House of Representatives
1 June 1950

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
MR. G. W. A. DUTHIE, M.P
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DEADLOCKS) BILL 1950
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- ME. G. W. A. DUTHIE, M.P
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DEADLOCKS) BILL 1950
- Second Reading
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- The following answers to questions were circulated: - touriststraffic
BANKING

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3576

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr BROWN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I desire to address a question to the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation, and by way of explanation, I point out that the Latrobe Valley development scheme makes provision for a permanent aerodrome on a site that is now privately owned land between Morwell and Traralgon. An aero club at Morwell is at present using a paddock just outside that town which lias been lent to it by a farmer. However, that area has become dangerous as a landing ground for aircraft because the surface is very rough, and the aero club is not prepared to expend any money on levelling it. Will the Department of Civil Aviation consider the advisability of anticipating some of the expenditure that it will incur on the construction of the permanent landing ground in order to make the area suitable for use by the aero club ?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Works and Housing · LP

– I am not familiar .with the matter .to which the honorable gentleman has referred, and the course that I recommend is that the local governing body concerned should apply to the Department of Civil Aviation to despatch an officer to the ar«a for the -purpose of discussing the problem with the various parties who are interested in it. That may be the .simplest approach to the matter..

page 3577

MR. G. W. A. DUTHIE, M.P

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

- Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the honorable member seeking an opportunity to apologize to me?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I am seeking to ask a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Then I cannot see the honorable member.

page 3577

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr CHARLES RUSSELL:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I preface my question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture with the explanation that when the British Government joined with the Australian, New Zealand and South African Governments in the formation of United Kingdom Dominion Wool Disposals Limited, which was known as the Joint Organization, it had a direct and very important financial interest to serve in the orderly marketing of the balance of its purchases under the war-time appraisement plans, totalling 10,000,000 bales. Now, however, the United Kingdom Government has indicated that it will not enter into any post-Joint Organization scheme unless it receives international approval. Does that decision mean that the matter will be referred to the International Wool Study Group? If so, will the Minister advise the House whether the Government is prepared to accept the decision of the International Wool Study Group, seeing that it is composed mainly of consumer countries, with a fair sprinkling of the socialist variety? In view of the fact that with the liquidation of Joint Organization stocks of wool, Great Britain will have no corresponding interest to serve as a participant in a new floor price wool marketing plan designed to protect the interests of wool producers in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, will the Minister advise the House on what basis the United Kingdom Government asks to join the scheme seeing that it is primarily a consumer country? Will he also say whether the Government is prepared to enter into a scheme without Great Britain?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The honorable member has referred to the conference that took place in London early this year be tween representatives of the three woolgrowing dominions and the United Kingdom Government. One outcome of the conference was a suggestion that there might be consultation on a wider basis than that which that conference provided. It was suggested that the most convenient method of consultation would be through the wool studygroup which consists of representatives of the important producing countries and all of the consumer countries. At the present time, the wool industry seeks to express itself with respect to certain aspects of that issue, and in view of the importance of the matter, I believe that I shall be warranted in making a prepared and rather fuller statement on the subject. I shall take the earliest opportunity to do that.

page 3577

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government that Australia’s representative to the Soviet who is now in Australia shall resume his duties at Moscow? Does the Government still consider that the expenditure involved in maintaining such official representation is justified?

Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the first part of the honorable member’s question is “No”. As to the scond part of the question, the increasing cost of upkeep of our embassy at Moscow is a matter which has given me considerable concern, particularly since the recent revaluation of the rouble by the Soviet Government. In the circumstances, I directed that a communication should be sent to the Soviet Embassy in this country making certain suggestions with respect to the costs involved, because it seems to me that we much consider the size and scope of our representation in Moscow from the standpoint of the return we are receiving for the money expended. I have not yet received a reply from the Soviet Embassy on this matter, but as soon as I do so I shall communicate it to the House.

page 3577

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Questions

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Mr. Speaker, I draw yourattention to the fact that up to the present three questions have been asked this morning and on each occasion you have given the call to a member of the Government parties, whilst you have completely ignored a member of the Opposition who has risen to ask a question. In addition, you have intimated that you cannot see one honorable member of this House. I regard that attitude as completely unjustified under any of the Standing Orders. If an honorable member has been guilty of some indiscretion and you feel that he should be corrected, he should be disciplined and the Opposition believes that it is your duty to take such action yourself either directly or by bringing the matter to the notice of the House, thus giving the House the opportunity to form judgment upon your decision. In view of this unwarranted intrusion upon the privileges and rights of honorable members, and I say so respectfully, I now move, under Standing Order 60-

That the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) lie now heard.

Dr EVATT:
Barton

.- In the course of his speech the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald) referred to the incident which occurred last Thursday and criticized the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie). I witnessed what occurred during the debate on the adjournment of the House on that occasion and in my opinion the honorable member for Wilmot did not for a moment challenge Mr. Speaker’s impartiality. What he did. was to ask for an alteration of the- system under which the call was given- for questions. He did not deal with the aggregate number of questions asked but with the method by which members were called. As all honorable members are aware, the important part of question-time is the early part of that period. The aggregate figures concerning members who had been called did nol’ have much to do with the honorable member’s suggestion. The honorable member for Wilmot, as every one knows, is at all times most careful and courteous in his behaviour to all honorable members and to the Chair. If anything has been done that could be complained of by you, Mr. Speaker, or by »ny honorable member, appropriate action should have been taken at the time that the incident occurred. However, no suggestion was then made that the honorable member was out of order. He was not called to order and the heavy penalty of suspension was never suggested, but to-day, as a result of your subsequent action, Mr. Speaker, the honorable member for “Wilmot, although he is entitled to enjoy the ordinary privileges of the House and is able to sit with honorable members, is denied his privileges as an honorable member. That is an unheard of situation and it has caused the Leader of the Opposition to move this motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I realize it.

Mr Rosevear:

– Under what standing order or under what procedure or precedent have you the right in this House to make such a reflection upon an honorable member from the shelter of the chair ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have made the statement and the House is the judge.

Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs and Minister for Externa] Territories · Warringah · LP

– It is exceedingly regrettable on this occasion that so much heat has been shown in the debate about this very important matter. In the first place the question arises as to whether you, Mr. Speaker, have directed a member of this House to attend you in your rooms. I am sure that you will agree with me, sir, that no member of this Parliament should submit to any such direction, and I am glad that your own words have indicated that you did not intend that impression to be conveyed although I must confess that the words. “ He will come to my office “, were very inapt. I can understand an honorable member construing such words as a direction to him to see the Speaker in his room. I do not believe that any honorable member will support the proposition that a member of the Parliament who has been sent to this place to represent a constituency should be told by anybody to report to the Speaker. The Speaker has control of the House here. He can discipline an honorable member for conduct that contravenes the Standing Orders and he can call upon the House to punish any honorable .member for anything that he may have done of that character. Having made those statements, I make an appeal to the honorable member for Wilmot. I do so, not with a desire to gain party advantage, but with a desire to ensure that this Parliament shall work effectively. I have clearly indicated my view that in no circumstances can a Speaker demand that a member of the Parliament see him in his room. Indeed, I go so far as to say that in no circumstances could a Speaker punish an honorable member for refusing to see him in his room. I come now to the fact that the honorable member for Wilmot did make a charge of gross partiality against the Speaker. Both sides of this question have to be studied. If honorable members will view the matter objectively, it must be clear to them that, if a member of the Parliament says that the Speaker has deliberately called upon one side of the House as against the other side so as to give an advantage to the Government side over the Opposition side, that is one of the most serious charges that could be levelled at a Speaker, whose function is to preside impartially over the deliberations of this assembly. It seems to be commonly agreed that such an imputation was made, and the facts establish it beyond any doubt. Therefore, whilst I say that it is wrong for a Speaker to use language that, in my judgment, is indicative of compulsion upon an honorable member to attend him outside the chamber, I contend also that it is equally wrong for an honorable member to make a charge of gross partiality against the Speaker. What I am trying to do is to find ways in which this Parliament may work effectively. I am trying to approach the matter reasonably, and I suggest to the honorable member for Wilmot that, if he would indicate that he withdraws the charge of gross partiality against the Speaker, the incident can be closed and the honorable member can be heard as he ought to be heard. In those circumstances we could get on with the business of the Parliament.

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

– I was seeking to make the point that it would have been simple, and it would have followed the practice that has been adopted by a succession of Speakers, including yourself, sir, for you to have said to the honorable member for Wilmot when he made his statement, “ That is a reflection on the Chair and the honorable member must withdraw it. He will not be in order in pursuing that line, and will resume his seat “. Had the honorable member not accepted correction in that way, as you were entitled to give it, you could have named him. However, I am sure that the honorable member would have discontinued his speech, and resumed his seat, and, generally, would have accepted your direction to him. So I am suggesting deliberately that you followed a harsh line, and not a weak line.

I come now to another matter. It has been suggested that the honorable member for Wilmot should apologize to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker. There may be some reason for that, if you, sir, are prepared to make a humble apology to the honorable member and to the House for the stand that you yourself have taken. I believe that if you are not prepared to do that, members of the Government parties cannot logically oppose the motion. We contend that it protects the rights of not only the honorable member for Wilmot, but of all honorable members. If the motion is determined on party lines, -and if the Government, with its weight of numbers, upholds Mr. Speaker once more, not one but two dangerous precedents will be established. It will be said that Mr. Speaker can direct an honorable member not only to attend him in his rooms, but also to make a statement to the House about that fact on the following, day. The information which has ‘been given about the number of calls that has been granted to members of the combined Government parties and of the Opposition, may be correct. The figures probably are correct, but the point which I wish to make -is -that they are irrelevant to this debate. The honorable member for Wilmot referred to the practice which you had laid down, and you did not immediately exercise your authority to discipline him. Therefore, the honorable gentleman must, in all conscience, be heard.

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National . Service and Minister for ‘Immigration · Higgins · LP

: - Two important issues are involved in this debate, and not one issue, as has been represented by the Opposition speakers. The first important issue is one which they have rightly stressed, and that is the rights which are enjoyed by private members to be called in their turn in this chamber and to put tho. views of their constituents before the Parliament. No’ honorable member in any part of the House would support action which would take away from the private member the rights which he should enjoy. It has been made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) that the Government will protect the rights of the private member against invasion, whether it be by any one outside this Parliament, or even by Mr. Speaker himself. We would not lend ourselves to a situation in which Mr. Speaker, acting beyond the disciplinary powers available to him under the Standing Orders, sought to direct members of the Parliament on what they should do in the manner which has been suggested, but you, sir, by your own statement from the chair, have made it quite clear that such is not the real matter at issue now. It may be that the words which you used on a former occasion were not happily chosen, but, at least, you have said from the chair to-day that what you require, in substance, is some redress for a charge of gross partiality which has been made quite deliberately against you. That is the second issue which is involved in this discussion. The first issue may be the rights and privileges of private members, but the second issue is the authority and impartiality of the Chair. One issue is not less important than the , other is.

This Parliament cannot function unless there is a general .acceptance by honorable members generally, and by Mr. Speaker himself, that the presiding officer maintains authority in the Chair without partiality to one side or the other, to every section vt the Parliament, and to every member of it. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that the impartiality of Mr. Speaker should at all times be maintained, and that when that impartiality is challenged without cause, suitable redress shall be made. Your impartiality was unquestionably chal lenged directly by the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie). I was in the House when the honorable member was speaking, and I heard his statement. He did not put his remarks in the form of a question, but he made direct allegations which had no meaning other than that you had quite deliberately, and acting with partiality to the Government side, denied reasonable opportunities to members of the Opposition.

Dr Evatt:

– And the Minister, himself, did not object .to it at the time.

Mr HOLT:

– I did not object to it at the time because Mr. Speaker dealt with that matter himself. It is not for me or for any other Minister when the Speaker is able to defend his own position to interfere in such circumstances. That is the Speaker’s prerogative and also his responsibility. The honorable member for Wilmot made a clear charge against the ‘Speaker which, on the facts, Mr. Speaker refuted. At that time, the honorable member might have risen and said, in effect, “On the facts you have given me, Mr. Speaker, I see that I was in error and I desire to express regret if I have unwittingly made any allegation of partiality against you “. If we assume that the honorable member felt that he had been affronted at the time by the terms of Mr. Speaker’s comment, or that he felt that Mr. Speaker had gone beyond what was proper in the circumstances the fact remains that the honorable member has had some days in which to take the course that common sense would have suggested to any honorable member. The Speaker is readily accessible, informally, to every honorable member and the honorable member could have gone to him privately - not necessarily to Mr. Speaker’s rooms, if he desired to preserve a point of principle - and said, in effect, “ I desire to express regret for what I said, but I >cannot concede as a matter of principle that you can direct me to attend at your rooms “. If there had been .any misunderstanding in the matter it could have been rectified in that way. It was open to the honorable member for Wilmot also to put his .view through the Leader of the ‘Opposition.

But, whatever may have been the merits of the case so far as the honorable member is concerned, he has done nothing to remedy his position. He has lent himself to a shabby party manoeuvre on the part of the Labour party. I say that deliberately. If the Opposition had made an effort in good faith to remedy the position, it could have been remedied; but the Opposition has not made any such effort. What happened in this House yesterday? Members of the Opposition entered the chamber determined to stage an incident. Normally, from 20 to 30 honorable members opposite would rise when the Speaker called for questions without notice, but yesterday not one of them, except the honorable member for Wilmot, endeavoured to obtain the call. That happened three times, and the Leader of the Opposition, with a great show of moral indignation, then advanced to the table to make his protest. The right honorable gentleman was followed by hie deputy, the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), who had carefully extracted from the Hansard “ flat “ the relevant pages and with his brief in his hand he endeavoured to stage a party stunt. Only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) exposed the tactics that th, Opposition has been adopting in relation to Mr. Speaker. From the moment thai Mr. Speaker was chosen, honorable members opposite have set out to undermine his authority in the chair and have resorted to every manoeuvre in their power in order to discredit him. They have done that not as part of a personal vendetta against Mr. Speaker, out as part of a campaign to discredit the Government. Those are the tactics that the Opposition has adopted.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) have clearly established the point, of principle at issue so far as the Government is concerned. We affirm the principle that we shall not permit any invasion of the rights of private members by the Speaker, or by any one else, and that we shall not lend ourselves to a direction that an honorable member can be disciplined in the Speaker’s private rooms. But you, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear this morning that all that you require from the honorable member is a public expression by him of regret for having made a charge against you which he made deliberately and in public. That is all that you require the honorable member to do, and that is what any honorable member with a sense of fairness and justice after having made an error would do. I hope that the honorable member for Wilmot will be prepared to take the decent and honest course in this matter. I and my colleagues will not lend ourselves to what is merely a party stunt on the part of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Melbourne.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to -

That the question he now put.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. You gave me the call before the Minister had risen to submit his motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is competent for the Chair to accept the motion “ That the question be now put “ at any time, whether an honorable member happens to have the floor or not. I now put the question -

That the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) be now heard.

Mr Ward:

– I rise to order. The question should be -

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already put that question, and I have declared it carried. I have put it once, and I shall not put it again.

Question put -

That the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) be now heard.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - How. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 43

NOES: 59

Majority . . . ‘. 16

In division:

Mr.Ward. - I desire toask you a question, Mr. Speaker.

AYES

NOES

Mr.Ward. - I rise to order. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you refused to accept a motion, submitted under Standing Order 60, “ That the honorable member for Wilmot be now heard “, on the ground that that standing order did not apply to questions. To-day, you have accepted a similar motion as being in order.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr.Ward. - I rise to order. During the division, I pointed out that yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled out of order a motion thathad been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and that today you had accepted a motion in similar terms, and you replied that we may as well have a vote on one thing as another. I want to know whether you will see that that decision is preserved in the records of this House.

SUPPLY. (“Grievance Day.”)

Coal -Poliomyelitis - Immigration -Pensions -ElectricityService.

Question proposed -

That Mr. Speaker do now leave thechair andthat the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

OppositionMembers. - Hear, hear !

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– Several references have been made in the House recently to the development of the Callide Valley coal-field in Queensland. In view of those references I wish to place on record the facts relative to the efforts that had been made by the Government of Victoria to make certain contracts with the owners of the leases on the Callide field. There is apparently a notion in the minds of some honorable members that the Callide field is not receiving the support that it should receive.

Conversation being audible,

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must insist once and for all upon the House maintaining order. Disorderly conduct is becoming excessive. I shall not continue to repeat my warning.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– Advantage should be taken by the State governments interested in the Callide deposits, in conjunction with the Australian Government, of the opportunity to develop the Callide field. I am glad that the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) is present in the House, because I know that he is eager to do everything possible to enable the field to be developed. The statement that the Queensland Government was not approached to conclude contracts covering coal from the Callide field is absolutely incorrect. I propose to state the facts, so that honorable members may be able to make up their own minds about this matter free from politi-cai considerations. When the Victorian Government was short of fuel in 1948’, I, as the responsible Minister of that Government, was- authorized to go to Queensland to ascertain whether I could obtain coal from the Callide field in order to assist the State Electricity Commission to maintain electricity supplies for industry and to provide warmth in tha homes of Victoria during the winter of 1949. I visited the field in July, 1948. The only leases then being worked were those owned by the firm of Wood, Parnell and Julin, and by a man named Neil. The leases owned by the firm to which I have referred were not being developed in a manner that, offered prospects of the. Victorian Government being able to obtain its coal requirements from that source. In addition, the price quoted by the firm was so high that the Victorian Government did not consider a purchase on that, basis. I discussed the matter with representatives of the Queensland Government, including the Premier. It was mutually agreed that as the Queens^ land Government intended, in the early part of 1949, to appoint a coal board to act as arbitrator in relation to price and conditions, it would be better to leave the matter until the board had been appointed. Because it was obviously impossible to arrange for the development of the Callide field and provide loading facilities at the port of Gladstone in time for Victorian requirements for the winter of 1949 to be met, the Government of Victoria decided to obtain coal from overseas countries. Late in September, 1948 an order was placed for 100,000 tons of coal from

India.” The supply of that coal was very largely responsible for the fact that, during the winter of 1949, the fuel position was very much better in Victoria than in other states. The Victorian Government wrote to the Premier of Queensland in January, 1949, stating that as the State Coal Board had now been established it would like to renew discussions and go into the question of a contract for the supply of 200,000 tone of Callide Valley coal each year for three years. We. received a letter from the Premier of Queensland, dated the 3rd March,. 1949, in which he said that the Queensland Government considered that it would be much better if we did not deal through the Queensland Coal Board but dealt direct with the directors of the Callide Valley mine, in which the Government had no direct interest, as its interests were concentrated in the Blair Athol mine. As a result, in April, 1949, after making certain arrangements with the directors of the Callide Valley mine, we gave the management a- preliminary contract for the supply of 30,000 tons of Callide coal. It was only a preliminary contract because we desired to have the coal properly tested. The directors of the mine then asked the Queensland Government for leave to supply that amount of coal to Victoria. Acting on behalf of the Government the Queensland Coal Board said that no coal was to leave Queensland until that State had a. reserve supply of, I think, either 50,000 or 100,000 tons of coal. I am not criticizing the Queensland Government for desiring to accumulate a reserve at that time, when it saw trouble looming, but the fact remains that in March it said that it was not interested and in April, after we had given a preliminary contract for the supply of 30,000 tons, of coal, it would not allow the contract to be proceeded with. As soon as the coa] strike was over we wrote to the Queensland Government and said that we wanted to go ahead with the contract and asked what the position was in regard to future supplies of coal from Callide Valley. In reply the Government, or the Queensland Coal Board, which is the same thing in effect, said that it could not give us any definite date upon which coal would be available, and that it did not know in what quantities it would be able to supply coal. In other words, it said, “ You can have some coal at some time of some quality at some price”. Would any honorable member or anybody who has done business even in a small way have proceeded with a contract of that nature ? Naturally, the answer is “ No “. At that time the Victorian Government had to prepare for the winter that lay ahead, because it is impossible to obtain large supplies of coal at a. moment’s notice. As the Queensland Government could give no definite answer the Victorian Government naturally went ahead and made fresh overseas contracts, not only with India but also with South Africa. The Queensland Government did not show any interest beyond a suggestion that it would be prepared, as I have said, to let us have some coal at some time of some quality at some price. It did not in fact show any interest until the present Government said that it intended to buy coal from overseas and to subsidize Victoria and New South Wales so that more coal mined in New South Wales would ba left for use in that State. Those are the facts of the case. We knew how much coal could be produced from Callide Valley. We even tried to help in the supply of the necessary steel. We had the chairman of the Gladstone Harbour Board down in Melbourne trying to help to obtain equipment. We knew that Gladstone harbour had a depth of 27 feet of water and that Rockhampton had a depth of only 14 feet, but we were not interested in the local squabble. We wanted to help Queensland to develop its own coal-fields. I understand now that the quantity of coal that could be exported to other States from Callide Valley is about 250,000 tons a year. But we cannot be expected to buy coal of 10,400 British thermal units at the same price as coal of 12,000 British thermal units and over.

Mr Riordan:

– Where does the coal with 12,000 British thermal units come from ?

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– It comes from South Africa. Nobody should be expected to make such a contract unless it is a firm contract with an assurance of definite regular supplies coming in every month. I am sure that such supplies could be obtained if a conference of the interested parties were called. I understand that such a conference has been called.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- For some time a very serious epidemic of poliomyelitis has been raging in two States, but the Government appears to be totally unaware of the fact despite the news items about the subject that appear in the press and that are broadcast almost daily. Either the Government is not concerned about the situation or it is powerless to act. Whether or not the Government is aware of the seriousness of the position, its attitude is in keeping with its policy generally on the question of national health. It appears to be fiddling, as Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) is fumbling and dithering around in connexion with the Government’s national health proposals and conferring with certain business and professional interests that may be concerned with their own economic interests, while many people in the community, particularly little children, are suffering. Even grown-ups are victims of the dreadful scourge of poliomyelitis. The Minister may be quite sincere in his desire to devise a practicable national health scheme, but he should not allow himself to be pushed around by those whose main concern is their own economic interests. After all, the health of the community is the Government’s responsibility, and the Government should act fearlessly on behalf of the community irrespective of any vested interest. As evidence of the futility of the Government in this connexion I mention the fact that some months ago the Minister assured the House, in reply to questions asked by honorable members, that a conference of State Ministers of Health, representatives of State Departments of Health and of the Commonwealth health authorities, was to be held, and that poliomyelitis would be discussed in common with other problems. Last April the New South Wales Minister for Health, Mr. Kelly, said that he knew nothing about the matter and had not received any invitation to a conference between State Ministers of Health and Commonwealth authorities for the purpose of discussing poliomyelitis, although he knew that some conference to deal with health matters generally had been proposed. Apparently nothing has come of that conference and the matter seems to have vanished into thin air, like the Minister for Health himself, because he has not been seen in the House for the last week or so.

The matter of dealing with poliomyelitis has apparently been left to various high-minded citizens and bodies. Tn South Australia, where the epidemic lias reached its gravest proportions, a research body has for some time been attempting to discover the cause of, and a cure for, the disease. That body was sponsored by the South Australian Government and various local organizations. A committee was established comprising Dr. Southcott, Dr. Crosby, and Mr. N. S. Stenhouse of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney has been endeavouring to establish an institute of epidemiology. The medical superintendent of that institution, Dr. “Walters, has shown considerable interest in the matter, and Dr. Stanley was recently sent overseas to study methods of treatment and the progress of research in other countries. He has returned to Australia, after finding that re latively little progress has been made overseas, to seek a solution in Australia. The Kenny clinic has been operating for some time at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, but has been slowly strangled because the orthodox medical men in charge of that hospital do not regard it sympathetically, and because patients attending the clinic are being diverted to orthodox medical practitioners. As a result, the Kenny clinic will soon have to close down. The Government’s policy is supposed to be that the Commonwealth will concentrate on research and leave the details of the administration in the hands of local national health authorities. The encouragement of research is an essentia] task for the Australian Government. The machinery for that purpose already exists. There is the National Health and Medical Research Council the province of which is to encourage and assist research into various health matters which I presume include poliomyelitis. The following report appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 20th May:-

The Medical Superintendent of Prince Henry Hospital, Dr. C. J. M. Walters, said last night that an approach to the National Health and Medical Research Council for funds to finance research into poliomyelitis had been turned down flat. He was commenting on Sir Earle Page’s statement on Thursday that proposals to establish an Institute of Epidemiology for research into polio should be submitted to the research council if financial help was required. Dr. Walter.* said it was not the province of those engaged in research to approach the council. It was the council’s job to seek out scientists and research worker? and see what help they needed to carry on their work. Some years ago, when Professor Pratt had sought financial assistance from the council to carry out research into polio, he was refused.

Dr. Walters said the polio epidemic appeared to bc on thu up-grade and not abating as it seemed a few weeks ago. This had been noticed at Prince Henry Hospital, and he thought the same -position applied at the Children’s Hospital. The Acting DirectorGeneral of Health. Dr. H. C. Wallace, said from the number of cases notified the epidemic appeared to he holding a constant level. The notified cases iri the last fortnight were slightly fewer than in the previous two weeks. Metropolitan cases numbered slightly more than country.

Dr. Wallace said there had been about 1,000 cases of polio in the South Australian epidemic and 4.00 here. For an unknown reason, the South Australian death-rate was lower than in New South Wales. Four more cases of polio, bringing this year’s total to 274, were reported to the New South Wales Health Department yesterday. During the same period of last year there were 40 cases. Two of the cases reported yesterday were girls and two were boys. They came from Balldale, Wellington, East Bankstown and Bondi Junction. Their ages were one. six, nine and seventeen years.

Honorable members will note that these cases were reported from very widely separated areas and that young persons in the community were affected. That fact may provide a clue for those who are inquiring into the cause of poliomyelitis. The National Health and Medical Research Council, instead of encouraging the activities of people who are very anxious to inquire into this matter, ismore concerned with immunizing people throughout the community against an epidemic that has not even reached this country. On the 20th May, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, the council recommended a wide programme of vaccination to prevent the introduction of smallpox into Australia. The Herald report stated -

The Council in a report to the Federal Government suggests, as a precautionary measure, vaccination of ‘persons liable to smallpox exposure, with re-vaccination after three years. They would include medical practitioners, health inspectors, hospital, ambulance, airways and overseas shipping companies employees, wharf labourers, taxi drivers, shipping crews, policemen und press reporters. The Council also suggests voluntary vaccination of young children between three months and two years with re-vaccination on entering school. School authorities should he encouraged to ask for vaccination certificates when the child enters school.

It seems that this body which is charged with the responsibility of undertaking research is concerned with having people innoculated against a disease that has not reached our shores, whilst it is not concerned with this one which is raging throughout the community. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to consider re-constituting the Joint Committee on Social Security, which operated for many years under the previous Government and which did good work and made many recommendations that were incorporated in the statutes. That body would be able to explore the various possibilities of throwing light on the cause of poliomyelitis and could encourage research bodies, particularly the Prince Henry Institute of Epidemiology, to investigate practices that are outside the range of orthodox medicine, such as Sister Kenny’s method of treatment and that exercised by osteopaths and chiropractors. Many of these people are doing good work and curing cases of poliomyelitis, but their methods are something that the orthodox medical practitioner will not examine because of the ethics of his profession.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! _ The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for National Development and Minister for Works and Housing · La Trobe · LP

– I wish to address myself to the subject of Callide coal that was raised by the honorable member for Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes). Possibly honorable members are not familiar with the record of the honorable member for Chisholm in matters of this kind but when he was a prominent member of the Victorian Government recently he made continuous efforts to encourage the development of Victorian and Australian natural resources. He was very interested in Callide coal. Callide is one of the great deposits of Australia and is capable of being exploited by open-cutting. The size of the deposit is not yet known with any precision, but it is known that it contains many millions of tons of coal and, I believe, may even contain tens of millions of tons. I have visited both of the open-cuts and have travelled along the road between Callide and Gladstone and I can assure the House that the Government is most anxious’ to co-operate with the Government of Queensland in the development of the coal in that State. Callide is now being developed in two small open-cuts the tonnage from which ha? been very small. The sole market for the coal at present is in Brisbane wher it is used to produce thermal generated power and it seems clear that if Callide is to be developed the principal market? for its output must be sought in Victoria and South Australia.

The Commonwealth is importing about 1,000,000 tons of coal for the Governments of Victoria and South Australia. This is a temporary measure which is intended to bridge the present gap between consumption and production of Australian coal. I assure the honorable member for Chisholm that the Government is actively pursuing the matter of mining Callide coal. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has recently held discussions with the Premiers of South Australia and Victoria and, possibly as n result, the Premier of South Australia with some of his officers, and at least one Minister and officers of the Government of Victoria, are to visit Callide in the course of the next fortnight.

I believe it to be perfectly possible to mine half a million tons of coal a year at Callide without using very extensive equipment. The present market, would absorb much less than that quantity. The costs of production at Callide are now relatively high. The cost of delivering it to the wharf at Melbourne’ is something over five guineas’ a ton because this has been done on a very piecemeal basis. I believe that the coal, is being mined with what is not wholly adequate equipment. It is being taken by road from Callide, a distance of between 50 and 70 miles, to Gladstone in trucks which are largely unsuitable for the job. There is no coal-handling equipment at the Gladstone wharf. Cargoes are shipped from Gladstone to the south intermittently and, consequently, the freight rates are very high indeed. In addition, the Queensland Government is exacting a toll of 5s. a ton on all coal transported by road from Callide- to Gladstone so at present all the cards are stacked against Callide coal.

Mr Thompson:

– How do the British thermal units of Callide coal compare with those of imported coal?

Mr CASEY:

– They are substantially less. The British thermal units of Callide coal are 10,400 whereas those of other imported coal are 11,500 and over. The figures for Indian coal are 11.5 and for South African coal over 12. If the operators of Callide coal are able to get orders for about 250,000 tons a year for southern markets in Victoria and South Australia, [ have no doubt, having been through the figures item by item, that that coal will be delivered for something like £4 a ton, and not £5 5s. 6d. a ton, on the wharf in Melbourne. That is rather more than the cost of New South Wales coal, on a British thermal unit basis, delivered in Melbourne, but the purchase of that coal will greatly improve the condition of industry in the south. I can only hope that the visit of the Ministers of the South Australian and Victorian Governments to Callide will result in orders for coal, not merely for one year but, in order to get this undertaking going on a business-like basis, for two, three or four years ahead. If Callide were to get, orders to a minimum of 250,000 tons a year for three years, the coal could be delivered in Melbourne ‘for very much less than is being paid at present. The road at Callide is being improved, and the Gladstone Harbour Trust is installing adequate modern coal handling equipment at the port of Gladstone which will reduce the cost of coal by 2s. or more a ton. If regular cargoes” are delivered to the south, I am sure that the shipping companies will charge freight rates considerably less than they are’ charging at present. I have high hopes for the Callide field. I know it fairly well personally, and I believe that it is capable of vastly greater development. It is for the four governments,, the Australian, the Queensland, the Victorian and the South Australian, to get together and iron out the relatively small problems involved. If that is done we shall be able to ensure, particularly for the southern States, a large and important additional supply of coal. On the developmental side I am greatly concerned, because coal is the base of our economic pyramid in Australia. That has become apparent over the last twenty years because of the tremendous upsurge of mechanization in secondary and primary industry. Coal is the basic factor in primary and secondary industry. Even those who never see coal are at the present time almost entirely dependent for their livelihood on Australia being possessed of .adequate coal supplies. Callide is one of our important coal-producing areas.

I believe that there is no reasonable doubt that Callide coal is not the best coal in Australia- by a long way. Its properties for steam raising and thermal power raising have been adequately tested in Brisbane. For a considerable time it has been subjected to tests by the experts of the Government of Victoria,, and I believe that its quality is sufficiently high to make it most useful. A big future exists for this field, and 1 hope that the various governments concerned will be able to collaborate on production and distribution of Callide coal in the near future.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- I was pleased to hear the Minister for National. Development (Mr. Casey) say that the Government is anxious to develop the coal-fields of Queensland. It is true that the Blair Athol field contains one of the largest deposits of coal in the world. It is also true that there are enormous deposits of coal at Callide. Recently in this House I raised the matter of the development of Callide coal, and asked that consideration should be given by the Government to the subsidization of coal produced in Australia rather than overseas coal. In answer to a question

I was informed by the Minister that the reason for the proposed importation of 1,000,000 tons of coal was that a gap between, consumption and production in Australia had to be bridged. We know that it will take the best part of twelve months to deliver that 1,000,000 tons of coal to Australia. When the Government was considering this importation, the two operators at Callide offered to supply 200,000 tons- of coal by the end of this year to consumers in the south. That was an offer to supply 200,000 tons of coal in the period during which 800,000 tons was being, brought from overseas, so that 1,000,000 tons would be made available for Australia within twelve months. The landed cost of Callide coal in Melbourne was £5 12s. 6d. a ton compared with £6 6s. 6d. to land South African coal, and £6 10s. to land Indian coal. The subsidy paid by the Government reduced the cost of the South African and Indian coal below that of Callide coal. Without the subsidy, the cost of Callide coal compared more than favorably with the cost of the coal imported from India and South Africa. In addition to that, as the honorable member for Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes) said, the coal from South Africa has a heating value of 12,000 British thermal units, the Indian coal one of 11,500 and the Callide coal one of a little less. As a result of tests by the Brisbane City Council it was found that Callide coal has a heating value of 10,600 British thermal units. Tests made by the Queensland Mines Department showed 10,270 British thermal units, and tests by Gardner and Warner, of Melbourne, showed from 10,400 to 10,600 British thermal units. It will therefore be realized that Callide coal has not much less heating value than has South African or Indian coal’. However, Callide coal has a much lower ash content than Indian coal, the respective figures being

II per cent, and 23 per cent. In addition, Callide coal does not clinker. Therefore, Callide coal compares more than favorably with the coal that is to be brought to this country under subsidization by the Government.

I should’, now like to reply to one or two statements by the honorable member for Chisholm. He said that the Queensland Government did not make the offer to supply Callide coal to Victoria. Although the Labour party was charged, during the general election campaign, with wanting to socialize everything, the honorable member was told by the Premier of Queensland that he should deal directly with the owners of the Callide coal-field. The Queensland Government does not own the coal, it is owned by Wood, Parnell and Julin and by Neil. It should be remembered that the honorable member, when Minister for Transport in a Victorian government, spent some time in Queensland before a trial order was placed for 30,000 tons of Callide coal. That order was given when everybody knew that a coal strike was imminent. At that time the Queensland Premier had the responsibility of ensuring that the Queensland people should have adequate supplies of coal during the crisis. His position would have been precarious if the Queensland people had been short of coal and had known that coal was leaving Callide for Victoria. Also, he was not far from a general election.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– That is exactly what I said.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I agree with the. honorable member, but neither was Victoria far from a general election. The position of the Queensland Premier under those circumstances would have been impossible and intolerable had he not done what he did. An honorable member said recently that the Queensland Government had submitted a bad sample of Callide coal for analysis. That was not true. The State Government has nothing to do with Callide coal. However, it is true that the engineer member of the Queensland Coal Board was present when certain tests were made of a sample of Callide coal that had been submitted by one of the companies that own the coal. Other’ supporters of the Government have said that the State Government should’ provide better transport services for the handling of Callide coal. In reply to them, I need only refer to a statement that was made by the present

Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the 1st December, 1949, which was reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail on the following day. According to my recollection, a federal general election campaign was in progress at that time. The present Prime Minister made the following statement to an audience at the Brisbane City Hall : -

We will nut in a decent transport syste i to replace the primitive set-up now at Callide.

Ohe distribution of electricity in the City of Sydney to more than 1,000,000 people, had sustained a loss of approximately £900,000 on its operations last year.

Mr Haylen:

– Our million dollar baby.

Mr CRAMER:

– A charge of bad man. agement has been made from time to time, against the Sydney County Council.

Mr Davies:

– There is a good deal of substance in that contention, too.

Mr CRAMER:

– The honorable mem ber for Cunningham (Mr. Davies) does not know very rauch about the subject. Statements have been made in this House to the effect that the Sydney County Council is largely responsible for the increased charges for electricity. I should like the Treasurer to provide some information about the representations that were made by the Government of New South Wales to induce the Commonwealth to grant it £3,250,000 in respect of the losses that were caused by the general stoppage on the coal-fields last year. I have a suspicion that the State Government’s claim included the losses that were sustained on the generation of power. It may astonish the House to learn that the losses that were sustained directly by the Sydney County Council in providing electricity for the people during that general strike on the coal-fields amounted to approximately £750,000. In other words, £750,000 of the deficit of £900,000 on last year’s operations was directly attributable to that strike. As a result of those losses, the Sydney County

-Because T think that the McGirr Government could ,h .9,up (taken titan ger measures £to .’ensure that labour should be provided for .the (purpose of installing that equipment. What I emphasize is the injustice of imposing upon consumers of electricity an Sydney the obligation <of meeting the additional costs that >were incurred solely ‘as “-a result of the coal strike. Their quarterly accounts Raw include amounts :in respect :of ‘those -coats. Those honorable members who have criticized the .-Sydney County Council -in (this matter do mot .know -the facts. I .am ,not mow telling die whole -story because there -is much moye of it that would .he -of interest to -the House. A’t this juncture., J ;am dealing specifically with .the costs that were incurred in maintaining electricity supplies in Sydney during a period of national emergency, and no individual ‘‘body, <such as ‘the

Sydney -County ‘Council, should ‘be obliged to bear the whole -of the burden -that was thus “tin-own -upon ft. However, that was done deliberately in an attempt to ‘lower its prestige and ‘in -order to -provide *the Premier of 2vew “‘South Wales with a [pretext for “fire establishment of the “socialist organization -that his ‘Government ‘now proposes to set up. T hope that the people tff Sydney Who ‘have suffered ‘sufficiently by reason of the .actions :o’f that Government will withdraw their support .from it in order to .prevent .thu proposed organization from ‘being established.

Mr SPEAKER:

– .Order.! IT-he honorable .member?s time has expired.

CURTIN ‘(Watson)) ‘[12.32.1.- I support the remarks .that ‘have been made by the honorable member for West Sydney fix Minogue”) .in ‘h’is appeal- to the Government to liberalize its treatment of age, invalid and widow pensioners, who now receive ‘a miserable -pension of £2 2s 6d. a .week. Every honorable mern.ber ‘-will .agree ..that that .-sum is mot sufficient %o enable pensioners ‘to purchase the bare necessaries of life. The position of that section o’f .the community has been aggravated by the vicious ‘spiralling of costs, particularly .since -the present ‘Government assumed office. .Pensioners are obliged to purchase medicines, whilst those mile rase ^confined (to ‘their beds, or are unable ‘to (receive -treatment in hospital, have ‘Jio alternative but “to receive medical ^treatment -at home. Recently, (however, .doctors -increased their consultation :fee from 10s. ‘to 12s. -6d. a wee”k. In ‘addition, ‘pensioners are -obliged to meet the cost of ‘any medicines that their doctors ‘m-a-y prescribe. “Such ‘costs 1,eD Fesent <a substantial ^proportion -of the present rate ‘df pension. Despite ;ihe rentreaties Shaft -the pensioners ‘have made to the ^Government to grant them relief -ihe ‘Government ‘is procrastinating in ‘the “introduction of its proposed ‘national -health =scheme. For months ‘past the Minister for Health T Sir Earle lp age,) has »been conferring with this masters, the -members of ‘the British ‘Medical Association. At the -same time, ‘the friendly -societies are endeavouring ‘to take control of -the proposed -scheme under which -doctors ‘will ‘be permitted ‘to increase -their consulting “fees still -further.

Mr Osborne:

– Is the honorable membar opposed to friendly societies?

Mr CURTIN:

– I am a member of a friendly society. I am aware that within the last few yea’rs the friendly societies have increased their dispensary fee by as much as 200 per cent., whilst, at the same time, they are not dispensing nearly so much medicine as they used to dispense. How* ever, many medicaments required by pensioners are not obtainable at dispensaries that are controlled by friendly societies. For instance, sulphanilamide tablets which cannot be obtained at such dispensaries are sold by private chemists who charge move than friendly soeietie’9 dispensaries would charge for them. The cost of medicines and medical treatment represents a considerable proportion of the present amount of pension and leaves very little to pensioners with which to purchase the ordinary necessaries of life. Therefore, T urge the Government to provide assistance immediately for this section of the community. Numerous questions have been, asked by the Opposition upon this matter, but all our inquiries have merely been referred to- the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden). Apparently, we shall not know the Government’s- intention, until the budget is’ introduced next September. Consideration of> the budget willi involve a further d.ela.y of gome months,, and in. the meantime the pensioners must continue in desperation in their efforts to make ends meet.. Of course, honorable members are ku’ more fortunate circumstances.. No strain is placed upon us in having to attend in this air-conditioned chamber. Many honorab’e members’ are inclined to become complacent and to forget,, or ignore,, the plight of less fortunate sections oi. the community. Muck haw been saia in this House in recent, weeks about adequate Goal supplies.. I have no doubt that the average’ pensioner would like very much, to be able to afford to purchase a ton of coal, but they need more urgently food,, clothing, and medicines.

I appeal to supporters of the Government to1 be a. little more humanitarian and to show more; regard for pensioners in. the plight, m which” they naui themselves.. We have been informed that the

Government does not intend to provide relief to pensioners under its Social services legislation. At the same time, it proposes to introduce a national health scheme on a contributory basis. I urge the Government to explore the possibilities of providing medicines and medical attention free to pensioners under that scheme. Indeed, I urge it tc> go further and to provide free to pensioners such comforts as tobacco. That is not too much to ask on behalf of the aged who have pioneered this young country”. Furthermore, the? present rate of pensions is not sufficient to enable recipients to attend entertainments or sporting fixture’s at week-ends. In the larger cities it is net unusual to see many age pensioner’s playing dominoes awd draughts in public parks. Surely they ave entitled to a greater measure of recreation The G6vernment contributes only a miserable pittance of- £10 tO-wards the” cost of burial of pensioners”. Invariably, undertakers accept that sum” merely as a deposit and many refuse to carry out burials until relatives- of the deceased scrape- up the balance’ of the cost,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order E The honorable member’s- tin&e”> has” expired.

Mr DAVIDSON:
Dawson

.- In the few minute’s that remain’ tff tie time allowed foi- this deb-ate I wish to present certain facts regarding- the development of the Callide coal-field to which’ several’ honorable’ members Save referred- daring the last few days7. The matter was” raised by the- honorable member for Kennedy (Mr.- Riordan ) on the motion for the adjournment on Tuesday evening. It was obvious from his extravagant and inaccurate statements that he wa’s not concerned1 about the development of the field, but had raised the matter solely in order to- make party political capital. He attempted to lay at the d’oor of the Government the blame fo’r’ the! fact that the field- has not been properly developed. The honorable- member for Capricornia- (Mr. Pearce) immediately replied- to« him- so” effectively that the honorable- member fo’r Melbourne (.Mr. Calwell)’ was- obliged to come to the defence of his colleague. However; the honorable member for’ Melbourne displayed complete lack- of knowledge of- the facts. After” indulging in cheap personal sneers at the expense of the honorable member for Capricornia,he made the amazing charge against the Government that it had some devious plan to hand over the field to private enterprise. I point out that right from its inception the Callide coal-field has been worked by private firms, and that it has not been subject to any form of government control apart from the prohibition that the Queensland Government imposed upon the exportation of coal from that State. This morning the honorable member for Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes) revealed the real cause of the hold-up of the development of the field. The point I make is that regardless of whether the Queensland Government has acted rightly, or wrongly, in prohibiting the export of coal from. Queensland, the fact remains that ifth at prohibition had not been imposed the Callide field would now be supplying coal to the Victorian Government at the rate of 200,000 tons a year. Therefore, the blame in this matter must be laid at the door of the Queensland Government. Difficulties have also arisen in respect of the. transport of the coal from the field to the coast.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The time allowed for this debate under Standing Order 291 has expired.

Question resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3600

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DEADLOCKS) BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 31st May (vide page 3505), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr.FRASER (Eden-Monaro) [2.15]. - This bill proposes to obviate deadlocks between the House of Representatives and the Senate after a double dissolution. That purpose is admittedly very important. There is certainly need for some measure of this kind. In the world to-day thereis a formidable challenge to the system of parliamentary government.We defend that system ; we believe it to be better than any other. As its champions our duty is to see that the system is workable and that it works, because the parliamentary system needs public confidence and public respect if it is to survive. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Downer) warned us of the dangers in the recent decline of public respect for the institution of parliament. He reminded us that in many other countries people have been influenced to surrender their parliamentary institutions. That has been due, as he said, partly to the fact that the parliamertary institutions in those countries showed themselves incapable of taking courageous, prompt and unorthodox action when such action was required.

The honorable member, who is the son of one of the fathers of federation, spoke yesterday thoughfully and informatively on this subject. He warned us that we stand in danger of losing our parliamentary institutions in Australia, and that what has happened elsewhere can happen in this country. That, of course, is a powerful reason for removing defects which we discover in the working of the parliamentary machine. It is clearly a defect that a. double dissolution may perpetuate rather than resolve a deadlock between the two Houses. The purpose of a double dissolution is to end such a deadlock. The proportional representation system of the Senate demonstrably will result in a chamber containing 30 Labour members and 30 non-Labour members after a dissolution. That is unless one side or the other obtains at least 55 per cent. of the formal votes cast in at least one State. Political history shows how rarely that happens. The government of the day could have no assurance of the passage of legislation transmitted to such an evenly divided chamber by the House of Representatives, and, equally, the Opposition would lack the numbers to amend government legislation. That position is established by the provision in the Constitution that equal voting in the Senate means the defeat of the question.

When the last Parliament debated and altered the law relating to the method of Senate voting, no member of the Parliament directed attention to this consequence. The remarkable byproduct of proportional representation - that it might destroy the value of a double dissolution - waa not discussed in the Parliament. A correspondent of the Melbourne Age directed attention to the position early in January last. He was the first person I know of to do so. Shortly after the publication of his comments I gave a public address on this problem, and it was interesting to me to hear the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) devote his maiden speech to it. There can only be widespread regret that the honorable member has not been able to maintain in this House the high level and content of that opening address. Possibly the present period of chastening which he is now undergoing will have a salutary effect. “ For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth “, though how the Lord manages to love the honorable member for Mackellar may be beyond human comprehension. In one phase of his remarks on this- subject the honorable member fell from the very high note he set himself. I refer to his accusation that the previous Labour Government deliberately brought about the position with which we are now confronted for its own future political advantage. That charge has been repeated during the debate on this bill. It is easy to demonstrate its absurdity. A Labour government, equally with any other government, needs a method of breaking Senate deadlocks. The Scullin Government suffered disastrously at the hands of a hostile Senate. If the present position remains unremedied, and if a double dissolution no longer resolves a deadlock between the two Houses, a future Labour government may again suffer equally disastrously. Do not honorable members who make this charge of bad faith on the part of the .Labour Government realize that in fact they are also making a charge against the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) ? The Opposition is particularly charged in the Parliament with the duty of examining carefully all legislation and of publicly exposing its defects. Do honorable members opposite, when they in ako this charge, say that the Homer from Kooyong nodded, or that he saw the defect and concealed it for his party’s political purposes? All such suggestions are unworthy and have no place in the present debate. It is agreed that a defect exists and it should be remedied in the interests of the smooth working of the parliamentary system. But surely no one claims that the bill deals with the only defect, or that the method proposed in this bill is the only way to overcome it.

Mr FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am grateful to the honorable member for his interjection. Surely, since it is necessary to employ all the complicated and expensive machinery of constitutional change, there should first be most careful consideration before deciding what proposed change should be submitted to the people. And surely, since experience shows the practical impossibility of obtaining the consent of the people to an alteration of the Constitution which is opposed by a major political party, every effort should first be made to obtain agreement between the parties on the nature of the change to be submitted to the people. Let me deal first with the latter aspect - that every effort should first be made to obtain agreement between the parties. That should not be impossible because this is a matter which equally affects the interests of all political parties. All of them are equally interested in the working of the democratic system. The holding of a constitutional referendum is arduous and expensive. A widespread campaign is necessary to bring the matters surrounding the proposal to the attention of the voters. The voters are required to give the proposal careful and detailed study. The cost of holding a referendum might well be approximately £200,000. Yet experience shows that referendum proposals are almost certain to be defeated unless both sides in politics agree on the terms of the change to be proposed and. join in recommending it to the electors of this country. What effort has been made on this occasion to obtain agreement between the parties on the terms of this proposed change? No effort has been made at all. On the contrary, the Government and its publicists, even prior to the presentation of the bill to the House, created an advance atmosphere calculated to diminish the prospects of obtaining agreement on the proposal and, indeed, to arouse active hostility to it. What other meaning can be attributed to the advance heralding of this bill as “ A secret weapon to dish the Labour party “, and “ A bombshell to burst in the Labour caucus during the consideration of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill”? A number of such references were made before the measure was presented to the Parliament and before honorable members on this side of the House had any knowledge of what it contained.

Mr Failes:

– By whom?

Mr FRASER:

– It is useless to say that those statements were not ministerially inspired.

Government members interjecting,

Mr FRASER:

– I happen to know that they were directly inspired by Ministers. They were openly so inspired. No secret was made of the source of their inspiration. As a matter of fact, they were gloried in, no matter how foolish they sound now and. how much they may be regretted by those who inspired them.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) has no authority for saying that the statements to which he has referred were inspired by anybody.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not notice the statement to which the honorable member has taken exception.

Mr FRASER:

– I said, Mr. Speaker, that before this bill was presented to the Parliament statements were made that it was a “A secret weapon to dish the Labour party “, and “ A bombshell to burst in the Labour caucus during the consideration of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill “. I characterized those statements as having been ministerially inspired.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No honorable member opposite can possibly know whether or not they were ministerially inspired. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro has no authority for making such an assertion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I cannot see any statement in the remarks of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that should be withdrawn. He is entitled to express his opinions. Honorable members opposite are capable of expressing their own opinions in reply.

Mr FRASER:

– I repeat that the statements were openly inspired by Ministers. They were gloried in, no matter how foolish they sound now and how much they might since be regretted.

The moving finger writes, and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your piety nor wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line

Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

Nevertheless, I suggest that it is not too lute for the Government to repair the mistake that it made on that occasion. I do not think that that mistake was anything more than a mistake of political tactics. The honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) has, I understand, been recently promoted from the position of assistant witch hunter on the Government side to that of deputy chairman on the applause committee. I do not think, however, that even that honorable member would care to assert that his beloved leader is a master of political strategy or of human relations. The Government still has the obligation to endeavour to obtain agreement between the parties on the proposal that is to be submitted to the people.

The other prerequisite for a constitutional change, with which I suggest that members of this House would generally be in agreement, is that before the proposal is submitted to the electorate there should be most careful consideration of its nature. The widest possible field of public discussion and thought should first be invited. That has been done in respect of other proposals for constitutional changes in former times, as was convincingly stated by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) yesterday. For reasons which it is very difficult indeed to fathom, that course has not been followed in this instance. The course pursued has been the exact reverse. Far from this constitutional measure being first thrown open for the widest possible discussion and for the assistance of the most expert minds on constitutional change, it was kept a complete secret from the Parliament until the very day of its introduction in the form of this measure. I do not know to what extent honorable members on the Government side were taken into consultation about the details of the proposal before the bill was presented to the House, but I do know that not the slightest opportunity was given for a general discussion of the nature of the measure, such as the Government should, have permitted and initiated long before the bill itself was presented.

The second extraordinary feature in the bill is that so far from it being the product of the best minds in the community capable of dealing with a question’ of constitutional reform, it is wholly the fruit of the mind of one man only. That man is himself not an elected representative of the people and is- not entitled to speak for anybody except himself. I have no doubt that he is a very worthy gentleman. An honorable member asks what evidence I have that the bill is the idea of only one man. On the day on which this bill was finally presented to the House the gentleman in question gave a press interview in Melbourne, in which he stated that the bill was, bolus bolus, his work, and that he was astonished to find that he had received no tribute or acknowledgment from the Government for that work. He later received a telegram from the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey), the contents of which were also published. The Minister telegraphed him in these terms, “ You should be a proud man to-day on the presentation of this measure to the Parliament”. So be should be a proud man, when a bill that is solely the product of his mind is to be adopted by the whole of this Parliament as the very best proposal for the reform of the Senate that the combined wisdom of the Parliament can submit to the people of Australia. I suggest that the Government itself should not be proud of having adopted and presented to the Parliament a proposal for constitutional reform that is the product of the mind of one man only.

It is clear from the structure of the bill that the proposed change has not been well considered. Nobody will deny that some change along the lines suggested is desirable, but I consider that nobody would caTe to assert that this is the best form of change that could be evolved.

No opportunity has been given for consideration and consultation regarding the proposal. The honorable member for Fremantle yesterday very clearly pointed to a number of weaknesses in this measure. The proposed change, if adopted by the people, would provide a means to enable the Government to face a double dissolution without throwing away the advantage of a majority in the Senate, which it would otherwise possess after the general election in 1952 unless the Labour part carried every one of the six States at that general election. It is a legitimate charge against the bona fides of the Government in this matter that it has so framed this legislation as to endeavour to preserve for itself the advantage of an almost certain majority.

Secondly, the reform proposed does not touch the vital question of Senate by-elections, which was dealt with veT adequately by the honorable member for Fremantle yesterday. The Government has produced no answer at all to the Opposition’s charge that the reason why it is not dealing with the vital question of Senate by-elections is that the present method enables it to control the election of a senator at a by-election in four States out of the six. The Government should face up to that position if it desires the support of this side of the House for this constitutional reform, and should be prepared to advance a reasonable proposal to the people.

.- The object of this bill is to enable the country to be governed according to the provision of the Constitution and to remove the deadlock which has arisen as the result of the legislation that was passed by the Labour Government last year. This question arose prior to the achievement of federation. Those great men who framed our Constitution realized that if we were to have an Australian Constitution which would work there must be some means of resolving deadlocks. There must be some means of enabling the will of the people to prevail. So, for weeks men drawn from every part of Australia devised ways and means of preventing a deadlock between the two Houses of the Parliament. Eventually’ they arrived at a means of doing that which was incorporated in the Constitution and which worked satisfactorily until last year when the Labour party caused to be passed an alteration of the electoral bill which for all practical purposes has the effect of blocking the safety valve of the Constitution, and of destroying the very provision which enabled the Constitution to work. It destroyed the means of resolving deadlocks and it will enable the Senate to flout the will of the people. It is interesting to review the debates which took place in 1897 and 1898 which dealt with this very problem and to realize that this is not something that is merely incidental to the Constitution. It is something upon which the whole existence of the Constitution is based. The Honorable J. H. Carruthers, at page 543 of the Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention is reported as having said -

It would be a terrible state of affairs in future if we provided a Constitution so rigid that unconstitutional means would have to be adopted by the people to give expression to their wishes.

At page 544 of this record the same gentleman is reported as having said -

I fear, there will be a conservative opposition . to any proposal for providing against deadlock.

To-day, the conservative party - the Labour party - is resisting this bill which is designed to enable the people’s will to prevail. In other words, the Labour party which has. truly assumed the role of the tory and conservative parties is trying to block the will of the people.

Mr FRASER:

– We want to improve the measure.

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WILSON:

– The Labour party has been a conservative party for a long time and that is why the Liberals are opposed to it. Dr., later Sir John, Quick, who is well-known for his famous work on the Constitution, is reported at page 551, from which I am quoting, as having said concerning the official record, the conditions upon which federation was brought about -

There are three great conditions upon which 1 have been for some time past advocating federation, and upon which I have been prepared to advocate it here and support it in the country. The first condition is that the parliament of this federation should be elected upon a popular basis, and I should not be willing to accept any federal legislature which was not created upon the vote of the people. The second condition is that the senate of this federal parliament should not have the power of amending money bills, and the third is that there should be provision in this constitution for the settlement of disputes and deadlocks between the two houses.

Honorable members will see that deadlocks were a vital question when federation was being discussed. Unless the framers of the Constitution had been able to devise ways and means of removing deadlocks there would have been no federation. Sir Frederick Holder likened the Constitution to the creation of a machine by an engineer. At page 559 of the official record he said -

He would be mad, indeed, who spent much time in designing an engine, who left out of his consideration a safety valve which would provide for that machine doing its work and continuing to exist once it was made.

Every one of the speeches of the framers of the Constitution on this matter indicated, agreement that no Constitution would work unless there were some way of resolving a deadlock between the two Houses. The only alternative way for the people to implement their wishes would be an overthrow of the Constitution by unconstitutional means. The opposition of the Labour party to this bill is really an advocacy of the overthrowing of the Constitution by force. As it has become apparent that there is no other way of solving the problem, honorable members on this side of the House believe that the Constitution must be amended to enable deadlocks to be resolved.

The honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Eraser) admits the weakness in the Constitution. He clearly and frankly admitted that the Constitution is defective. If the Constitution is defective it is not only the right, but also the duty, of this Parliament to remedy the defect and it should not delay that action until the damage has been done. That is why this bill has been introduced.

Mr Bird:

– The procedure set out in the bill is> not the only method of remedying the defect.

Mr WILSON:

– The honorable member says that it is not the only remedy. If he has a better remedy this is the place where it should be explained. Let him come forward with an amendment. The object of this measure is to remedy the obvious defects that now exist in the Constitution. The only opposition which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro raised was that the Government’s proposal was not the only remedy. He did not state what his remedy was. However, this bill does provide a remedy. It is a means of resolving the deadlock and it has been put forward for consideration in order that honorable members may either oppose it or bring forward an alternative and convince the House that they have a better remedy for achieving the same purpose. The honorable member says that this is not the only defect in the Constitution. He is not prepared to support the bill which will have the effect of remedying the obvious defect because, he says, there may be other defects. I say that this bill is designed to solve the real problem. Let us meet that problem quickly and in a practical way. The honorable gentleman says that a referendum should not be held because it would be expensive. I say that the rights of the people are more important than anything else. At the present time the people have been deprived of the right to self government for the reason that a deadlock makes their will entirely invalid, not only for one year, but also in perpetuity. The honorable gentleman also said that there has not been any effort to achieve agreement. The proper place to introduce legislation is in this House and not at some caucus or Australian Council of

Trades Unions meeting. The Government has introduced this legislation in this House where the representatives of the people are present and it asks them to agree to this bill or, if they have any suggestions or amendments to make, to bring them forward. Honorable members on this side of the House would like to hear them because they want to solve this problem and would like to have the co-operation of the Labour party in doing so.

The honorable member made a most extraordinary statement to the effect that this bill was kept secret. Suggestions have been made that members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties did not know anything about it. That statement is absolutely false and I suggest that it was made recklessly by the honorable member and without any belief in its truth. I knew all about this bill before it was introduced and. as far as I know, every other member of the Liberal and Australian Country parties knew all about it. Now the Government has introduced it and is informing the Labour party members all about it and inviting their support and. co-operation. Unfortunately, honorable members of the Opposition cannot understand the difference between their principles and those of the Government parties. Our principle is that the House of Parliament is the proper place in which to introduce and discuss legislation. Honorable members of the Opposition seem to think that legislation should be introduced at an Australian Council of Trades Union or a caucus meeting and that once those bodies have made their decision members of Parliament should simply be rubber stamps for the purpose of endorsing it. Liberal party members have rights and responsibilities and they consider that this is the place to discuss bills. It is utter nonsense to suggest that this is a secret weapon or an atomic bomb. The only factor that has annoyed some people is that Liberal party members, when told things, do not blab them about the lobbies of the Houses of Parliament. Members of the Government parties, when they are given information, act on it in the proper place, which is this House, and if members of the Labour party were annoyed because they did not know about this measure earlier, it is very nice to know that there are some people who are able to keep a confidence.

The honorable member also complained that this bill was a product of one man’s mind. I suggest that everything is originally the product of one man’s mind, but the Government parties are not too proud to take advice and assistance from any humble citizen of this country, and if it was a humble citizen of Victoria, as some honorable members opposite have suggested, who put forward this scheme for resolving a deadlock, I congratulate him because it is a mighty fine scheme for the curing of the serious defect which the honorable member says is in the Constitution at the present time.

Mr Curtin:

– Was it a scheme’ or a dream ?

Mr WILSON:

– The honorable member for Eden-Monaro shows a much more intelligent approach to this problem than does the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Curtin). The honorable member for Eden-Monaro admitted that this was one means of resolving a deadlock. His objection was that it was not the only means of doing so and did not go far enough. I think that other honorable members should attempt to make intelligent observations on this matter, which is vital to our constitutional system, instead of trying to be clowns. If this question had not been resolved when the Federal Convention met there would not have been an Australian Constitution to-day. Unless we do resolve the difficulty there will not be an Australian Constitution in the near future because sooner or later one of the Houses of Parliament will start to flout the will of the people and then continue to do so. If that occurs there will be no way of resolving the deadlock. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) spoke at great length about proportional representation. He claimed the credit of being the person who introduced it into this House and of eventually piloting it through to the statute-book. If proportional representation is to work properly, this amendment must be made. It is the system of proportional representation which has created the deadlock, and if it is to continue as the form of voting for the election of senators, then it must be made effective. It is perfectly obvious at the present time that so far as a double dissolution is concerned, voting by the existing system of proportional representation for the Senate can only create a deadlock and thereby destroy the spirit of the Constitution. I suggest that if the advocates of proportional representation really want the system to be given a fair trial they should be prepared to assist in making it work. We are trying to make it work by this 1.leisure. The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) asked why the framers of the Constitution provided that half the senators should retire at intervals of three years?” He then went on to suggest that the framers of the Constitution almost deliberately sought to create a deadlock. The idea of those who drafted the Constitution was that one of the functions of the Senate is to prevent hasty legislation. Therefore, they thought it a good thing that only half the senators should retire each three years. Under that system of retirement hasty legislation would be avoided because opinions would be put forward that had been considered over a reasonable period of time. However, the framers of the Constitution did not leave the Senate with the power to permanently block legislation; they provided a safety valve. That safety valve was provision for a double dissolution under which the people themselves could remedy the evil by turning out the obstructing senators. We must restore the position to what it was at the time of federation, because we still want to prevent hasty legislation. We want mature consideration of matters before the Senate, but at the same time we must have a safety valve so, that if either House becomes obstructive the matter may be put to the people and the views of the people will then prevail. I commend this bill to the House and I shall personally welcome any suggestion that might improve it. However, it seems to me that this is a very simple amendment; it is one which merely allows the electors to decide themselves which senators shall hold office for three years and which shall hold office for six years. The effect of that alteration would be that there would never be equal numbers in the Senate except under the most improbable circumstances.

Mr Curtin:

– It could occur.

Mr WILSON:

– I suppose it could happen whatever safeguards are provided. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has already pointed out to the House, after this bill is passed it will be most improbable that the Senate, at any time, will be composed of an equal number of representatives from the two opposing political groups. Whereas at present, under the system of proportional representation and with the Senate composed as it is to-day, it is almost a certainty that after a double dissolution a deadlock will occur. This bill will enable the system to work. It will provide a safety valve and ensure that the will of the people will eventually prevail. It is most extraordinary to hear Labour and socialist, members trying to prevent the wishes of the people from being put into effect. I know that they did it during the last three years of office of the Chifley Government-

Mr Edmonds:

– The honorable member said a while ago that we on this side of the House were conservative.

Mr WILSON:

– Unfortunately, the members of the socialist party have become not only conservative but ultra-tory. They have refused’ to allow any change to suit the people, even a change to make the Constitution work. The Liberal party is a progressive and dynamic party. It wants to create a constitution which will work, and it wants the will of the people to prevail. That is why we put forward this bill. It is a means of resolving a deadlock between the two Houses, and therefore is a means of allowing the people to decide whether legislation is suitable or not.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The contribution of the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) to this. debate relative to deadlocks with the Senate is most interesting inasmuch as he pleaded for the removal of the possibility of such deadlocks and gave various reasons why this measure should be accepted. He said that it will create harmony between the two Houses of the Parliament. He also said that honorable members on this side of the House are conservative and must be won over by the fierce radicalism of the Government to do something so desperate and revolutionary that it will quicken the pulse of the people of this nation. He believes that this legislation is necessary to ensure sane and well-ordered government. I agree that there is a considerable problem relative to the Senate, but I remind the honorable member for Sturt that his fears and protestations are about twenty years too late. In 1930, the will of the government was frustrated by the Senate in regard to legislation that affected the lives and happiness of the whole of the people of this nation. At that time, no anti-Labour voice was heard advocating liberalism and progressive thought because the anti-Labour parties gloried in the political opportunities given to them by the Constitution. They gloried in the opportunity to frustrate the will of the Labour Government led by Mr. Scullin. Pleas for mrecy from that Government were unheeded. The plea dealt with was no ordinary matter of government. It related to legislation designed to deal with the most desperate crisis that had ever occurred within living memory in Australia, and, in fact, in the world - the depression. The honorable member has spoken about virtue and trust and the necessity to approach thi? matter with a liberal mind. History has proved, particularly the history of events in 1930-31, that the party he represents did not think so at that time. I. also include the members of the Australian Country party in that remark. They snuggle up to the Liberal party and are known as the “kiss, kiss, kiss in the corner “ group. Their attitude was the same as that of the Nationalist party during 1930-31. If the conservatives on the Government side of the House see anything wrong in this Constitution. I point out to them that their remedy is worse than the disease. The honorable member for Sturt made a good contribution to the debate in other parts of his speech, inasmuch as he analysed the difficulties facing the Government to-day. However, I must contest one of the points relied upon by the Government parties. That is the idolatry of the Constitution. History will show that there were very few towering figures among the so-called fathers of federation. Beyond a few State righters sanctified by miswritten history they were “ poor boys “. Only half a dozen men stood against the vested interests of the States. Those vested interests are sometimes represented in this House, where they try to frustrate an alteration of the Constitution which will give us true federation instead of a conglomeration of people sitting here pretending that they constitute a federal parliament. Actually the Constitution strips them, of all power.

I do not idolize the fathers of federation, because in the desire to retain the sovereign rights of the State they drew up a ramshackle Constitution which provided for a ramshackle Senate. As the years have gone by it has been proved that this Senate suffers from all the troubles that ever beset a Senate. During mv first six years’ membership of this House, the Senate was treated as a calm retreat for aged gentlemen who no longer worried about the hard facts of life. After the recent general election it became a roaring, raving lion, which chewed up legislation and spat it out to the great consternation and indignation of the Government. It was only then that the Government developed a conscience. If Government senators had been in sufficient numbers to pass the Government’s legislation we should not have heard anything about the necessity for democratic government. The curious thing about this attempt to bring democratic government to Australia is the completely involved algebraic equation put forward as a means of solving the problem. While arithmetic is necessary, this involved equation may ultimately give the same result as a much simpler calculation.

The Commonwealth Constitution is full of faults. We agree that it is not democratically good to have deadlocks, and we have searched as assiduously as the Government for solutions. Any solutions we proposed were rejected and tossed back in our faces. The human problem is to make the Senate work smoothly.

The first point is the election of so many in and so many out. Then there is the fifty-fifty basis which, if this legislation is passed, would solve the problem for only one parliament. Have honorable members considered that? This proposal looks good on paper. It was rushed here, as the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) said, with all the glee of some one finding somebody else who had had a brainwave. I pay tribute to the disinterestedness of the gentleman from Melbourne who attempted to find a formula. His arguments were well intentioned; but the only way to deal with this matter is to put it to a select committee so that the brains of both Houses could be employed upon it.

The Government has complained of criticism, but honorable members on this side of the House complain of the Government’s precipitate action. This measure was submitted as a plan to end all deadlocks, but it appears to be only a bright technicolour dream. In the morning, when wa wake up, the dark problem remains. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) last night gave a reasoned speech on the matter supported by statistics. The most ponderous statistics are talked about in this matter quite needlessly. A human problem exists in relation to the Senate which cannot be solved by mathematics. This bill will make confusion even worse confounded so far as the people are concerned. After all, the people are our masters and we should bo able to provide for them something more simple than the present insare complication of Senate voting. The fact that there were 505,000 informal Senate ballots at the last general election indicates that there is something wrong. Apparently, 500,000 voters found the difficulty of sorting out 20, 30 or even 40 names spread across one ballot paper was too great for them to resolve and, in desperation, voted merely for the sake of avoiding fines instead of for the sake of choosing the legislators to represent them in the Senate. Anybody who has been a booth worker at an election - and who in this House has not? - knows how difficult it is for some people to vote according to the silly democratic process that we have at present. Yet, the Government proposes to pile complication upon complication! The human factor cannot be ignored. In any case, I maintain that very little can be done to eliminate the perplexity that is caused by the multiplicity of candidates under the democratic system. How can we ease the mental confusion of a voter who is confronted with a ballot-paper almost as long as his arm? The Government’s answer to the question apparently is to present each voter with two ballot-papers, or one that must be marked on both sides, in order that some candidates may be elected for six years and others for three years. The honorable member for Sturt, had the temerity to say that that would help the electors! “Whatever may have been said in the past about the Senate being the House of the States, to-day it is very much the House of the government of the day, unless there happens to be an Opposition majority in the upper chamber as thereis now. With the close organization and the marshalled propaganda of electoral contests, the nominees of the strongparties win the Senate ballots, usually according to their positions on the ballotpapers. The proposal for the ballotpapers to be so arranged that the electors will choose some candidates for a term of six years and others for a term of three years after a double dissolution will not simplify the system. The idea is absurd. The method of electing the Senate is already so complicated that 500,000 people have been disfranchised as the result of informalities in their ballots. What will the ordinary citizen think of the algebraic symbols in the bill ? They will confuse him still further. In addition, he will be expected to deal with two ballot-papers, or one ballot-paper divided into two sections. The Government’s intentions on that point are not clear. If John Smith or Bill Jones is told that the bill provides that the number of senators for each State must be divisible by two without remainder, but not divisible by four without remainder, he will imagine that, by some freak of chance, he has arrived at a radio quiz where contestants are told, “ Take away the number you first thought of and you may win a book “. We want: clarification and simplification. If the Government is genuinely sincere, it will allow the bill to be referred to a select committee. I pay tribute to the young

Despite the tacticaladvantage that theLabour party enjoys in the Senate at present, we, as conservative democrats, wouldlike to see the democratic system working effectivelyinstead of in the way that it hasoperated in Australia since federation. Thebill will frustratethe Senate voter. Somehonorablemembers who havemade aclosestudy ofthe arithmetical problems that areinvolved havetold usthat the measure can be effective as a means of resolving aSenate deadlockonly for oneParliament. Underthe system of proportionalrepre- sentation,the tendencyis to use theby- productof every vote. The elector votes for the man of his first choice andthen deployshispreferences. That process may react against him, as many members ofthis House must be aware from their own experiences. Many men of good intent have been gravely concerned for years about the difficulties of Senate vot- ing; but so far they have failed to, devise awhollysatisfactory means of disposing of thosedifficulties. In the present cir- circumstances the simplest, sanest and most appropriatecourse of action wouldbe to refer the bill to a select committee of investigators. I should not limit the membership of thatcommittee toparlia- mentarians. The. Government shouldcall upon every mathematical genius, every man whose braincan grasp theconvolu- tions of Senatevoting andeveryelectoral officerwhohas studied the matter for years. It shouldco- opt theservicesofall such persons and endeavour, once and for all, to slay the dragon of Senate deadlocks. I have been amazed by the sophistryof Government supporters. The honorable member forSturt, as usual, madean orderly contributiontothe debate buthe challenged the sincerity of members of the Opposition. The honorable member forNew England (MrDrummond) took agreatdealofunction to,himself because thelegislative Council of New SouthWaleshadfrustrated democracy, in that State for fifteen years. Since 1941, the mother State of the Common wealthhas been under Labour rule,

TheoldideaoftheSenateasachamber ofreviewhasgone.Itisnowafiercely andpoliticallypartisanassembly.Itis ofnousetodroolaboutwhatmighthave been.Wemustdealwiththehardreality. ThehonorablememberforNewEngland wasonlybowingdownbeforethefutilities ofupperhouses;whichnegatedemocracy whenhegloriedinthehistoryofsuch institutions.Thegovernmentshouldnot lookblindlyaheadwiththisproposal. Whilstacknowledging,thatsomeaction mustbetakeninordertoresolvetheproblemsthatariseintheSenatefromtimeto time,itoughttoacceptthesuggestion ofthehonorablemember for Melbourne andappointacommitteeofinvestigation. As an intelligent parliamentarian, that honorable member issued a sober warning ontheindicationsofthepast,thatthe Governmentwillnotbeabletocarryits planatareferendumnomatterhow earnestly itmayplead. The people have a”No” complex in relation to referendums, which members of the present Government parties helped to create. They will find that the people will throw their old slogan back in their teeth. The Opposition wants to reform the system of electing the Senate by means of a proper constitutional amendment. It does not want the reform to be merely a temporary expedient to overcomewhat I consider to be a very happy situation in the present Senate, though, taking the wide national view, perhaps that situation is most unfortunate.

Anomalies, in the Senateelectoral system cannot be removed satisfactorily by meansofahurriedlegislative enactment. Therebeaproperinquirybya selectcommittee, and all partiesinthe Parliamentmustbeinagreementsothat theycanlaunchacombinedpropaganda campaigntoconvincetheelectorsthat reformis essential. Having reached agreementuptothatpoint,weshould furtherstrivetomaketheSenate a body worthyofthenamethatitbears.When theearlyplansforafederationwerebeing considered,allsortsofproposalswere iinvestigated.Mostoftheideaswere takenfromtheUnitedStatesCongress, but the planners stopped short when they were dealing with the Senate scheme. They seemed to be reluctant to give it anything to do during the placid periods that it was to enjoy for many years. The American Senate is a great power in the world. The members of its foreign affairs committee are policy-makers for peace. American Senate committees have dealt with great problems of national development, tariffs, and international humanitarian work and they have served that country magnificently. The Americans indeed have elevated their chamber of review to the dignity of one of the greatest institutions for peace and good government in the world. We should emulate them. Some subjects should be lifted out of the hurly-burly of politics in this chamber and referred to the Senate for the framing of policies. I refer to such matters as immigration, repatriation, and even the White Australia policy, which subjects should not be trumpeted about or trampled upon in this place as they are of importance to every Australian citizen, whatever his political opinions may be. The Government’s .proposition smacks of politics. If it wants to change the Senate election system and establish a stable form of government that will operate smoothly in both Houses of the legislature, it must hasten slowly. Certain features of the bill worry me considerably. One of these is the proposition that, after a double dissolution, candidates for the Senate shall be divided into two sets, one eligible for election for six years and the other eligible for election for three years. I should like the Government to announce what form the ballotpapers will take because I envisage dreadful confusion if the plan is ever put into effect.

I do not think that the bill will solve the problems that we want to solve. I do not believe that any equation of numbers or formulas can provide a satisfactory solution. We must work out the necessary reforms carefully and without haste. The existing system has been evolved slowly over the years since federation. The “first past the post” system in elections was rejected in favour of preferential voting, which, in turn, has been rejected in favour of proportional representation. History shows that democratic processes are evolved by trial and error as the result of diligent and careful study. The Government is acting too quickly, and therefore the bill bears the taint of politics when it should carry the high sign of statesmanship. It will not achieve what the Government claims that it will achieve, except perhaps by temporarily resolving the Government’s immediate difficulties in the Senate. It will not solve the problem of deadlocks in the Senate in the long run because proportional representation is inexorably effecting a levelling-off process. The basic idea of proportional representation is to use each vote in such a way as to ensure that its value steadily increases until the final result of the election has been made clear. I am not a great believer in the system, but, since .it is the system that we have,T consider that we must try to make it work effectively. The most urgent need is for a system that will enable the electors to exercise their Senate votes intelligently. Under the existing method, half a million voters have been disfranchised because they were unable to indicate correctly their order of preference for a multiplicity of candidates. The method of balloting in order to decide .the position of candidates’ names on the ballot-papers is absurd. The man who is lucky enough te have his name placed in the first position in the group to which he belongs considers that good chance to be worth an extra total of 100,000 or more votes in the aggregate. Such features of the system are objectionable, but they should not be altered hastily. The subject requires careful research by some important, conscientious and well-appointed committee. That is why I advocate the appointment of a select committee. The people are not being accorded true democratic justice under the present Senate election system.

If the Government is reasonable enough to acknowledge the necessity for further discussions on this subject, I hope that it will also realize the importance of rebuilding the Senate with a view to the improvement of its performance as a unit of the legislature. There is a division of opinion within the Opposition concerning the Senate. Some of us consider that it should be abolished and others consider that it should be strengthened. Supporters of the Government have said that the Labour party once advocated the abolition of the Senate. That is true, but we now cherish the institution. Labour’s hatred of the Senate arose from the fact that it was a massed House of privilege in the past. It should be made into a truly democratic institution that will operate successfully as a means of implementing the will of the people. Times and conditions change, and governments come and go. That is the trend of democracy. It would not be a democracy if it were otherwise, and we can have no real regrets about that system. However, 1 suggest that if we are to review the Senate system of election in particular, we should reject this bill in its entirety, iii.icl.ask the Government to provide a more concrete and stable proposal, even as a holding measure. Let us throw a wider ri.ot, and ascertain whether we can obtain assistance from other people in our perplexity in order to make our democracy work smoothly. Let us make the Senate a more democratic institution, with an international tie-up with the other democracies of the world through committees which have been given wide terms of reference. It is a disgrace to this Parliament that the committee system has been almost completely abandoned. For various reasons, governments have decided not to appoint joint parliamentary committees, committees of the House, or even ministerial committees to assist them. Committees of such kinds which functioned in the past, were useful and democratic. If they have not worked satisfactorily in the flux and hatreds of political contests in this House, the remedy may be to allow an impartial Senate to appoint committees to undertake valuable inquiries. Those are my conclusions on this matter.

The bill has merit only up to the point that it recognizes that the time has arrived for the system of electing the Senate to be reviewed. I find that the bill is really a formula, like the formula for the manufacture of the atomic bomb, which goes into astronomical figures of arithmetic, and algebraic symbols. If it is a political atomic bomb, comparatively little heavy water is included in its composition. If it is the political secret weapon of the future, it requires the addition of a considerable quantity of plutonium. I have honestly expressed my opinion about the dangers of the bill as a weak political instrument for the solution of a problem that should be considered on a national basis. I again plead for the bill to be submitted to a select committee, which will have power to co-opt the best brains of the nation for advice on parliamentary electoral systems. We are in despair about the Senate, not only at present, but also for the future. Let us evolve a formula for the election of that chamber so that democracy may still exist and function in this Parliament.

Mr EGGINS:
Lyne

– I rise to support the bill, which is a brief and clear legislative proposal to give effect to the Government’s plan for the avoidance of double dissolution deadlocks in the Senate. The House should congratulate the Government on meeting its responsibility in that respect so early in the life of this Parliament. Honorable members are well aware of the situation that has resulted from the introduction of the new system of electing senators, and the Government has placed the present proposal prominently on its list of responsibilities so that, at the earliest possible moment, the existing irregularity may be corrected. World conditions are becoming seriously unsettled, and Australia will be increasingly affected by them. This country requires stable government more urgently now than possibly ever before, and will continue to do so for the next few years in particular. The people have granted to the present Government a clear mandate, which was most decisive in the overall voting, to give effect to its pre-election promises, but stability of government cannot be maintained while the Senate is so hostile to the present Administration.

I invite honorable members to reflect upon the problems of the constitutional needs of this country since federation. Australia is approaching the end of th, first half century of its existence as a federation, and during that period of 50 years, various attempts have been made, some of which have been successful, to reform the Constitution in various ways in order to make it more workable. I shall examine the reasons for the establishment of an upper house in the bicameral legislative system. The second chamberinademocraticparliamentary systemusexpected,fundamentally,to guardthepublicagainstcertaindecisions bythelowerhouse.Iftheupperhouse dischargesthoseresponsibilitieseffec- tively,itrendersagreatservicetothe people.Itshouldactasasafeguard againstanattemptbyagovernment, irrespectiveofitspoliticalviews,to introduceavitalmeasureforwhichit hasnotobtainedamandatefromthe people.IftheSenateinthelastpar- liament had acted inaccordancewith those principles, it would have prevented the Government f rom attempting to implement legislation that was designed to give eff ect to its policy of nationalization. The Senate should have said in effect, “ The, Government must obtain a mandatefromtheelectorsbeforewe shallpassabilltonationalizeanindus- try’.ButtheSenate,duringthelast Parliament, allowed itself to become a part of the Labour party organization, and it forgot its main responsibility to the country. After that experience, we can readily visualize the part that the Senate willplayinthisParliament The Labour Opposition in that chamber; which has no responsibility to the Administration, has taken the control of the Senate out of the hands of the Government, and is becoming increasingly arrogant. It is a matter of extreme urgency, in those circumstances, for the Government to ask the people to agree to an alteration of the Constitution with a view to remedying that situation without delay.

The honorable.memberforFremantle (Mr. Beazley), who was the chief spokesman for the Opposition, on this bill, delivered a long speech, and I expectedhimtoannounce the attitude that the Labour party would adopt to it.I believe that all Government supporters have endeavoured to follow his arguments as closely as possible, because we desire, as Opposition members should desire, to appreciate the vital importance of thebill, and to evolve the most satisfactory system for the election of the Senate.I confess that I followed the speech of the honorable member forFremantle with great difficulty, and I think that Government supporters generally will admit that the honorable gentleman, at the end of his remarks, left them in doubt about the attitude the Labour pary, would adopt towards the bill. The onlypartof the Labour party’s policy that is really clear is its determination to confuse the people wherever possible, and to frustrate the progress of the country. Other Opposition speakers have added to our bewilderment about the Labour party’sviews on this bill by following a different line of thought from, that taken by the honorable member forFremantle. Yet all of them have failed to appreciate the vital need for this measure and to realize thatits provisions, will apply only in the event of a double, dissolution, a situation, which has arisen in the past, and may arise again. The bill does notdiscriminate between the three political parties, that are represented in this chamberbut is equally fair to each of them.I challenge any member of the Opposition, to state that the implementation of this measure will, in practice, give anadvan tage to one political party compared with another political party. The bill may have some shortcomings, but it. is completelyfair. Let us suppose that agovernement was defeated after a double dissolution. The political partywhich hassat in.Oppositionwould then derive the benefit of an increase ofrepresentation in the Senate, just as theGovenment would have obtained that benefit if it had been returned to office.

One ofour functions in examining legislation is to ensure that it meets the particular purpose for which it has been drafted, and, is fair to all political parties which are represented in the chamber, and to the Australian people. Is any Opposition member prepared to state that the bill is not fair to the three political parties which are represented here? I have carefully examined the measure, and I believe that it is completely fair to each of. them. The Prime Minister in his second-readingspeech, did not claim for a moment that this legislation would remove allthe possibilities of a double dissolution,but he said that it would reduce them as far as was practicable. The existing position in respect of the Senate is impossible, and isnotin the interests of stable government. This bill, if it becomes law, will provide a practical system for the election of senators. I invite members of the Labour party to show, if they can, that the bill, in practice, will be unfair to any political party. A bill which is completely fair, is entitled to receive a fair trial at the hands of all honorable members. [Quorum formed.] .

The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson), shortly before he rose to speak last night, was given a few suggestions and inspired thoughts by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) and one or two of his colleagues. The honorable gentleman evidently acted on those suggestions, which had been quickly passed to him, because he devoted the greater part of his remarks to an attack on the upper house system in this country, and he referred particularly to the Legislative Council of New South “Wales. His remarks plainly revealed that he had little knowledge of the working of that chamber, and, for that reason I propose to make a brief reference to it. If an upper house is to be effective, it must stand as a safeguard between the government and the people, and should prevent a government, regardless of party, from imposing upon the people important legislation for which it has not received a. mandate. During the last session of the last Parliament, the Senate should have made it clear to the Chifley Government, when it introduced legislation to nationalize the banks, that it had no mandate to pass such legislation. The Senate should have forced the Government to go to the people to seek such a mandate, but it failed to do that. It was completely dominated by the Chifley Government, which it allowed to put legislation on the statute-book for which it had not received a mandate from the people.

– Order ! If honorable members on my left do not cease interjecting and give the honorable member for Lyne a fair hearing, I shall have to take action.

Mr EGGINS:

– I shall now deal with the actual operation of the upper chamber in New South Wales. I was a member of the upper chamber in that State for a period of nine years. At no time has a majority of non-Labour members in the upper chamber ever prevented a Labour government from enacting legislation for which it had received a clear and definite mandate from the people. I challenge the Opposition to cite one instance in which that upper chamber has ever prevented a Labour government from passing legislation for which it had received a mandate. Certainly, the upper chamber amended several measures. For instance, it amended the Western Lands Rill, because the premier of the day, in the course of the general election campaign that had just taken place, made merely an ambiguous statement that he would review western land leases. He made no further reference to the subject in the course of that campaign. However, when the particular measure came before the upper chamber it was found to provide for the complete confiscation of those leases. The Government had not received any mandate from the electors to take such action, and, therefore, the upper chamber amended the measure in order to prevent the Government from confiscating those leases. I repeat that the upper house interfered only with legislation related to vital issues in respect, of which the government of the day had not received a mandate. Honorable members from New South Wales are aware that during a certain period, the upper chamber in New South Wales made 103 amendments to legislation of a general nature and that the government of the day voluntarily accepted 99 of those amendments. That is evidence of the fact thu: that chamber has safeguarded thiinterests of the people of New South Wales whenever a government in thai State has attempted to enact legislation for which it has not received a mandate.

To-day, the Labour party hae a majority in that chamber. I point out that in New South Wales, non-Labour governments when making appointments to the upper chamber invariably did so on the basis of giving representation to all sections of the community and to all sections of industry and commerce; with the result that the composition of the chamber represented a cross-section of the vital interests of the State. An examination of the facts will convince any honorable member that that statement is correct. But what have Labour governments done in that respect? On every occasion on which a vacancy has occurred Labour has always selected a trade union secretary as its nominee. During a period of seven years only one of the persons who were nominated by the Labour party for election to the upper chamber came from a country district.

If ever there was a time when the Senate should play its part fearlessly in the interests of the people, it is now. Since I have been a member of this House, and probably for many years previously, the members of the Opposition have seized every opportunity to bring up the old argument that in 1930-31 a non-Labour majority in the Senate prevented the Scullin Government from carrying out its policy. The present Government recognizes that the Senate is hostile to it, but it is facing up to the issue. Unlike the Scullin Government, it will not sit idly by and permit the country to fall into a depression and then run ‘ round the Commonwealth blaming a hostile Senate for its failure to grapple with the problems that confront it. The Scullin Government could have brought about a double dissolution with a view to seeking from the people a complete mandate for any proposals that it may have had to combat the depression. The fact is that it did not have any such proposals. It was not game to face up to the issues that confronted it; but ever since then the Labour party has claimed that a hostile Senate prevented that Government from carrying on. This Government is not prepared to remain in office under similar conditions and, consequently, it has introduced this measure in order to rectify the anomalies to which 1 have referred.

The bill now before us provides a simple way of dealing with the situation so that as soon as possible the people may, in their own interests, make it possible for the National Government to work along sound and solid lines. Supporters of the Government have refuted the statements made by the Opposition that the Cabinet did not inform all its supporters of its intention to introduce this measure. Every supporter of the Government was apprised of these proposals and was given every opportunity to express opinions upon them and to suggest any alternatives. However, not one member of the Opposition is prepared to help the Government to solve this problem even though he knows that the proposals embodied in it are completely fair from the standpoint of all parties and- will enable a government to carry on the administration of the country in the interests of the people. The Opposition is endeavouring to confuse and frustrate the people in this matter. I have pleasure in supporting the bill, which, I hope, will soon be placed upon the statute-book.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · Macquarie

– I was interested to hear the speeches that have been made by the honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Eggins) and the honorable member for New England. (Mr. Drummond). The honorable member for New England was a member of a government in New South Wales that perpetrated what I believe to be one of the greatest political rackets that have ever been worked in this country. I refer to the alteration of the system of election of the members of the Legislative Council in that State, That Government was so little concerned about the rights of the democracy that it brought about a set of circumstances which resulted in Labour having to govern for nine years, and to fight three general elections, in each of which Labour candidates secured a huge majority of the votes of the people, before it was able to obtain a majority in the State upper house. The system of electing the New South Wales upper house was altered solely to prevent Labour from ever gaining complete control of the New South Wales Parliament. The honorable member for New England was one of the sponsors of that proposal. The honorable member for Lyne was merely one of the cogs in the machine. Even now the Labour Government of New South Wales has only a majority of one or two seats in the upper house. The most extraordinary feature about the proposal was that it provided for the election of some members of the upper house for a period of twelve years. For twelve long years the people were denied the right to decide who should represent them in that legislative body. The proposal was adopted on the joint vote of both houses of the Parliament in which the majority of the seats were held by conservative interests. Although at one period Labour held 55 of the 95 seats in the lower house it had no control of the upper house. In one or two short periods Labour held an even greater number of seats in the lower house but in spite of its overwhelming majority it was unable to control the upper house.

Something has been said about a mandate from the people for the legislation now before us. No government can possibly claim to have a mandate to deal with every emergency which arises during the period of its administration. It is impossible for the leaders of political parties to state in their policy speeches what -matters will be dealt with if they are elected to office. Do honorable members opposite believe that Mr. Churchill was able to claim that he had a mandate for every action taken by his Government during its term of office? I have always regarded the action taken by the antiLabour parties in New South Wales in changing the system of election of the upper house as a. political racket to keep Labour out of office. While I was Prime Minister the Premier of New South

– The honorable member for Lyne knows nothing of the history of those days or he would not have made such an interjection. In 1929 Labour went to the polls and literally swept the country, and although the Scullin Government had a majority in the House of Representatives and equality with the Opposition parties in the Senate, Opposition senators adopted obstructive tactics, and so prevented the Scullin Government from carrying on its task. The question has been asked why the Scullin Government did not seek a double dissolution. The reason can be definitely stated. When the Scullin Government took office in 1929 it was faced with a bankrupt Treasury and the country was moving into the throes of a depression. The previous Government had been unable to borrow money either in Australia or abroad, and conditions had become so bad that it would have been useless for the Seullin Government to approach the banks for money to relieve unemployment. The number of unemployed was growing daily by thousands and because of the exigencies of the times the Scullin Government was forced to impose import prohibitions and high rates of duties. Import prohibitions covered more than 200 items. In the event of a double dissolution the tariff schedules which had been tabled but not passed would have lapsed. That matter had been held up in the Senate. I do not like to have to recount the history of those days. What happened is to the discredit of those who were responsible.

– It does not appear to me that in considering this bill there is any necessity for us to be drawn into all sorts of considerations of constitutional law. Before I continue, I desire to refer briefly to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) has said. Much of his speech appears to me to be irrelevant to the issue before the House, and some of it, in fact, was inaccurate. I refer to his statement about the number of votes polled in the Queensland election. I submit that his statement was quite wrong. When it comes to a discussion on questions of fairness in the past, I can cite for the right honorable gentleman an incident precisely similar to the incident that he cited in connexion with Senator Keane. A labour council in a certain town took action precisely similar to that which he described and when the mayor of the town, a Labour mayor, protested that the action was undemocratic, he was expelled from the Labour party for daring to criticize. Nobody claims that this bill gives a 100 per cent, iron-clad guarantee that it will prevent a deadlock, but in all human probability it will do so. The bill is intended to provide that when certain circumstances arise the expressed wish of the Australian people shall not be frustrated. That is the kernel of the bill, which deals only with the possibilities that may follow a double dissolution of the Parliament. It is not concerned, and properly so, with other situations such as Senate by-elections or ordinary general elections. Honorable members should fix this cardinal point in their minds.

I want to refer to the attacks that have been made on the bill by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) and the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). The honorable member for Fremantle objected to the bill because of its method of introduction to the House. He complained that it was a secret until it was sprung on the House as a surprise. The only people who were taken by surprise were honorable members of the Opposition. The honorable member for Fremantle complained that many minds on the Government side were not consulted. Whilst acknowledging the delicate tribute to the intellectual wealth of the Government, 1 hasten to assure him that that is an entirely gratuitous assumption. The honorable member for Melbourne adopted a similar approach, and made the extraordinary statement that only three Ministers knew the contents of the bill and tha*” the Australian Country party knew nothing about it. That is also a gratuitous assumption. It is something novel to see the honorable member in the role of the champion of the rights of the Australian Country party. I think I can assure him on behalf of that party that it would prefer to choose its champion. Both parties on this side of the House are in full accord, and are not in the least disturbed by the method by which the bill was introduced. Honorable gentlemen opposite are seeking to give the impression that this bill emanated from one mind and was not considered by the Government parties. That is the kind of attack that they frequently make on the Government in an endeavour to give the impression that legislation is ill-considered. This bill has been subjected to the scrutiny of at least one mind - that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) - the power and intellectual scope of which are greater than the combined mental resources of the Opposition. The Prime Minister enjoys the unbounded confidence not only of all members of both the Government parties but also of the great majority of the people of Australia. Surprise is one of the basic and also one of legitimate principles of war, and I assure honorable members of the Opposition that if they intend to pit themselves against the party that is led by the right honorable mem befor Kooyong they must prepare themselves for even more surprises than the> have encountered on this occasion.

Mr Calwell:

– The Labour party always recognizes facts.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will the honorable member for Melbourne please keep quiet?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I want to refer to the inconsistencies in the argument of the honorable gentleman who led the Opposition’s attack. The honorable member for Melbourne referred to the Senate as a part of the bargain of federation. What does he care for the bargain a of federation ? The honorable gentleman has signed a pledge to do away with the Senate. What will happen to the. bargain in that case? The pledge that he has signed represents an attack on the principles of federation. The honorable member for Fremantle said that such a proposition as abolition, when related to abolition of the Senate, was “ academic “. What does that mean? Does it mean that the honorable gentleman is not going to honour his pledge or that he is an extremist or an academic extremist, whatever that may be? First of all, honorable members of the Opposition spoke about the bargain of federation and then they indulged in this “ academic extremism “, Wowing hot and cold in the same breath. When the Labour Government took any action about the Senate it increased by two-thirds the membership of that chamber. It is very hard to follow the antics of these “ academic extremists “.

The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson), whose honesty nil honorable members respect, and who stands like a rock in the surging and uncertain sea of his party, gave the reasons why he and presumably his party oppose the bill. He said that if a double dissolution occurred on an unwelcome issue and his party were defeated, it would be in danger of losing its majority in another place as well as in this House if this bill had previously received the approval of the Australian people at a referendum. In other words, honorable members of the Opposition oppose this bill because they desire to retain their present insecure hold on their tottering political fortunes in this Parliament. Fear is the motive which inspires the opposition to this bill, fear of the consequences, fear to face the verdict of the people of Australia.

A double dissolution is a special event which very seldom occurs. Honorable members of the Opposition have been at great pains to point out how seldom it does occur. I suggest that it occurs only when the party that has been elected by the Australian people to carry out a definite policy is unable to do so because the majority in the Senate, which has been elected on different considerations, prevents the expressed desire of the people from being carried out. The object of this measure is to implement the will of the Australian people. It does nothing else. The matter is not one of constitutional law or of what happened in the past. Previous governments that experienced this obstruction, such as the Scullin Government, had their remedy. I suggest that the Scullin Government did not bring about a double dissolution for the reason that causes the present Opposition to be unfavorable to this bill. It was very much afraid of how the people would vote if they did so. This bill restores the sovereignty of the Australian people. It is designed to make their will prevail. It is a democratic measure in every sense of the word and is designed to fulfil the expressed wish of the electors. There is no complicated issue, as honorable gentlemen of the Opposition attempt to persuade the House there is, for the electors to understand. The very simple proposition stated in this bill is that th« number of senators for each State, whether it be an original State or a new State, shall be a number which is divisible by 2 without a remainder but not divisible by 4 without a remainder. I suggest that an understanding of that proposition is well within the compass of the intelligence of honorable members of the Oppo– sition. The principle that is embodied in this bill is enunciated in the common expression that is found on the lips of every Australian - the principle of a “ fair go ‘’. It is fair to the Australian people and it will enable them to have their expressed wishes carried out. I commend the bill to the House and I have no doubt that its merits will commend it to the Australian people.

Mr BRYSON:
Wills

.-Before this bill was introduced, honorable members and the public of Australia were bombarded with propaganda which informed them that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), on a certain evening at S p.m., would drop a bombshell in this House, that he had a mystery measure which would remove the deadlock in the Senate and make everything right in this community. I read the “ballyhoo” in the newspapers and it reminded me more of the advertising of a Jack Davey or a Bob Dyer show on the radio, than of the preparation of the people of Australia and, more particularly, honorable members of this House, for the reception of a serious piece of legislation. But when the Prime Minister had addressed thi-; House and had explained this wonderful mystery measure that was going to cure all our ills it was found that it was similar to many of the other statements that he had made after a great advertising boost.

An examination of the bill proves that it is a peurile thing which is not worthy of the consideration of this House. The right honorable gentleman said, that it was a bill for an act to provide for a system of election that would prevent a deadlock in the Senate after a doubledissolution. The bill does not mention the possibility of a deadlock after an ordinary general election although that possibility is always present. Themeasure is expressed in phrases that are very complicated. As the Prime Minister himself admitted, he had to call in the draftsman to explain one clause tohim because he did not understand it. The bill provides that in the event of a double dissolution there shall not be a subsequent deadlock in the Senate. There has been one double dissolution in a period of 50 years. There might bea second in another year or it might not occur for a further 50 years but the Government says that the bill will ensure that there shall not bea. deadlock after a double dissolution. No consideration has been given to what will happen in the event of an ordinarygeneral election, in 1952 or 1953, resulting in the return of an equal number of representatives of the Government and’ Opposition parties in the Senate. Noprovision is made to prevent deadlocks after ordinary general elections but in case, once in 50 years, there may be a double dissolution, the Government says that machinery should be provided to ensure that there shall not be a deadlock: after the ensuing general election. That idea is preposterous and this is a most ridiculous proposal to place before this House.

The honorable member for Oxley (Dr. Donald Cameron) stated that the element of surprise was very necessary in this instance. Honorable members of theOpposition do not want any element of surprise in the introduction of proposals for the alteration of the Constitution. A great deal of consideration should be given to proposals of this nature by all sections of the community before any alterations are made to the Constitution. Honorable members- of the

Opposition do not want to deal with this subject in a secret manner. They do not want to keep all ideas concerning it in the mind of a half-dozen men until it is suddenly introduced to this chamber and pushed through with as much speed ;« possible. It is necessary not only that members of the Parliament should understand the meaning of proposed alterations of the Constitution; the people of Australia also should understand them. The people will be called upon to vote yes Dr no, and it is not reasonable to ask them to vote on a proposal which they do not thoroughly understand. This is M measure which has been given scant consideration by the Government parties, and one that will receive only limited consideration in this House. The honorable member for Oxley complained that certain honorable members of the Opposition had described the bill as an illconsidered measure. I am of the opinion that it was given no consideration at all. ! understand, and I am open to- correction if I am w.rong. that honorable members on the Government side did not know the contents of the bill until a few hours before it was introduced to this House. Therefore, it certainly did’ not receive much consideration from honorable members on the back benches who are to-day supporting it. They are endeavouring to make it appear that this is a reasonable proposition, and that it is necessary to alter the Constitution, f suggest that quite a number of them rsti.ll have a very vague idea of its meaning although they are telling us that it is a panacea for all the ills that affect the Australian system of government.

Mr BERRY:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– It is .apparent that the honorable member himself does not know much about it.

Mr BRYSON:

– Nevertheless I can criticize it, and perhaps I shall teach you a little more about it if you listen to me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must address me.

Mr BRYSON:

– I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that certain interjections are occurring.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member should refrain from taking any notice of the interjections.

Mr BRYSON:

– I shall do my best. Many things must be considered in relation to this bill. Upon an examination of the Prime Minister’s introductory speech, it becomes quite apparent that he said, in effect, that while a particular party has a majority in the House of Representatives it is necessary that that party shall also have a majority in the Senate. In effect he said that the Senate should be a reflection of the Government in this House. He inferred that the Senate should be merely a rubber stamp to approve every proposal that the Government puts forward. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the Prime Minister’s remarks. If that is to be so, then there is an alternative to this very complicated system of resolving double dissolution deadlocks. The obvious remedy is the abolition of the Senate. If the Constitution is to be amended to ensure that the Senate shall meekly carry out the bidding of the Government, then the necessity for the Senate, which is the so-called States House, no longer exists. The cheapest and most satisfactory method of ending deadlocks would be to hold a referendum to ask the people to alter the Constitution to provide for the abolition of the Senate. The nation would be saved a certain amount of money and the Government and administration of the country would be simplified. If the Government will bring forward a proposal of that nature I shall support it whole-heartedly. I shall not only support it in this House, but also campaign on the Government’s behalf throughout the country to try to ensure an affirmative vote of the people. I believe that the system of government by two Houses is to-day completely outmoded. A number of remarks have been made to-day in regard to the upper houses of the various State parliaments. In four of the States the upper houses are merely houses of privilege which represent approximately onethird of the electors, who are arch tories. They are placed in legislative positions to prevent the march of progress and to thwart the wishes of the democratically elected members of the lower houses.

New South Wales has an even worse parliamentary system. In that State 120 or 150 persons decide who shall be members of the upper house. It is therefore a. party House at all times. Far from being, a democratic system, as the honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Eggins) said, if the Labour party is returned in New South Wales at the. next general election the upper house will merely be a reflection of the Government. Although a Labour government was elected in New South Wales in 1941, about nine years elapsed before that Government was. able to achieve a majority, in the Legislative Council.. The New South Wales upper house acted as a sprag in the wheel of government ; it. prevented the lower house from carrying out the mandate given to it by the people. The Senate is. quite likely to act eventually in a similar way. At present the Labour party has a majority in the Senate, but that has not always been the case. On several occasions that party as a government has been faced with a non-Labour majority in the Senate, which has been able to prevent it from enacting certain legislation. To-day is- heard for the first time a cry from our opponents that something must be done in regard to the Senate. It is said that an appeal must be made to the people so. to alter the Constitution that the Senate will have to do what the Government wants it to do. Why not face up to facts- and say that because the Senate must be a reflection of the Government,, it is of no use and the people should abolish it? That is a matter that could have been well considered by the Government parties. Another matter that I” bring tor the attention of the House, to which I have not given as much consideration as the Government should have given, is that no reason exists why only half the Senate should be elected at a time, thus giving senators a six-year term of office. The Government, or a select committee, could consider a proposal to retire all members of the Senate every three years and to elect them at the same time as members of the House of Representatives are elected. There could then be little complaint about the Senate merely reflecting the opinion of this House.

Even that proposal would not” completely solve the. problem because of State rights-.. An equal number, of rep-re- sentatives is. returned to the Senate from each State, and a succeeding government, might find itself in difficulties because a comparatively small number of electors in Tasmania return ten senators. The quota for a senator in Tasmania at the last general election was about 30,000 votes whereas the quota in New South Wales was about 146,000 votes-.. All those matters need consideration,, and I suggest that they received no consideration at all from the Government before this bill was introduced in thi House. It is possible under the existing, system for one party, be it Liberal or Labour, to obtain at a general election a majority of seats in the House of Representatives on a majority vote of the electors, and at the same time for the opposing party to win a majority of the Senate seats on a minority vote. That could happen because off the system, whereby the vote of a person in. New South Wales has about one-fifth of the value of the vote of an elector residing in Tasmania. A similar state of affairs exists in the other States. In proportion to population the most populous State has the. smallest representation in the Senate. That would possibly be an additional argument for the. abolition of the Senate. If there is to- be a democratic system of election to the National Parliament of Australia, then tha government of the day should be completely representative of the majority of the- electors. It could happen under our existing, system that a party that had. received a minority of the votes would have a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives because the value of the vote, even for election to the House of Representatives, is not the same in all States-. The value of the vote is approximately one. and a half times as great in Tasmania,, as in Victoria.. Because of those inequalities in oar system, which has been praised by many people but. which I believe to be definitely outmoded, the people of Australia are deprived of democratic government. Another reason why I say that this measure was not considered at all’ is that we have been informed through the daily press that an obscure member of the Liberal party who reside? in. Melbourne had a brain-wave- and worked out thissystem.Hewrotealettertothe Prime Ministerandthefirstacknowledg- mentofthereceiptofhisletterwasthe introductionofthisbill

Dr Evatt:

-Apparentlyabreach of copyright.

MrBRYSON. -Yesandhewascon- gratulatedbyoneoftheMinisters.This personhadanotherclaimtofamein thathehadworkedoutasystemfor the playingofsemifinalandfinalfootballmatchesinacompetitionwhichwould ensure that therewouldalwaysbefour gamesinthefinalseries.Eveninthat connexion Iamdoubtfulwhetherhis claimhadsubstance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Idonotthinkthat thatsubjectreallyhasanythingtodo withthematterbeforetheHouse.

Mr.BRYSON.-No.ithasnot,except insofarasamanwhowasresponsible fortheintroductionofthisbillclaimed fameinregardtoworkingout-

MrSPEAKER.-Thepointthehonor- ablememberismakingisoutsidethescope ofthedebate.

Mr.BRYSON-Very well,Mr. Speaker,Ishallleavethefootballcompetition out of my remarks. Atthe recent State generalelection inVictoria,the Labour party obtained the largest number of votesbutdidnotwinamajorityofthe seats.Thisgentlemanwasaskedwhether hecouldevolveasystemofvotinginthat Statewhichmightpreventdeadlocks whentherewerethreepartiesinthe Housenoneofwhichhadamajority.He expressed regret that hecouldnotwork out a systemwhichwouldcurethat manifest evil inVictoria.Of course,the obviousansweronthelipsofmajority oftheelectorsinVictoriaisthat,ifthere were a reasonable distributionofvotersin electoratesaccordingtothe”onevote,one value”system,thecompositionofthe Parliamentwouldtrulyreflecttheir wishes. However, thisyoung genius could notworkoutthatproblem.Isuggestalso thatthisschemethathasbeenpresented tousdoesnothearexamination

TheConstitutionwasnotintendedto provideforasystemthatwouldensure theelectionofaSenatethatwouldmerely echotheviewsofthegovernmentofthe day.Rightlyorwrongly-Ibelieve wrongly-theframersoftheConstitution providedthattheSenateshouldbe regardedasaStateshousethatitshould gaveanequalnumberofrepresentatives fromeachState,andthatitsprimary dutyshouldbetolookaftertheinterests oftheStates.However,theyearshave shownthatthisintentionhasnotbeen carried intoeffect.Byintroducingthis bill,theGovernmenthasclearlyindicatedthatitisnotconcernedaboutState rights.Itisinterestedonlyinthe possibilityofarrangingfortheelection ofaSenatethatwillechoitsviewsso thatallthelegislationthatitseeksto enact,whetheritbegood,badorin- different,willbepassedwithoutimpedi- ment.ItmerelywantsaSenatethat willdowhatitistoldtodo.Thus,the billisanegationoftheprinciplesofthe Constitutionandshouldnotbetolerated inanydemocraticcommunity.Some honorablemembershaveremarkedthat theGovernmenthasbecomepower-drunk becuaseitcommandsamajorityof 27 in thisHouse.Ireminditthatthat majoritydoesnotrepresentaverylarge majorityoftheelectorsofAustralia.If thetotalvoteatthegeneralelectionwere analysed,itwouldbefoundthattheGo- vernmentisnotinsostrongaposition as it hasmisleditselfintobelievingitis.

Mr.Freeth. -Thenwhyisthehonor- able member worrying about adouble dissolution?

Mr BRYSON:

-Iamnotworrying aboutadoubledissolution.Unlikesome honorablememberswhoconstitutethe Government’smajority,Iamnotin theleastafraidofadoubledissolution.I ammerelypointingoutthattheGovernment’s majority does notrepresent avery largemajorityof the people. The Governmentshouldcomedowntoearth againandrealizethatitrepresentsonly about52percent.oftheelectors.

Mr.BIRD. -Only50.4 per cent. Mr.BRYSON.-Apparently the deci- mal4percent.hasbyafortuitouscir- cumstance,giventheGovernmentparties amajorityof27inthisHouse.TheGovernmentshouldfacethefactsandrealize thatitsmajoritywillnotkeepitinoffice forever. One slip and thedoughty27 will vanish!Aswingofperhapsonly 1percent.oftheelectorscouldcause theGovernmenttolosethe27,and perhaps a few others as well. Such a result, incidentally, would contribute to the progress and prosperity of Australia, and it might be achieved in the event of an early double dissolution. That is why I am not worried about a double dissolution. Before submitting any proposals for constitutional alterations to the people, we must give them the fullest possible consideration. They must be of such a nature that, if approved by the people, they will improve the method of governing the nation. We need Constitution alterations not only for the purpose of improving the method of electing the Senate, but also for the purpose of extending the powers of this national Parliament. Therefore, I suggest that a select committee be appointed to consider the problem of avoiding Senate deadlocks and various other subjects. The best brains available should be called upon to decide, amongst other questions, whether the Senate should exist at all, whether the system of equal representation of the States in the Senate should be continued, whether senators should be elected for terms of six years or only three years, and whether all senators should retire at the one time as do members of this House. Such questions should be carefully considered before we ask the people to express their views upon them. The people would be enabled to vote intelligently if proposals of that character were first carefully studied and then clearly explained. One can readily imagine the reaction of the people to the Prime Minister's mathematical epigram that the number of senators for a State, whether an original State or a new State, should be a number which is divisible by two without remainder, but is not divisible by four without remainder. It is only .reasonable to assume that a vast majority of the people would not understand the meaning of that proposal and would be strongly opposed to its acceptance at a referendum. It is not of much use to place questions before the people at a referendum unless there is a strong probability of gaining an affirmative vote and improving the Constitution. The bill provides that the number of senators from each State may be reduced to six or increased to fourteen, eighteen or even 22. However, the Constitution provides that, in order to increase the number to fourteen, it would be necessary at the same time to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives by approximately 48. That might or might not be a good proposition. In my opinion, the most satisfactory procedure would be to abolish the Senate and bring senators into the House of Representatives so that every measure could be thoroughly discussed in this chamber. That method would produce much better results than are achieved at present. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-5-0-s10 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Evans .- With all due respect to this House, I think that the debate has wandered at times very far from the main point of the bill. Therefore, at the risk of being tedious, I propose to re-state the has:.matters to which the proposed alteration of the Constitution relates. The makers of the Constitution gave us a parliament of two houses. The first, which is the House of Representatives, is modelled on the British House of Commons. It represents the people of Australia in divisions of approximately equal numerical strength, and it discharges the most important functions of the Parlament inasmuch as it has control of the Executive. The second House, which is the Senate, was intended by the framers of the Constitution to represent the interests of the States. Therefore, the Constitution provided that an equal number of senators should be elected from each State and that no State should have less than six senators. Unfortunately, in practice, the Senate has not proved to be a States' House. With the emergence of great party political divisions throughout the country, it succumbed to the same party influences as the House of Representatives. The possibility of deadlocks between the two Houses is inherent in any bicameral system. Had the Constitution operated as its framers intended that it should, with the House of Representatives representing the people upon a population basis and the Senate representing the States, the number of deadlocks would have been very few because each House would have approached the problems of the Parliament from an entirely different standpoint. The House of Representatives would have dealt with them on broad party lines and the Senate would have reviewed the results of the. deliberations of the House of Representatives on the basis of the interests of the States. Although deadlocks were expected to be infrequent, the framers of the Constitution included in it a special provision to enable deadlocks to he overcome. Thus, section 57 of the Constitution provides the machinery for dealing with a double dissolution. Its general terms are well known to honorable members. If the Senate rejects a measure that has been passed by the House of Representatives and within three months rejects it a second time after it had been passed again by the House of Representatives, the GovernorGeneral may dissolve both Houses of the Parliament. Both Houses must then be re-elected. If a deadlock occurs again over the measure on which the dissolution occurred, both Houses will sit together and make a decision by their combined vote. The existence of these provisions in the Constitution has had the result intended by the framers of the Constitution and deadlocks have been few. In fact, there has been only one double dissolution in the history of federation. But since the legislation initiated by the previous Government in 1948 increased the number of senators from 36 to 60, and the number of members of the House of Representatives from 75 to 123, and also introduced proportional representation as the method of election of the Senate, an entirely new situation has arisen. After a double dissolution, in the present circumstances, the strengths of the Government party and of the Opposition would almost certainly be equal in the Senate. It has been pointed out clearly to the House that, except in a most exceptional division of the country, in which an almost impossible proportion of the votes had been given to one political party, an equal division in the Senate would be inevitable, and consequently, the deadlock would continue. After such a double dissolution, a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Repre- sentatives could deal with the particular measure over which the double dissolution had occurred, but when that difficulty had been overcome, another deadlock would occur on the next controversial measure, and therefore parliamentary government would be obstructed indefinitely. The remedy proposed by the Government for dealing with the unexpected, and, I think, unforeseen result of the previous Government's legislation is provided in this bill. The operative and important part of the measure is contained in proposed new section 13a of the Constitution, which provides that, after a double dissolution, there shall be two elections for senators for each State. In other words, the senators required for each State will be elected in two groups. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- On the same day. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- Yes, they will be elected on the same day and at the same time. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- That is in order to prevent proportional representation from operating. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- It is nothing of the sort. It is a necessary measure to overcome a fault in the method of introducing proportional representation into the election of senators that will have the effect of hamstringing the operation of the legislature in the circumstances about which I have been speaking. After a double dissolution, all the senators for one State are now elected in one group. In accordance with sections 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the Senate itself decides who shall retire after three years, and who shall retire after the full period of six years. Under this amending legislation, that decision will be made by the electors themselves; so that, in effect, after a double dissolution, the electors will choose the group of senators who will be elected for three years, and the group who will be elected for six years. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- The electors will not have any preference, because the names of the candidates will be on different lists. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- The political parties themselves may offer a group of candidates for election to the Senate for three years, and another group for election to the Senate for six years. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- But the choice is thereby taken from the people, and given to the political parties. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- It will be for the political parties to decide the candidates who shall offer for election for thi-ee years, and those who shall offer for election for six years. When proposed new section 13a is read in conjunction with proposed new section 7a, it will be seen that provision is made that two groups unequal in number will be elected for the periods of three years and six years respectively. The effect will be that one political party must gain a majority in the Senate. That is the purpose of the bill. Because a simple mathematical means has been taken to ensure that there shall never be an unequal number in either of those groups, the Opposition has imagined all sorts of mysteries about the proposal. It is a simple mathematical formula that states - >The number of Senators for a State . . . shall be a number which is divisible by two without remainder but is not divisible by four without remainder. That formula may seem complex, but, in reality, it has a perfectly simple and obvious result. As I have stated, this proposed alteration of the Constitution is a simple measure designed to overcome a defect in the legislation of the previous Government. It is a fact that it involves an alteration of the Constitution, and, consequently, a referendum. That is unfortunate, but it is the only method that has been seen to be capable of overcoming the present situation. Has the Opposition suggested any other method? Members of the Labour party criticize the Government's proposal, but they have not suggested any other means of overcoming the difficulty that has been caused by their own imperfect, ill-considered and hasty legislation. Last night the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** made what I think was a considered attempt to criticize the bill, and at the conclusion of his long speech, in a series of staccato phrases, produced with a kind of machine gun precision, intended, no doubt, to overwhelm all criticism by speed and force of numbers, he summed up his objections to the bill. He produced them with speed, but fortunately not with sufficient speed to prevent me from making a note of them, and I have been able to reflect upon them at leisure. The honorable member first considers that this measure is wrong in form and inadequate in scope, because as he says, it is party political legislation, and relates solely to present conflicts. I do not suppose that any honorable member is so naive as to think for a moment that the last Government's introduction of proportional representation in 194S as the method of electing the Senate was free from party political considerations. Although the application of the principle of proportional representation to Senate elections may prove in the course of time to be beneficial - and personally I think that it will - the immediate purpose of the previous Government in introducing that system was to safeguard the seats of a number of Labour senators who would otherwise have been defeated at the last general election. The honorable member for Fremantle also believes that the measure is wrong because it proposes a permanent alteration of the Constitution in order to suit a temporary electoral impasse. That sounds like an alarming state of affairs, when it is expressed in long words and at high speed, but, in effect, the validity of such criticism depends entirely upon the nature of the measure itself, and whether it can stand, as an alteration of the Constitution, on its own feet. Quite clearly, it can do so. Whether or not proportional representation is continued indefinitely as the method of electing senators, this measure can take its place as a part of the Constitution without being detrimental to that instrument in any way. If proportional representation were abolished in the course of time, the effect of this measure would be to apply a species of proportional representation in the event of a double dissolution. It would be perfectly harmless. The criticism that has been voiced by the honorable member for Fremantle, to the effect that the Government is seeking to make a permanent alteration of the Constitution in order to overcome a difficulty that arises in ordinary legislation, results from an attempt to draw some kind of distinction between permanent constitutional law and amendable law. However, that distinction does not exist. As any lawyer knows perfectly well, the law of the Constitution is found not only in the document known as the Constitution Act. Every act that in any way affects the election of members of the Parliament, or the exercise of the Commonwealth's powers, is a part of the law of our Constitution. The suggestion that there is anything wrong in remedying a constitutional defect that has been revealed in ordinary law not part of the Constitution Act, by altering the Constitution Act itself, is quite groundless. The honorable member for Fremantle next suggested that this bill is clumsy because, in Lis opinion, it will make it difficult to adjust the size of the House of Representatives. The effect of it certainly will be legislators in future will not be able to decide the exact number of the members of the House of Representatives, but they will have ample flexibility and scope in choosing the number, and, therefore, the honorable member's criticism is again groundless on that count. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- Will the honorable member explain what he means by the words "ample flexibility and scope"? {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- Tes. The honorable member for Fremantle suggested that this bill was clumsy because it would impede the choice of Parliaments in the future to decide, when they were considering whether membership should be enlarged or diminished, the precise number of members. Upon the adoption of this proposed alteration of the Constitution, the number of senators will have to be a number divisible by two without remainder, but not divisible by four without remainder. Consequently, some limitation is placed on the choice of numbers for any enlarged Senate. The numerical strength of the House of Representatives is determined by a formula that is related to the numerical strength of the Senate, and therefore, the honorable member for Fremantle seeks to establish that the bill limits the right of the Parliaments of the future to decide the number of members which the House of Representatives shall be composed. The limitation, in fact, is only to the infinitesimal degree that the Senate must consist of a number that is divisible by two without remainder, but not divisible by four without remainder. There is an infinite series of such numbers, and, consequently, the argument that this bill will impede the ability of future Parliaments to decide the numerical strength of the House of Representatives is futile. Next, the honorable member for Fremantle considered that the bill is inadequate because it leaves untouched the problem of Senate by-elections. The bill would be inadequate only if it attempted to overcome every constitutional difficulty from which we now suffer, and nobody pretends that it is designed to do so. That vein of criticism may be traced through the whole of the honorable member's speech. He constantly returned to his contention that the bill was inadequate and incomplete because it did not deal with every constitutional difficulty. A similar line of criticism is to be found in his statement that the proposal is faulty because it does not propose an alteration of the unnecessary provision that an alteration of this House shall have twice the membership of the Senate. The honorable gentleman considers that it is inadequate in scope because it accepts the Senate as it is, and merely provides for an electoral change when there are possibilities of making the Senate a useful chamber. Those criticisms could be valid only if this bill purported to be a measure to undertake a review of the whole Constitution. Of course, it is not intended to do so. The bill is a simple measure designed to overcome a particular difficulty caused by the shortsighted and hasty legislation of the previous Government. It has no other purpose. It does not attempt to meet all the shortcomings that have been revealed in the Constitution since federation. I should be the first to agree that it is time that a convention was summoned to review many aspects of the Constitution. But that is not the purpose of this measure. Nor is it a valid criticism to say that it does not attempt to overcome all the defects that have been revealed in the Constitution. The honorable member said that the measure does not face up to the problem of resolving deadlocks without a double dissolu'ion, and that it does not consider the possibility of providing for a suspensory veto instead of the present absolute veto by th»> Senate. Because the measure does not deal with every defect in and seek to rewrite the Constitution, he damns it. It took from 30 to 40 years of thought, study and agitation to evolve our Federal Constitution, and a period of ten years elapsed after the passing of the first bill for this purpose by a State before the Constitution itself was adopted. Therefore, many more years of careful thought and study, free from the atmosphere of party politics, would have to be devoted to the subject before comprehensive alterations of the 'Constitution would be finally adopted by a convention. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Chifley)** advanced three arguments against the measure. He repeated the objection by the honorable member for Fremantle that this is a permanent measure to cure a defect in what may be a temporary electoral situation. He said, in effect, that whereas it would be placed permanently on the statute-book, proportional representation in the Senate might be abandoned at any time. I have already answered that objection. The right honorable member then said that under the proposals embodied in the measure, the relative representation of parties in the Senate would be merely a reflection of the strength of parties in the House of Representatives and that the framers of the Constitution never envisaged such a state of affairs. The framers of the Constitution quite clearly accepted the view that after the ultimate step to resolve :i deadlock - a double dissolution of the Parliament - had been taken, the relative strength of parties in the House of Representatives would be reflected in the Senate. Finally, the right honorable gentleman, with his characteristic capacity to make mountains out of molehills, read dire consequences into the jocular remark of the Prime Minister that the mathematical formula to determine the number of senators to be elected following a double dis"l"f:on resembled a jigsaw puzzle. But for the fact that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are accorded consideration which they do not always merit, I should not direct attention to them. However, the proposed new section 7a sets out the mathematical formula in the fewest possible words. That formula provides that following a double dissolution an odd number of senators shall be elected in each of two ballots. As the formula does nothing more than that, the right honorable gentleman's attempt to make it appear mysterious is entirely mischievous. This is an important and urgent measure. At the recent general election the people expressed their mind clearly and determinedly in favour of the enactment of certain pieces of legislation. The Senate is now obstructing the passage of bills that are intended to give effect to the people's will. The provision of the Constitution for double dissolutions to overcome deadlocks has been nullified by the introduction of the system of proportional representation for the election of the Senate, by the Chifley Government. That position must be rectified. The Senate as at present constituted, will continue to obstruct the people's will, until it is again ensured that in the event of a deadlock, all senators, including the one-half of them who would not be due to retire till the following general election, must go to the polls. I believe that the passage of this measure in itself will largely do away with the possibility of deadlocks 'occurring in the future. When honorable senators realize that in such circumstances they shall be obliged to face their masters, they will be inclined to exercise their powers with a due sense of their responsibilities. Until the safeguard provided in the Constitution is again made fully effective, the present obstruction by the Senate will continue. I believe that the people will realize the necessity for this measure if the Government is to be enabled to carry out the mandate that they gave to it at the last general elections. Therefore, the House should pass it without delay with the same assurance as the people will show in due course in accepting it. {: #subdebate-5-0-s11 .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN:
Reid .- This measure raises the question of the purpose and usefulness of upper houses under the bi-cameral parliamentary system. A study of the history of parliamentary government in English-speaking countries reveals that the real purpose of the bi-cameral system is to maintain a brake on progressive legislation. As the power of the democracy asserted itself and the powers formerly exercised by the King were transferred to the people, nominee chambers, were relegated to the background. Originally, the King was an absolute monarch and all legislative powers literally flowed from the Crown. To-day, that is true in theory only. Likewise, in earlier times, legislators and Ministers were direct nominees of the Crown and were the King's Ministers in the fullest sense. That was the position that existed in this country before federation when the States were Crown colonies and the members of their legislative councils were nominated by the Governor as the representatives of the Crown. As the free settlers asserted their right to parliamentary representation, the King's nominees were relegated to upper chambers, and, as was the case with the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, the members of the upper house were directly representative of the privileged classes. However, the purpose of upper houses in this country still remains the same as it was when they were established. Their purpose is to act as a brake on progressive legislation, or onwhat honorable members opposite usually describe as hasty legislation. That old parrot cry is always raised whenever the people attempt to assert their democratic rights. The purpose of the upper houses is to frustrate the will of the people. Those chambers represent elements that fear progress in all its forms. In th, early clays of settlement in the colony of New South Wales the landed gentry who were then members of the upper chamber attempted to defeat legislation that had been passed by the lower house with the object of bringing about the cessation of the transportation of convicts to Australia. Those who sponsored that legislation founded the first political party in this country and because they took such action they were described by their opponents as " Communists, socialists, anarchists and breakers cf law and order {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- The squatters were represented in the upper house. {: .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN: -- Yes. Naturally, those who had been given cheap grants of land by the Crown profited from the transportation of convicts to Australia who were a source of cheap labour and those interests jealously resisted any encroachment upon their privileges and powers. Indeed, some of those interests advocated the setting up of an upper house on a hereditary basis similar to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. Fortunately, statesmen like **Sir Henry** Parkes resisted that attempt to introduce the caste system into Australia. But the " old guard " succeeded to some degree in establishing the caste system in this country through the upper houses, or nominee legislative councils, such as the council that now exists in New South Wales. Those chambers were established on either a nominee basis, as was the case in New South Wales until 1934, when all appointees were direct nominees approved by the Governor, or were elected on a restricted property franchise, as is still the case in Western Australia and Tasmania. Labour governments have been elected on various occasions in those States, but they assumed not power but office because the representatives of conservative interests in the upper houses were able to frustrate any attempt to enact the legislation that they introduced. Thus, the will of the people has been frustrated, and it is hollow mockery on the part of honorable members opposite to support this measure when their party political predecessors down through the years made no protest against that system. The time has arrived when the people themselves must take up this matter because, apparently, it will be impossible to reform the upper houses in the State parliaments except by petitioning tie United Kingdom Parliament to prevail upon His- Majesty and the government of the day in that country to alter this state of affairs by the enactment of legislation for the purpose in the United Kingdom Parliament. Legislation designed to effect such a reform cannot be enacted in this country unless it has the support of a majority of members of the upper house which it is designed to reform, or abolish. In New South Wales we have had an astonishing example of the stratagems to which conservative interests have resorted in order to frustrate the will of the people. In 1932, as the result of nominations that were made by the Governor on the recommendation of the Government the Labour party gained a majority in. the Legislative Council in that State, hut subsequently when the Stevens Government was returned it realized that the Labour party majority in the upper chamber was in a position to help to abolish that chamber. Therefore, the Stevens Government submitted by way of a referendum to the people a proposal which it was represented would provide for the election pf the Legislative Council on a democratic basis. The whole proposal was clouded by propaganda and misrepresentation. Nevertheless, the referendum was carried by only a very small majority. Incidentally, the methods that the Stevens Government then employed were similar to methods that this Government seeks to employ under this measure. By providing for the election every three years of 15 members of the 60 members of the New South "Wales upper house, the election of the whole of the members of the House is virtually spread over a period of twelve years. That alteration was made in the guise of a measure to give the people a democratic vote. In four groups of fifteen each the first members were elected for periods of three, six, nine and twelve years and subsequently, for twelve year periods. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Not by the people. {: .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN: -- No, not by the people but by the most limited franchise that has ever been adopted in this country - by a total of 150 votes, 90 in the lower house and 60 in the upper house. Far from being a democratic vote, those who submitted themselves for election voted in respect of their own election and a quota of nine votes was sufficient to elect each member. That system was a travesty of democracy, and is a typical example of the sort of tactics that conservative interests resort to in order to suit their own purposes. The honorable member for Lyne **(Mr. Eggins)** revealed the true state of affairs when he pointed out that in one year the upper house made nearly 100 amendments in legislation that had been initiated in the Legislative Assembly. That sort of stratagem was also resorted to by the anti-Labour Opposition in the Senate during the regime of the Scullin Go vernment. There are more ways of killing a goose than by chopping off its head. The representatives of conservative interests in the New South Wales upper house were not prepared to make a direct attack on the legislation introduced by Labour governments in the Legislative Assembly, but by referring measure after measure to select committees for inquiry and report they were able to frustrate the will of the people. The manner in which this bill was introduced by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** showed the right honorable gentleman's undemocratic approach to this subject. He did not even consult the members of his own party about it. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- If honorable members opposite keep repeating that statement, they will eventually believe it to be true. {: .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN: -- In this matter the Prime Minister acted in a most undemocratic and dictatorial way and offered a studious insult to the collective brains of Government supporters. If the Prime Minister had consulted the members of his own team - and it includes many earnest young men - he would have produced a better measure. Instead, he referred the problem to a young Liberal lawyer in Victoria, who is apparently well versed in cross word puzzles and skilled in the solution of football competitions, but has apparently not had much experience in political affairs. He is not even a politician, and he is not likely to become a statesman' unless he drops " smart Alec " legal tricks, gains more experience and reaches a better understanding of democracy. He is a little like the beardless professors who in war-time sought to impose their impractical theories on the Government of the day. Like them, he had all the answers. The Government, hoist with its own petard, now brings into bold relief the whole subject of the usefulness of upper branches of our legislative institutions. An upper house may have been all right in the horse and buggy days when events moved slowly and the parliaments of this country could afford to take their time in dealing with the affairs of the nation; but in this atomic age events move rapidly and consideration should be given to the streamlining not only of the Senate hut also of the upper houses of the States. The present situation calls for the formulation of a system that will he both workable and useful. In a masterly exposition of the situation last night, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** made constructive suggestions which should be given the closest consideration by the Government. The manner in which he tackled this subject showed that if the bill were referred to a joint select committee of members of all political parties a useful and workable formula could be evolved. What we need is a Senate constituted and operating on lines somewhat similar to those of the Senate of the United States of America. We all know of the excellent work that is done by the committees of the United States Senate, notably the Foreign Affairs Committee. Let us consider for *a* moment what has happened recently in connexion with the Government's much vaunted health and. medical benefits scheme. The Minister for Health **(Sir Earle Page)** perambulates round the countryside consulting bodies and organizations concerned, with health matters, but honorable members who represent the people in this Parliament are not consulted in the formulation of the scheme. From day to day we get a balltoball description in the press of each fresh plan as it is evolved. If a joint committee representative of all political parties in the Parliament were appointed to consider such matters in detail the problems that face the Government would be dealt with more expeditiously than they are in present circumstances. A limit should also be placed on the period during which the Senate may veto legislation that has been passed by the House of Representatives. The honorable member for Fremantle has suggested that we should follow the procedure adopted in Great Britain where the powers of the House of Lords to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons have been substantially curtailed. Now, the House of Lords may hold up legislation passed by the House of Commons for only a year. The adoption of a similar system in this country might well be considered by the Government. The Labour party is vitally interested in the reform of the Senate because Labour governments have had some bitter experiences when they have not had a majority in both Houses. This bill has been introduced solely as a matter of expediency and it may not serve the Government's purpose. If, after it has been passed, a double dissolution occurs, the existing position in both Houses may well be reversed and a further deadlock may occur in a period even more dangerous than the present. The Government parties have not been consistent in their attitude to this matter. Only a few years ago, during the crisis of war, when the Curtin Labour Government was in power in this House, but not in control of the Senate, the anti-Labour Opposition in the Senate resorted to all sorts of manoeuvres to defeat its legislation. The same attitude was adopted by the anti-Labour Opposition Senate during the economic depression when the Scullin Government was in command in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate. In two of the greatest periods of crisis in the history of the Commonwealth - the economic depression of the thirties, and, during the years of World War II. - the anti-Labour Opposition in the Senate ruthlessly used its majority to defeat legislation introduced by Labour governments. I urge the Government to give this matter further consideration. After all, second thoughts are best. According to the Government its proposal to change the law arises solely from its second thoughts on the matter. Let the Government follow its own advice and give a second thought to this legislation which has been introduced in a hasty and ill-conceived manner. If it agrees to appoint a select committee to inquire into and report upon the proposals contained in the bill a useful and workable formula will be devised which will place the Senate on a proper basis and allow the government of the day to carry on the business of the nation. *Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.* Debate (on motion by **Mr. PITTARD** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3635 {:#debate-6} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-6-0} #### PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA {: #subdebate-6-0-s0 .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs and Minister for External Territories · Warringah · LP -- *by leave -* Three months ago, in my capacity as Minister for External Affairs, I surveyed Australian foreign policy and then pointed out that, situated as we are in the south-west corner of the Pacific with outlying islands of the Asian continent almost touching our own Territories of Papua and New Guinea, our first and constant interest must be the security of our own homeland and the maintenance of peace in the area in which our country is geographically situated. Experience has shown how vital the ring of islands to the north of Australia is to the defence of our country, and I do not need to remind honorable members of the part that the Territories of Papua and New Guinea played in the last war in preventing an aggressor from overrunning our country. Since I made my statement on foreign policy I have had an opportunity to mako an extensive tour of the Territories of Papua and New Guinea which has brought home to me how severely those territories and their inhabitans suffered as a result of the war. It has, moreover, confirmed the conviction I already held that the importance of the territories to Australia has not been fully appreciated and that if we are to hold these territories safe from external aggressors they must be developed as quickly as our resources permit. There can be no doubt that we must so hold the area ; nor can there be any question that we shall not be able so to do unless we make the fullest possible use of the undoubted natural resources with which the territories are endowed. The present Government has no illusions about the magnitude of the task of developing the Territories. The task is great, yet our resources are limited by many factors, including our own internal programme of development. The external territories of the Commonwealth consist of the Territory of Papua, the Trust Territory of New Guinea, Norfolk Island and the Trust Territory of Nauru, each of which has its own particular problems. The Territory of Papua has been the responsibility of Australia since 1906 and the Territory of New Guinea since 1914, when it was captured by Australian forces and, after the conclusion of hostilities, placed under mandate to Australia in 1921. The area is now wi thin the trusteeship system and is administered by Australia under a trusteeship agreement approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Prior to the war of 1939-45, Papua and New Guinea were entirely separate entities and although steady progress was made in their development they were little known. They did not attract the public interest that their importance demanded. With the exception of an annual grant of a very small sum from the Commonwealth towards the cost of administration of the Territory of Papua, the Territories were required to live and develop within their own financial resources. Achievements in the administration of those areas, which are inhabited by backward peoples, were nevertheless, particularly in these circumstances, remarkable and the soundness of the policies pursued was clearly demonstrated by the loyalty and assistance given by so many of the indigenous inhabitants to the allied cause in repelling the Japanese who overran the territories and were halted only within about 35 miles of Port Moresby. The administrations of the territories were destroyed and practically the whole of the settlements and utilities were devastated. Civil administration was restored to the territories progressively from October, 1945, to June, 1946. Much has been done since then to re-establish the administrations of the Territories, to rehabilitate the inhabitants and to repair the ravages of war, and the Australian Government has made available funds to the amount of £11,000,000 to supplement the revenues of the territories to meet the cost of such work. Very much more, however, remains to be done, and my survey of the territories has clearly demonstrated to me that whilst the task of developing them is a big one, we cannot afford to neglect it and that we must with all possible speed ensure the advancement of the indigenous inhabitants and the fullest development of the territory resources. To achieve this purpose I believe that our prime objectives must be - (1) the welfare and advancement of the native peoples and their increasing participation in the natural wealth of the territories; {: type="1" start="2"} 0. the development of the resources of the territories to the point at which ultimately they will be economically selfsupporting and thus advance their development and the welfare of their inhabitants, and enable them to supply the .needs of Australia and the world generally with the valuable commodities that they are capable of producing. In my survey of foreign policy, I stated that our purpose in relation to these external territories will be to ensure that they shall be administered and developed in a way best calculated to protect the welfare of the native inhabitants and, at the same time, to serve Australia's security interests. Considerations of security interests clearly require that our efforts shall be directed towards establishing in these territories a population of a strength and quality that will enable us to build up in those areas a friendly, prosperous and loyal people who will be able in times of crisis to assist in the protection of their own interests and to provide strength, not weakness, to the Australian nation, to which they must inevitably turn as their protector. Those objectives should, generally be capable of attainment in conjunction with the normal economic development of the areas and, in the final analysis, the essential need, in any programme for the advancement of these territories is active and progressive measures for then economic development, from which is inseparable the political, social and economic advancement of the native people themselves. One of the principal, if not, the principal limiting factor, in the rate at which such development can be achieved is the size of the labour force that is available. The territories of Papua and New Guinea - with a total area of 180,000 square miles and an estimated population of 1,500,000 - are sparsely populated and the degree of mechanization that is possible under a tropical economy is, for the time being at least, comparatively limited. It follows that, while there is yet an appreciable scope for economic advancement with the labour resources that are already available, development beyond a certain point will be largely dependent upon a population increase which, I am firmly convinced, will be possible only through active and extensive programmes for health, education and a generally improved standard of living for the native peoples. It will be apparent to honorable members from what I have said that the economic development of these areas presents a formidable task. The indigenous inhabitants of the territories will be unable, for many years to come, to play any important part in the executive government of their country. Moreover, they have neither the capital nor the skill to handle the task of developing the latent resources that are available in those areas. "Whilst it will be the task of the Government, through its programmes for their social advancement, to enable these peoples to take a constantly increasing share in the government of their country, it is to private enterprise under proper safeguards that the Government must to a major extent look for assistance in securing the economic advancement of these territories. To this end every encouragement will be afforded to private enterprise in bringing its available skill and capital to bear on the development of the territories' natural resources and, in so doing, to impart to these backward peoples the means of participating to an ever-increasing extent in developing the wealth of their country. It can he said, therefore, that this Government's purpose will be (1) to locate, assess and regulate the availability of the natural resources of the territories so as to bring them within reach for development; (2) to afford all reasonable encouragement for the investment of private capital in the development of these resources; (3) to ensure that the native peoples of the territories shall be enabled to participate to an ever-increasing extent in the fruits of this development. The limiting factor of labour, to which I have already referred, will necessarily govern the rate at which this development can be achieved and it will be apparent that, in any programme for the advancement of the territories, the Government must expect to find, for investment in these areas, large amounts of capital from which no immediate or even early return can be expected. In any programme for economic development of the territories it is essential to clarify the economic relationship that is to exist between Australia and its territories. It is the view of this Government that such development should generally be complementary to existing Australian industry. The economic relationship between Australia and the external territories will necessarily require to be developed in accordance with this broad policy. Australia is the logical market for territory production, and geographical and other advantages should normally ensure that market to the territories. However, during the initial stages of development, territory industry will almost certainly need a measure of assistance and protection which it will be the purpose of this Government to provide through whatever appropriate channels are available. Conversely, this arrangement implies that Australia should expect to supply the territory requirements of capital goods and consumer goods, and it is proposed that this arrangement shall also be secured to the greatest practicable extent. The effect of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the proposed International Trade Organization is not as yet fully clear in relation to the external territories, and it is possible that, in giving effect to a policy ,on the foregoing lines, practical difficulties may be encountered because of the limitations that those international commitments impose on the grant of preferential treatment. However, it is the view of this Government that in the overall interests of Australia and the territories a close integration of economies is desirable and our policy will aim generally at this objective. Some progress has been made with the work of restoring the territories from the state of devastation that was caused by the recent war. In the territories of Papua and New Guinea, every township and settlement lying to the north of the Owen Stanley range was obliterated. Plantations were heavily damaged and scarcely a building of any description remained. The cost of replacement for public utilities alone has not been estimated, but some indication of the damage caused can be gained from the fact that the total amount of war damage compensation paid to private firms and non- native inhabitants alone was approximately £9,000,000. Such restore tion as has been achieved to date has been largely on a temporary basis, having been regulated by the quality of materials available and it is dear that, in conjunction with any programme for the expansion of activities in these areas, the Government must also expect to undertake to the extent that resources permit the heavy costs of an extensive reconstruction programme. In considering these financial aspects, however, it must be kept in mind that, quite apart from strategic and other considerations which require the early development of these areas, they in fact possess a potential wealth the development of which should eventually place them in a position of being selfsupporting, not only for their day-to-day requirements, but also for such capital as they may require for their longer term development. It will be the aim of this Government to see that this stage shall be reached at the earliest practicable time through - (1) A carefully planned programme of development; (2) close supervision of the expenditure of funds provided under that programme; (3) a sound and balanced fiscal policy within the territories themselves. Generally, the policy of the Government for the territories will be to encourage private enterprise to foster production with a view to their resources being developed to the utmost, and to advance the welfare of the native peoples. A very good example of private enterprise doing a job which the Government cannot do, is the search for oil. Already the Australasian Petroleum Company has spent millions of pounds on an undertaking which 710 government would venture to shoulder. If they find oil, as I hope they will, the progress of the territories will be tremendously stepped up. There are other latent resources that can be developed by large-scale operations and it will be the policy of the Government to encourage organizations with the necessary technical staff and resources to extend their organizations to these areas. Recently, the Government announced the decision to form, in conjunction with the British Aluminium Company Limited, of London, a company to be known as the New Guinea Resources Prospecting Company Limited. The objectives of the company will be the location and development of largecapacity hydro-electric power schemes suitable for uses in industries, particularly aluminium production, and prospecting for bauxite and minerals relating to aluminium production. The territories are capable of producing many commodities such as rice, cocoa, jute, tea, &c., and with proper organization each of these could, no doubt, be the basis of a substantial industry. Rubber has been grown in the Territory of Papua since 1916, and for a number of years this industry has been one of the most important in that territory. During the war the rubber supplies that Papua was able to provide to the Allied war effort were invaluable. This industry has, however, been subject to market fluctuations over the years and requires to be reorganized and expanded so as to make it a large-scale and stable industry of the territory. An economic survey of the industry was made some time ago and the report of that survey is now being examined so as to determine the best way in which the industry can be stabilized and expanded in the long term. Other possible ways in which the agricultural resources of the territory may be developed are in relation to the use of mangrove bark for tanning and the use of inferior types of timber for the establishment of a wood pulp industry. The kunai grass which grows prolifically in the territory has been shown to be suitable for the manufacture of paper. During the last few days I have received samples of paper made from that grass from the northern district of the Territory of Papua. The extent to which these may lead to profitable commercial projects, however, remains to be tested. Gold has been produced over a number of years mainly at Edie Creek and Bulolo Valley in the Territory of New Guinea. Knowledge of the resources of that territory in other minerals is scant as full investigation has not been made. Arrangements have been made whereby the technical staff of the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources has been made available to the Administration of the Territory and a resident geologist and other staff have been appointed for duty there. The technical staff will carry out investigations to determine whether such minerals as asbestos, chromite, platinum, &c, exist in the territory. There are known deposits of sulphur, copper and manganese, and an examination will be made to determine their extent. The Government attaches such importance to the future of the external territories that it has appointed a ministerial standing committee, composed of myself as the Minister for External Territories, the Treasurer **(Mr. Fadden),** the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** and the Minister for National Development **(Mr. .Casey)** to assist in the preparation of material for the consideration of the Government. Also, the honorable member for Calare **(Mr. Howse)** has been appointed Parliamentary Secretary to assist me in relation to the external territories portfolio. Considerable investigation and thought will be necessary before full details can be worked out to give effect to the broad principles of policy that I have mentioned. However, as a result of my visit it has been possible to take decisions in regard to a number of pressing matters and I shall now mention some of them. Since the war the Australian Government has accepted the responsibility for providing shipping and stevedoring services within the territories and has purchased a number of vessels which are operating under agency agreements that were concluded with three of the companies which operated shipping services In the territories before the war. As the territories were almost entirely dependent upon shipping for internal transport thi provision of efficient and adequate shipping services is of the highest priority. The task is plainly and preferably one for private enterprise, and inquiries are now being made both in Australia and overseas to ascertain the extent to which private enterprise might be interested in providing the services that are required. The services must, however, cater adequately for the requirements of all interests in the territories. As a first step towards placing this important activity with private enterprise the ban upon vessels over 25 tons operating in the service which was imposed by the preceding Government has been removed, and it is now possible for any vessel that complies with the laws of the territories relating to registration and operation to engage in the trade. This has already proved of benefit to the territories. Furthermore, 1 have directed that stevedoring at ports in the territories shall be open to private enterprise. The Territories of Papua andNew Guinea are covered to a. large extent by rain forests. The forests resources are not so large, however, that they can be subjected to unrestricted cutting. The forests for the most part are of very complex composition and present considerable difficulty to economic harvesting and utilization. "With proper treatment the territories will be capable of providing for their own timber requirements and to supply a considerable quantity of logs and timber for export. However, without the application of proper forestry methods the timber resources could be dissipated in a comparatively short time and irreparable damage would be caused in the territories. Apart from the timbers that can be secured for general purposes there are two species of special value, that is, walnut, and klinkii and hoop pine. New Guinea walnut, which is available in limited quantities, has already found favour in overseas markets and judicious cutting of this timber can be continued so as to develop a reasonable export trade. The stand for hoop and klinkii pine in the Bulolo Valley, which has received considerable prominence during recent years, is a valuable national asset and is regarded as one of the most important stands of timber of its kind in the southern hemisphere. For some considerable time the milling of timber even for local requirements has been for all practical purposes at a standstill, even to the extent that timber has been imported from New Zealand; and during my visit, a serious application was made to me that dollars should be provided to enable timber to be imported into New Guinea from America. Two basic points of policy formulated by the preceding Government in 1946 were that holders of pre-war permits should he encouraged to reestablish their operations so as to meet the requirements of the territory for sawn timber and to supply logs and sawn timber to Australia and overseas; that no further applications be received for timber permits for general logging and milling; and that all future grants of timber be only in respect of areas designated by the territory Department of Forests and be allotted as a result of public tenders. I have found that in the absence of appropriate legislation, the timber requirements of Papua were not being met and that although many people in both Papua and New Guinea were ready and anxious to carry out timber operations they' could not do so. Recognizing the importance of timber supplies for practically all activities in the territories, it has been determined that there shall be a vigorous forest policy on the following lines: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. An orderly development of a timber industry in the territories on sound forestry principles with provision for the reafforestation of all areas to the satisfaction of the forestry officials of the territories. 1. As a general rule rights to forest areas may be obtained only as the result of public tender, and in respect of areas that have been designated by forest officials of the territories. There will, however, he exceptions to this general rule so as to meet the requirements of the territories, and the Administrator will be authorized to grant timber rights over stands of timber not exceeding 5,000,000 super feet without tender where the timber is for territory use and not for export unless so authorized by the Administrator. Such timber rights are, however, to be regarded as emergency measures and will be limited to a period of ten years. 2. To meet local requirements in districts adjacent to timber supplies, for example the Sepik district, the Administrator will be empowered to issue to sawmillers authority to secure from natives logs that will be used to supply timber for the district itself. 3. Royalty will be payable to the Administration on all timber cut. lt will be the aim of the Administration to ensure that such timber rights as are granted shall be worked and, as a means to that end, holders of timber rights granted pre-war and still current will be required to fulfil the conditions of those permits by the 31st December, 1950. That will be done in order to prevent areas that ought to be used from lying unused. The Bulolo pine stand, and such other areas as are declared by notice in the *Gazette,* will, however, require special consideration. The previous Government tentatively decided that the Bulolo pine stand should be developed for the production in the territory of plywood, veneer and timber, by a joint company to be formed by the Commonwealth Government in conjunction with Bulolo Gold Dredging Company. This proposal is being re-examined by the Government, which has appointed a committee under the chairmanship of **Mr. G.** J. Rodger, Commonwealth DirectorGeneral of Forestry, to advise whether this or some other method would ensure that the pine stand shall be used to the best advantage. An ordinance will be enacted to give expression to the policy that has been outlined, but, in the meantime, I have directed that restrictions which had been placed upon the administration of the present ordinance of the Territory of New Guinea shall be removed. The present timber ordinance of the Territory of Papua will be repealed and the forestry ordinance of New Guinea will be applied to Papua. An increased staff of trained foresters will be required and steps are being taken with a view to securing such personnel. Prior to the war, natives in the Territories of Papua and New Guinea were employed under a system of contract known as the indenture system. Under this system natives were liable to imprisonment for breaches of the contract such as desertion, failure to show reasonable diligence and disobedience of a reasonable order, &c. .Shortly after the re-establishment of civil administration, the former Government approved modifications of the system and removed the provision which required that inprison ment should be a penalty. Pecuniary punishments were provided for such offences as being absent from work without leave or reasonable excuse, improper performance of work and causing friction between labourers and employers. Those pecuniary punishments are still applicable. The maximum period of service under a contract was reduced from three years to one year and the provision was made that a native could not again be employed under contract until he had been home for a period of three months. At the same time it was announced that the indenture system would be abolished as soon as possible, and in any case within a period of five years. A separate Department of Native Labour was established to deal with all aspects of the employment of natives. This Government is in agreement with the decision to abolish the indenture system within the time stated. Although the indenture system will be abolished, the majority of natives in the territories have not reached the stage of being able to work without some form of written agreement approved by the Administration. There are in the territories natives in varying stages of development. If these people are to be employed in industry, it is essential to retain adequate safeguards to regulate their recruitment and employment. It is proposed, therefore, to retain these safeguards in the form of a written agreement to be known as "Native Employee's Agreement". This agreement will incorporate the provisions of the existing contract of service under which those necessary safeguards are provided, while dispensing with the provisions relating to penalties, leaving only the civil remedies that would apply to any normal contract for an agreement between and employer and an employee. From my observations and the inquiries that I have made, I am satisfied that the limitation of the term of engagement to one year is not in the best interests of the natives or of the territories. It is, therefore, proposed that the maximum fixed period of employment under the agreement shall be eighteen months with a provision that the period of engagement, may be extended by a further period not exceeding six months; but with the right to both the native and the employer to terminate the contract during such further period by giving ono month's notice. No term of engagement will be permitted beyond the period of two years, after which it will be necessary for the native to be returned to his village before entering into any further term of engagement. The existing provision under the ordinance relating to the employment of natives in certain circumstances without written contract will be continued. Those provisions are that a native may be employed without written agreement within the district in which his home is situated or in any part of the territory where authority is given for such native to be employed without written agreement by an authorized officer of the administration. The provisions of the present Native Labour Ordinance under which natives may be employed under contracts of service will continue in operation until the 31st December, 1950, and new contracts may be made under those provisions until and including that date. Any contracts that are current at the 31st December, 1950, may continue for the balance unexpired of the full period . of twelve months, but no new contracts of service will be possible after the date mentioned. An ordinance will be enacted to provide for native employees' agreements and they will be operative from a date to be announced. The operation of the revised system under which natives may be employed will be closely watched and I have arranged for the Administrator to report to me periodically as to how the system is working. The Government considers that the extension of the maximum period of employment will have a marked effect upon both the native and industry in the territories. The native will be able to remain in employment for a sufficiently long period to secure a training in industry and the employer will be able to bring reasonable stability to his operations. During my visit to the territories I saw natives in their villages and in employment in industry. The beneficial effect upon the natives of the regular food and medical and other attention that they receive while in employment is. most evident. The supervision of the employment of natives is one of the major tasks of the Administration and should be undertaken by officers trained and experienced in the administration of natives generally. It has, therefore, been decided that the Department of Native Labour, as at present constituted, shall 'be discontinued and that the functions o!' the Administration in regard to the control of natives in employment shall be allotted to the Department of District Services and Native Affairs, which in my opinion is better qualified to discharge these functions. A separate organization primarily for inspectorial purposes will, however, be retained. This separate organization will be placed under the administrative control of the Government Secretary. The Territories of Papua and New Guinea have been joined in an administrative union, but the separate customs tariffs which operated in these territories before the war are still in force. These tariffs differ materially in the rates and incidence of the duties imposed and it has been decided to revise them with the object of bringing them into line and so providing a uniform tariff for the two territories. At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to review generally the incidence of the duties and as a result the schedules of duties will be revised to move the incidence of taxation from important basic necessities towards less essential and non-essential items. The purpose of thi.is to relieve both general industrial costs and the basic Costs of living as a measure of assistance and encouragement in the further development of these territories. This new tariff will take effect as from the 1st July, 1950. Copra is the most important of the agricultural products of the territories. Prior to the war, exports amounted to some 90,000 tons per annum. Following on the invasion of the territories in 1942, production of copra came to a standstill. Subsequently, the Australian New Guinea Production Control Board was formed the purpose of which was to secure from the areas within our control the greatest possible output of this product which was badly needed for war purposes. With the ending of war, this board was used for the purpose of assisting private enterprise in the rehabilitation of the industry. As this rehabilitation progressed, the board gradually relinquished its activities and since 1947 it has been responsible only for the marketing of the copra output of the territories. As a result of the world-wide shortages of fats and oils which have developed during and since the war, copra is at present commanding high prices. Prior to the war, however, its market had over a period of many years, proved to he most unstable and in 1941 it was necessary for the Australian Government to come to the assistance of the copra industry in the territories to save it from extinction. As a part of the post-war marketing arrangements for territory copra, an agreement was entered into by the preceding Government with the United Kingdom Ministry of Food for the purchase by the latter of the entire territory output of this commodity that is surplus to Australia's requirements for home consumption. This agreement is for a period of nine years from the 1st March, 1949. No useful purpose would be served at this stage by reviewing the terms of this agreement. The contract exists and the present Government is bound by its terms. Whilst the prices obtained .under that agreement are lower than those that have since become obtainable on the socalled free markets in other parts of the world, the important feature which the agreement had in mind was, no doubt, that it assured for the copra industry of the territories a stability of price at payable levels which had hitherto been entirely lacking and without which the industry would be unable to plan its operations with any degree of confidence. Even before this agreement had been entered into, the need for securing some measure of stability for this vital territory industry had been recognized and it had been decided to take advantage of the high level of post-war prices to establish a stabilization fund which could he used for the purpose of supporting prices at payable levels in the long term. Contributions to this fund are obtained through a levy imposed on all copra exported from the territories. . The rate of levy is at present fixed at £5 a ton and the amount now held in the fund is approaching £700,000. During my recent visit to the territories, divergent views were expressed regarding whether, in view of the security afforded to the industry by the agreement with the United- Kingdom, there is continued need for this fund. However, after a review of the matter, the Government con siders that the agreement does not, in itself, provide the full measure of stability that is so important to this vital territory industry and it has therefore been decided that stabilization must continue. Investigations are now. being made of the basis upon which contributions shall be levied in future, and the manner in which the fund shall be administered so as to ensure to producers a reasonable price level for the long term future. Decisions in these matters will be taken in consultation with the producers, who will also be represented on the authority that is set up to control and administer the fund. One other matter which has come under review in connexion with the present marketing arrangements for territory copra is the price at which this commodity is being supplied to Australia. As I mentioned earlier, there was reserved out of the quantities sold to the United Kingdom Ministry of Food under the 1949 agreement, sufficient copra to meet Australia's requirements for internal consumption. At the same time the previous Government decided that this copra would be supplied to Australia at prices equivalent to those ruling under the United Kingdom agreement. The effect of this arrangement is that the Australian crushers, whilst enjoying the full benefit of the favorable prices which are at present operating under the agreement, are in no way bound by its other terms and consequently are under no obligation to continue purchasing their requirements from the territories at the agreement price should any general fall of prices enable them to obtain their copra requirements from other and cheaper sources of supply. This aspect of the matter is at present under examination and it is my intention to set up committees to assist in its determination and in the formulation of the details of a scheme for the stabilization of the industry, including the ultimate destination of the amount of approximately £700,000 which is now held as a result of the levy that has been imposed upon the export of copra since December, 1946. Such committees will he composed of representatives of the interests involved as well as government officials. As regards future marketing arrangements, the Australian New Guinea Production Control Board was never intended to function as a permanent marketing authority and it is intended that as soon as possible the responsibility of marketing territory copra shall revert to private enterprise, subject to such restrictions as are necessary to allow the Government to carry out its obligations under the United Kingdom agreement and to ensure that the interests of all producers in the territory shall continue to be safeguarded. Negotiations to this end are now in progress with companies and organizations likely to be interested in the marketing of territory copra under these sonditions. Pending the termination of the board's activities, producers will be given representation on the board, which at present is composed only of government officials. The present procedure for obtaining land in the territories and the machinery for the administration of the laws of the territories relating to land will be overhauled with a view to facilitating the taking up of land by people who wish to settle in the territories. Land in the territories belongs to the native inhabitants who may only dispose of it when administration officials are satisfied that disposal of it will not be detrimental to the interests of the natives. It A3 proposed to carry out an investigation of the land holdings of natives with a view to determining what further area could be made available for nonnative development without injury to the interests of the natives. During the course of my visit numerous representations were made to me that some scheme of land settlement for exservicemen should be formulated for the territories. I favour such a proposal and it will be examined in consultation with the appropriate Commonwealth authorities. The Australian Government acquired after the 1914-18 war a number of plantations in New Guinea which were vested in the Custodian of Expropriated Property and were sold under long-term agreements. Some of these properties have reverted to the possession of the Custodian and will be made available for purchase by ex-servicemen at an early date. Our first and foremost duty is the advancement of the native peoples of the territories and their development to the stage at which they will be- able to share in the administration of their country. This will take a very long time, but the natives have shown that with the proper guidance and the opportunity they have the capacity to carry out both manual and mental tasks in accordance with our concepts. Immediately following the re-establishment of civil administration after the war a major task was rehabilitation of the native inhabitants and the reconstruction of their villages. This phase has been completed and the native life of the territories has in a large measure been restored to the pre-war standard. This, however, is not enough and it is the aim of this Government to improve those standards as rapidly and as far as its resources will permit it to do so. Such an improvement will be effected through health, education and agricultural services. In all those services the first requirement is the provision of staff, which must be carefully selected and trained for the specialized tasks they will be required to perform. The heavy loss of experienced personnel of the former administration of Papua and New Guinea has been a severe handicap and it is not possible for that loss to be repaired in a short time. The special arrangements that were made for the training of staff at the Australian School of Pacific Administration will be continued and action is now being taken to appoint a principal and other academic staff to the school. Applications for these positions were advertised some time ago. The council of the school is now examining the applications received and it is expected that the appointments will be announced at an early date. There are areas of the territories that have not yet been brought under the control of the administration and in which the native inhabitants have not been in touch with the -white man. Many of these areas are in the centre of the mainland of New Guinea and consist of most rugged country. The task of bringing the natives of those areas under the control of the administration is difficult 2nd slow. However, we cannot allow any part of the territories We administer to remain a closed book to us any longer than can be avoided and it is the aim of the Government that every part shall be fully controlled and administered within the next five years. I was at Goroka in the central highlands when an administration patrol returned after an absence of some weeks from the station during which it penetrated areas not previously visited and located large populations that had been living in completely primitive isolation. Such patrols demonstrate the success of the system of peaceful penetration and the need that 1 have mentioned already to have experienced staff in order to extend and consolidate government influence. Some time ago in this House an inquiry was made regarding the wisdom of permitting natives from the highland areas to be engaged for employment in other areas in the territories. Until 1949 there had been a prohibition upon the employment of natives from areas above an altitude of 3,500 feet in areas below that height. The extension of the administration influence into the highland areas has shown them to be inhabited by a large population of a virile type and following investigations by the Director of Public Health and other technical officers of the administration, it was considered that with proper safeguards such natives could be permitted to engage for employment in other areas with advantage to themselves and to the development of the territories. The safeguards include special medical examinations and vaccinations against tuberculosis, typhoid1 and other diseases. The natives are selected by the administration from those desirous of proceeding to employment and special measures are taken to supervise their activities at their places of employment. I was met by an assembly of natives at Goroka and two of their spokesmen conveyed to me the enthusiasm of the people for the scheme. They were very interested to know how their fellows who were in employment elsewhere had fared and I listened to an officer who had recently visited the places where the natives were employed describe the conditions of employment and assure their relatives of their well-being. A request was made to me that some of the seniors should be permitted to visit those areas to see the conditions under which their kinsmen were living. Authority was given to the district officer to arrange for some of the village leaders to be given an opportunity to make such a visit in company with an Administration official. At present many of the natives are transported long distances to their places of employment. As the resources of the territories are developed it will be the aim to employ the natives as near to their homes as possible; in other words, to develop the resources adjacent to the areas in which there are large populations. An instance of tho possibilities has been given by an inquiry that has been received concerning the growing of vegetables in the highland areas of the territories. There is a constant demand for fresh vegetables in such centres as Port Moresby, and with air transport it should he possible to meet this demand from an organized industry in the highlands. The co-operative movement has been introduced, and the Administration is guiding and sponsoring natives in the formation of societies under it. The natives have displayed a keenness to participate in the movement, which is being encouraged by the Administration as it affords a splendid opportunity to the native for self help and is a practical means of education in the ways of modern society. The Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme was established in the territories for the benefit of natives who served with the forces during the war. This produced very creditable results, and a scheme of a like nature has been continued by the Administration, and is open to all natives who wish to receive, and are adaptable for, training as artisans and technicians such as carpenters, electricians, engineers, &c. In all these activities in relation to the native peoples care is taken to preserve the structure of native tribal life and native customs that are not harmful or repugnant to humanity. The native village of Hanuabada close to Port Moresby is now being rebuilt by the natives themselves under the guidance of an administration officer. The matter of rebuilding this village has been the source of concern to the Administration for some years and is now being solved largely by the initiative and enterprise of the native people themselves. The natives of the Territories of Papua and New Guinea were not included in the Australian war damage compensation scheme and the former Government approved of a special scheme of compensation for the natives to cover death and injury to their persons and destruction and damage to their property. Amounts totalling £960,000 have already been distributed to the natives and the latest estimates indicate that a further amount of approximately £1,230,000 remains to be paid under the scheme, making a total estimated cost of approximately £2,200,000. During my recent visit to the territories representations were made to me to the effect that the circulation of these large sums of money to the natives had had a harmful effect upon their outlook in regard to employment and also upon the economy of the territories generally. Moreover, in the absence of a full supply of goods that would be useful to the natives, it is considered that they themselves have not received the full benefit which the scheme was designed to give to them. Indeed, in many cases, they wasted the money in useless purchases and accordingly much of it was dissipated and not used for the purposes for which it was intended. I. considered that, whilst natives continued to receive cash payments from the fund and were not able to put such moneys to proper use, the territories and the natives themselves were not receiving the benefit of this money, which is being made available by the Australian Government. Therefore, steps are being taken to protect the interests of the natives by paying into savings bank accounts all moneys payable to them in excess of a small amount. "Withdrawals from these accounts would be permitted only on the authority of a district officer, who will see that the sums withdrawn shall be applied to the purpose for which they are intended, namely, the replacement by the native of goods and effects lost during the war period or to enable him to purchase other classes of goods that would assist his rehabilitation. It is abundantly clear that hand-outs of money do not represent the best way to advance the interests of the native and make him a responsible person. Such easy money can be positively demoralizing and prevent the native from realizing that only by his own efforts and enterprise can he improve his status and standard of living. In the promotion of the welfare and advancement of the native people and in the steps to be taken to ensure their participation in the fruits of the development of the resources of the territories, one of the principal factors is education. The broad objectives of the educational programme of the territories are universal literacy and the development of the native people as a community within their own environment, including all aspects of native culture. To this must be added such instruction as will assist the native to adjust his mode of life to the changed conditions resulting from contact with civilization and culture and such technical training as will assist him to become more self-sufficient whilst taking an active part in the general development of the territories. A plan for an educational programme has been prepared and is designed to become fully operative over a period of five years. This plan is now being examined in the light of the needs of the territories, the availability of staff and cost of equipment, buildings and other essential factors. Apart from native education there is the need to provide adequate facilities for the children of European and Asiatic residents. This aspect is covered by the plans prepared. Up to the present, however, secondary education has not been available in the territories and children have had to proceed to the Australian mainland to complete this phase of education. Approval has now been given for the establishment of a secondary school at Wau, and the preliminary steps to prepare plans for the building have been taken. A scheme was in existence to establish a composite school for Asiatics and Europeans. After giving the matter careful examination, I consider that, in existing circumstances, the time for that is not opportune, and accordingly I decided against it and directed that the scheme be discontinued. The Christian missions have always played an important part in the territories in relation to education, health and the general welfare of the native people. In the plans for the extension of educational and health services, the facilities provided by the missions will have their place, and the integration of the activities of the administration and the missions in these spheres should prove of mutual benefit resulting in improved services generally. I had an opportunity of visiting some of the missions, and I was greatly impressed by the zeal of the missionaries, their devotion to their task and the benefits they have conferred upon the native peoples. In any territory development, an integral part of the plans must be better health, with its greater expectation of life, and an increasing population. Future large-scale development of the territories requires a larger labour potential than is immediately available. A high ambition is to achieve eventually a 2 per cent, annual increase of population. Better health in the territories demands an expanded service which can give full practice to modern concepts of preventive and therapeutic medicine. A major contribution to this expanded service must be the part taken by the native people themselves. It is therefore essential that training establishments be introduced. Fortunately, many of the diseases of the territories lend themselves to the practice of preventive medicine. It is hoped that, as staffing allows, more intensive campaigns will be undertaken to minimize or even eradicate many of the diseases, such as malaria, hookworm, yaws, the dysenteries, whooping cough and leprosy. Already, mass vaccination with B.C.G. against tuberculosis is being carried out and this, with other precautions, has allowed native people from the central highlands to move safely to coastal areas. These central highlanders? for the first time recently in contact with Europeans, have no tuberculosis in their midst, in contrast to many coastal people, where, after more than 50 years' contact, it is now a scourge. Furthermore, with air travel and population movements in the Far East, it has become necessary to commence widespread compulsory vaccination against small-pox. A problem facing the Administration arises from the fact that, as the people become civilized and their expectation of life increases, the health authorities see diseases not commonly experienced amongst the primitive native people but well known in our western communities, such, as cancer and appendicitis. To meet these many medical problems in territories such as Papua and New Guinea, with their limited transport facilities, there must be an adequate staff and sufficient institutions in which diseases may be treated and natives trained to take their place in the Department of Public Health. Such services must also provide that people who make their homes in the territories will be protected from disease and receive the full benefits of modern treatments. The Director of Public Health of the Territory has strongly represented that at least 76 hospitals are needed to give a minimal optimum service to them. It should be remembered that the territories have an area of about 180,000 square miles, two and a quarter times the size of Victoria, and an estimated population of over 1,500,000. In addition to general hospitals, tuberculosis and leprosy hospitals, a mental asylum and bulk stores are required. It is estimated that the cost of such a programme will be in the vicinity of £7,000,000. A committee including **Dr. John** Gunther, the Director of Public Health of the Territory, **Dr. W.** Kirkland, of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, and **Dr. T.** Brennan, formerly Director of Public Health of the Mandated Territory of New Guinea, will very shortly make a full investigation of these requirements. Immediate requirements are base hospitals and medical training establishments at Port Moresby and Lae, and tenders for these will be invited in Australia and overseas as soon a3 the necessary technical details can be determined with a view speedily to provide these essential institutions. The European hospital at Port Moresby is a disgrace to this country. In association with the hospital at Port Moresby there will be a central medical school, on the lines of the Central Medical School at Suva, at which natives will be trained to be assistant medical practitioners. The recent arrival of 3S New Australian medical practitioners has greatly improved the staffing position, so that now every district has at least one medical officer. Such increase in staffing has allowed an expansion of the infant and maternal welfare work and for investigation to be made of areas in which there is either a high infant death rate or a low birth rate with depopulation. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- What is the death-rate in Papua and New Guinea? {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr SPENDER: -- In some places, I am told, the infant mortality rate is as high as 50 per cent. During my visit I was not satisfied with the progress that was being made with the building of houses, wharfs, offices and other government establishments, and since my return I have had discussions with my colleague the Minister for Works and Housing **(Mr. Casey),** who is rendering to me every assistance in the task. I found that, since the re-establishment of civil administration in 1945-46, various methods have been tried to find a way speedily to carry out the large reconstruction programme that is necessary to restore and expand government facilities in the territories and to operate and maintain such facilities as roads, water supply, electricity Asc. Prior to the war, the Commonwealth Department of Works did not operate in the Territory of Papua or the Territory of New Guinea, each of which maintained its own public works department. In 1945, the administrations of the two territories were provisionally combined, and, as from the 1st July, 1949, this arrangement was confirmed by the Papua and New Guinea Act, which provides for the territories to be administered in administrative union with one administration and one public service. In 1945, the territorial Public Works Department was established, with responsibility for the maintenance and operation of public utilities, and, by arrangement with the Minister for Works and Housing, his department was to carry out major works as requested by my department. It was found that the territorial Public Works Department was unable to carry out the maintenance tasks. owing principally to the lack of suitable staff. It was then arranged that the Department of Works and Housing should take over all works projects in the territories, including operation and the maintenance of public utilities, for an estimated period of from three to five years, but, owing again to difficulty in regard to the recruitment of staff, this has not been fully effective. Late in 1949, by agreement between the Minister for External Territories and the Minister for Works and Housing of the former Government, it was proposed that the works organization for the territories should be reorganized and that for a period of from eight to ten years the territorial Public Works Department should be inoperative and that a branch of the Department of Work and Housing should be established there in the same way as that department operates in the States of tko Commonwealth. The organization for this arrangement has been completed in consultation with the Commonwealth Public Service Board and, while I was there, the Director Director of Works commenced duty. The branch of the Department of Works and Housing will be the constructing authority for the Administration and for the Department of Civil Aviation and such other Commonwealth departments as operate in the territories. Under this arrangement, it is expected that many of the difficulties previously experienced in regard to staff, particularly technical staff, will be overcome and that when the arrangement is fully effective it will be possible to proceed with the construction programme for the territories as expeditiously as the supply of men and materials will permit. It is realized that *the* supply of material*; in the territories and in Australia will bp a determining factor in the rate at which the programme can be carried out but by a greater use of private contractors, both from Australia and overseas, it is hoped that appreciable progress will be made in the overall programme which, however, in the most favorable circumstances, may not be near completion for a number of years. It is hoped that, by large scale contracts, costs will be reduced and the present limitation of Australian resources will be overcome by attracting commercial organizations from overseas with the necessary men and material to undertake construction work in the territories. A contract has already been let for the construction of a wharf at Samarai and the tenders that have been received for one at Madang are now being examined. Tenders will be invited for a new wharf at Port Moresby as soon as plans and specifications have been completed. These projects, including a wharf which is being constructed at Lae by the Department of Works and Housing, are estimated to cost about £700,000. Included in the major works to be undertaken are the rebuilding of Port Moresby, now the capital of the two territories, according to an approved plan, the building of Lae and a settlement to replace Rabaul, the completion of the road front the coast to the gold-fields in the Morobe district, and hydro-electric installations at Port Moresby and later in other1 parts. So far as the maintenance of the road from the goldfields is concerned, negotiations are now in train with a view to this work being carried out by gold-mining companies that operate in the area. In addition to the works I have mentioned, a further intensive programme is necessary to supply the houses, offices, schools, hospitals and other establishments that are required. A full programme of such works is now being prepared so that it will be possible properly to organize the projects in an orderly manner. It will be remembered that a severe volcanic eruption occurred at Rabaul in 1937 with disastrous results to the native population and the town, which was then the capital of the Territory of New Guinea. A decision has been taken to abandon the Rabaul area and transfer the administrative head-quarters of the New Britain district to the Kokopo area, about 20 miles away. This move involves extensive operations, such as the clearing of land, erection of buildings, establishment of sources of supply of water and electric power, sanitation, construction of roads and wharfs, and the many other services and public utilities that are required in a town that must provide reasonable living conditions for its inhabitants. The cost of this undertaking has not been computed, but the technical advisers have informed me that, from general experience, the minimum cost of the complete new town will be approximately £5,000,000 and that it will be some years before the new township can be completed and Rabaul wholly evacuated. In the meantime, Rabaul will be maintained as m temporary administrative centre and all possible precautions will be taken to guard against any loss of life in the event of another eruption. A vulcanological observatory established after the 1937 eruption was destroyed during the war. Arrangements were made this year for its re-establishment, and a vulcanologist took up duty' in the territory in April last. This will ensure to residents facilities for giving advance warnings of impending eruptions that have not been available to them since the re-occupation of Rabaul. Rabaul is one of the most important ports and is a point of concentration for territory produce for shipment overseas. All wharfage accommodation was destroyed during the war, and such temporary wharfs as were constructed after the recapture of the area have a limited and uncertain life. It is proposed, however, to maintain those facilities so far as it is practicable to do so, and to assist in the provision of wharfage and storage accommodation three Philippine lighters have been purchased. These lighters were towed from Sydney to Rabaul and arrived there on the 27th May. They should go a long way towards removing the difficulties that have been experienced in the loading, unloading and transhipment of stores and copra. I have already mentioned the steps that are being taken to provide an adequate shipping service. There are no railways and relatively few roads. The topography and climate of the country make these methods of communication and transport extremely difficult and expensive from the point of view of construction and maintenance. The effective means of transport are, therefore, ships and aircraft. Qantas Empire Airways Limited has already established a network of air services and will be encouraged to maintain and expand those activities. The Government will also welcome the expansion of air services throughout the area by private operators, as it is recognized that they, too, can play an important part in opening up the territories. The administration of the territory is vested in an administrator, who is assisted by an executive council and twelve departments. The Papua and New Guinea Act passed in 1949 makes provision for the establishment of a legislative council to consist partly of nominated members and partly of elected members and includes a provision that three of the nominated members shall be indigenous people of the territory. The act further provides that the Legislative Council shall be established as soon as practicable after the 1st July, 1950. Pending the establishment of the Legislative Council, legislation for the territory is made by the Governor-General. This Government is not entirely satisfied that the proposed composition of the council will be in the best interests of the territory in its present stage of, development. The provisions of the act will, therefore, be further examined before steps are taken to bring the council into being. In the meantime, however, it is felt that the people of the territory should be in a position to express their views on matters affecting their interests, and it is proposed that district advisory councils consisting of residents nominated by the Administrator shall be established to assist the district officers in the various districts. It is frequently stated that, in the administration of the territories, there is too much control from Canberra and not enough responsibility granted to the man on the spot. I have found that the Department of External Territories in Canberra and the Administration in the territory have been doing excellent jobs in most difficult circumstances. The department in Canberra, which has never been given the recognition that its importance demands, was established as a separate department with a separate ministerial portfolio only in 1941 by the former Menzies Government. Even so, it was not until 1944 that a separate secretary was provided for the department. In fact, it has been the Cinderella of Commonwealth departments and it has only been by the energy and enthusiasm of a small number of officers that the department has been able to cope with the many and varied problems that are inherent in the administration of the external territories. Steps that are in train to strengthen the staff of the department will be continued so that it will be equipped to carry out its functions. At the same time it is clearly necessary that responsibility for detailed administration shall rest with the staff in the territory and that there shall not be undue reference to Canberra in matters that can and should be settled on the spot. It will therefore be the policy of this Government to place administrative responsibility as close as possible to the people who are affected by such administrative actions. As between Canberra and Port Moresby, delegated authority will be reposed in the Administrator whenever practicable, and likewise, in the territory itself, there will be a policy of decentralization and the spreading of authority. In the pre-war laws of the territory, which are still in force, the Administrator was required to submit to the Minister for approval any item of proposed expenditure that exceeded £5,000. Steps are being taken to amend the relevant ordinance so that the Administrator will be able to incur expenditure upon any one item not exceeding £15,000. {: #subdebate-6-0-s1 .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Has that system applied since the end of World War II. ? {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr SPENDER: -- That law is still in operation, but the ordinance will be amended within a week or so. In my view, it is fantastic to limit expenditure by the Administrator to the amount of £5,000. Therefore, I propose immediately to increase his authority in order to enable him to expend up to the amount of £15,000 on any one item. This is the first step towards delegating increased authority to the Administrator, as I am satisfied that only by so doing can the best efficiency be developed. As an extension of the same principle, the financial authority of the heads of departments and district officers in the territory will be increased. As a further step towards more speedy and effective administration, two officers in distant parts of the territory will be vested with the powers of the Administrator in the capacity of deputy administrators. Such officers will be required to act for the Administrator in routine matters and in other matters that are within the framework of the approved policy on any subject. A greater measure of authority and responsibility will also be vested in the district officers in relation to all matters within the districts in which they are placed in charge. I pay a tribute to the district officers and to the work they do. I think that their prestige and standing have been allowed to decline. I propose to restore that prestige, which, I am convinced, will be in the best interests of the Administration. Henceforth they will be known as district commissioners. With a view to securing a cohesive administration in all its aspects, arrangements will be made for a regular exchange of officers of the Department of External Territories with officers of the territorial administration. It is proposed also to approach the British Colonial Office and the New Zealand Government with a view to arrangements being made for ft regular interchange of suitable officers in the various areas under their administration. In order that the technical officers in such departments as Agriculture, Forestry, Native Administration, &C.. will be able to learn the methods used and the problems encountered in other tropical areas, selected officers will be sent overseas for training. One particular item in relation to territory administration that has caused delay in bringing some matters to finality is the inability of the department and the administration to have legal drafting work done in the normal course of Commonwealth Administration. This has been hampering in many directions and, after consultation with the SolicitorGeneral, arrangements have now been made whereby as many ordinances as possible will be prepared within the Department of External Territories and the territorial administration before submission to the Minister for approval. Prior to the passing of the Papua-New Guinea Act 1949, the Public Service of the territory was on a provisional basis. An investigation was carried out to obtain the necessary data to establish a permanent Public Service under the act. The principles of classification for the service have been approved, and details are now being worked out in consultation with the Public Service Commissioner for the territory. The proposed classification will make provision for approximately 1,600 officers and is designed to equip the administration adequately to carry out the difficult and important task of native administration and other functions of government that are so necessary for the development of the territories. The rates of salary and the conditions of employment for officers of the Public Service have been reviewed with the object of bringing them into line with improved Public Service stand.dards and having regard to the special re- quirements of the territories. One of the major obstacles to the establishment of a stable and contended Public Service hae been the inability to provide reasonable living accommodation both for single and married officers. Much reconstruction and building is essential and will take a long time to complete. For the officers of the administration alone it is calculated that at. least 2S0 residences will be required by the 30th June, 1952. Authority has been given for the construction of 62 houses and for the erection in Port Moresby of single accommodation for about 70 officers. The need for the provision of such accommodation is fully recognized, and ways and means are now being explored to accelerate the construction. I was greatly impressed by the enthusiastic representations that were made to me at various places for the reestablishment of the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles as a unit of the Australian Citizen Military Forces. My colleague, the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** has already announced that approval has been given for this to be done and that enlistment will begin as soon as the necessary administration machinery can be set up. Numerous requests were also made for assistance in the formation of rifle clubs. The Government will give every possible encouragement in this connexion. Approval has also been given for the formation of a Papuan-New Guinea Division of the Royal Australian Navy, to be recruited from the indigenous inhabitants of the territories. The establishment of a native regiment as a part of the Australian Military Forces is also under consideration. It is most important that the territories should be kept free of subversive influences, and steps will be taken, by legislation and otherwise, to see that they are not exposed to this menace. From the re-establishment of civil administration, between October, 1945, and June, 1946, to the 30th June, 1949, the expenditure by the Administration was £9,300,000, and it is estimated that by the 30th June, 1950, the amount will be £14,500,000. During that period the revenue of the territory amounted to £3,926,000, and the balance was made available by the Australian Government by way of grants. The more intensive programme for the development of the territories will entail increased expenditure. It has been estimated that a programme of hospital building will amount to about £7,000,000, and the cost of establishing a head-quarters settlement to replace Rabaul is calculated to cost at least £5,000,000. Many other items necessary for reconstruction and development will involve expenditure on :i comparable scale. Expenditure of that magnitude is clearly beyond normal budgetary provision, and the question of obtaining at least a substantial portion of the necessary funds by way of loan must accordingly be explored. It is intended also that the share of the cost of administration borne by the residents shall be fully examined. At the p resent time, residents are not subject to Commonwealth income tax, nor is there any direct territorial taxation. There is, however, a territorial customs tariff, under which import and export duties are levied, and there is a royalty of 5 per cent, on gold produced. There are also various fees and levies collected by the Administration in connexion with mining, lands and other operations. Further, it is considered that bank finance should be available to assist private persons and companies who wish to settle in the territories, and the means of doing this will be investigated in consultation with the Commonwealth Bank and other banking institutions. This, it. is considered, will bc a most important factor in the future development of the territories, as it is necessary both for the advancement of the native inhabitants and the territories generally that the Australian population in the areas shall be augmented as much as possible. Australia has, in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, a great responsibility and a great opportunity. We must make up our minds that the tasks ahead of us, which I have mentioned only in bare outline, are such that we must courageously face up to them and discharge them if this area, vital to Australia, is to be kept secure and its people gradually developed as a self-supporting, modern community. These people look to Australia as their natural protector in their interests as well as our own. We must get on with the task as rapidly as possible. In my opinion, we should view our financial commitments in respect of the territories as a " must ", and as involving a different budgetry approach from the method that has been adopted to date. We cannot solve the problems of New Guinea merely by relying on revenue hand-outs by the Commonwealth. We must consider engaging in loan expenditure which, in my view, is the proper way for the purpose of establishing capital buildings and equipment in the territories. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- The Minister stated that deductions were made from the pay of the natives for inefficiency and the like. He also mentioned that their money was banked. I should like him to inform me who makes the deductions for inefficiency, and who supervises that system. {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr SPENDER: -- The honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** has misunderstood me. I did not say that deductions were made from the natives' pay. I said that, under the system that is operating at the present time, a pecuniary penalty is imposed by law for a breach of discipline, disobedience and matters of that description. Breaches of discipline are punishable by fine, which is imposed by the courts. I propose to extend the term of employment to two years, and a pecuniary penalty will no longer be imposed. It is to be a civil contract. I am satisfied from my discussion.1: with the planters in Papua and New Guinea that the alteration will meet the needs, and will place the relations between the native and the employer on the basis of a civil contract only. I have also been -asked a question about the money that has been paid to the natives by way of compensation for war damage. The intention is that the money shall be paid into a savings bank account, and the natives in whose names it has been deposited may apply to the district officers for permission to make withdrawals for the purposes for which, I believe, compensation was originally intended. In my experience, the district officers are highly qualified men who arc doing a first-class job. I thank the House for its patience. I lay on the table the following paper : - >External Territories - Australia's Policy - Ministerial statement, and move - > >That the paper be printed. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Ward)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3653 {:#debate-7} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-7-0} #### ME. G. W. A. DUTHIE, M.P {: #subdebate-7-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: **-(Hon.** Archie Cameron). - The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** being in the chamber at the moment, I propose to bring to a head a matter between himself and myself. Last Thursday evening, I made certain remarks in reply to him, and my intention has been misconstrued. I assure the honorable gentleman that I had no intention whatever of using force against him to get him to my office. Nothing was further from my mind. It appears to have suited certain honorable members to think that that was the intention. I thought that after I had given him an explanation in regard to one or two matters that I had in front of me, he would have availed himself of the opportunity to come to my office, and to examine the records there. He chose not to do so. I told him, .amongst other things, that I would require from him an explanation of the remarks that he made last Thursday evening. I now require him to rise in his place, and, having been assured of my position, to recall to his mind that he said that I had given two calls to the Government side to one call to the Opposition at question time. That statement is absolutely untrue. I now require the honorable gentleman to retract those words, and to express his regret for having made use of them. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- May I take a point of order in regard to this most unfortunate incident? The complaint, sir, was not that you had attempted to use force to get the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** to your office. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- That was never suggested. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- That is so. But what was suggested, and what, in point of fact, appears in the report was that you said to the honorable member, " You will come to my office ". {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I used the word " will ". {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- I think that I am justified in taking the view that that was a direction to the honorable member for Wilmot, and I say, quite frankly, that ii' this incident is to be cleared up satisfactorily, you should do two things in justice to the honorable gentleman, because he has not been permitted to speak on hi? own behalf. The first of those two things is that you shall indicate that you recognize that you had no authority to direct, and that you did not intend to direct, the honorable member to attend at your office, and that you shall state that such was not your intention. The second matter is in relation to the remarks that you made this morning to the honorable member foi1 Wilmot when he did not have an opportunity to defend himself. I say quite respectfully, sir, that I think that those remarks do require some explanation by you. They were probably made in tinheat of the moment. I realize that our feelings do rise quickly on occasions. I believe that it would be a good thing for the Parliament and for the dignity of the Chair if you could see your way clear to adopt my suggestions. If I may repeat them, the first is that you recognize that the word " will which you used, may be taken as indicating a direction to the honorable member for Wilmot to do something, when, in effect, you had no such intention. You could recognize that you had no authority to direct an honorable member to attend at your office. The second matter is what appears to us to be a reflection on the honorable member. You, sir, may see your way clear to make an explanation on those two points. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I assure the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Chifley)** that the word " will " was not used by me in the sense that it was to compel, to enforce or to require- {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Or to command. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Or to command, if the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** desires to use a military term. However, I can assure the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** that the word was not used in that sense. He may accept that explanation if he likes. But the first issue is that I be freed of the charge that was made against me last Thursday evening. That is where the trouble arose. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- There was no charge -.gainst you, **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- May I ask you, sir, while you are on your feet, if you will deal with the second point? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I am about to do so. The important point is that these matters have to be taken in their chronological order. I should not have bad a chance to say anything to-day if the honorable member for Wilmot had not made the charge against me last Thursday evening. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- He did not make a charge against **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order 1 The right honorable member for Barton **(Dr. Evatt)** may not interject while I am on my feet. I am giving the honorable member for Wilmot a last opportunity to retract that statement, and I now require him to do so. {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr Spender: -- May I speak to the point of order ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr Spender: -- I address myself to the point whether it is proper for you, sir, to call upon an honorable member to retract a statement in respect of an incident that is long since past. May I say, with respect, that I am anxious, and I am sure that the whole Parliament is also, to see the end of this unfortunate incident. I am not concerned at the moment about the pros and cons of it. All that I am concerned about is that it is an incident that could easily be closed if, in fact, it is made clear, as you have made the first point clear, that you did not intend to command or require the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** to attend you in your office. The only other matter that remains open is whether, taking the events in chronological order, the honorable member for Wilmot is to speak before you do. It seems to me, with respect, sir, that we can reduce the incident to a simple issue. The dignity of the Chair will not be affected and the authority of the Parliament will be upheld, if anything that you 3aid in the course of the morning was regarded as a reflection on the honorable member, you would lose nothing in dignity, as the occupant of the chair, by withdrawing it. If that were done, and if the honorable member for Wilmot would apologize for the statement that he made about you, the incident would be closed. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- If that will close the incident, I am quite easy about it. because I freely admit that I have a? sharp a tongue as has any man in this House, and it is not losing any of its sharpness by not being much in use. So. if I said anything this morning to which the honorable member objected, well, God bless him, and I hope that will be all right. But I do want an unqualified withdrawal and retraction of the charge that has been made against me.' {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- **Mr. Speaker,** I believe that I am correct in interpreting the explanation that you have just made to mean that you recognize that you had no real authority to - how shall I put it - not command but, perhaps, order me to go. to your room as the result of the incident that occurred on the adjournment last Thursday evening. I wish to make it clear that I had no intention of being disobedient to the Chair when I refused to attend at your office. I refused because I believed that in the circumstances the Chair had no authority to require me or any honorable member to do so. I believe that it is only right and proper that I should intimate to you and to the House that on Thursday evening, when I referred to the practice of the Chair in calling honorable members during question time, my intention was not to cast any reflection on the Chair, or on your impartiality in the Chair. If you look at the statement that I made on that occasion, you will see that that is correct, and that I simply raised the question of what procedure was followed by, the Chair in calling honorable members during question time. I express regret if my statement conveyed an impression to the contrary. I must also add, **Mr. Speaker,** that I felt very much, indeed, the remarks that you made this morning with regard to myself. I believe that they were not justified in the circumstances, particularly as, under your ruling, I then had no opportunity to reply to them. I- am sure that you intend the statement that you have made this evening to be taken as a retraction of the reflection that you made upon me personally this morning. I am glad that as the result of the action you have taken, I can again raise my voice in the Parliament. {: .page-start } page 3655 {:#debate-8} ### CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DEADLOCKS) BILL 1950 {:#subdebate-8-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 3635). {: #subdebate-8-0-s0 .speaker-KYB} ##### Mr PITTARD:
Ballarat .- In substance, this measure deals with elections of the Senate. Although the bill consists of only three clauses, it must not be judged by its brevity, because it is exceedingly important. It proposes an alteration of the Constitution. Members of the Opposition have said that it has been ill-conceived in that it does not make provision in respect of several legal difficulties. Supporters of the Government have complete faith in the leadership of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** because they fully recognize his ability as a constitutional lawyer and his eminence in his profession. He has been the father of many important pieces of legislation that now stand on the statutebook. Honorable members opposite have described the measure as hurried legislation. They have said that the Government is giving it precedence over other measures that are of greater urgency. I refute that statement. The urgency for the introduction of this measure is apparent from its title. The Government has been obliged to introduce it as the result of the attitude that has been adopted by the Opposition majority in the Senate. The colleagues of honorable members opposite in the Senate have implied that they will force a double dissolution. Therefore, the introduction of this legislation is fully justified. It can be regarded as hurried legislation only in relation to the attitude that the Opposition majority in the Senate has adopted in frustrating legislation for which the Government received a clear mandate at the recent general election. The Constitution makes provision for resolving deadlocks but the need for this measure arises directly out of legislation for which the Chifley Government was responsible, that resulted in an enlarged Parliament and. that applied the system of proportional representation to Senate elections. Let us examine the responsibilities that the Constitution imposes upon the Senate. The Senate was established to safeguard the interests of the public against the possibility that the majority in the lower House might seek to enact vital legislation for which it had not received a mandate from the people. Originally, the Senate was meant to be a house of review and a non-party house. The framers of the Constitution never envisaged that a majority in the Senate would use its numbers to thwart the expressed will of the people. Other legislation that has already been dealt with by the House indicates that troublesome times lie ahead of us. I refer to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill which the Opposition has endorsed in principle. In view of that fact urgent steps must be taken to ensure stable government in this country, and if- the Senate thwarts legislation of that kind in the circumstances that now exist the people must be given an opportunity to say whether they uphold or disapprove of its action. That is the object of this measure. It merely seeks to give to the people an opportunity to say whether they wish to enable the Government to avoid deadlocks and stalemates. Thus it implements the essential democratic principle of giving to the people the opportunity to pass judgment upon matters of such importance. Under this measure the Government is not endeavouring to foist anything upon the people. It merely seeks to give to them the opportunity to accept, or reject, this proposal for an alteration of the Constitution. Such a proposal is not so devastating when we remember that all members of the Labour party have signed a pledge to work for the abolition of the Senate. The Government now seeks to eliminate for all time the possibility of deadlocks and statemates in the Parliament. If the Chifley Government, when it introduced the system of proportional representation for the election of the Senate, did not do so in order to maintain Labour's stranglehold on that chamber following a possible double dissolution, then the Opposition has no ground whatsoever for refusing to support this measure. However, if it was the intention of the Chifley Government to ensure that Labour should have a majority in the Senate in practically any circumstances that might arise in the future, its opposition to the measure is quite understandable. The bill does not involve any interference with the rights of electors. It does not seek to add to, or subtract from, the representation that each State now has in the Senate. The measure relates solely to the method of election of senators following a double dissolution. All honorable members are conversant with the details of that proposal. Briefly, it is that following a double dissolution the ten vacancies in each State shall be filled by the election of five senators in each of two ballots and that the five senators who are elected in one ballot shall hold office for a period of six years and the five who are elected in the other ballot shall hold office for a period of three years. Under those conditions a party may obtain in either ballot a majority of three to two, four to one or five to nil; but the essential point is that one of the parties will obtain a clear majority in each of the ballots. Thus, the possibility of equal representation of the Government and Opposition parties in the Senate will be eliminated. It is highly improbable that a deadlock would result under such a system, where- as, under the present system of representation in the Senate, it is highly probable that the Government and Opposition parties would be returned with equal representation, in which event the last position of the Parliament would be worse than its first. Every party that ha3 the welfare of the country at heart will welcome this proposal. Habit, and habit- alone, brings forth obstruction from those who sit on the other side of the House. It is unfortunate that those who sit opposite to any government should be classed as " the Opposition ". The term " Opposition " is a very ill chosen one which seems to engender in its members a spirit of antagonism that debars them from co-operating with the Government. If ever there was need for co-operation between the Government and the Opposition, and for a measure such as this to be considered on non-party lines, this is the time. When addressing the House I try hard not to use the word " Opposition " because we all are here to represent the people of this country. This bill is for the good of all governments. It is for the protection of whichever party is chosen by the people to implement their views. It is not good for Australia if the attempts of this House to place legislation on the statute-book are nullified by the Senate. The sole purpose of this bill is to ask the people whether they desire a change in the system of electing the Senate or whether they seek to perpetuate a system under which their elected government may be completely frustrated. At the outset of my remarks I directed attention to the fact that this is a small bill that contains all told only 34 lines, that it is an important bill, and that, because it proposes an alteration of the Constitution, it calls not for' heated discussion but for solemn consideration. It is a bill the passage of which is of as much import to those who sit on the other side of the House as it is to those who sit on the Government benches. I appeal to all members of this Parliament to support it so that the government of the country may be carried on smoothly and effectively, recognizing that these are troublesome times and that we have a trust to ensure that the progress of this country shall continue unhampered and that our lives and livelihood shall be protected. We cannot honour our trust if the legislation brought into the Parliament is frustrated. I commend the bill to all honorable members. {: #subdebate-8-0-s1 .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE:
Fawkner -- The title of the measure before the House is, " A bill for an act to alter the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Senate ". The purpose of the bill, as has been explained by the honorable member for Ballaarat **(Mr. Pittard)** in what appealed to me as a very eloquent and sincere speech, is to avoid deadlocks after a double dissolution. The honorable member explained the means by which the Government proposes to achieve that end. It is proposed that in the event of a double dissolution ten senators from each .State shall be elected in two groups of five, one group of five to sit for three years and the other group of five to sit for six years, the principle being that in a group of five one side of politics would win three seats and the other side would win two seats. In each State one party would have six senators and the other four senators. The Government claims that that would avoid the disadvantages of a deadlock in the event of a double dissolution under the existing system of proportional representation when the probability would be that each of the opposing parties would win 30 seats. On the face of it, the Government's proposition appears to be reasonable. Honorable members on this side of the House are just as concerned as are honorable members opposite about the possibility of our parliamentary institutions becoming unworkable. The objections that we raise to the bill are that it is too narrowly confined. We cannot avoid the conclusion that the Government is thinking of itself - that it was introduced to enable the Government to gain a party political advantage and that the problem is not being tackled from ii national standpoint. In order to develop that argument, may I say at the outset that honorable members on both sides of the House are vitally concerned with the subject of constitutional reform. We all agree that our Constitution is an antiquated and old fashioned piece of machinery and that it is very ill equipped to enable the Parliament to deal with the complex and diverse problems that face us in these modern days. It is well to recall that our Constitution was drawn up in the nineteenth century. It was hammered into shape by its framers after the holding of several conventions. Its main inspiration was the Constitution of the United States of America which, in turn, had been drawn up more than 100 years earlier, in the eighteenth century. Consequently, its provisions are most inadequate to deal with the problems that face our community to-day. Since it was first crafted events of the greatest importance to this country have occurred. We have taken part in two world wars and have suffered from a great economic depression. The nature of our society has changed. We have become a highly industrialized community. Unfortunately, we have also become a highly urbanized community with the largest proportion of our population concentrated in a few great capital cities. We have had to face difficult problems of employment and unemployment. We have had to surmount problems arising from large-scale industry and commerce with their attendant problems of production and distribution. We have problems concerning industrial relations and the task of maintaining peace and harmony in industry. In order to enable us to deal with those problems our Constitution must be brought up' to date. I do not blame the Government for not having tackled in this measure the general question of constitutional reform - that would require a lot of preliminary work and consideration - but I do criticize it for not having widened the confines of this legislation as far as the Senate is concerned. The Government has confined the measure to the narrow point of attempting to minimize the undesirable results that might follow a double dissolution. It has not considered in whole the position of the Senate in our constitutional framework. That is why we suggest that the Government has introduced the bill solely to gain a party political advantage for itself, and that it should look at the matter from a national viewpoint. What part is the Senate to play in the life of our community? Has the Senate failed to live up to the part intended for it by the framers of the Constitution? What are the weaknesses and inadequacies of the Senate as it exists to-day? These questions are pertinent and should be fully considered, and the answers to them involve tackling the whole constitutional position as it relates to the Senate. It is worthwhile recalling that the fathers of our Constitution had three models to which they could look for guidance, the American Constitution, the Constitution of Canada and the Constitution of Switzerland, all of which were Federal Constitutions. They drew a certain amount of inspiration from each of them. From the Constitution of Switzerland, for example, was adopted the referendum as a method for the alteration of the Constitution; but it was from the Constitution of the United States of America that were derived the expressions " House of Representatives " and " Senate " and the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, the enumerated powers being given to the Commonwealth and the residuary powers remaining with the States. In many instances the actual scope of the powers granted to the Commonwealth bore very close resem'blance to those contained in the Constitution of the United States of America. However - and this is the crux of the matter relating to the Senate - we did not adopt the American presidential system with the Executive having no responsibility to Parliament. We followed the Canadian model, which was based on the British model, and we adopted the system of responsible government by the Executive, which is responsible to the Parliament. The House of Representatives is the body which makes or unmakes governments. The defeats which the present Government has suffered in the Senate have not caused it to resign, but its defeat in this House would cause it to do so. From the outset the Senate was given an inferior role. In that sense the framers of our Constitution departed from the American model which gave to the American Senate a voice in the formulation of foreign affairs policy and in important appointments, all of which conferred on it prestige, dignity and importance. By the provisions of section 53 of our Constitution the Senate was deliberately placed in a subordinate position by comparison with the House of Representatives. Section 53 provides as follows: - >Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing' taxation, shall not originate in the Senate . . . > >The Senate may not amend proposed law* imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government. > >The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any .proposed charge or burden on the people. > >Except aa provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws. Because of its inferior position the Senate has not been able, to live up to the part that the fathers of the Constitution intended it to play. The Senate was intended to be a States House. As a matter of fact, it was proposed that it should be called "The States House"; but the American title of " The Senate " was preferred. In the Senate each of the States, irrespective of its size and population, was granted equal representation. Tasmania, with its comparatively small population has the same representation as has New South Wales. It was intended that -udi means should make the Senate a Spates House and the protector of the interests of the States. We oil know that the Senate divides on par'y lines just as does this House, that it hat, turned out to be merely a replica of this House and that it is not serving any really useful purpose because it has failed to live up to its role of the protector of the States. Because it was placed in that inferior position by the Constitution it has not been given any of the extra functions that have been given to the American Senate and have raised that body to a position of such great importance. It is interesting to note that, in the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution that was held in 1929, **Mr. Ashworth,** one of the commissioners, made a dissenting report in which he summed up the position in relation to the Senate in those days. I consider that what he said then is equally applicable to-day. I quote from **Mr.** Ashworth's report as follows : - >Of the major parts of the Commonwealth constitutional machinery, the Senate or upper chamber of the Federal legislature is clearly the most defective. The Senate has failed in the aims for which it was designed. Its mission was the safeguarding of State rights against any attempt at Federal encroachment, lt was fashioned on the model of the second chamber of the United States. But in the process of imitation and adaptation it was emasculated, for the control of foreign policy and appointments to high place - functions that lend a peculiar authority and dignity to the American prototype were stripped from the Australian body. . . . > >It is not a house of revision : it discharges no function that is not better undertaken, by the House of Representatives; it lacks the sense of responsibility which comes from the knowledge that the fate of the Government depends upon its decision. Obviously, therefore, this unnecessary member should be forthwith lopped off in the general good, or, in the alternative, a new purpose should be infused into its " veins ". In approving that general statement I make no reflection upon the quality of the senators in this Parliament. From the little that I have seen of the .Senate since I have been here I know that we have in that chamber men of wide experience, men of great capacity, and men of extensive knowledge. I am merely commenting upon the system and the institution. The first question that comes to my mind is: Why did the Government, in considering this bill, not consider also a proposal for the abolition of the Senate? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- We did not think that the Opposition would support such a proposal. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- That is not the reason. The Government has a very good reason for not seeking to abolish the Senate, as a means of getting out of its present difficulties, on the ground that that chamber serves no useful purpose in our constitutional framework. That reason is that the abolition of the Senate would set a most unfortunate precedent (hat would rebound on the parliamentary systems of four of the States. After all, although the Senate may not serve any great purpose, it is elected on a democratic franchise, whereas the corollary chambers in the four States, the State Legislative Councils, are elected upon an undemocratic and privileged franchise. In Victoria, for example, one-third of the electors have the right to vote to elect members to the Victorian Legislative Council. It does not appear likely, therefore, that this Government will sponsor a proposal that the Senate be abolished, because the abolition of the Senate would set a precedent that would not be welcomed by the Government's supporters in the States. If the Government will not face up to that proposition, then why, when it was introducing a bill to deal with the Senate, did it not also seek to do something about the system for the filling of casual vacancies in the Senate? That matter is provided for in section 15 of the Australian Constitution, which states in part - >If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State from which he was chosen shall, sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, or until the election of a successor. . . . That, of course, is a most undemocratic procedure which departs from the basis on which a general election to the Senate rests, whereby the electors themselves elect the senators. In the case of casual vacancies the two houses of the Parliament of the State in which the vacancy has occurred, including the undemocratic Legislative Council, in the election of which the majority of the people have no vote, elect a senator to fill the casual vacancy and in that way can thwart the will of the electors. We had an example of the will of the electors being thwarted following the death of **Senator Keane,** a Labour senator who died while he was in office. The Houses of the Parliament of Victoria held a joint sitting and elected **Senator Fraser** to fill the vacancy caused by **Senator Keane's** death. **Senator Fraser** was a supporter of the antiLabour parties and the method of his election to the Senate was a most unjust and undemocratic one. If the Government regarded this whole matter from the broad view of national interest, and not from the narrow view of party political advantage, it would seek the adoption of a provision whereby casual vacancies in the Senate would be filled in a democratic manner. If the Government is sincere in its proposals, and regards the whole matter from the standpoint of national interest, why does it bother about preserving the cumbersome and objectionable constitutional provision for double dissolutions? I regard that provision as being hopelessly inadequate and outdated. There are much better methods of resolving difficulties that arise between the two Houses, if we intend to keep two Houses, than this method of double dissolution which causes a lot of trouble and expense to the country. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Oan the honorable member suggest one? {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Yes, I can certainly suggest one. I refer the honorable gentleman to the Parliament Act of Great Britain which caused such a furore when it was passed in 1911. That act was amended last year under the Attlee Government. The Parliament Act, as amended, regulates the relationships between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Commons can pass any legislation that it wishes to pass and the House of Lords has no power to reject it but can merely delay if for a maximum period of twelve months. The procedure is that when the House of Commons passes a bill it goes to the House of Lords. If the Lords reject it the Commons can pass it a second time. If the Lords still refuse to pass it, it automatically becomes law at the expiration of twelve months. That appears to me to be a much simpler and more effective method of dealing with disputes between the two Houses than is this horribly complicated method of double dissolution. I suggest again that the Government might well consider adopting the method employed in the British Parliament, and ask the people to approve of a provision that if the Senate refuses to pass legislation that has been passed by this House, it shall automatically become law after a specified period has elapsed. There is another method by which a deadlock could be overcome in a much less cumbersome manner than by the method of double dissolution. We could evolve more effective machinery for joint sittings of the two Houses so that in the event of a dispute compulsory joint sittings would take place and the deadlock would be resolved. For my own part, I consider that the most effective way to resolve deadlocks would be by the method employed in Britain under the Parliament Act. We can raise other objections to this legislation but I do not propose to go into technical details except in relation to one point. The honorable member for Ballarat said that this bill is intended to minimize the possibility of a deadlock resulting from a general election held after a double dissolution. He admitted that this method will not avoid the possibility of a deadlock. If this bill becomes law the probability that the ten senators elected in each State will be returned on the basis of six for one party and four for the other party. It would be possible for six Labour party senators and four Liberal party senators to be elected in three States and for the position in each of the other three State9 to be the exact reverse - six Liberal party senators and four Labour party senators. {: #subdebate-8-0-s2 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- That is highly improbable. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- It is by no means highly improbable. In the event that I have mentioned a deadlock would occur just as if this legislation had not been passed. There is also the possibility that if this legislation is passed, and an election is held after a double dissolution, one of the parties will win six seats in each of the States and so come back with 36 senators. The other party, having won four seats in each State, would come back with 24 senators. It is quite possible that at the succeeding general election, three years later, a deadlock will occur again. In such a case the effect of this bill will be merely to postpone the deadlock for three years because in the election following a general election that had been brought about by a double dissolution, one-half of the 36 senators representing one side would retire and and one-half of the 24 representing the other side also would retire. One side would have eighteen retiring candidates and the other side would have twelve retiring candidates standing for election. If there were a swing away from the party that went to the polls with eighteen retiring candidates, and instead of winning three seats in each State it won only two, the position would be reversed and the party that went to the polls with twelve retiring candidates would come back with eighteen senators. Each side would then have 30 senators, which would mean a deadlock, and exactly the same position would then apply at the election three years after a double dissolution as if this . bill had not been passed. Does that not make it clear that the Government, in bringing forward this legislation, is not taking a long-range view? It is not looking to the future, but is merely considering a short-term political expediency that will suit its own political interest. If the Government were concerned with dealing with the matter on a long-range basis it would realize that this bill does not go very far, but that it merely makes - perhaps - the possibility of a deadlock a little less likely. But deadlocks could still occur in the two ways that I have mentioned. For that reason the bill will not achieve any long-range benefit, f consider therefore that the Opposition is justified in refusing to support the measure on the ground that it does not deal with the whole problem of the functions of the Senate but merely makes provision for resolving a deadlock and even in that respect does not deal with i he problem in an effective manner. The bill also does not seek to provide for any more acceptable or better methods of resolving a deadlock, or of filling casual vacancies. For these reasons the Opposition is justified in holding that it would he much better in the interests of the nation for the Government to withdraw this bill and give the matter further consideration. For instance, more could be achieved if an all-party committee were established, not to deal generally with constitutional reform, but to consider the constitutional position of the Senate, with a view to evolving the best method of dealing with deadlocks, which, I fear, are likely to become very common in the future as a result of the system of proportional representation that is used for Senate general elections. I cannot avoid the conclusion that this bill is' a part of a game that the Government is playing to as to prepare the way for the double dissolution that it has .been talking about for so long. In conclusion, I direct the attention of honorable members opposite to the fate of a previous government that forced a double dissolution. That double dissolution occurred in 1914 when the conservative forces in this country had a majority of one in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, however, the Labour party had a majority of 22 to fourteen. The Right Honorable Joseph Cook was Prime Minister, and he was determined to force a double dissolution. He did "not select a legitimate issue upon which to do so. He introduced a bill with the deliberate intention of forcing the Labour Opposition in the Senate to reject it so that he would be able to go to the country after a double dissolution. That was a bill to prohibit preference to trade unionists in the employment of the Commonwealth, which the Government knew that the Labour majority in the Senate would reject on principle. That Labour majority duly rejected the bill on two occasions and, upon the advice of his Ministers, the Governor-General, **Sir Ronald** Munro Ferguson, granted a double dissolution. It is very interesting to recall that at the general election which followed the double dissolution the Government that had forced it received the just retribution that it deserved at the hands of the electors. That election took place in the dark days just prior to the outbreak of the 1914-1S war. Andrew Fisher, the Labour leader, during the election campaign that followed the double dissolution, made his historic statement that if war broke out Australia would stand by the Mother Country and help to defend it to the last man and the last shilling. The Government that had forced the double dissolution was defeated, Labour winning 31 of the 36 seats in the Senate and a workable majority in the House of Representatives. Andrew Fisher then became Prime Minister. I point that "out to those honorable members opposite who may be considering that this bill is just the first step towards a double dissolution. If it is passed and the Government proceeds with its proposals for a double dissolution, history will repeat itself and the Liberal and Australian Country parties will be defeated at the polls as the retiring government was in 1914. **Mr. HAMILTON** (Canning) [10.2J.- Last night the honorable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr. Thompson)** said that this was an intimidatory measure which had been designed by the Government in order to force the members of another place to discontinue their delaying tactics in relation to legislation. To-night, the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. W. M. Bourke)** adopted a somewhat intimidatory attitude. He tried to upset new members of the Government parties by saying that this legislation might have the same effect as other legislation had had on the Cook Government in 1914. I do not think that the honorable member's remarks will have much effect on honorable members on the Government side who were elected by the people to do a certain job. If, in attempting to do that job, they are frustrated by the objectionable majority in another place, the Government must take measures to protect itself and must carry out the duties that were assigned to it by the people at the last general election. The honorable member also said that this bill would not reduce the likelihood of deadlocks. I disagree with him. It is most unlikely, in practice, that a deadlock will result from this legislation. He suggested that the Government should have considered abolishing the Senate. That remark calls for very little reply. The Government parties do not believe in the abolition of the Senate but the party to which the honorable member is attached has pledged itself to abolish the Senate and two years ago had the opportunity to do so but by a cunningly planned trick evaded its obligation and brought about the state of affairs that exists to-day. The honorable member said that the Government should consider the whole position of the Senate in relation to the parliamentary system. He knows that that would take a considerable time to 'do. The Government has not time on its side at the moment and if honorable members of the Opposition in another place adopt obstructive tactics it must honour its obligations to the people and safeguard their interests by bringing down legislation that will give effect to their wishes. Honorable members of the Opposition say that the Government is taking this action in order to gain a political advantage. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- The Government would not do that, surely! {: #subdebate-8-0-s3 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I shall not deny it. Do our opponents consider that honorable members on this side of the House are such fools that, having been returned to this House, they will allow honorable members of the Opposition to take charge of the business of the Parliament? Of course not. Honorable members on this side of the House intend to stand up to their obligations and do the job that they were elected to do. Honorable members of the Opposition have said a lot about New South Wales. I thought, for a while, that honorable members were engaged in the New South Wales general election campaign. During the course of their remarks a lot has been said about the non-Labour parties that introduced the present system for election to the upper house and about what they described as the snide tricks of the clever gentlemen who had been responsible for it. Unfortunately those gentlemen were not clever enough to prevent the Labour party from controlling the upper house in New South Wales since 1941. The fact that that happened blows the Opposition's argument to pieces. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Chifley)** said that this bill had been rushed into the Parliament without having been considered by members who support the Government. I was sitting at the table with the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. McBride)** when that remark was passed and I said that we had seen the bill. The Leader of the Opposition, thinking that my colleague had made that interjection, replied that Ministers might have seen it. Honorable members who support the Government discussed the bill before it was introduced in this House. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- What about Government supporters who occupy back benches ? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Honorable members who occupy the back benches did so, too. All the supporters of the Government did so. They are not like the members of the Labour party. I well remember that when the Banking Bill was introduced, members of the Labour party were more keen to get a copy of it than were members of the then Opposition, because they did not know to what they had been committed. {: .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr Tom BURKE: -- That is nonsense. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- The honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Tom Burke)** knows t1 at that is not nonsense. {: #subdebate-8-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Perth is not in his own seat. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition said, "We have ways and means of finding out what goes on in your room the same as you " - referring to Government supporters - " have a way of finding out what goes on in our room ". I say to honorable members of the Opposition that each one of you has been branded with the mark of Judas Iscariot. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable gentleman will address me. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Then through you, sir, I say that they have been branded with the mark of Judas Iscariot. {: #subdebate-8-0-s5 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- I rise to order. That remark is offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- To what remark does the honorable member refer? {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- I refer to the term "Judas Iscariot". {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Did the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton)** refer to the honorable member for Watson as carrying the mark of Judas Iscariot? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I did not refer to the honorable member for Watson; my remark was directed at those honorable members who support the Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I think that the honorable member should withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- If it is regarded as offensive, M.r. Speaker, I withdraw it. However, in view of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, every honorable member of the Opposition must carry his portion of blame until the onus of proof is removed. This measure has been introduced to cope with a peculiar set of circumstances. It has been designed to give the people of Australia the opportunity, per medium of the ballot-box, of ensuring that their wishes shall he put into effect. Under section 13 of the Constitution it would be practically impossible to avoid a further deadlock if there should be another election in circumstances similar to those under which the last general election was held. Section 13 provides that the senators themselves shall decide which senators shall sit for six years and which senators shall sit for three years. Honorable members of the Opposition have claimed that this measure will deprive the people of the right to say who shall be elected or for how long, but the people have never had that right in the event of a double dissolution because the first part of section 13 of the Constitution is obsolete; it was effective only immediately after the establishment of federation and the election of the first Senate. This measure will enable the electors to have some voice as to who shall represent them for six years and who shall represent them for three years. On one side of federal politics in this country there will not be a democratic understanding nor an endeavour to allow the electors to have that voice, but on the side of politics that I support the people, through their various organizations, will have some voice as to the candidates who will be put forward. If there were a double dissolution under the provisions of the Constitution and a general election under the present Electoral Act, the chances are 100 to 1 that the parties would be returned to this House at their present strengths and the Parliament would not be able to carry on. A solution of the problem has to be found and the Government has introduced this very simple measure in that spirit. Honorable members of the Opposition have said that the Government should overhaul the whole Constitution. They know that' that would not be possible in the time at its disposal. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- They have referred only to those provisions that relate to the Senate. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Time would be needed to deal with those provisions. The overhaul of quite a number of the provisions of the Constitution would be to the benefit of the country, but at the moment the Government has no opportunity to make it. The Government is acting so wisely in this matter that honorable mem-bers of the Opposition have been annoyed into making the statement that it is introducing this legislation for its own. benefit. But they would take similar action if they had the opportunity to do so and the Government would be foolish not to safeguard itself and the programme which the people elected it to implement. I do not go behind anybody's back to say that. The people elected honorable members on this side to do a job and if they are not big enough to do it by the use of the methods at their disposal under the Constitution, the people will have every right to say, " You had your opportunity and failed to take advantage of it, so you can get out ". This measure complies with the provisions of the Constitution and the Government intends to give the people the opportunity of saying yea or nay to it before it comes into effect. Honorable members of the Opposition know very well that the present position is of their making. The honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** pointed that out when he made his opening speech in this Parliament. It was realized before 1948 that it was necessary to enlarge the lower house of this Parliament. That was stated in the press, broadcast over the air, mentioned in public places and debated in study and discussion groups, ft fell to the lot of a Labour government to enlarge the Parliament. Then what happened? There were 45 members of the Government party in this House. In the Senate there were 33 Government supporters and three Opposition supporters. When a meeting was held to decide how the Parliament was to be enlarged, the then Government, for the sake of preserving the places of its supporters in the Senate,- decided to act constitutionally. The Labour party at that time threw its sacred pledges to the wind. lt cast away a most important plank of its platform, ' the abolition of the Senate. Honorable members opposite were not prepared at that time to ask the people by way of referen- dum to so alter the Constitution that the numerical ratio between the number of senators and the number of members of the House of Representatives should be altered. Yet to-day the honorable member for Eden-Monaro **(Mr. Eraser)** said that any referendum of the people that is not supported by the major political parties is doomed to failure. We were not asked to support a referendum on the matter, and I think that I should be correct in saying that had the proposition been placed before honorable members on this side who then composed the Opposition, they would have supported a referendum of the people to obtain their approval of an alteration of the ratio of membership of the two houses of the Parliament so that the lower house could be enlarged without increasing the number of senators. The then Government realized that if it went to the people senators would run a grave risk of being defeated. It then had the bright idea of incorporating, in separate legislation, the system of proportional representation. All that certain candidates for the Senate then required in order to be in this Parliament for life was the endorsement of their party. That sort of thing was boasted about in the precincts of this House. It was said that so long as candidates could get first, second or third position in either party, they would be here until 1962 or later. That was the deliberate plan adopted by the then Government. But that is not the whole story by any means. The Government knew that only eighteen of its 33 supporters in the Senate at that time had to face the people, and that, under a system of proportional representation, with seven senators to be elected from each State, unless a landslide occurred in favour of the then Opposition, at least three of those retiring senators would be returned from each State. There are six States and consequently eighteen Labour senators came back. The Labour party deliberately turned aside from its platform to introduce legislation to ensure the return of at least eighteen of its supporters. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- Nineteen. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I know that the present Opposition had nineteen of its candidates elected, but I mention what happened in 1948 for the benefit of the honorable member for Fort Adelaide **(Mr. Thompson),** The Labour party knew at that time that by means of the trick that it put over the people it would continue to have control of the Senate irrespective of how it fared at the election for the House of Representatives. To-day the people of Australia find themselves absolutely stymied in this Parliament, because it is unable to legislate according to their expressed wishes. I ask honorable members to consider what happened in connexion with the bills that have recently been brought before this House. Honorable members opposite spoke to-day about what they would do for the women and children of Australia, yet actually they did everything possible to prevent the mothers from getting an extra 5s. a week endowment. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -We tried to give them 10s. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Yes. That was so that the Arbitration Court, according to the honorable member's own statement, would reduce the basic wage by 10s. and not 5s. Since 1921 honorable members opposite have not been honest with either themselves or their party. I say that deliberately, and very directly, because it is as plain as a pikestaff. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member was in the Labour party then.. . {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Thank goodness I was never a member of the Labour party. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member should have been. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I would have been if the party had not adopted something that was contrary to my convictions in 1921. However, the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** will not divert me from my Argument. The course that the Labour party followed in 1948 was taken deliberately. In case any one should take any notice of the mouthings of honorable members opposite when they say that the Government, in bringing this bill before the House, is putting over a political trick, and when they try to intimidate new members, I impress on the supporters of the Government, especially the new ones, that we must stand up to them. They may try to intimidate us, but they will get nowhere. I congratulate every honorable member who supports the Government on this measure and also on any other measure that it sees fit to bring down in order to honour its promises to the people. I know that anything that this Government does will be done constitutionally. I also say that the Opposition will use every trick in an attempt to defeat whatever legislation the Government may introduce. Every shoulder must be put to the wheel to carry through legislation to defeat all the tricks that we shall face as a government, and that Government supporters will face as individuals. We shall withstand those tricks, because we have a responsibility cast upon us to honour our promises to the people. As yet our job has not even started. We have certain things to do, and we should be disloyal to the people who put us here if we did not use every possible device to enact legislation to alter the present condition of stalemate. After that we must bring in legislation in the terms of our promises to the people before the 10th December. I support the measure, and I hope that all members of the Government parties also will support it. I know the people of Australia will support us whenwe put the referendum before them. Debate (on motion by Dame Enid Lyon's) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3665 {:#debate-9} ### PAPERS The following papers were . pre sented : - >Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appoint- ments - Department - > >Repatriation - W. P. Whiting. > >Social Services - M. M. Kelly. House adjourned at 10.23 p.m. {: .page-start } page 3665 {:#debate-10} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS {:#subdebate-10-0} #### The following answers to questions were circulated: - touriststraffic {: #subdebate-10-0-s0 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr DOWNER:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP r asked the Minister for Supply, upon *notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he inform the House at an early date of his own proposed activities concerning the tourist industry and those of the newlyconstituted tourist division? 1. In his effort to earn dollars by attracting visitors, will he, as a first step,, impress upon hotel owners and managers, both city and country, the necessity for raising their standards of accommodation and service to North American and European levels? 2. Will he, in particular, direct his attention *to* Sydney, which, for a capital. of such magnitude and interest, is badly equipped for firstclass accommodation compared with other cities of comparable size in the world? 3. Will lie also press for improvements in the Commonwealth' railways, and, simultaneously, seek the co-operation of the States in bringing about a marked improvement in railway services? {: #subdebate-10-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- I would advise the . honorable member that the matters raised are at present under discussion. 1 will answer the specific points mentioned by the honorable member as early as practicable. the various problems raised, I am hopeful that eventually it will prove possible to ensure a fuller measure of recognition for the professional and technical skills of migrants, while safeguarding existing standards. - {: #subdebate-10-0-s2 .speaker-F4T} ##### Mr Fadden:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP n. - On the 15th March, the honorable member for Isaacs **(Mr. Haworth)** asked the following question: - >Will the Treasurer inform the House what amount has been paid in fees, refreshers, retainers and other emoluments to counsel who appeared before the High Court of Australia and before the Privy Council to defend the Chifley Government's banking legislation? I desire to inform the honorable member that the amount paid is £113,383. {: #subdebate-10-0-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt:
LP t. - On the 23rd May the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** addressed the following question to me:- >Can the Minister for Immigration say whether the Government *hae* yet made any progress with its representations to the States to pass medical registration laws which shall apply to migrant doctors on the basis that their scientific studies and the content of their foreign medical degrees will be analysed? In my reply I indicated that I would furnish the honorable member with any information additional to that contained is statements I bad already made. I now wish to furnish the following information : - >The question of the registration of foreign medical graduates amongst migrants is only a part of the wider associated problems of securing some measure of recognition for the foreign acquired skills and the academic qualifications of migrants and of meeting the technical and professional needs of our rapidly increasing population. These issues have been examined in a preliminary way by the Immigration Planning Council, which advises the Government on many aspects of the- absorption of migrants into the. Australian economy. The council has not yet put forward liny final recommendations, but has suggested that exploratory talks should take place with universities and professional organizations as a first step. Some very difficult problems are raised in connexion with the matter, as a number of professions and a variety of registration and professional requirements are involved. Many of the problems raised will need to he discussed with the State governments. While I feel it would be optimistic to expect any early or complete solution of {: .page-start } page 3666 {:#debate-11} ### BANKING Alien Doctors.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 June 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1950/19500601_reps_19_208/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 1 June 1950

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr BROWN:MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:Minister for Works and Housing · LP

MR. G. W. A. DUTHIE, M.P

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr DUTHIE:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr CHARLES RUSSELL:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr McEWEN:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Mr HAWORTH:ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr SPENDER:Minister for External Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Rosevear:

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

Mr Lazzarini:

Mr MENZIES:

Mr Lazzarini:

Mr MENZIES:

Mr CLARK:Darling

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CLARK:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CLARK:

Mr Pollard:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Pollard:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Pollard:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CLARK:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CLARK:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CLARK:

Mr MCDONALD:Corangamite

Mr Tom Burke:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Tom Burke:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr Evatt:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Chifley:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Pollard:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Pollard:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr EVATT:Barton

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Ward:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Rosevear:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Rosevear:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Rosevear:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SPENDER:Minister for External Affairs and Minister for Externa] Territories · Warringah · LP

Mr TOM BURKE:Perth

Mr Bowden:

Mr TOM BURKE:

Mr Holt:

Mr TOM BURKE:

Mr Menzies:

Mr TOM BURKE:

Mr Beale:

Mr TOM BURKE:

Mr Beale:

Mr TOM BURKE:

House of Representatives
1 June 1950

Mr BROWN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Works and Housing · LP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CHARLES RUSSELL:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

Mr CLARK:
Darling

Mr MCDONALD:
Corangamite

Dr EVATT:
Barton

Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs and Minister for Externa] Territories · Warringah · LP

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National . Service and Minister for ‘Immigration · Higgins · LP

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

Mr CASEY:
Minister for National Development and Minister for Works and Housing · La Trobe · LP

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr McCOLM:
Bowman

Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney

Mr CRAMER:
I had intended to ask the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden · Bennelong^ [12.22].

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP