surplus. This is a serious thing in New Guinea, where skin diseases are prevalent.

The next subject dealt with is small craft, and in this regard the ActingMinister for the Army had to make some admissions. The writer of this letter said on this subject -

Small craft were always a serious problem,. Tn November, 1944, when the Americans were moving out, the Australian Army was given the responsibility of maintaining the signal! line between Lae and Finschhafen. It runs, along the coast and crosses so many rivers, creeks and swamps that it can only be maintained by using launches or barges or some form of small craft. We had to borrow small craft from the Americans to enable out signallers to keep the line in order.

I come now to the question of the supply-dropping parachutes. On this subject the writer said -

Supply-dropping parachutes have always been short, and in November and December, 1944, the position was so bad that the dropping of supplies was seriously interfered with. In an endeavour to remedy the position, special teams of parachute repairers were flown urgently from the mainland to make serviceable any which could possibly be repaired. As I mentioned to you previously, this was what made it so exasperating to see them used as ceilings in officers’ messes and in the club at Lae. [Extension of time granted.] Mr. Beasley. - I would keep off that officers’ mess if I were the honorable member, for it is not too “hot”.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am quite prepared to rely on my informant on this subject. It is significant to me that although I gave specific instances of wastages of material and man-power when I spoke three weeks ago, and my statements have been met by denials, these have been of a general character, and have not touched the details.

Mr Dedman:

– That is coming. The honorable gentleman will be “knocked over “ on that too in a few days time.

Mr SPENDER:

– I hope that the Government is concerned in something more than knocking things over. If that is the only function it is discharging, the people will knock it over when the next elections come round. It is quite obvious to me that Ministers are so overstrained that they are unable to meet fair criticism, for they reply either with abuse or with mere denials which do not deal with the facts.

I have said that there are two vital matters which must be dealt with promptly. One of these is the general question oft the use of our troops and man-power. I have said what I have to say on that subject. The other is the provision of equipment. I have had nothing to say on equipment hitherto, and I have listened to this debate with close attention. I am convinced that the situation is not as good as the Government paints it, and that there are sufficient grounds for an inquiry. I do not see how this subject can be lifted from the political plane otherwise than by the adop tion of the suggestion of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) that a committee of members of both Houses should be appointed to visit New Guinea to make an inquiry on the spot. If the Acting Minister for the Army could visit New Guinea for this purpose, I can see no reason why a committee of honorable members should not also be able to do so. This suggestion was made some time ago, but was rejected by the Government. The truth about the allegations that have been made can be ascertained to the satisf action of the public and whatever uncertainty there is on the subject can be removed only by an independent inquiry. I therefore support the suggestion of the honorable member for New England that a committee representative of all parties be appointed to visit New Guinea to make a thorough investigation as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

-A most interesting position has arisen with regard to this debate. A comparatively short while ago, the Opposition launched an attack upon the Government in regard to the campaign upon which Australian troops were engaged in New Guinea, New Britain and in the Solomons. The basis of the attack was that our forces were engaged in “moppingup “ operations - a charwoman’s job. That allegation was canvassed thoroughly in this chamber, but subsequently it became unpopular with the press and with the Australian soldiers themselves. The Opposition then shifted its ground, and prepared a new attack in which it was aided by press correspondents, who allegedly had information that Australian troops fighting in the islands to the north of this country were inadequately equipped. One honorable member opposite said to-day that this debate had been delayed too long, and that the whole question should have been discussed thoroughly at the earliest possible moment. Last week, an endeavour was made by the Opposition to have this discussion given priority over all other Government business. In these circumstances it was strange, indeed, that an attempt should have been made before the House adjourned last Friday to postpone the resumption of the sitting until Thursday of this week, so that honorable members could be in their electorateson Anzac Day.

Mr Anthony:

– The Opposition did not request that adjournment. That is an absolute falsehood.

Mr BARNARD:

– It is commonly reported in the lobbies to-day that an approach was made to the Government by Opposition members to postpone the meeting of the House this week until Thursday. That action is ample evidence of the Opposition’s view of the importance and urgency of this matter. This debate now appears to be not a genuine attempt to draw the attention of the Government to alleged weaknesses in the equipment available to Australian troops in the South-West Pacific Area, but rather a stalking horse for political purposes. It is clear that with the Opposition the question whether or not Australian troops are adequately equipped has mainly political significance. I do not suggest that everywhere in the northern battle areas where our troops are deployed, every man is supplied to the most minute detail with all the equipment needed in these important operations. Because of supply difficulties it is only tobe expected that there will be occasions on which some equipment will be in short supply. However, the Government is just as anxious as is the Opposition to see that our troops are adequately equipped, and just as anxious to see the Japanese driven out of New Guinea, New Britain and Bougainville, as it was to ensure the success of our soldiers on the Kokoda trail in 1942, and so to prevent the Japanese reaching Australian soil. Obviously, it is in the interests of the Government to provide all the equipment that can be made available, so that the task of clearing the Japanese out of those islands may be carried out in the shortest possible time. We are all interested in that aim, many of us personally, because relatives and friends are engaged in the fighting. It is quite true, as the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) has said, that honorable members on this side of the House have not received complaints from members of the fighting forces about shortages of equipment. Indeed, the re verse is the case. I could quote from a letter written by a soldier to his father some time before the question of the shortage of equipment was raised in which he mentioned the wonderful bridging equipment, constructed by Australian workmen, that had arrived in New Guinea. The soldier spoke of the enduring qualities of the bridges constructed with this equipment. Unfortunately, in the big floods which occurred recently, some of these bridges were washed away and now the soldiers have to cross streams by improvised methods. The same flood also washed away much valuable equipment, including personal belongings. That is the other side of the story.

I do not propose to deal with this question at great length. The speech made by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) was remarkable. I have been in this chamber now for more than a decade-

Mr Anthony:

– The honorable member will not be here much longer.

Mr BARNARD:

– Fortunately, that matter is in the hands of the electors of Bass and not of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony).

During the many years that I have been a member of this House I have never heard such a remarkable outburst as that of the honorable member for New England, who, in unparliamentary language, accused supporters of the Government and the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Army of breaches of public duty. He did not state his complaints in a reasonable and dignified manner, but made assertions based on statements which had been passed on to him. He was even prepared to take an oath regarding the truth of statements on matters which were not within his own knowledge. He knows in his heart that he was merely trying to start a political hare, in the hope that the people would follow it, and that political injury would be done to the Government and its supporters. This action on the part of the Opposition in drawing attention to the equipment of the Australian fighting forces is belated. When the previous Government was in office it adopted such a hesitant policy that the Curtin Government was returned to power. lt is hardly necessary for me to place on record once more the achievements of the Australian troops in the South-West Pacific Area. That has already been done by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), who has told us of the large numbers of Japanese who have been killed and the comparatively small numbers of casualties among the Australians. Obviously, that result could not have been obtained by ill-equipped troops. General MacArthur is in complete control of the operations and on him rests the responsibility of determining where and how our troops shall be employed. He has expressed complete satisfaction in that regard. General Blarney has also declared that the equipment of the land forces under his control is satisfactory. A visit to the battle areas of New Guinea by a party of members of this Parliament would enable them to obtain first-hand information regarding the conditions under which the troops are serving. That would allay any fears that may still lurk in the public mind regarding the supply, of equipment. The wisdom of adopting that course, however, must be determined by the Government.

There is little or no substance in fact in the arguments adduced by members of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) referred to reports about the importation of luxury lines, but statements of that kind do not prove that Australian troops are experiencing a shortage of equipment because of shipping difficulties. In the early days of the Menzies Government, petrol rationing was introduced because trouble was experienced in obtaining sufficient shipping for the importation of petrol from overseas, yet at the same time whisky imports increased. It would be unfair and a gross exaggeration to say that Australian troops have not fought as they might have done because they have had insufficient equipment. The campaign in New Guinea is proceeding according to plan. Few Australian casualties have occurred and the enemy is being destroyed. I have heard no complaints about the conditions there so far as the equipment of the troops is concerned. On the contrary, the information that has reached me is that the position is satisfactory.

I have heard one complaint about members of the Engineering Corps having been on service for long periods without leave, but that difficulty is being overcome as rapidly as possible. Members of the Opposition first complained that the Australian troops are engaged merely in mopping-up operations, and then they alleged that the troops have insufficient equipment. There is little, if any, foundation for the charges made. [Quorum formed.]

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– If any evidence were required of the uneasiness of the Government at the criticism which has been levelled against it, that evidence is found in the reply of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), who indulged in a aerie? of personal attacks on Opposition members who had initiated the debate. He referred in belittling terms to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) and the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott). Such remarks are clear evidence that the criticism was getting home. All that the country require? is the truth in respect of the adequacy of the equipment provided for Australian fighting men. Many citizens have relatives in the areas which have been referred to in this debate, and there legitimate concern on the part of the public generally as to whether the statements which have been made both inside and outside the Parliament have any substantial foundation. Reports of lack of equipment have come from many different sources; they have not originated in the minds of those honorable member? who have expressed their views in this chamber. The charges which have been made here are founded on statements by soldiers in battle areas, and by war correspondents and others who may be said to have some knowledge of the subject. When numbers of people in different places make similar complaints, and tender the same kind of evidence, it is proper that the charges should be sifted to the bottom so that the Parliament and the country may know the truth. I do not believe that the truth will be obtained by the means which the Government is taking to ascertain it, because, after all, the chief aim of the Government is to justify its own. conduct of war operations. If further evidence be required of the Government’s uneasiness as to the substance of these allegations, it can be found in the series of statements which have teen, made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and other Ministers in regard to this matter. When the charges were first made the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction said, on the 22nd March, that there was no shortage of equipment, but that, on the contrary, the requirements “ had been, met twice and thrice “. On the 5th April, the Prime Minister made a statement, in which he quoted from a report by General Blarney supporting what the right honorable gentleman’s colleague had said. On the 6th April the Prime Minister sent the Acting Minister for the Army (Senator Eraser) to various battlefronts to ascertain the facts. That action does not indicate that the Prime Minister was really convinced that things were satisfactory. On the 15th April General Blarney, in what was ostensibly a broadcast speech in support of the third victory loan, dealt with the criticism levelled against the authorities in connexion with the equipment of Australian troops. On the 20th April, after the Acting Minister for the Army had submitted his report and General Blarney had made his broadcast, the Prime Minister was still so uneasy about the situation that he made a further statement, in which he referred to a report which he had obtained from General MacArthur. It will be seen that since the 22nd March there have been five different statements by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in an attempt to satisfy the people that all was well in the matter of the equipment of Australia’s fighting forces. If the Prime Minister is so uneasy about the situation as to take all the steps that I have enumerated, members of this Parliament, as well as soldiers and their relatives, have justification for their uneasiness. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction made some scathing remarks about certain war correspondents. He belittled the statements of those men to whom the people of this country look for news from the various battlefronts. Of the accredited Australian war correspondents on the various battlefronts, 70 per cent, are either former soldiers or have been taken out of the Army to act as war correspondents. Most of the men who have criticized the equipment of Australian troops have served in battle areas as soldiers. The Prime Minister has very properly set out the position in his statement to-night. He said that the issue resolved itself intotwo questions; first, to what extentshould we be fighting in New Guinea, Bougainville and the Solomons; and, secondly, are our troops properly equipped to do whatever job is required of them ? In respect of the first question, I support the remarks of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) who pointed out that 90,000 Japanese are bottled up in the three areas mentioned. They are completely immobilized. They have no planes, or shipping, and are unable to obtain further supplies. However evil may be their intent, they cannot harm Australia in the least. They are bottled up in those areas for the duration of the war. Even should we abandon those areas entirely - I do not suggest that we do so - the Japanese there are, to use a term used by General MacArthur, completely “ immobilized “. Therefore, we ask, should we send our troops into those areas and liquidate the enemy by force almost immediately, or as soon as it is possible to do so, or should we allow them to remain there to die off by disease, or until they are obliged finally to surrender? Let me put this aspect of the position to the Government. We are in a very bad way for man-power in this country. Our food production has fallen. Our secondary industries are short of men; and we are unable to meet our commitments, not only to our Allies, but also to our own people. Yet, seeing that Australian forces are not engaged in any other offensive at the moment, we have 600,000 men in uniform to contain 90,000 Japanese in those three areas. Those Japanese are practically our prisoners. Probably 100,000- of our men in uniform are actually engaged in the islands mentioned, whilst the remaining 500,000 are employed on the mainland. Therefore, we are holding 600,000 Australians to combat 90,000’ Japanese.

Mr Dedman:

– That is not true. Let the honorable member ask his Leader,. whois a member of the Advisory War Council,whether his statement is correct.

Mr ANTHONY:

– If my Leader had to divulge any secret of the Advisory War Council, I am afraid that I would not get any information as easily, perhaps, as honorable members opposite are able to, obtain information from Ministers. At the same time, I am thankful to the Minister for his interjection because we are unable to obtain any information from the Government.

I now wish to reply to the speech made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction who so blithely threw out challenges and discredited the evidence tenderedby honorable members on this side of the chamber. By what means can members of the Opposition obtain information if, first, they are debarred from visiting the battle areas; secondly, they are not supposed to obtain information from highofficers because of the dangerof indiscretion on the part of such officers ; and, thirdly, they must discount statements by those in the ranks ? In these circumstances from whence are we to obtain information? The information we have submittedcomes from quite a number of sources. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction quoted the only endorsement he had been able to obtain of the Government’s action. This was a letter from a gentleman who is now a theological student in a college in Sydney. I shall go a little farther. I shall read a statement made by a gentleman who has already completed his theological studies. He is the Reverend J*. Howe, a former Army chaplain. He was with the Australians at Bougainville, and his statement was recently published in the following form in the press under a Perth date line of the 15th April: -

PERTH, Tuesday : A former Army chaplain, theRev. J. Howe, who was with the Australians on Bougainville, said the men there didnot havethe supplies they needed. His own regiment went into action with broken- down jeeps and trucks which had been condemned in New Guinea.

An officer had told him he saw in Australia signal equipment two years in advance of anything on Bougainville.

An engineer had complained of a shortage ofengineers’ stores and said he had seen the required material in Australia in great heaps at depots.

In the early stages of the campaign there was no bulldozer for making gun positions and no tractors for the guns. The latter were hauled up the beaches by trucks already condemned.

The men felt that they had been hardly done by in the matter of equipment when they knew it was in Australia.

That is a statement by a padre Who was recently in the Army. But many other complaints with respect to lack of equipment of Australian troops have been ventilated in the press, including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Launceston Examiner. We receive these complaints from as far afield as London, Perth, New Guinea, Sydney and Launceston, yet the Government says that there is no substance in them. The London Times, which I cite not as a complete authority but only as furnishing further evidence of the widespread belief that the Australian soldier is fighting without adequate equipment, in a leading article in which it reviewed the gallant campaigns of the Australians in New Guinea, New Britain and Bougainville, said -

They have had a multitude of difficulties - a serious shortage of sea transport, appalling weather, great natural obstacles, a stubborn foe, and an almost complete lack of mechanical equipment which the American army regards as indispensable. But their valour and initiative is overcoming them all.

– I have no doubt that the Minister who asks for the name of the soldier would be very glad to learn it, in order that his “ sleuths “ might “ put the boot “ into him in every possible way. That is the kind of chivalry which we would expect the honorable gentleman to show. The soldier’s father, in a postscript to his letter, said -

If you use above, please don’t mention names.

That seems to be a subject for mirth to honorable gentlemen opposite, who are not game to produce evidence, and will not consent to members of the Opposition visiting the battle fronts in order to obtain information. They laugh at the fear of a soldier that he will be victimized if it is known that he has written to his f ather on matters of this sort. Despite the attempt of Governmen members to howl me down, I am determined to read the postscript. This is what it says -

If you use above, please don’t mention names, as my sous say comment, brought home, reacts to their detriment.

Mr Abbott:

– And! the Minister defends it-!

Mr.Dedman. - The honorable member for Richmond is treating the whole business as a farce.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am glad of that interjection. I agree that the account I have given would be farcical but for its truth. I challenge the Minister to make full inquiries, and then make a statement as to what is the procedure.

Mr Dedman:

– Suppose that there are two divisions in a. corps and that the commander of one says, “ I want American gaiters-“, and the other says, “ Our own are better than the American “.

Mr ANTHONY:

– And suppose that through the ineptitude of this Government our troops have to go into the jungle bare-footed. The American authorities are willing to deal with corps commanders direct, from what I am told, but they are obliged to adhere to the “ red tape.” imposed by the Australian authorities. They would gladly supply atebrine containers, gaiters or items of equipment like that mentioned by the honorable member for New England, but cannot because of the Government’s senseless methods. A lot was made by the Minister of the fact that we have the requisite quantity of mechanical equipment in. New Guinea and other theatres of war according to Army entitlement andso forth. The Minister maybe correct that we have a number of vehicles, including jeeps, in those areas, but80 per cent. are practically worthless, so worn out that they are not even fit for repair.

Mr.Dedman. - What evidence has the: honorablemember to substantiate that statement?

Mr ANTHONY:

An Honorable Member. - They are getting fresh meat.

Mr ANTHONY:

– They have had fresh meat twice since this matter has been raised. Perhaps Parliament should be in continuous session for the benefit of the troops. No doubt, various honorable members opposite will speak from public platforms at Anzac Day ceremonies to-morrow extolling the qualities of our fighting men and emphasizing the sacrifices that they are making in New Guinea. It would be of much more benefit to our soldiers if honorable members opposite directed their efforts towards providing fresh foodstuffs and better conditions for them. That fresh food supplies can be provided! for the troops at the battle fronts has been demonstrated. On Christmas Day, all but 1,000 of the 80,000 men serving in those areas received a Christmas dinner consisting of fresh turkey, plum pudding and various other palatable foods. The 1,000 men who missed this special treat on Christmas Day received it on Boxing Day. If that can be done at Christmas time as a goodwill gesture, obviously the organization must exist for the transport of these goods, and could be used more regularly. [Further extension of time granted] I regret that I am detaining the House at this late hour, Mr. Speaker, but the responsibility for that lies withthe Government, as I have been refused leave to continue my remarks at a laterstage. Another excuse given for the lack of fresh foodstuffs in the New Guinea battle areas is that there is insufficient air transport available. I have been informed by troops thatabout tea. Douglas aircraft could transport to the battle fronts 50,000 lb. of food a day. That quantity would make a vast difference to the menu of our troops. Nodoubt it wall bestated that theair- craft necessary to carry out this work are not available. I am informed, how- ever, that the Americans have recently brought into service in large numbers a type of aircraft superior to the Liberatorsformerly used for this work, ward that hundreds ofLiberators are to be found out of service on northern air strips, which I could mention, parked wing-tip to wing-tip. Surely, the ‘Commonwealth Government could makesome arrangement with the American authorities to acquire these aeroplanes (either by purchase or under the lend-lease agreement. Some of the aircraft have been used as bombers and possibly would require alterations to carry out transport work, but that is a minor matter. The supply of tents for the troops may seem to be a matter of minor importance to people who have comfortable roofs over their heads, but it is of great importance to the troopsin the forwardareas. I am informed that, although representations have been made to headquarters in Australia that tents will not last more than six months in the tropical climatesof the islands to the north of Australia, there is a constantshortage oftents. In January the fighting men in New Guinea had their issueof shirts reduced from three to two each. Shirts do not last for a long period in the northern areas owing tothe effectsof perspiration. There is a great contrast between the treatment of Australian troops and that of the Americans quartered near them. The American soldier has no difficulty in obtaining a newshirt from the quartermaster’s store, but when an Australian soldier takes a worn shirt and asks for its replacement by a new article he may be toldthat the old shirt is stillrepairable,consequently he wakes sure that when he nextsubmits it for replacement it is so torn that it is definitely beyond repair. The men in thefieldsay that a great deal of theclothing equipmentwhich is repairable should be sent back to Australia insteadof the soldiers themselves having todo the labourious workof repairing it with needle and thread. The men in the forward areas requirewater-proof boots,and the boots ordinarily issued to Australian troops are among the best in the world. Whenthey have beenhalfsoled, however, they are no longer waterproof, and arequest has come frommen in the forward areasfor an improvement in regard to this important detail.

There is an old adage that where there is smoke thereis fire.Sufficient criticism has been advanced to-night by members oftheOpposition on the subject of the equipment of the troops to showthat the matter warrants more consideration by the House than appears to have been given to it. Independent statements have been submitted quite voluntarily from individuals in London, ‘Perth andSydney. If theGovernment earnestly desires to clear up the doubt regarding this matter it should not appeal to General MacArthur, General Blarney or the Acting Ministerf or the Army whose reputation is possibly involved,but toa committee of members of this Parliament or some other reliable and independent authority. If the -Government seriously wishes to preventthe shortage of equipment and the supply of necessary food from being a contentious matter it should agree to the proposalof theOpposition that a parliamentary committeebe appointed to visit the battle areas.

Debate (on motion by Mr.Sheehy) adjourned.

page 1076

PAPERS

The following papers were presented.: -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator &c. -1945 -

No. 13 - Amalgamated Postal Workers Unionof Australia.

No.14 - Amalgamated Postal (Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 15 - Arms, Explosives and Munition Workers’ Federation of Australia.

No.16 - Arms,Explosives and Munition Workers’Federation of Australia.

No. 17 - Arms, ‘Explosives and Munition Workers’ Federation of Australia.

No, 18 - Arms, Explosives andMunition Workers’ Federation of Australia.

No. 19 - Arms, Explosives and Munition Workers’Federation of Australia.

National Security Act -

National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and designs (177).

National Security (Shipping Coordination) Regulations - Orders - Nos. 88-90.

House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.

page 1077

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Housing : Canberra : Permits

Mr Bernard Corser:

r asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

How many government-owned houses were there inCanberra at the 31st December in each of the following years: 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, and 1944?
How many such houses were occupiedby (a.) Commonwealth public servants, and (b) private citizens at the 31st December in each of those years?
How many houses have been built in Canberra by the Government in each year since 1939?
How many (a) public servants and (b) private individuals have applied for houses in Canberra in each year since 1939 and in each month since the beginning of this year, and how many homes have been provided for each class of applicant in each of the periods mentioned?
How many (a) public servants and (b) private individuals are now waiting for houses in Canberra?
Is it a fact that the policy of the department is to ignore the claims of private individuals whose employment makes it essential that they should live in Canberra, and. in the allocation of houses, to reserve homes exclusively for public servants?
In view of the fact that war-time restrictions make it impossible for private enterprise to erecthouses in Canberra, will the Government take action to ensure that housing appli cants who are not public servants, especially those with two or more children, are given opportunities to obtain a home similar to those given members of the Public Service.
What immediate action does the Govern ment intend to take to relieve the housing shortage in Canberra?

Mr Lazzarini:
ALP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers : -

1939, 1,662; 1940, 1,845; 1941, 2,019; 1942, 2,060;* 1943, 2,058;* 1944, 2,049 *

The reduction is due to houses havingbeen sold to tenants.

It is not possible to give this information.
1. 213: 1941, 216; 1942, 55; 1943,

6; 1944, none.

It is not possible to give this information. The number of government-owned houses occupied by (a) public servants and government employees and (b) private individuals at the present time is 1,709 and 340, respectively. 5. (a) Public servants and other government employees, 365; and (b) private individuals, 165.
No. Preference is, however, given to public servants and persons engaged on essential government undertakings.
Houses have been erected : by the De partment of the Interior primarily for housing public servants and government employees. Until the housing position improves, it will be difficult to allot houses to other applicants. Permits to erect houses are, however, being issued by the Department of War Organization of Industry to applicants on the basis of need.
Contracts have been let by the Department of the Interior for the erection of 90 houses and other contracts will be arranged within the limited resources of material and man-power available.

Mr Bryson:

n asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, upon notice -

How many applications for permits to build homes were received in each capital city by the Department of War Organization of Industry in the years 1942, 1943, and 1944?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

The number of applications received in each capital city for permits to build homes is as follows: -

The figures quoted represent the applications made tobuild in each State. No record is maintained of applications to build in re spect of capital cities areas, but it is estimated that approximately 50 per cent. of applications emanate from capital city areas.

War Correspondents

Mr Guy:

y asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to a statement in a Sydney daily newspaper of recent date that, as a result of the suspension of the accreditation of a Department of Information war correspondent, Mr. Don Angel, the disagreement between Mr. Calwell and Brigadier Rasmussen has been renewed?
Has he any particulars to give to the House concerning these allegations?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

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

Yes.
No.

Mr Guy:

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to a statement in a. Sydney daily newspaper of recent date that, because of intolerantly rigid censorship, five Australian war correspondents in New Guinea had recently asked to be recalled?
Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s correspondent, Mr. Ray Paull, said that correspondents were exasperated at the treatment received from Army censorship ?
Will he cause inquiries to be made to ascertain if there is any justification for these complaints?

Mr Curtin:
ALP

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

Yes.
The newspaper report attributes the statement to Mr. Ray Paull.
The matter is receiving the consideration of the Government.

Merchant Seamen

Mr Abbott:

t asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, upon notice -

What is being done, or will bo done, for the vocational training of merchant seamen who have been maimed or incapacitated for sea service during the war?
What are the proposals of the Government for the rehabilitation after the war of merchant seamen, whom the Prime Minister has described often as forming a lighting service ?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

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

An inter-departmental committee is preparing a report to the Government on the entitlement to vocational training of merchant seamen.
The special position of merchant seamen is being taken into account in planning for re-establishin en t.

Aborigines

Mr Holt:

t asked the Minister representing the. Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Has his department studied the social experiments conducted by the Yarrabah Mission of north Queensland in the care of aborigines?
Is it a fact that the aborigine population in this area has doubled itself in the last twenty years?
ls it a fact, as stated in the annual report of the Victorian Aboriginal Group, that America spends £23 per annum on each native, Canada £11, and Australia only £3 3s.?
Will he ensure that adequate finance is made available to continue the Yarrabah experiment?

Mr Lazzarini:
ALP

– The following answers have been supplied by the Minister for the Interior: -

No. Particulars will be obtained from the Queensland Government and submitted to the Director of Native Affairs of the Northern Territory for consideration. 2 and 3. My department has no information as to whether these statements are correct.
If this question relates to the continuance of the experiment at Yarrabah, the provision of adequate finance for that purpose is a matter for the Queensland Government.

Release of Internees

Mr Rankin:

n asked the Acting AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

With reference to the question asked by the honorable member for Bendigo on the 8th March, regarding allegations that Italians and others, released from internment camps, had been permitted to return to their homes, farms and businesses in military areas while Australians who entered those areas were liable to arrest and severe penalty, will he inform the House of the result of the examination he promised to have made?
If the allegations have been found to be correct, what action does he propose to take to preserve the security of Australia?

Mr Beasley:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. As explained by the AttorneyGeneral in reply to the honorable member’s question on Sth March, certain Italian exinternees have been released for work in north Queensland. In all such cases, the DirectorGeneral of Security was satisfied that the Italians concerned are no longer a security risk. With the changed situation of the war, the high priority given by the Food Production Executive to sugar workers and the acute labour shortage to meet man-power requirements a number of Italians were released from service in the Civil Aliens Corps for engagement in caue, cuttingandat the end of the season were redirected to employment in other avenues of primary production by the manpowerauthorities in north Queensland. It is assumed the second part of the question refers to the Cairns Prohibition Order. If this is so, the prohibition contained therein operates against all persons; thus both Australians and aliens are excluded from returning to the area specified in the Order except under the authority of a permit issued by the Department of the Army. So far as Security Service is concerned, noalien of any description is recommended to the Army for a permit except under circumstances of a compassionate nature, and then only if he is not a security risk.In conclusion, Icanonly repeat the assurance previously given to the honorable member by the Attorney-General, namely, that the first consideration in all these cases is the preservationof the security of Australia.

Australian Army: Equipment. mr. Abbott asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Array, upon notice -

Is it a fact thata message was sent by the Prime Minister to the troops in New Guinea that they could speak their minds freely to the Acting Minister for the Army on his recent visit to the northern battle areas ?
Is ita fact that when SenatorFraser arrivedatLae he was several hours late? 3.Is ita fact that there were approxi mately 300 soldiers waiting to speak to him? 4.Is it a fact that the Acting Minister stopped, said he was very late and very weary, spoke to one soldier and went on his way?
If so, is this carrying out either the letter or the spirit of the Prime Minister’s message ?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

n. - The Acting Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers : -

Yes.
No. My time-table was regularly adhered to throughout the whole period” with the exception of my visit to Lae when, because of following winds for the journey from Atherton to Nadzab which is the airport for Lae, I arrived half an hour ahead of my schedule and, on the arrival of the general officer commanding the First Australian Army, we proceeded immediately to his head-quarters at Lae for lunchaccording to schedule.
No. During the whole period of my tour special or formal parades were not held and no formal gatherings of soldiers to meet me were arranged in advance ofmy visit to any area. I have no knowledge of there being 300 or any lesser number of soldiers waiting to speak to me at Lae, and if there had been, J would certainly have been glad to have spoken with them.
No; there is no truth whatever in this. At no time during my visits to Lae or any of the operational areas was any such reply, or any reply evenapproaching it, given by me to any soldier.I have the interests of the soldiers far too muchat heart to treat them in such a way.
At all places visited by me I carried out to the best of my ability the spirit and the letter of the Prime Minister’s message. If I did not see every soldier in these areas, as the honorable member evidently thinksI should have, it was because this was physically impossible, hut I did see as many soldiers as I possibly could in every area I visited.

It may he of interest to the honorable member to know that Laeis the head-quarters and the mainbase of theFirst Australian Army and cannot, by the greatest stretch of the imagination,be deemed to be a battle area. The northern buttle areas referred to by the honorable memberare: New Britain, 375 miles distant from Lae; Solomons, 550 miles distant from Lae; Aitape, New Guinea, 450 miles distant from Lae.

My main purpose in visiting Lae was to confer with the general officer commanding First Australian Army, and immediately after lunch on myarrival at Lae I was in conference with him for some hours. Subsequently. I visited a number of the base units including the hospital and conferred with the men. J also visited the Men’s Club at the time of the evening meat and spoke to a number of men there and subsequently visited the members of the Australian Army Nursing Service.I have no apologies to make for my activities at Lae or any other area which I visited.I consider that, in comparison with men serving in actual battle areas, the men at the base at Lae are reasonably well off and should have little cause for complaint.

Legal Services: Briefing of Counsel

Mr White:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

;White asked the Acting AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

In how many instances since the present Government came into office in October, 1941. has the Government briefed counsel who were returned soldiers? 2.Inhow many instances were nonreturned soldiersbriefed?
What are the names in each instance, giving the number of times briefed?

Mr Beasley:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : - 1-3. In the case of briefs to members of the Junior Bar, returned soldiers are briefed very freely but it would involvea very lengthy research to ascertain the number of returned soldiers and non-returned soldiers, respectively, briefed by the Commonwealth in the various States during the past three and one-half years. So far as the Senior Bar is concerned, regard is had primarily to the suitability of the particular counsel for the ease involved. If the question has been asked with a view to eliciting whether there has been any discrimination against returned soldiers, I can assure the honorable member that there has been no discrimination whatever.

Butter andcheese.

Mr Bernard Corser:

r asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

Will the increasedprice for butterand cheese to be charged to Great Britain under the new agreement provide an increase in price to producers orbe used to reduce the Australian Government subsidy to the industry?
Was this subsidy used to offset partly the low fixed price at which butter is sold in Australia?

Mr Scully:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The added export value available under the long-term agreement with the United Kingdom will be used to offset the Government subsidy commitments to the industry.
The subsidy is paid to bring the over-all net return to factories to196s. 7d. per cwt. butter, which on the industry’s submission of March, 1944, is the figure namedas calculated to return1s. 7.3d. per lb. (commercial butter equivalent) to the dairy-farmer.

Meat Industry : Supplies for Great Britain : Rationing

Mr White:

e asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen the statement attributed to Sir Thomas Gordon, representative in Australia of the British Ministry for War Transport, that he did not foresee any shortage of shipping for meat cargoes for some months from Australia to the United Kingdom?
In view of the critical meat supply situation in Britain, will he consider the introduction of a heavier meat rationing in Australia, to enable more meat to be exported to the United Kingdom?

Mr Curtin:
ALP

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

No. I understand that Sir Thomas Gordon did not make any such statement as suggested by the honorable member.
The Commonwealth Government is carefully watching the position in regard to the general question of meat supplies which have been adversely affectedby reason of drought conditions prevailing in some of the States

Directions have been given for a review of the productionestimates which will be carefully examined by the Government in conjunction with allocations which have already been made this year.

Any announcement concerning action contemplated by the Government as a result of its consideration of the position will be made in due course.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 April 1945, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1945/19450424_reps_17_181/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives24 April 1945

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

PAINTING INDUSTRY IN QUEENSLAND

Mr MAKIN:Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr SMITH:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEASLEY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Menzies:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

ELECTRIC LIGHTING RESTRICTION’S

Mr MULCAHY:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAKIN:ALP

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND SHEARING DISPUTE

Mr FADDEN:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CURTIN:Minister for Defence · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

NEWSPAPERS

Mr FULLER:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:ALP

Mr Rankin:

Mr CURTIN:

Mr BERNARD CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr CURTIN:

Mr CONELAN:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

GROVELY CAMP INQUIRY

Mr DALY:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr GUY:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CURTIN:ALP

QUESTION

PUBLIC SER VICE

Mr CHAMBERS:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEASLEY:ALP

QUESTION

DIVISION OF IMPORT PROCUREMENT

Mr CONELAN:

Mr BEASLEY:ALP

Mr BEASLEY:

QUESTION

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:ALP

Mr Abbott:

Mr CURTIN:

Mr Abbott:

Mr Abbott:

Mr CURTIN:

QUESTION

SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES

Mr BREEN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEASLEY:ALP

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr SPENDER:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DRAKEFORD:Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Spender:

Mr DRAKEFORD:

QUESTION

MR. J.S. TEA SD ALE

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

CURTIN GOVERNMENT

Mr RANKIN:

Mr CALWELL:ALP

House of Representatives
24 April 1945

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr SMITH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEASLEY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAKIN:
ALP

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CURTIN:
Minister for Defence · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister and Minister for Defence · Fremantle · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ABBOTT:
New England