Senate
8 September 1937

14^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

MANDATEDTERRITORY OF NEW GUINEA
- Volcanic Eruption
QUESTION
- SITTINGS OF THE SENATE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
QUESTION
- EMPIRE MIGRATION DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- AMERICA-NEW ZEALAND AIR MAIL
PAPERS
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38
- First Reading
RELIEF FOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38
- First Reading
- Second Reading

The Deputy President (Senator Sampson) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 662

MANDATEDTERRITORY OF NEW GUINEA

Volcanic Eruption

Senator SirGEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

– by leave - A message dated the 7th September has been received from the Administrator of New Guinea to the effect that the wireless operator at Kieta has reported that Mr Bagana, about 70 miles west of Kieta, has been in violent eruption since 8 a.m. on 7th September, with columns of smoke rising over 15,000 feet.

At 3.30 p.m. the eruption was very violent, and there was an apparent blackout to the north-east of the mountain.

The Administrator states that there is no danger to the township of Kieta, but that the area near the mountain is thickly populated by natives.

The Administrator adds that the volcano has been more or less active since the beginning of the year.

Kieta is situated on the island of Bougainville, which is the largest of the Solomon Islands included within the boundaries of the Mandated Territory of New Guinea. Kieta is about 250 miles to the south-east ofRabaul.

The island of Bougainville covers an area of about 3,880 square miles. An extensive forest-covered mountain range called in the south the Crown Prince Range, and in the north the Emperor Range, covers almost the whole of the island. The highest point of the Crown PrinceRange reaches 9,850 feet and the highest point of the EmperorRange is Mount Balbi, 10,170 feet. Balbi is in constant eruption. Mr Bagana, 6,500 feet, is an active volcano of the Crown PrinceRange, about 30 miles south-east of Balbi.

The township of Kieta is the headquarters station of the district of that name. It has a small European population and contains a post office and a radio station.

page 653

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Attendance ofsir Walter Massy-Greene.

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Leader of theSenate state on how many days the Senate has met since October, 1934? Will the right honorable gentleman also say how many sittings of the Senate have been attended by Senator Sir Walter Massy-Greene, exclusive of the period of which leave of absence has been granted? Does that honorable senator still draw his parliamentary allowance, or is it being placed to the credit of the United Australia Party funds?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I shall obtain the information in answer to the first portion of the honorable sena- tor’s question. As the latter portion affects the private affairs of an honorable senator I do not propose to answer it.

page 653

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY

New South Walestreasurer - Blue Book

Senator HARDY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Leader of the Senate say who is the treasurer of the Australian Labour party in New South Wales; no one else appears to be able to give the information?

SenatorSir GEORGE PEARCE.That question should be addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. The Government has no information on the subject.

Senator MARWICK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– Is the Leader of the Opposition yet in a position to supply to honorable senators copies of the Australian Labour party’s “blue book “, which were promised a week or two ago?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The question does notrelate to the business of the Senate and is therefore out of order.

page 653

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Reliefworkers

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

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

Is it a fact, as reported in the Canberra Times of 7th September, that 120 married men on relief work in Canberra were paid off on Friday last?
Is this consistent with (a) the pressing needs of the national capital in the matter of greatly increased housing and other accommodation, or (b) the Government claim of abundant prosperity?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers: -

The scale of employment which will operate as from the6th September, 1937, in respect of unskilled married men employed on relief work is one week in two. Half the employees therefore will stand down each week. Fulltime employment will again be provided during the month immediately preceding Christmas. During the last fourteen months these employees have had the equivalent of twelve months full-time employment.
The above relates only to unskilled labourers for whom very little employment can be provided in connexion with building construction.

page 653

QUESTION

EMPIRE MIGRATION DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon, notice -

Has the Government received an invitation to attend the Empire Migration Development Conference to be opened by the Right Honorable the Lord Mayor of London (Sir George Broadbridge, K.C.V.O.) in the Guildhall, City of London, on the 11th October, 1937?
If so, is it the intention of the Government to be represented officially at that conference ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -

Yes.
The matter of representation at the conference is receiving consideration.

page 653

QUESTION

AMERICA-NEW ZEALAND AIR MAIL

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that an air mail and passenger service between America and New Zealand, supplied by an American fleet of aircraft, is proposing to commence operations in December of this year?
Is it a fact that the Australian portion of this air mail will have to be carried from New Zealand to Australia by steamship service?
If so, will the Minister consider expediting the trans-Tasman air mail service to commence at the same time as the America-New Zealand service?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for Defence states that inquiries will be made and a reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as early as possible.

page 654

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lighthouses Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1937, No. 83- No. 88.

Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1937, No. 92.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of the Interior - 0. A. Beattie, P. AL Clemenger and J. Al. Moss.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act - Statement re Pensions for the year ended 30th June, 1937.

page 654

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

.- On behalf of the Opposition in this chamber, I have again to protest most emphatically against the procedure, which is becoming an incurable habit, of this Government keeping Parliament in recess for the greater portion of the year, and then bringing . down important measures without giving honorable senators an opportunity to criticize them effectively. We all know that, as usual, the Government is scurrying into recess. Personally, I think it is rather wise to do so, because by prolonging proceedings in full view of the electors it is hastening its political demise ; if I can do anything to expedite that occurrence I shall be only too willing, to do so. In discussing this bill, I propose to deal with a number of subjects which appear to me to come within its scope, the most important of which is that of defence. I am going to ask honorable senators not to repeat the “ hooligan “ behaviour to which this chamber was treated yesterday afternoon.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. I direct your attention, sir, to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that honorable senators should not repeat the hooligan behaviour to which this chamber was treated yesterday afternoon. That statement is a reflection on you, sir, and on the Senate, and should be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator sampson). - The Leader of the Opposition must withdraw it.

Senator Collings:

– l.n deference to your wishes, sir, I do so. I shall put it in another way, which I hope will not incur your displeasure.

The DEPOT Y PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator need not consider mc in the matter. I shall see that the rights of all honorable senators are protected.

Senator Collings:

– I needed protection yesterday. The spectacle to which we were treated in this chamber yesterday afternoon was not in the least edifying, and was continually and definitely a discredit to those honorable senators who participated in it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator is now making a similar statement in another form. I was in the chair and there was no hooliganism.

Senator Collings:

– I have already withdrawn the statement to which exception has been taken.

– Honorable senators need not worry about it, because they will find that a Labour government, when it controls the destinies of Australia, will loyally and fully co-operate with New Zealand, the sister dominion across the Tasman Sea, in Labour’s policy in regard to any matter. I wish now to quote a newspaper report of a debate in the House of Lords - “ The Primate the other day said ‘ Christians are entitled to draw the sword for a righteous cause ‘,” remarked Lord Ponsonby in the House of Lords recently. The Archbishop of Canterbury : “ It may be true, but I am not aware of having said it.” Lord Ponsonby: “ I think I am right in saying that the Primate used the expression ‘ the sword.’ “ The Archbishop of Canterbury: “I quoted St. Paul.” Lord Ponsonby: “The Primate ought to have brought St. Paul’s words up-to-date, and, instead of the . sword he should have said chlorine, phosgene, mustard gas, Lewisite and thermite.’ Then he should have asked his fellow Christians if they were justified in using those in any cause at all.”

Honorable senators will remember the remark I made earlier as to the lack of courage on the part of those Up loyalists, those flag flappers, those spurious patriots who were so vocal in this chamber yesterday afternoon. One can tell the lack of business behind the whole plan when one finds that this Government proposes, in this .budget, or in this Supply Bill, to begin again the pernicious practice of borrowing abroad. It intends first to float on the London market £2,500,000 worth of treasury-bills. These cannot be left eternally floating in mid-air, and, undoubtedly, the intention is to float a loan on the London market, to redeem them. If there is any honesty behind the defence proposals of the Government, honorable senators opposite should see to it that the people who are to be protected pay for the protection. We all know perfectly well that an overseas loan cannot be floated and paid for in anything but goods, that the result of the loan comes here not in cash, but in the form of goods, and that every pound’s worth of imports which could be manufactured in Australia means that some good Australian has been kept out of a job. As a matter of fact, the Government really proposes to spend on defence less -than the amount it has indicated.

Senator Hardy:

– It proposes to spend £11,000,000 on defence.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I mean less from revenue, as the honorable senator well understands. I can tell the Government the proper thing for it to do. . In. this chamber, yesterday, one honorable senator, I think it was Senator Arkins, proposed a complete survey of the resources of Australia, so that we could be prepared to meet a national emergency. It was very significant to me that the honorable senator left one important matter entirely out of his purview. He had nothing whatever to say about taking a survey of the private wealth of Australia, or about calling on that wealth’ to contribute in order that Australia might be adequately defended. Of course, he could say nothing else but what he did say. The right honorable senator had to be eloquently silent on that point because his Government is determined at least that the workers, who pay for war in blood and treasure, shall carry the greatest burden of taxes. It is time the people of this nation were told just where this combination of United Australia and Country parties, these queer bed-fellows that constitute the Government of this country to-day, stand on this matter. Senator Duncan-Hughes, who was one of the few speakers yesterday afternoon who lifted his share of the debate on to a high plane, is always a gentleman. That compliment is very willingly paid to the honorable gentleman, however much we of the Opposition may disagree with him on matters of policy. He makes no secret of the fact that he is an Imperialist, and he has just returned, he tells us, from a trip to the United Kingdom; during his absence he had the benefit of a tour through six different European countries. He also has the advantages of social prestige, wealth, and superior education. Yet even he, when he came down to tin tacks yesterday afternoon, visualized the need for boots, rifles and machine-guns and then said that it was no use. having all those things unless men were ready for them. I imagined that at. the moment all he could see in the prob lem of defence was the preparing of enough feet to go into enough boots, and enough training to enable men to destroy life and property.

The difference between the Labour party and those parties which form the Government is that we say without equivocation what our defence policy is; it is in the blue book. I regret that I have not been able to make the wholesale distribution, of that publication which I promised to make to honorable senators, but, if any honorable senator is honestly looking for information in that book, I have about six copies in my room, and I shall be delighted to give them away.

Senator Guthrie:

– May I have one?

Senator COLLINGS:

– With the greatest pleasure.

Senator Guthrie:

– An original?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Most certainly ; there are no others. The Labour party has never had anything to hide.

In the House of Representatives last night I heard a statement by a supporter of the Government that in no circumstances would he touch the Statute of Westminster and that it was a very dangerous thing. The Statute of Westminster lies behind the whole, or at least a large portion, of the Labour party’s attitude on this matter of defence. The Statute of Westminster, as passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, definitely provides that the government of every dominion in the British Commonwealth of Nations shall have complete sovereignty in all matters, including the defence, and war. I want to separate the matter of defence and the question of going to war. Every honorable senator knows, in spite of all the false insinuations that are made from time to time, that this party is definitely pledged to the defence of Australia. In this chamber yesterday, we heard that the defence of Australia might be more effectively accomplished not here, but “over there “ and every where else, and one honorable senator went so far as to say the North Sea. The Labour party is not having that on.

Senator Hardy:

– The Labour party is going to stick within the three miles limit.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I have not said so. Labour declares that not one man shall be sent from these shores unless the people of Australia decide that that is the policy they desire.

Honorable Senators. - What is the honorable senator’s naval policy?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The chorus of interjections about the navy illuminates the dark recesses in the skulls of the honorable gentlemen who make the interjections, because their interjections show definitely that they have entirely forgotten that it was the Australian Labour Government, led by the late Andrew Fisher, which gave to this country the navy about which honorable members opposite talk so flippantly.

The Australian Labour party is not alone in its outlook on defence matters. The Deputy Prime Minister of South Africa, General Smuts, has made the declaration -

The dominion would not remain in the League pledged to fight old-world wars

Senator Abbott:

– Hear, hear !

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator applauds. We are told of the chameleon which can change its colour to suit the colour of its environment, but which upon coming to the tartan plaid of a Scotsman tried to change its colour so quickly and so often that -it died in the attempt. I am reminded of it by some honorable senators who, from day to day, change their creed- just as readily a3 the Government changes the names of its political affiliations. I repeat that itis not only the Australian Labour party that says these things ; similar statements have been made in other dominions. The ex-Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Bennett, was equally emphatic -

Canada would not embroil herself in disputes in which she was not directly interested.

Mr. Pirow, K.C., the Minister for Defence in South Africa, said -

If war broke out, and the Government were to attempt rashly to commit South Africa to an oversea adventure, he was afraid there would be a large-scale disturbance and’ possibly civil war.

Senator Badman has made an interjection concerning the late Andrew Fisher. Honorable gentlemen on that side of the House hated Mr. Fisher and slandered him. Yet, to-day, he is held up by hon orable gentlemen opposite as having been a better man than the honorable gentlemen who sit in the Labour Opposition in this Senate to-day.

Senator Brown:

– They tried to starve him.

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is so. He could not get a job in the mines at Gympie from the men who provide the funds of the United Australia party and Country parties; he had to tramp barefooted out of the place ; but to-day, when he is dead and no longer a factor in the political life of this country, they have nothing but admiration for the late honorable gentleman.

Mr. Fourie, Minister for Labour in South Africa, said -

As to war we shall most certainly not take part in any war we have not ourselves decided to take part in.

The Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. MacKenzie King, was also very definite at the recent Imperial Conference. There is no mention of these in the report delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). All he did was to submit a report of the Imperial Conference, which, would have been better designated as electioneering propaganda. The right honorable gentleman was eloquently silent on the fact that at that conference there were representatives of sister dominions who did not agree with the course adopted by the Australian delegation. Just listen to what Mr. MacKenzie King said -

Mr. MacKenzie King pointed out at the recent Imperial Conference that the prevailing opinion in Canada was opposed to any assumption of international obligations. The Canadian people would not despatch another expeditionary force to satisfy European obligations.

The Melbourne Herald, on the 10th November last, said -

The earnestness of the defence ‘debate last week indicates that both parties are beginning to realize the supreme importance of assuring the national security.

It continued -

To Labour must be given credit for the most significant advances made in Australia’s defence since federation.

Senator Hardy:

– That was before Mr. Curtin somersaulted.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I have known Mr. Curtin all his life and no gentle- man - I am not talking about Senator Hardy - could possibly accuse him of somersaulting; but 1 have, witnessed this prince of political acrobats, Senator Hardy, perform the finest somersault that has ever been accomplished in this Senate since 1 have been a member of it. From a keen opponent of the Government, he has become now its slavish supporter.

Senator Hardy:

-. - Will the honorable senator tell us about Mr. Curtin’s defence policy ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The defence policy of Mr. Curtin is the defence policy of the Australian Labour party, which I read in this chamber not very long ago.

I proceed to refer to matters connected with the tariff policy of this Government and particularly to a recent happening. It is well known that this Government has recently appointed what it is pleased to call a tariff advisory committee consisting of Mr. C H. McFadyen, of the Department of Trade and Customs, who is Chairman; Mr. S. F. Ferguson, Director of the Australian Association of British Manufacturers, member; and Mr. L. Withall, Secretary of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, member. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison), who is not a member of this party, hut a thick” and thin supporter of the Government, asked certain questions on this matter in the House of Representatives - questions which I think should have been asked. The answers are in Hansard. In my opinion, the appointment of this committee is ill advised. It is further delegating power away from the Minister and this Parliament. If there is one thing to which I object more strongly than anything else, it is the continued delegation of power from the ministerial heads of departments, and the failure of the Ministers themselves to do their jobs. If the taxpayers pay men extra salaries to act as Ministers - I do not suggest that they gay them enough, because I do not think that they do; we should have fewer governments and more highly paid members of the national government - and those men accept the contract by taking the taxpayers’ money, they should give equivalent services in return, and have no right to delegate powers to bodies which they create and which ultimately become more powerful than their creators.

Senator Foll:

– This is only an advisory committee.

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is so, but I remind the honorable gentleman that this Commonwealth has built up a magnificent Public Service which is at its command; notwithstanding that a tariff board was appointed. But even that immense secretariat is not sufficient to enable the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) to do his job, and he has delegated other powers to the Advisory Committee. Not many manufacturers in this country will be prepared to go before that Advisory Committee and submit facts regarding their lines of manufacture.

Senator Foll:

– The manufacturers are ready to go there.

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator COLLINGS:

– No; for once in his life Senator Hardy has asked what appears to be a reasonable question. We on this side do not deny that, compared with depression years, there is a greater amount of prosperity in this country, but time will not permit me to examine the situation in detail, and show just where credit for this improved condition lies. We do not, I repeat, deny the present comparative prosperity of Australia. On. the contrary, we are happy to acknowledge that the condition of the people has improved ; but, before I resume my seat, I intend to ask the leader of the Country party a few questions under the heading, “ Where is- this prosperity?” Then I shall tell him where prosperity is not.

The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech in Sydney, said that the conclusion to be drawn from the industrial survey of the Commonwealth undertaken by this Government had revealed certain things. He added that, in Queensland, unfortunately, the situation was not quite so good as it ought to be, because the number of factories in that State had decreased, and there were fewer factory employees. Both statements were, knowingly or unknowingly, false.

Senator Arkins:

– They were not.

Senator COLLINGS:

– If the Prime Minister knew what he was talking about, his statement was not in accordance with the facts-; if he did not know, apart from the fact that, as Prime Minister, it was his duty to know, he ought to have kept silent.

Let me now tell honorable senators how this wonderful economic survey was conducted in Queensland. My information on this point is to be found in a statement made by Mr. Forgan Smith, the Premier of that State. This is taken from the newspaper report of an interview with him -

In Queensland information was obtained from a mere handful of factories, and upon that narrow basis the Prime Minister had made sweeping generalizations which did injustice to this State. He was also informed that no official approach had been made to the Queensland Bureau of Industry, which could have supplied useful information. Pot instance, it could have informed the economic surveyors that, in Queensland in 1932-33, registrations of companies were 206, with a nominal capital of £12,500,000, and that on the 30th June, 193C, there were 3,052 companies in the registers of the State, with a total nominal capital of £449,313,562, an increase oi £15,126,815. It is also a fact that numerous companies registered in other States trade in Queensland. This has been brought about because Queensland has the most up-to-date companies legislation in Australia, with the greatest protection to investors and the public.

The Premier of Queensland further stated that he had ascertained the sources of the information relating to Queensland used for the so-called Commonwealth industrial survey, and had discovered that neither the Commonwealth nor the State statisticians had been consulted. Thus it would seem that, upon material so obtained, the Prime Minister had spread himself before the Chamber of Manufactures or some other body in Sydney, and talked at large to the disparagement of my State. The report continued -

The Brisbane Chamber of Manufactures and the Chambers of Commerce hail been asked to supply lists of firms which were producing new goods, or had expanded, but the lists supplied for Queensland were incomplete, and some firms did not send replies at all. As an example of important firms which were not included in the alleged “ survey “, the Premier mentioned Evans, Deakin Limited, of Brisbane, Walkers Limited, of Maryborough, and the Toowoomba Foundry, all of whom are large employers. It was through such omissions that the Prime Minister’s figures showed a much larger capital investment’ for each employee -in Queensland than in some other States.

For the benefit of Senator Hardy I propose now to say a few words about the attitude of the Labour party to the sister dominion of New Zealand, and to mention also the attitude of New Zealand on tariff matters. Mr. Savage, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Mr. Walter Nash, Minister for Finance, both personal friends of mine, have returned lately from the Imperial Conference which was attended by the Prime Minister of Australia and other Commonwealth Ministers.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– ‘What did Mr. Nash have to say in London about defence ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– I thought I had said all that was necessary on that subject, hut apparently the honorable senator from Tasmania has an insatiable appetite. If he is seeking further enlightenment, he should pursue his inquiries in the right quarter. On the subject of tariffs, Mr. Nash said -

The economic outlook of the British Nationalist Government- here we get a breath of fresh air from the salt sea of Labour politics; and an intelligent outlook on. the Empire situation with regard to tariffs - is based on the outworn scarcity theory-

This is the old-time theory which influences the economic policy of this Government as “well as the governments of many other nations. Yet in the midst of abundant production we have the destruction of essential foodstuffs in order to keep up prices. In Brazil, for instance, millions of bushels of coffee arc destroyed every year ; in Seville, millions of bushels of oranges are destroyed.; in Denmark, thousands of milch cows are destroyed annually; and, to come nearer home, in Tasmania, thousands of tons of apples in seasons of glut are fed to the pigs or ploughed into the ground. Thus in times of abundant production we have the cruel and criminal paradox of starvation and malnutrition among the peoples of the world as well as a tremendous volume of unemployment. Let me repeat the opening sentences of Mr. Nash’s speech, and give the whole of his statement-

The economic outlook of the British Nationalist Government is based on the outworn scarcity theory and on the idea that the “ law “ of supply and demand should be allowed complete freedom in determining a price level, except that, if prices fall low enough to stir the home producers to exert their influence, the Government would be prepared to restrict consumption in order to force prices up. The economic outlook of the New Zealand Government follows the newer philosophy that the determining factor should be the possibility of production being increased till every human, need is satisfied.

I commend that statement to Senator Hardy and Senate Ministers. Mr. Nash went on* to say -

The British Government certainly could put a restriction on consumption by controlling imports, but I pointed out that our policy was to utilize to the full the resources of New Zealand, and to send them in various forms to the United Kingdom up to the point where the needs of the people of the United Kingdom would be satisfied. It is obvious that there are millions of people in Britain who have ‘far less to cat and wear than their reasonable needs.

Senator Guthrie:

– Unfortunately that is true.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Of course it is true; otherwise Mr. Nash would not have said it.

Senator HARDY:

– The honorable senator is showing some interest in the policy of New Zealand now.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable gentleman need not worry about that matter. It is in tunc with the policy of the Australian Labour party. As I have already stated, in an emergency we shall see that there is the fullest co-operation between the two governments.

Senator Abbott:

– This is the first time we have heard that statement.

Senator Guthrie:

– Except in regard to defence measures.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am expressing the sincere opinions of the Opposition in this chamber.

Recently, the Department of the Interior has accomplished wonderful things. I say this on the authority of the Canberra Times, a newspaper which, at least, endeavours to hold the balance fairly between the contending parties in this Parliament. It does not always agree with the actions of this Government; on the other hand, it cannot be called a supporter of the Labour party.

Senator Badman:

– Has the Canberra Times any policy?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Yes. It has a very definite policy concerning the Unlawful Assemblies Ordinance which was recently promulgated and gazetted by this Government, and because of its threat to the working classes, I would be recreant to my trust as a lifelong representative of the workers if I did not express my extreme dissatisfaction with the action of the Government in this matter. On the 30th August, I sent the following telegram to the Minister for the Interior: -

As Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and on behalf of every working-class organization in Queensland, I emphatically protest against ordinance prohibiting assembly outside Parliament House, Canberra. In my opinion ordinance is directly opposed to every recognized principle of British justice, and further, is ultra vires the powers conferred by the Seat of Government acceptance and administration acts.

I propose now to place before my honorable friend, Senator Brennan, who represents the Attorney-General in this chamber, what I believe to be the legal aspect of this matter. 1 shall give, not my own opinion, but advice that I have been at some pains to obtain. The Commonwealth Gazette of the 22nd July, 1937, published a unique ordinance, which purported to prohibit unlawful assemblies within a proclaimed area in the vicinity of the Federal Houses of Parliament. Section 3 of that ordinance laid it down that-

It shall not be lawful for any number of persons exceeding twenty to meet in the open or in any part of the proclaimed place for any unlawful purpose.

There is nothing new or objectionable in that, I admit. In fact, a new ordinance was not necessary to apply this law. It is in the definition that the unique character of the ordinance is disclosed. A subsection of section 3 states -

For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, persons shall bc deemed to have met, or to be assembled for an unlawful purpose, if they or any of them, while assembled, do anything unlawful-

AVe all agree with that but, unfortunately for the Minister, he has given a definition of what is unlawful. The sub-section continues - or make known their grievances, or discuss public affairs or matters of public interest, or consider, prepare, or present any petition, memorial, complaint, remonstrance-

Have honorable senators ever heard of anything so monstrous having been done to a community, not one individual in which has a vote for the election of a member to this Parliament? These people are denied the right to assemble and hold a meeting outside Parliament House. They must not discuss their grievances, present petitions, or do anything which every other community may do without let or hindrance. In every other part of Australia the people have a vote, and can have their views expressed in the different legislatures, yet those who reside in the Federal Capital Territory cannot do anything of the kind, because they have no vote. They must not, according to this ordinance, “ present any declaration or other address to His Majesty or the Governor-General”. What a pity it would be if the serenity of the Governor-General were disturbed by his being told by a few of the unemployed that their kiddies go to bed in the cold of winter without a blanket to cover them. The prohibition against the presentation of any declaration or other address applies also to “ both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to any Minister or officer of the Commonwealth “. These disfranchised people must not even say to a departmental officer - “ Excuse me, sir, can you tell me what the position is regarding such and such a matter, because we are thinking of taking some action and do not want to transgress the law?” If 20 persons do that without warrant - -

Senator Brennan:

– Where does the honorable senator find that - in his imagination?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator can put me right on that point, if he cares to do so it is not marked on my brief. The penalty provided for a breach of this ordinance is a fine of £100 or imprisonment for six months. Obviously the offender would be imprisoned, because he would be unable to pay the fine. Some of the unemployed would do well to break the ordinance and’ be imprisoned for six months, because then they would at least be fed, clothed, and housed for that period, No comment or argument is necessary to show that this is an attack on what are regarded as the fundamental rights of Australian citizens. The fact that the ordinance is limited in its operation to a small area and necessarily to the comparatively small number of Australian citizens who dwell or temporarily sojourn in the Federal Capital Territory does not improve the position. It is the more remarkable that this restriction of liberty should occur in the city which was built to house the National Parliament, when one considers that the history of British parliamentary institutions is the history of Parliament’s struggles to protect and give legislative force to those principles of liberty which. British peoples have always cherished dearly. Although in strictly legal theory Parliament is able to accomplish anything by means of legislation, there is an unwritten law in every British country that even Parliament is not to be permitted to attack the liberty of the subject. Behind this law, where it is not expressed in the Constitution - as in the case of the American Constitution - is the sanction of the ballot-box. But the residents of the Federal Capital Territory cannot appeal to that.I shall be glad to hand my brief to the Assistant Minister who represents the Attorney-General in this chamber, so that he may privately, if not publicly, tell me if and where I am wrong.

Senator Crawford:

– Is it not a fact that the police dispersed a crowd which had gathered outside Parliament House, Brisbane, only a few weeks ago?

Senator Guthrie:

– Under a Labour government.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I was not in Brisbane when that occurred. But, even so, that demonstration was made by the Communist friends of the Commonwealth Government; a prosecution against them was withdrawn by the Commonwealth Attorney-General because he wanted them to support the Labour party to its undoing. Senator Crawford forgets two important facts. If the circumstances in Queensland were identical with those in the Federal Capital Territory, I should saythat both governments were equally culpable. In Queensland, however, every man and woman of adult age outside a gaol or a lunatic asylum has a vote, and in that State there is only one branch of the legislature. The people of Brisbane can make their appeal directly through the ballot-box and accomplish by that means anything that they regard as essential to their interests. I am astonished that Senator Crawford, who ought to know that I have the accumulated experience of a fairly long life, should think that I am such a trusting innocent that a little joke such as he has made would put me out of my stride. When he endeavours to find excuses in this matter for the Minister for the Interior I am more than ever convinced that I am right, and more right than I had imagined.

I wish to touch on a very serious matter that comes under the control of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I have already had something to say in this Senate concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Quite a long while ago I made certain definite charges against the members of that body, with the result that Major Conder, who should never have been appointed to the position that he held but should have been left to continue bullying the prisoners in- Pentridge gaol, of which he had been governor, was dismissed. We were not taken into the confidence of the Government, but apparently it believed that my charges were well founded. I have no wish to restate those charges, and shall content myself by saying that the personnel of the commission does not commend itself to me. I have previously enlarged upon the lack of qualifications on the part of the members, including the lady member, Mrs. Couchman. With respect to that lady I wish to add to what I said on the last occasion, because further information has since been placed in my possession. Does the PostmasterGeneral consider that it is a part of the duty of any member of the commission to go in to the offices of the commission where ladies are employed, inspect the quality of the sanitary paper that is being used in the lavatories, condemn it as too expensive, and go through the girls’ bags during their absence?

– The press was once a very fine institution, but because of mergers of newspaper interests, many matters of vital concern to the welfare of the Australian people are now published in Australian newspapers only as desired hy financial interests on the other side of the world which control the Australian press and the Australian Government.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is rubbish, and it is untrue.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order !

Senator COLLINGS:

– I shall now give reasons for condemning the action of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In the Courier-Mail, which is this Govern ment’s Brisbane organ, of the 7th August, the following paragraph appeared : -

Canon Garland advised that the Premier’s speech on the occasion of a communion breakfast at St. Barnabas Church which was to be broadcast by 4QG would not be so broadcast owing to the last-minute decision of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

These paragraphs were published in the same paper on the 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th and 19th August respectively.

It was reported that the Australian Labour party in South Australia had protested because Sir David Gordon, President of the Legislative Council in South Australia, had been allowed to speak through the South Australian National station on the 10th August, 1037. The South Australian manager of the Commission said the broadcast was arranged weeks ago-

Premier Forgan Smith stated the announcement of his broadcast was published with the programme on the 31st July, 1037, showing that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was aware of the intention to broadcast his speech.

Mr. Finlay, manager of 4QG, announced that the station would not broadcast speeches by the Premier and the Prime Minister from the Brisbane Show.

The Royal National Association asked 4QG to refrain from broadcasting any speech from the Brisbane Show. They considered that the attitude of the Commission was an affront to the dignity of the association. The speeches were broadcast by “ B “ class stations.

Fears were expressed in New South Wales that the attitude of the Commission would interfere with the broadcasting in connexion with the anniversary celebrations. Mr. Dunningham suggested that in view of the Commission’s attitude to politicians, the ceremonies connected with the anniversary celebrations should be broadcast by “ B “ class stations.

The Prime Minister denied that he contemplated disciplining the Commission. He stated that the Commission was free from political control and that each case should be treated by the Australian Broadcasting Commission on its merits. A hard and fast rule should not be made.

The genius, who is chairman of the commission, and has been extolled from one end of Australia to the other, was once an accountant in a brewery. Later he was appointed Railways Commissioner of New South Wales, but finally got out of that joh. He is now chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I noticed a few days ago that he has been paid an honorarium of £2,000, and it would be interesting to know why that payment was made. In the same paper of the 9th August, this paragraph was published: -

Mr. Cleary, of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, explained the policy of the collision, stating that there would be no broadcasts by politicians until after the Federal elections. He stilted that the commission had already refused to broadcast other politicians including the Prime Minister.

Fancy the impudence of this man in a snarling attitude saying to me, a member of . this Parliament, what I shall and shall not do. This is how the Government does its job. This is how the PostmasterGeneral allows Cleary to run the rule over him, and make him a mere puppet in the important department he is controlling. Although I disagree entirely with the political views of the right honorable the Prime Minister, I always respect the high office which he holds. The paragraph continues -

The Premier replied to this statement by saying that his broadcast was not analogous to those of Messrs. Lyons, Menzies, and Curtin and he doubted whether the commission would have refused to broadcast these if they had been speaking at a Communion Breakfast.

It was reported that Mr. Casey, Federal Treasurer, had been broadcast from the Wesley Church, Melbourne, at a “ Pleasant Sunday Afternoon “.

The Premier of Queensland also came into the picture. What happened? Immediately the Prime Minister and the State Premier began to speak the microphone was to be withdrawn. All lesser lights would be allowed to say what they wanted to say. We do not submit meekly to such humiliating treatment. We do not do things that way in Queensland. Wo told those representing the Australian Broadcasting Commission to “keep off the grass “, and that if they could not broadcast the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland, we would arrange for their speeches to bo broadcast by the “ B “ class stations. The representatives of these stations stood up to their job and the transmission was excellent. In the Courier-Mail of the 10th August, the following paragraph appeared : -

Mr. Finlay, manager of 4QG, explained that he did not refer the matter to the general manager of the commission until the Friday before the proposed broadcast, hence the last minute decision. He said that the arrangements for the broadcast of Mr. Casey’s speech and another by Mr. Curtin bad been made before the commission’s ruling had been made-

– I am reminded of Artemus Ward who, on seeing a snake’s tail projecting from a hole, said “ That hole belongs to that snake”. The Postmaster-General is an affable man, but, unfortunately, he is supplied with unreliable information. The honorable senator does not always supply me with fair answers to the questions that I submit. Some time ago, I put, certain questions and received certain answers, which I submitted to certain people who were capable of technically examining them. The Postmaster-General told me something about Regulation No. 48. That regulation says : “ A broadcasting station licence may be granted for any period not exceeding three years, for the PostmasterGeneral to determine.” Of course, under Regulation No. 54 (1) a licence can be varied as the Postmaster-General determines. The honorable gentleman led me to believe that he. could not do anything of the kind. The fourth question that I put was whether there was any record of the earnings of B class stations, and the Postmaster-General told me that he had no knowledge of their earnings. Yet Regulation No. 62 provides -

A broadcasting station licensee shall compile and maintain in a recognized business or commercial form separate accounts in respect of his broadcasting activities:
Make such accounts available for inspection by the Postmaster-General as required;
Supply to the Postmaster-General as required a duly audited balance-sheet in detail for the year ending on the 30th day of June each year;
Keep such records relating to the broadcasting service as the Postmaster-General from time to time directs and supply copies thereof to the Postmaster-General as required.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Yes, and, if the honorable senator can stand it, I will say “criminal”. That makes three “C’s” - cruel, cowardly and criminal.

Senator Payne:

– I rise to order! Is the honorable senator in order in using the terms “cowardly” and “criminal” with regard to any legislation on the statutebook?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Sena tor Sampson). - The word “criminal” is out of order.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I withdraw the word “ criminal “ and substitute “ callous “, still keeping to the three “ C’s “. I wish to read to the Senate, the statement of a case which came under my notice in my home town some months ago, and for which I have been trying to get redress ever since, without success. For the moment, let me say that if a man has an insurance policy it counts against his pension in certain conditions, although the policy is on his own life and the money from it will never be available to him. He has to declare that life policy, and the department assesses the present value of the policy to expire within a given time.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It counts the surrender value as an asset.

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is so. Therefore it is cruel, cowardly and callous. It puts the man who has insured his life in a worse position than the man who never takes thought of tomorrow.

Senator Payne:

– I again rise to order 1 I submit that the terms “ cruel “ and “ cowardly “ are out of order if applied to any statute. I refer you, Mr. Deputy President, to Standing Order No. 418.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - In the opinion of the honorable senator, are those words offensive to him?

Senator Payne:

– They are, and they are offensive bo the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Under the Standing Order, an honorable senator must not use .offensive words directed against either House of the Parliament or any member of such House.

Senator Payne:

– Or any statute.

Senator COLLINGS:

– In order to save time and save you worry, Mr. Deputy President, I gladly withdraw the words complained of, and refer to those provisions which Senator Payne is obviously so proud of and so willing to defend, as highly admirable, Christian, and charitable. The case I wish to cite is that . of Mrs. E. J. Stanley, of Creek-street, Wynnum. She applied for the old-age pension in’ July, 1935. She is 63 years of age. Her application was refused on account of the value of her capital assets. Mrs. Stanley has a reversionary interest in an estate, the assets in which are at present valued at £14,000. Her share on the death of the life tenant, who is 83 years of age, will be £900. The departmental ruling states that, “ the present value of £900 on the death of a woman aged 83 years is approximately £610 “. Hence no pension is payable in this case. The fact is that this old lady of S3 is in splendid health and there is not the slightest suggestion that she is likely to die. The applicant for the pension, who is 63 years of age, has no income whatever. She has been to moneylenders in Brisbane, to the Public Curator, to the Queensland Trustees, and to other similar institutions and she has said : “ This is what the Pensions Department says that this asset is worth. Will you advance me enough money on it to . give me enough to eat from week to week?” No financial institution in Brisbane is prepared to negotiate this alleged reversionary interest. As a matter of fact, that woman has been reduced at last to the extremity of accepting relief from the State government. She has not a penny to her name and, but for the fact that the State government has at last given her ration relief, she would starve. We, on this side of the House say that such conditions as those are wrong.

Senator PAYNE:

– Has Labour ever tried to alter them?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator knows that Labour has never had the power to do so. In order to show that those adjectives which I used were justified, I quote now from the speech made by the right honorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) on this very question of invalid and old-age pensions on the 29th September, 1932. The right honorable senator had something to say because I had said something on behalf of the pensioners. He unburdened himself of this Christian sentiment -

Senator Collings has not the slightest sympathy for those people; he sympathizes only with that section of the pioneers, which in many cases, because of its thriftlessness has had to draw old-age pensions. I admit that some pioneers who exercised thrift during their lifetime have been compelled, because of unforeseen circumstances, to fall back on the pension, but there are many others who, because of their tliriftlessness and because they have never denied themselves every form of pleasure and luxury, have, by their own act. brought themselves within the pension class.

That is’ the attitude of the Government to the pioneers of this country. Possessing a good salary and a lovely home with environments that in every way are conducive to contentment and decency, it is easy to get up from the banquet table with a well-filled stomach, but it is very difficult for people in such positions to put themselves in the place of those people who have been systematically robbed by this Government which is entirely out of sympathy with them, and whose only sympathy in the matter of national insurance lies with the upper class whom it wishes to relieve of the liability for pensions which it is now carrying. Supporters of the Government say that the cost of pensions is rising and that tlie country cannot go on increasing its liability in that respect. Therefore this Government wants to introduce something that will take the liability off the backs of their wealthy friends and put the burden on the backs of those who should not have to carry it.

Before I conclude I wish to know from Senator Brennan, who represents the Attorney-General, how much longer the people of this nation are to be treated like a lot of children by the censorship. How much longer are the members of this Parliament to be told when they go into the Parliamentary Library. “ You cannot get that book because it is on the banned list “ ? In other words books printed and published in the old country without ban are denied to members of this Parliament because a bau has been placed on them here.

Senator Payne:

– There are some “ lovely “ books published in the old country !

Senator COLLINGS:

– I object to the people of Australia being insulted in that way and I object to Senator Payne setting himself as a pillar of righteousness and saying, like the Pharisee, “ Thank God I am not as other men “. My protest has nothing to do with pornographic literature, but the honorable senator cannot tell me that a Commonwealth Minister has need to intervene regarding anything of that sort. Every State parliament nas passed laws against obscenity and blasphemous literature, and has adequate force at its disposal to deal with such matters. 1 am talking about the books against which charges of that sort cannot be laid.

The Collector of Customs at Sydney, Mr. Mitchell, was asked -

Do you think it fair that some publications should be allowed into Australia in expensive editions, while cheap editions of the same work are banned?

I have never heard anything more ridiculous or insulting to the people in this connexion in my life than Mr. Mitchell’s reply. He said -

The object is to allow such volumes to be available to the student and the cultured reader and at the same time prevent them from falling into the hands of the bulk of the population.

Senator Brown:

– Don’t tell lies !

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order !

Senator Collings:

– There is no other edition.

Senator HARDY:

– In the section dealing with defence, there is no reference whatever to Labour’s attitude to the Communist party, but there is mention of its opposition to war and fascism. This booklet is, I consider, convincing evidence of an agreement between the Australian Labour party and the Communist party, an arrangement which has not been weakened by any of the events of the last four or five years. To establish the connexion between the two organizations, we have to study, not the statements of the reputed Labour leader in the House of Representatives, but the utterances of Mr. Beasley who, when he was President of the Sydney Trades and Labour Council, submitted a motion that the Labour conference affiliate with the Moscow Third Internationale. It would be well to remember, also, that Mr. Beasley was responsible for the defeat of the Scullin Government. He is now. attempting to disavow his association with the resolution of the Labour conference two or three years ago, but these are facts which, I believe, the electors will remember. I invite Senator Collings to explain the omission from the blue book of any mention of Labour’s attitude to the Communist party.

The claim that this Government has been responsible for the present prosperity of Australia is well founded. Its record will stand the closest investigation. When it was returned to office the affairs of the Commonwealth were in a state of chaos, due to the faulty administration of the Seullin Government, and it is to the credit of this Government that order was restored and prosperity ensured.

One matter which I should like to see clarified is the policy of the Labour party with regard to broadcasting. This matter should be put beyond all doubt, because in the blue book, containing an outline of Labour’s policy, there appears the statement that, if successful at the next elections, the Labour party intends to carry out the greatest radio steal that has ever been perpetrated in the history of the industry.

Senator Collings:

– That is only the honorable senator’s statement; it is not true.

Senator HARDY:

– Labour candidates are saying everywhere that if they are returned the spoils of the coming election fight are to be the B class stations, which have been established by the expenditure of much capital and give employment to large numbers of Australians. We should have the issue clarified because the Leader of the Opposition this morning told us that Labour’s policy was in tune with that of the Labour Government of New Zealand, which has practically abolished commercial stations and nationalised broadcasting.

Senator Collings:

– All stations there are working; nobody has been sacked.

Senator HARDY:

– The avowed intention of the Labour party with reference to broadcasting is the greatest racket that has ever been attempted in this country. This is what Labour’s blue book has to say about wireless broadcasting -

Having regard to the paramount importance of wireless broadcasting, and the tremendous influence it can exert, broadcasting must be essentially and exclusively a publicly controlled utility.

Immediately that book was issued, the Postmaster-General (Senator A. J. McLachlan), realizing the implication of its policy concerning broadcasting, issued the following statement - “ The listening public of Australia and the many thousands employed in the industry,” are anxious to know what would be the effect of the Labour party’s policy. It will be interesting to discover how the listeners would receive Mr. Curtin’s proposal to compel them to accept only the programmes of his ‘ essentially and exclusively publicly-controlled ‘ stations ; and how the people engaged in the industry will view the prospect of having their businesses taken from them and turned into ‘ essentially and exclusively publicly-controlled ‘ undertakings “.

Senator Collings:

– What did Mr. Curtin say?

Senator HARDY:

– I have read Mr. Curtin’s statement, but to put the real position before the Senate it is desirable that I should read not only the declaration of Mr. Curtin, but also a statement made by Mr. Beasley, the real leader of the Australian Labour party. Mr. Curtin has said -

. broadcasting must be essentially and exclusively a publicly controlled utility.

This statement might well earn for the leader of the Federal Labour party the designation of “ Radio Pirate No. 1 Then this somersaulting gentleman went on to explain that this did not mean that the Labour party would withdraw licences for B class stations if their continued operation was not inconsistent with public policy.

Silling suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator HARDY:

– I assume that Mr. f Curtin’s views are clearly set out in the hand-book which is issued under his authority. In passing, I express my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for having distributed copies of it to honorable senators. In the hand-book, -Mr. Curtin said -

Having regard to the paramount importance of wireless broadcasting and the tremendous influence it can exert, broadcasting must be essentially and exclusively a public-controlled utility.

After the Postmaster-General (Senator A. J. McLachlan) had accused him of desiring to nationalize the B class stations by a radio steal on a large scale, Mr. Curtin found it necessary to explain his meaning, just as he did with his defence policy. He said that when the Labour party claimed^ that “ Broadcasting must be essentially and exclusively a publiccontrolled utility”, it did not mean that the party would withdraw B class stations from private companies. I shall show that the Labour party is endeavouring to toss a double-headed penny in connexion with the control of broadcasting. It is a political game of the thimble and the pea, a catch-as-catch-can contest with the radio stations as the prize. Mr. Curtin went on to say -

The conduct by private companies was not inconsistent with public control.

He tried to get away from the charge of attempted nationalization, because in the meantime he had received hundreds of telegrams of protest from B class operators throughout the Commonwealth. He continued -

Since B class stations were licensed by the Postmaster-General’s Department they were under some sort of public control just as hotels were. Control would continue to be exercised through the licence system. .

I ask why the honorable gentleman, in this hand-book, says that broadcasting should be essentially and exclusively a public-controlled utility? I shall give the reasons. The policy of the Labour party in regard to broadcasting emanated from neither Mr. Curtin nor the caucus; it had a much more sinister origin. The policy is the echo of the fight between “ Jock “ Garden and John Thomas Lang for the control of station 2KY. It was because Mr. Lang was unable to bend “Jock” Garden to his will, and keep 2KY under the control of the New South Wales Labour party, that the policy of the Labour party in regard to broadcasting was formulated.

Senator Brown:

– Nonsense !

Senator HARDY:

– Would the honorable senator deny that Mr. Beasley was instructed to bring influence to bear in order that “ Jock “ Garden’s scalp might be hung on his belt. There was a most exclusive picnic recently at The Playground, Georges River. It was attended by 300 people, including Mr. Lang. I believe that he presented the prizes. Mr. Beasley took the opportunity to remove the screen covering the Labour party’s policy in regard to wireless broadcasting. The report of the gathering reads -

Addressing Labour supporters at an Australian Labour party picnic at The Playground, George’s River, yesterday. Mr. J. Beasley, M.P., said that if the Labour party was returned to Federal power it would dissolve A class broadcasting control and reorganize the system of allotting B class licences. Nothing short of an absolute cancellation of B class licences and their re-allotment would suit the Labour- party, he said.

Mr. Beasley is the real Leader of the Labour party, because Mr. Curtin can- not govern without the assistance of the New South Wales group. In fact, Mr. Curtin cannot do anything without the approval of that group. When he was elected Leader of the party by a majority of one vote, not one member of the New South Wales section of the party voted for him. I emphasize that Mr. Beasley’s statement was made recently - not three or four years ago, or even just before the alleged union of the two groups. His speech was delivered in December, 1936. He told his hearers that if the Labour party were returned to power it would cancel all B class licences and re-allot them to suit the Labour party. Is it any wonder that I classify Mr. Curtin as a second-hand dealer in words? His latest statement is an attempt to re-assure the B -class stations that it is not the intention of the Labour party to interfere with them, if returned to power. The Leader of the Opposition in this chamber said that the Labour party in Australia was attuned to the Labour party in New Zealand. The tuning-in must have produced a most discordant note, because in regard to defence the Labour party in Australia plays a tune entirely different from that played by the Labour party in New Zealand. But I take his words at their face value. It is reasonable to assume that, the Australian Labour party will advocate exactly the same policy as the New Zealand Labour party adopted when it obtained control of the broadcasting system. In that dominion the Labour party did not nationalize broadcasting. Oh no; it adopted a policy of peaceful penetration. It said’ to the B class stations of New Zealand : “ We will take only some of you over, and will leave some of you to operate under the control of private enterprise “. Those which were left to private enterprise were graded as C class stations - small stations of about 100 watts, capable of being heard over a radius of about 5 miles. Then it said to them that the stations under the control of the Government would enter the advertising field in competition with them. ‘ The result is that the pick of the B class stations in New Zealand are operated by the Government in competition with private enterprise in the broadcasting of advertisements. That is an effective way of achieving the nationalization of broadcasting. It, reminds us of the policy of the Labour party in regard to the control of private banking. Once Labour obtained control of the Commonwealth Bank, it would use the facilities provided by that institution to overthrow the private trading banks. If the Labour party gets into power at the forthcoming election, it will not cut off heads, but it will select for public control those B class stations which are most powerful and exercise the greatest influence, and give to them advertising rights. The B class stations in Australia are handling about 15 per cent, of the total advertising of the Commonwealth. If radio fell into the hands of a Labour government, there would be ruthless competition with the newspapers. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking of the increase of monopolies, I asked him why he did not support the nationalization of newspapers instead of the nationalization of radio, but he sidestepped the question. Labour wants control of the air because .it believes that that will mean the control of the country. Its definite and deliberate policy - a policy inspired and controlled by the New South Wales Labour party - is to secure control of B class stations and to nationalize them along the lines that I have indicated. Is it any wonder that I describe the policy of the Labour party as the great radio steal?

The Leader of the Opposition said that Australia’s prosperity was not due to the Lyons Government.

Senator Collings:

– I said that the Government was not wholly responsible.

Senator HARDY:

– The honorable gentleman said that the prosperity was only partial. I could submit extracts from Irs speeches in which he laid stress on the misery of those Australians who, he said, are unable to get jobs.

Senator Collings:

– There are 120 of them in Canberra.

Senator HARDY:

– The honorable gentleman submitted figures in support of his contention that Australia has not recovered from the depression, lt would be easy for me to quote to the Senate evidence that, on this subject, the Labour party speaks with two voices.

Some of the most interesting evidence that I have ever read was that submitted by the advocates of trades unions in the Federal Arbitration Court in support of an application for an increase of the basic wage. The Senate will remember that the unions asked for an increase of 12s. a week, and received 6s. The evidence submitted on behalf of the unions was in direct contrast to the remarks of the Leader of the Labour party in this chamber, and of its Leader in the House of Representatives. I myself have heard Mr. Curtin refer to the partial prosperity of the Commonwealth, and to-day the Leader of the Labour party in this chamber spoke of foodstuffs being wasted while many people are unable to get sufficient to eat. I have no doubt that, if the honorable gentleman repeats his activities in the Gwydir electorate, he will try to paint for the people a picture of unemployment - men standing idly at the street corners, factory machinery lying .idle, and prosperity still far off. The honorable gentleman would do well to compare his statements with those submitted to the Arbitration Court by the industrial wing of the Labour party. The comparison makes interesting reading. The remarks of Mr. Crofts, who was the leading advocate on behalf of the unions, show how wide is the gap between the policies of the industrial and the political wings of the Labour party. Mr. Crofts told the court that the case of the trade unions was based essentially on a comparison of present and past conditions. I have no quarrel with that, for it is all that we ask the electors of the Commonwealth to do. If the electors will compare present conditions with those of 1931, the parties constituting the Government will be prepared to stand or fall by their impartial judgment. Mr. Crofts said -

On the question of the recovery of Australia nt the present juncture, I would like to quote from the Economic News of January, 1937.

That is not an imperialist publication, but one issued by the Queensland Labour Government. Mr. Crofts read the following extract from that publication: -

Recovery has been consolidated and improved throughout Australia during the past year, and the new year opens with excellent prospects. It seems certain that export prices will continue to improve. Stocks are falling as consumption increases-

After listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to-day one would not think that consumption is increasing-

Stocks are falling as consumption increases, and the vast expenditures on armaments are stimulating the markets. While apart from the new currency agreements the general world situation is anything but healthy, the immediate outlook for Australia is better than it has been since 1928.

What is the reason for that ? If a Labour publication says that the immediate outlook for Australia is better than it has been since 192S, surely some credit should be given to the Lyons Government which has made that recovery possible.

The degree of recovery in Australia baa been remarkable considering the depressed level of export prices until quite lately.

A favourite argument of the Australian Labour party is that the Lyons Government was not responsible for the prosperity which is now enjoyed ; Labour spokesmen contend that it was brought about by the rise of export prices. Yet the advocate presenting Labour’s case before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court admitted that export prices, which the Labour party says have been responsible for renewed prosperity in Australia, have risen only lately. The Lyons Government, however, has been in office since 1931, and export prices, unfortunately, did not begin to rise until about two years ago. The following table shows the value per capita of exports in Australian currency of or the last seven years : -

Yet the Labour party to-day says that the only reason for the return of prosperity to this country is the increase of export prices.

Senator Collings:

– No Labour man ever said that. *

Senator HARDY:

– I heard Labour spokesmen say it in the Gwydir campaign, not once, but dozens of times, and I have no doubt we shall hear it again in this chamber before we go to the country. Mr. Crofts continued -

Mr. Clarey will put the financial position of the Commonwealth as a whole before the court in an attempt to show the court that the economic position of Australia to-day is such that there is no need as the court did previously to worry about the budgetary position of Australia, no need to worry about the loans from overseas, no need to worry about the unemployed.

But what a different story honorable senators tell in this Senate in their endeavours to boot the political football across the chamber. Judge Beeby then asked Mr. Crofts the following question: -

What you want to convince the court is that there has been an economic recovery sufficient, not only to grant the restoration of (is., but something more?

To which Mr. Crofts replied -

Tes. That is our case . . . We propose to get it on record that the prosperity of this country is as great to-day as ever it was; that production is as great, and that there is nothing to worry about in the financial position of Australia.

After listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) to-day one would come to the conclusion that Labour is worried about the financial position of the Commonwealth to-day. The honorable senator even endeavoured to indict the Government for its proposal to raise £2,500,000 by the issue of treasury-bills in London. Thus we have two voices of Labour, one endeavouring to woo the electors, and the other endeavouring to woo the judge. Mr. Crofts concluded his case by saying-

The period from 1935-37 is from many standpoints, taking into consideration the sharpness of the decline from 1930-1932, probably one of the most spectacular recoveries from any economic depression that has been experienced in Australia.

I submit to honorable senators that here is prima facie evidence of Australia’s recovery. This is no political propaganda, but the evidence given in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court by Labour’s own spokesmen in presenting their case foran increased basic wage for 500,000 unionists. Yet those statements are denied in this chamber by the supporters of the Labour movement. Is not that evidence of the use of a double-headed penny - of political chicanery intended to delude the people ? Undoubtedly it is, and I believe that when the full facts are placed before the people of Australia the Lyons Government will be returned with a greater majority.

Debate (on motion by Senator Brand) adjourned.

page 677

RELIEF FOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to.

That, during the unavoidable absence of the President, “ the Deputy President be authorized to call upon any of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees to relieve him in the Chair.

page 677

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.- It seems the right thing to say something about defence since that important subject fills many pages of the report on the Imperial Conference. During the course of my remarks, however, I do not propose to air my views on the best methods of defending Australia because I have already done so on other occasions. The fundamental principles of strategy and tactics - secrecy, surprise, early information, guarding lines of communication, concentration of superior strength at the right time and place, meeting the aggressor before he can lay waste your country - hold good now as in Hannibal’s time. The remarkable scientific development of the instruments of war, even since the Great War, has not affected these principles one iota. Listening to the speeches on this subject in this chamber and in the House of Representatives one would think that there were no Australian officers capable of giving expert advice. Although Sir John Monash has passed on, there are at least two Australians, Sir Harry Chauvel and Sir Brudenell White, to whom the Government can turn for advice. During the Great War these three Generals of the Australian Imperial Forces stood head and shoulders above the majority of British and other dominion generals. Ten years ago an Imperial Defence College was established in London for educating senior officers of the navy, army and air services in Imperial strategy. A very limited number of students is admitted for the year’s course. Every alternate year, however, an Australian staff corps officer attends the course. Two of them, Major-General Lavarack and Colonel “Wynter have passed through the college with credentials equal to those of any British or other dominion students. These officers had the opportunity to study empire defence from every angle, and with that knowledge as a foundation, they are able to give expert advice to the Minister for Defence, particularly as they, like myself, are Australians and Australian minded; but they and the two senior generals I have mentioned are likely to get out of touch with the progress made in scientific defence preparations at the heart of the Empire and to be in the dark as to what progress a potential enemy has made or to what extent Britain can help the dominions ;n time of emergency. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence can, however, obtain this information first-hand confidentially at an Imperial Conference, as they undoubtedly did recently. Possessed of this information the Government has framed its defence policy, upon which it intends to stand or fall at the forthcoming elections. Every member of the Australian Imperial Forces knows how the Royal Navy and armed merchant ships protected Australia’s overseas trade in 1914-18. It is, therefore, right that our small Australian navy should be brought up to something approaching the strength of armament and personnel of pre-war days. Very few - the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) is one - knew the reason why, in September, 1914, the 37 New Zealand and Australian transports were held up day after day while 30,000 men were ready to embark. The two German cruisers, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, were prowling around in Australian waters, and transports dared not leave their berths. Then, within a few hours, embarkation and sailing orders were received, because our battle cruiser, H.M.A.S. Australia, the creation of the Labour party, had driven these enemy cruisers across the Pacific. Instead of human beings, these 37 transports might have been laden with wool and wheat, or other commodities which contribute to the wealth of this continent. History might repeat itself, so it is better to be on the safe side.

The navy rightly claims the greater portion of this year’s defence expenditure and the air force is well provided for, but the poor old army, which wins a nation’s battles, is almost forgotten. Should Australia ever be in danger, a demand will surely arise for an efficient; mobile army. Unless the paltry six days training in camp is increased before then, I would not envy the generals who had to command troops. China to-day is fighting for its existence, not only with a. powerful up-to-date air force; that arm is backed up by an army of nearly 1,000,000 trained men. We cannot afford to let our nucleus army crumble. Who is the scoundrel or lunatic who wants another war? A visit to the Caulfield or Randwick Hospitals should silence any one so inclined. But “ Safety first “ is a good slogan; that is why all parties should support the Government’s defence policy.

I agree entirely with my colleague, Senator Leckie, that a complete survey of the capabilities of certain factories for turning out war material in time of emergency should be speeded up, but he need not. get so “ hot under tlie collar,” because the Defence Department does not proclaim from the housetops its mobilization plans.

I express the satisfaction that will be felt by riflemen -all over the Commonwealth when they know that the Government has made provision on this year’s Estimates for the restoration of the full annual allowance of free ammunition, Mark VII., to effective members of rifle clubs.

There is discontentment amongst superannuated Commonwealth public servants, whose pensions were restored entirely in November, 1933. From July, 1931, to November, 1933, in accordance with the Financial Emergency Act 1931, the Government’s contribution to their superannuation pensions was reduced, but it was fully restored in November, 1933. It is claimed, and rightly so, that the Government had no right to make a reduction, which was a repudiation of the contract made by the

Government with its public servants under the Superannuation Act of 1922. The Commonwealth superannuation system was framed by actuaries specially qualified for this class of business. It is a family annuity purchase, similar to that obtainable from leading life assurance societies, and no such society would think for a moment of breaking its contract with assured persons. When the Superannuation Act became operative, many public servants surrendered life assurance policies because they could not afford to contribute for superannuation benefits as well. In the early days of federation, a considerable number of State public servants transferred to the Commonwealth Public Service with State pension rights. When the Commonwealth Government, under the Financial Emergency Act, reduced the pensions of these transferred officers, .the High Court ruled that the Commonwealth Parliament had no power to do so. Why should not the same principle apply in respect of pensions under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act, and all public servants be placed on the same footing? In Great Britain, civil service pensions are non-contributory; yet during the period of very severe financial strain, these pensions were not reduced. Ex-Commonwealth public servants now on pension, and “those in the Service who are still contributing, fear that unless the Government redeems its liability in respect to reduced pensions during the period July, 1931- November, 1933, similar deductions may lie made for a longer period and to a greater extent in the future. The Government should honour its contractual obligations under the act, and so restore confidence by refunding the £57,000, which is estimated to be the amount of deductions made. At least 67 per cent, of those affected could not afford to take up more than four units, which represents a pension of £2 a week on retirement. The pensions of widows in this category were reduced by 4s. a week during the period mentioned. The individuals concerned in this appeal are the lower-paid officials, and their grievance ought to be removed without further delay.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

. -If the supporters of dictatorships in various parts of the world heard the froth and bubble of honorable senators opposite when dealing with vital problems they would be confirmed in their opinion that democracy is dead or, at least, moribund. Listening this morning to some of the views expressed by honorable senators opposite I came to the conclusion that there is a good deal in what the supporters of Fascism and dictatorships say, because it seems almost impossible to discuss problems properly, and with due cognizance of their effect upon the people, particularly when some honorable senators make such puerile statements. I was struck by the stupidity and puerility of Senator Hardy’s reference to the Australian Labour Party’s blue book and pensions, and I wondered if it is not possible in a legislature such as this to deal with important problems fairly, without having our minds solely on the elections. In view of the approaching political storm, it is perhaps difficult to remain calm and collected, to deal with each subject on its merits, and to give due consideration to the views of others. But I shall endeavour to deal dispassionately with the subjects which have been discussed during this debate. It is amazing that three members of the Opposition represent 47 per cent, of the electors, and that the other 33 senators represent only 53 per cent.

Senator MARWICK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– Is the honorable senator in favour of proportional representation for the Senate?

Senator BROWN:

– The honorable senator knows that the Labour party platform provides for the abolition of the Senate, but while this chamber remains in existence I believe we should have some better system of representation. My mind reverts to bitter experiences that fell to my lot in the early days, merely because I held Labour, views. I was dismissed from various positions because I had the courage of my convictions. 1 know the bitterness that was engendered in the minds of those controlling industry against me and those who held similar political views. Many, like myself, had to suffer indignities and hardships because of the principles we espoused. To-day, some applaud the work of the Labour men of the past, but they do not give to the Labour representatives of to-day credit for what they are endeavouring to do. We are told that the Labour party of to-day is different from the party of twenty years ago. The late Mr. Andrew Fisher, whose name has been mentioned, came from the ranks of the miners. He was dismissed from his employment, and for months found it impossible to get a job because of the political views he held. But the Labour movement has grown in strength, and those who would villify and destroy it cannot do so because of the power within the movement. When I first came to Australia I was told that those who supported a Labour policy were home despoilers, wreckers of happiness, and men anxious to interfere with the religious solemnity of the marriage tie. Later when the war broke out, the Labour party was alleged to be under the heel of Germany, and to be accepting German gold. Still later it was Russian funds that were being placed to the credit of the Labour movement. To-day we have reached the stage where our good friend from the Riverina (Senator Hardy) allies us with the Communist party. I suppose he will tell the people of New South Wales, through that loud speaker of his, what a fearful party the Labour party is, because forsooth it has linked itself up with those horrible Communists, and destruction of all that stands for the national life of Australia will follow. Of course all these allegations are only so much political bunk, twaddle, puerility, stupidity and all the rest of it, but they have to be made in order to catch votes in our modern democracy. No wonder democracy is losing its power and strength, when men of high intelligence, as men should be who are sent to the highest legislature of the land as the representatives of the people, utter or believe such tarradiddles and stupidities as we have had to listen to this morning. The Labour party is a political party with a political programme that every man and woman can read and understand.

Senator Dein:

– I have read it, but I cannot understand it.

Senator BROWN:

– If that is true the honorable senator is not fit to be a representative of New South Wales in this chamber. Any man who aspires to be a senator should have the intelligence to understand the plain language of the Labour party’s platform, and I do not believe the honorable senator when he says that he cannot understand it. We are a political party owing no allegiance whatsoever to any other political party. If any man wishes to join the Labour movement and to run as a candidate, he must sign the pledge which states, amongst other things - “I hereby declare that I am not a member of a Communist organization or party or any political party having objects and methods in any way opposed to the Australian Labour party.” That is the pledge that we have to sign and it is unfair to fasten the Communists on to us. I do not wish to speak in a derogatory manner of any one. This is a free country and every one in it has the right to speak to his fellows if he so desires. He has also the right to organize a political party. We have the Country party, and we have the United Australia party, which has had about 20 different aliases ; we have the Labour party, and the Communist party, and also the Douglas Credit party. In fact we have two Country parties, one which supports Mr. Dunstan in Victoria, and the other which supports the United Australia party, the representatives of the big mortgage companies and the banks and the pastoralists. They and the United Australia party are linked up one with the other. I understand that the Country party in Victoria is more representative of the working class, but the Country party in this Parliament is closely allied with the money machine, the banking machine, the big commercial men and manufacturers of Australia. We have in this chamber direct representatives of the big companies, some of them directors of those companies. That, of course, is their own business. The section of the Country party which we have in the Senate is allied, not with the workers, but with those who dominate Australia financially. I expect that some day we shall see a change in the outlook of the farming community. Instead of closely allying themselves with those who exploit them the farmers will turn to the Labour movement and seek to better their conditions by closer alliance with the workers of the cities. Indeed, at the present time, we have in our ranks many working farmers. I am’ pleased to know that our new senator, who evidently stands very high in Queensland’s regard, is a working farmer, and from the age of fourteen has been a member- of our party. Quite a number of working farmers, as I say, are members of our party, and we hope, as time goes on, to see the farmers leaving the moneyed section, and the banking section, and the exploiting section, and transferring their allegiance to those who are seeking to improve the lot of the producers. The Communist party has a perfect right to organize, but we say to it “ We do not desire your attachment. Four members have the right as citizens of Australia to preach your doctrines so long as you keep within the law. You have the right to organize any of the people, and to ask for their votes, but “we as a party say that any one who wants to belong to our party must give full and complete allegiance to it.” As a matter of fact the Communist party has opposed the Labour party, and to-day in Queens.land. Communist candidates are running against our nominees. Judging by the voting cards that are distributed near the polling booths at election times, the Communist party has on many occasions advised its supporters to vote for the United Australia party and the Country party. However, that is their business, but I think it is grossly unfair and ungentlemanly on the part of those who occupy the Government benches to accuse the Labour party of an alliance with the Communists. They go their way, and we go ours. We believe in our programme, and we believe that the carrying out of it will be for the benefit of the mass of the people of Australia if we obtain control of the Government. We are entitled to that belief, whilst the Government is entitled to show clearly and explicitly, if it can, in what way our programme is not for the benefit of Australia. But, for goodness sake, let us be honest, gentlemanly and intelligent, and discuss the issue fairly and squarely.

As regards pensions, no member of our party will deny the facts. As I said the other day,- we are delighted that some measure of restitution has been made to the old-age pensioners, and that the Government at long last has seen fit to restore the payments to the full rate. In replying to Senator Hardy, whom I call the Vicar of Bray, I would point out that such reforms as have been made are due to the pressure, the organization, the activity and the propaganda of Labour. I refer honorable senators to the little blue book in regard to the institution of the pension system. I hope every senator will shortly have a copy of that book in his possession. Senator Hardy referred to it. [ wish to assure him that it has only one edition, and that there is no such thing as an expurgated edition, or a second, third, fourth or fifth edition. It was sent to the printer and issued, and Senator Hardy should have the courtesy as a gentleman to accept our assurance that there has been no expurgation _of it. If we had the money, we should be delighted to issue a sufficient number to enable every elector to read it. I make bold to say that it will be read with a greater measure of understanding and appreciation than was the case with the book which the Government issued to every elector on the referendum, and which, very few electors read. I am certain that honorable senators on the Government side will read this little blue book avidly. I hope it will do them a world of good, because if they speak the truth on the platform, they will be able to tell the electors some of the things which are in it.

Senator Hardy has told the chamber one side of the story with regard to pensions. Now let me tell what the little blue book says about it. On page 65 of the book, which is entitled “Why Australia should vote out the Lyons Government, “ under the caption of “ Pensions, Labour responsible for first pensions act. “ it says -

The first Commonwealth Old-age Pensions Act was introduced in 1908. Although Labour was not in power at the time, being only a small party, it held the balance of power between two other parties. Having such .power it forced the Deakin Government to make provision for old-age pensions, agreeing if it did so to allow the Government to remain in office.

Senator Allan MacDonald laughs, but I believe that to be a true statement of the origin of old-age pensions in Australia. I was in Canada at the time, but from, what I learn from Mr. Blackburn, M.P., who recently published a number of typewritten sheets on the subject, and who is an honorable man, the introduction of old-age pensions was due to the fact that the Labour party in the Federal House at that time used its influence,because it held the balance of power, to exact from the Deakin Government this measure of reform. On the 3rd June, 1908, a speech was made by Senator Mulcahy of Tasmania, who was a member of what was then called the Liberal party. Certainly he was an anti-Labour man, but he left no doubt as to who was responsible for the old-age pension. This is what he said -

I am prepared to give the Labour party every credit in the matter, and I assert that if a scheme for the establishment of an oldage pension is approved, the whole of the credit willbe due to the Labour party and not to the Government.

– I admit that I have a good imagination; otherwise I should be very much bored by some of the puerilities uttered in this chamber by the honorable senator. I have also a sense of humour and in fancy I have seen Senator Dein even leading a government and becoming a powerful force in the community. But that was pure imagination, I admit.

I come now to the much lauded state of prosperity in the Commonwealth. No sensible person will deny that there has been substantial improvement in recent years; but when political bombasts among Government supporters attribute to Labour members statements which they have never made, it is our duty to emphasize some of the facts of the economic situation. Our opponents utter these misrepresentation’s in the hope that they will capture additional votes at the next elections, and since it is the custom, so I understand, to allow every man condemned to death a choice of food and drink during the last few remaining hours of his life, I suppose that, on the same principle, our political opponents who are condemned to political death at the next election, may be pardoned if they enjoy themselves for the few remaining days of their career.

Senator Marwick:

– The honorable senator appears to be enjoying himself.

Senator BROWN:

– Of course I am. 1 am sometimes amused at the claims made by ministerial supporters that the present prosperity is due to the legislation and administration of this Government. They indulge in what I may term political “ Coue-ism declaring tha’t, thanks to the prescience and benevolence of this Government, day by day and in every way things are getting better and better. I suppose that there are among Government supporters some earnest and experienced mcn who feel that they are rendering a service to the country by keeping the present Government in office and discharging the duties that fall to .their lot. But we have to deal with , realities, and although I dislike to disabuse their minds, the truth is that throughout the world lately there has been an increase of relative prosperity, and Australia, being one of the world economic units, is enjoying its share. I do not think that the Prime Minister or even the Minister for Commerce would deny the truth of this statement.

The Treasurer (Mr. Casey), when introducing his budget recently, mentioned with much obvious pleasure that we had emerged from the valley of despair and were now in the glorious sunlight of prosperity. Had I been Treasurer in similar circumstances, possibly I should have employed the same flowery phrases. But the Treasurer is not always in such an optimistic mood. He does not often unload such an oratorical gem on a listening House. A week or two earlier, writing in the privacy of his study - at a time when he was not in the excited atmosphere of a political crowd which, in the opinion of Le Bon, a wellknown psychologist, would include the House of Representatives - he made the following statement in an article which appeared in the Brisbane Courier Mail -

Those who put something aside might, with prudence, do so. The rainy day will come with certainty. At present we are fortunate m having in general, a world eager to give vis good prices for our exports. But how far is the present price of wool and metals, due to the great concentration on armaments through out the world, and how long will it continue? How far is the failure of the wheat crops in other parts -of the world responsible for our wheat farmers getting their present high prices for wheat?

– On the contrary, if a Labour government is returned it will work in close co-operation with the Labour Government in New Zealand. The social legislation which has been introduced in that country will be the pattern for the Australian Labour government, which would have for its objective the overcoming of the forces of evil that are responsible for economic depression. I would remind Senator Allan MacDonald that within the last few months some of the leading thinkers ofthe world have become perturbed at the prospect of depression when the present re-armament programmes have been completed. They fear that the world will then plunge into another economic slump. I have here a statement by Mr. D. R.

Hobson, the city editor of the London News Chronicle -

There is a lot of discussion going on now amongst bankers and economists on the probability of a trade slump developing, and whether it is possible to prevent it.

A recognized English authority on economics, Mr. J. M. Keynes, has considered the possibility under the existing capitalistic system of averting another slump. He belongs to the school which believes that slumps may be avoided by discontinuing a policy of public “works in times of comparative prosperity. He suggests that when the economic system has recovered sufficiently from a depression, governments should begin to close down on public works. He says -

Local authorities should postpone all public works. This would diminish the demand for such capital goods as bricks and cement and steel girders at a time when private housing and re-armament are taking huge amounts of such products.

– I am suggesting that this country, if it saw fit to adopt certain financial reforms, could utilize the labour of this country through the medium, in the first place, of the financial system I visualize, for the purpose of improving the economic position and increasing total production. At present any attempt to increase total production is left almost entirely to private enterprise, and we know that private enterprise in the past has failed to employ our people and make available that purchasing power which is essential to the absorption of the goods which we so abundantly produce. Has any major national action been taken by this Government during the last six years that has had for its objective an increase of the power of the community to produce and distribute essential goods? I challenge honorable senators opposite to point to one instance of such an endeavour.

I am not at all envious of the Commonwealth balance-sheet which the Government has just placed before the people of Australia. While some people may be jubilant about the .last budget, it seems to me that they must also ask themselves what action the Government has taken to offset the grave possibility of another depression which many thinkers say will shortly overtake us.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I desire to confine my remarks to the budget-papers which have recently been presented, and which are closely allied to the Supply Bill. There is an old saying that “ government is finance and finance is government “. The presentation of the budget-papers in this chamber gives us an opportunity to discuss the collection of moneys from the taxpayers for which the Government is responsible. To get an index to the financial position of an individual, one naturally goes to his banking account ; to arrive at the financial position of any country we have only to examine its budget-papers. While few, if any, of us are competent to take budget-papers page by page, and with actuarial accuracy sum up the financial position they reveal, all of us can peruse them and form our own conclusions as to whether revenue has been collected and disbursed fairly. The first thing that strikes one in the budget-papers’ recently tabled is the immensity of our public debt. In spite of sinking-fund contributions amounting during the last few years to no less than £75,000,000 the public debt of Australia is still increasing to an appalling extent. We can console ourselves, however, with the fact that the budget is a remarkable trading account of our country. If we could express in figures the value of the natural resources of this great country, and the value of its public buildings and works, and put them on the credit side of the ledger, the enormous total would prove that Australia, despite its huge national debt, is still quite solvent. Given the continuance of sound government, such as has been experienced in the last six years, I have no doubt that we can not only maintain our present position, but also improve it considerably. The Treasurer (Mr. Casey), in his introductory remarks on the bill now before the Senate, spoke of the favorable position we occupy and of the prosperity we enjoy. In fact the honorable gentleman went so far as to say that the measure of prosperity enjoyed by Australia at the present time is greater than at any other time in its history; and he quoted statistics to support that contention. I do not propose to dispute his figures because I have no doubt he could further substantiate them with figures of employment, banking, trade, &c. ; but I say unhesitatingly that at least one section of the community has enjoyed much less prosperous” conditions than the people of Australia generally, particularly since the financial and economic depression of recent years. A few days ago when the .Senate was discussing the .States’ Grants Bill, a good deal was heard about the position of the claimant States. The section to which I refer is composed of the primary producers, particularly in the claimant States. After all, the primary producers are responsible for the prosperity which we enjoy to-day; it has been because of the high prices received for export commodities that national recovery has taken place Those who know the primaryproducers and who move among them, know that very little of the proceeds of their production goes into their own pockets. The greater part of the wealth which they produce is used to make up the leeway in our liabilities incurred during the years of the depression. A continuance of the high export prices that have been experienced recently is needed for at least three or four years before primary producers generally will be placed in the position which they enjoyed in predepression times. .Some of them, however, will never return to that position, whilst, others have already fallen by the wayside.1 I do not want it to be thought that I am unmindful of what the Government has done for these people; at the same time, I contend that they were entitled to everything they got. It is advisable that the plight of the primary producers should be constantly brought before the public generally, because by a great many people they are regarded merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water. The people of Australia should be brought to ;i realization of the fact that the primary producers are our best money-spinners. In order to show that the Government, has done much for the primary producers - I think it has done more than any other Commonwealth Government - I propose to quote figures from the budget regarding the assistance granted to primary producers. I find on page 72 of the budget papers that the Government has handed to the primary producers of Australia during its period of office £21,636,073. exclusive of £2,500,000 handed to the States for farmers’ debt adjustment. Of the former amount £5,554,926, or nearly 25 per cent., was allotted to my own State. For that I am very grateful.

I desire now to say a word or two regarding the recent referendum. “When we passed through this Parliament a bill authorizing the taking of a referendum in an effort to protect the primary producers of Australia, it was found that considerable pu’blicity was given to propaganda designed to cover up the real issue or cloud it with as many extraneous subjects as possible. The principal stalking horse employed by the opponents of the proposed amendment was the greed of the Commonwealth Government. The result of the referendum is well known, and it cannot be denied that the primary producers did not receive a fair deal from the people. During the depths of the depression between 1929 and 1934, Australia had uo credit at all on the other side of the world, and it has only been due to the efforts of the primary producers that our credit overseas has been restored. The returns from the sale of our primary produce overseas maintained Australia’s solvency, and upheld our prestige in the eyes of the world. During the depression the producers of wool, wheat, meat, dried and canned fruit, butter, and cheese conducted their operations uninterruptedly and disposed of their products overseas, but not at a profit. Primary producers worked, not 40hours a week but very often 120-hours a week, and many have to depend upon the assistance of their wives aud families in order to retain their holdings. But what happened when the electors were asked, by means of a referendum to afford them some protection? Prices had recovered, and many had al most forgotten the depression. An adverse vote was recorded and the primary producers were without any effective security.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– But many primary producers voted against the Government’s proposals.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I cannot refute that statement, and I do not think that the honorable senator can substantiate it.We know that a large number of primary producers may have voted against the Government’s proposals; but as I have said they were misled by others.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– There was an adverse vote in many country districts.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.Yes, but many of those who reside in country districts are not primary producers.

Having regard to the fact that our secondary industries are effectively safeguarded by means of the customs and excise duties, it is only right that the primary producers also should be afforded protection. On page 25 of the budget papers it is stated that customs and excise duties cost every man, woman and child in Australia £6 10s. or £43,000,000 per annum. That is the price the Australian people are paying for the protection of our secondary industries, and the amount is not decreasing. We have been told that customs duties on certain commodities have been reduced, but the Austraiian people are now paying practically £2 per annum more in customs and excise duties than they were paying in 1931.

Senator Courtice:

– But does not the tariff enable primary producers to obtain a better price for their products?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.Yes, but it does not assist them to the extent that it should. An excise duty on flour, costing the people approximately 4s. a head, was said to be an unjust tax. The workers, through the Arbitration Court, and also by means of the tariff, are assured of a reasonable wage, and the primary producer also should receive sufficient to maintain himself and his family in reasonable comfort.

We have been assured that the Government intends to introduce a national insurance scheme to assist the unemployed, invalids and the aged, and generally those unable to provide for the time when they will be unable to work; but even that scheme makes no provision for primary producers. A man who works arduously on a farm until he reaches the age when he can no longer work, will have to claim an oldage pension because he cannot benefit under a national insurance scheme. I believe in national insurance, but primary producers also should, in common with other sections of the community, be assisted. Why should they be the only persona who have to appeal to the Government as mendicants, particularly when they produce the wealth on which the stability of the country depends?

According to the figures disclosed in the budget papers, this Government has proved itself to be a National government. All sections of the community suffered severely during the depression, and appeals were made to governments for assistance. As soon as Australia began to emerge from the depression, governments realized that it was their duty to restore the salaries and wages of public servants to their former level. A few days ago Parliament passed a bill in which provision was made for the restoration of the pension rate to £1 a week. I do not propose to enter into a controversy on pensions at this stage, because, unfortunately, the subject is used unduly for political purposes. But salaries and wages reduced during the depression having been restored, pensioners also were entitled to share in the returning prosperity. An aged or invalid person without income must find it difficult to maintain himself or herself on £1 a week, and pensioners should be paid a sum sufficient to enable them to purchase the necessaries of life. I regret to find that the ‘index figure has been removed from the pensions table, because it has been particularly useful in Arbitration Court cases when a living wage has been under consideration; but as the measure passed through both branches of the legislature without demur from those who are closely associated with the pensions problem, perhaps the omission is not of great importance. I agree to a large extent with the alarm expressed by Senator Duncan-Hughes in respect of the increased expenditure on pensions. A few days ago I read a carefully calculated actuarial record of the extent to which the Commonwealth is likely to be involved if pensions continue to be paid at the present rate. This document sets out that in 1977 - 40 years hence - the pensions bill of the Commonwealth will be approximately £40,000,000. Despite that fact, I make no apology for assisting to restore the pension to the original rate of 20s. weekly, particularly as I claim to be an advocate of our standard of living. While I believe that every man, woman and child in Australia should be properly fed, clothed and housed, I can not favour a rate of pension lower than that at present paid because in doing so I would be advocating a lower standard of living for these people. I trust that the adoption of a national insurance scheme will result in a decrease of the expenditure on pensions.

The Government has. assisted various industries by the payment of bounties, and, although some have been reduced, such bounties assist not only the industries concerned but also are of benefit in developing primary industries and increasing the sale of our products overseas. If our overseas markets are to be developed, the Government must cooperate with the exporters aud render every assistance in the selling of primary produce abroad.

During the last few years unemployment has been an important feature of our economic life, but on the figures now before us that evil is almost at vanishing point. This- should give governments an opportunity to attend more fully to the employment of youths. Such employment is essential, but the training of youths is of even greater importance, so that they may gradually take the place of skilled tradesmen who drop out of the ranks. It is the duty of all governments to revise their arbitration laws, especially those sections dealing with apprentices. At present , the law provides that a certain proportion of apprentices may be employed, but there should be statutory provision that every industry employing a certain number of hands shall also employ a specified number of apprentices. That would soon correct the shortage of skilled labour which prevails to-day.

I appreciate the action of the Government in increasing the apportionment to the States from the petrol tax ; South Australia will receive an additional £70,000. Large sums of money are required in that State for roads - not bitumen speedways, but roads to enable producers to transport their produce to the railway. Although my ideas are not in accord with many of those whom I represent, I believe that while the States’ share of the petrol tax is being expended in constructing and maintaining roads, no serious objection to the tax can be offered. I have been driving a motor car for 27 or 28 years and I say confidently that it is cheaper to-day to run a motor car on the good roads that are provided, than it was when petrol could be purchased at. one half of its present price.

I am pleased to see an amount of £36,000 on the Estimates in relation to the League of Nations. The benefit of the League to the peoples of the world was so well put to this chamber some time ago by the Leader of the Senate, that I need not comment on it. If any one wishes to know why the League of Nations is required, he has only to turn up the statement made by Senator Pearce on that occasion to satisfy himself that the establishment of the League was for the benefit of humanity. It has partially failed to live up to the high ideals of its founders, but we must not forget that the old tradition of “ Might is Eight “ which has been growing up for thousands of years cannot be swept away in one decade. The League has been established, and, if it went out of existence now, it would have to he reconstructed from the foundations, should we ever desire to revive it. It is, in my opinion, the only genuine effort the world has even made to secure collective peace, and I hope it will continue and eventually yield beneficial results.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I. have listened this afternoon to some interesting speeches, and it is somewhat difficult to make a contribution that will break fresh ground. I do not intend to make anything like an election speech, such as I heard from tha other side of the chamber earlier today. T regret that Senator Collings, the Leader of the official Labour party in this chamber, destroyed the effect that his speech might have had on me, by speaking in such a loud tone, and making so much noise, that at times, T was unable to distinguish what he said. He is always anxious to belittle, as far as he possibly can, anything which may be done by his political opponents, who to-day form the Government of the country. I wish he could learn to cultivate a more generous mind and admit that, on the face of them the budget speech and the Estimates prove conclusively that this country has reason to be thankful for the circumstances which brought about the change of government some six years ago. One cannot help realizing the totally different condition of affairs to-day as compared with what obtained then. I do not suggest that all the advantages we have gained during the last six years have been due to the administration of the Lyons Government, but I do say that the change of government at that time was most opportune, because it brought about overseas almost immediately a restoration of confidence in Australia. Without that confidence on the part of those upon whom we have to depend to a great extent Australia would be in a very bad way indeed. That was the first good result from the change of government. Things have gradually become better, and to-day we have the satisfaction of seeing an Australia practically back to the normal prosperous conditions which obtained prior to 1929. I am not here as a spokesman for the Lyons Administration, but speak as a senator helping to represent a very important portion of this vast Commonwealth. I propose later to make some remarks which I hope will be taken by the representatives of the Government in this chamber in the most kindly spirit, with a view to enabling that portion of the Commonwealth to become, as it can be, a very great helper to the rest of the nation.

I wish to refer to something said a little while ago about the enormous public debt that Ave in Australia have incurred. Certainly the debt is very great, but I wish the electors of Australia to draw a distinction between the total Australian debt and the actual Commonwealth debt. Time after time, in my peregrinations throughout Australia, I have heard denunciations of the Lyons Government for allowing the debt to increase in the way it has, whereas the fact is as disclosed by the budget papers, that the Commonwealth debt has been reduced by £11,000,000 during the last few years. Instead of it being heavier, it is considerably lighter than it was. At the same time, the national debt of the States and the Commonwealth combined has increased by £80,000,000. If honorable senators on the other side of the chamber were candid in this matter, they would endeavour to disabuse the minds of those upon whom they depend for election of the error that most people fall into in that regard. ‘ The States have their own boat to row. They know probably better than the Commonwealth Government does what is essential to develop their territories, because of their individual State peculiarities, and although the national debt, on paper, seem3 very large, it is possible that an inquiry, which would have to be a lengthy one, to estimate the actual value of the assets of Australia as compared with the national debt of the Commonwealth and States combined, would show a substantial credit balance.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– But still a very large debt.

Senator PAYNE:

– We have a very large debt, but that should give us no cause for worry if we are satisfied that, on the other side of the ledger, we have assets which will more than cover the indebtedness. If it had not been for the borrowing policy of the States of Australia - and remember that the Commonwealth did not enter the field of borrowing to any extent worth mentioning until the great world war began, and then was compelled to do so - practically no development would have occurred in these vast territories. Australia could be developed only by money obtained by loan. We did not have sufficient people here to furnish the necessary revenue for the purpose. We could not borrow locally as the necessary amount of cash was not available in Australia and so we had to rely on borrowing overseas. Who would suggest that the little island State of Tasmania which I represent would have developed as it has, and became an eye-opener to many other portions of the Commonwealth, without a borrowing policy? I do not believe in rash borrowing, but a loan policy may be necessary for the States for many years to come. If the policy is controlled, and a thorough investigation made of the objects on which the money is proposed to be spent, to ensure that expenditure is only on works which will be productive, either indirectly or directly, and for the well being of the Commonwealth, then that borrowing policy is a wise one.

Senator Collings:

– Its members have been rude and tyrannical.

Senator FOLL:

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his courtesy in making available to me a copy of the famous blue book issued on behalf of the Labour party. I confess that, before I received a copy of it, I was somewhat envious of Senator Hardy, who appeared to be the only member of the Senate outside the Labour party to have a copy. The book is entitled “Labour’s Challenge ; Why Australia should vote out the Lyons Government.” It is “ authorized by the Federal Parliamentary Labour party, and published on behalf of the party by John Curtin, Parliament House, Canberra, 20th July, 1937.” I studied the booklet to ascertain whether the policy of the Labour party in regard to banking bad changed since the last election, and I found on page 10 the following paragraph : -

The abolition of the Commonwealth Bunk Board and thu re-establishment of the original method of control as set up at the time the Commonwealth Bank was founded. [ assume that that is still Labour’s policy.

Senator FOLL:

– I have here some extracts from the transcription of the shorthand notes of evidence given in an action recently taken in a Brisbane court by Mr. Baker, the member for Griffith in the House of Representatives. I do not propose to discuss the case itself in detail, because Mr. Baker established the facts he set out to establish. I pro pose, however, to read some extracts from the evidence given by Clarence George Fallon, Vice-President of the Queensland Central Executive of the Australian Labour party, which give an insight into Labour’s policy for the nationalization of banking and the control of the Commonwealth Bank. Mr. Fallon, examined by Mr. Hart, gave the following evidence; -

By Mr. Hart. - What is your name? - Clarence George Foi lon. .

What are von? - I am Vine-President of the Queeusland Central Executive of the Australian Labour party in thu State” of Queensland.

You are also branch secretary? - Of the Australian Workers Union, Queensland Branch.

By Mr. Hart. - When you read the clipping complained of what did you take it to mean? - 1 took it to moan that Baker had indicted the Queeusland Government and had also given utterance to tilings he had no authority to give utterance to.

What do you mean by giving utterance? - 1 considered Baker had made, according to his report, or taken upon himself to declare the policy of the Labour party as to monetary reform for the next election, and he had no authority to do that. I took it to mean also that he had untruthfully declared that Labour had lamentably failed to grapple with unemployment in Queensland and that the Queensland Government was a failure.

By his Honour. - How would that affect his position as a Federal candidate in the party? - lt would have meant that he could not have retained his membership in the party.

By Mr. Hart. - Take these words : “ The party would have two planks in its platform - the vesting of the control of the monetary policy of Australia in the hands of the elected representative” - what do you say as to that? - I say a statement such as that would destroy, if accepted, any possibility of Labour succeeding at the next Federal elections.

Why? - Because the Labour party is quite satisfied that the people of Australia would not agree to a monetary policy being in the hands of politicians; and it has never been the policy of the party.

Senator Collings:

– And is not now, and the honorable senator knows it.

Senator FOLL:

– Mr. Fallon continued -

Where would you invest the control? - We would invest the control in a board and certainly it would not consist of parliamentarians.

By his Honour. - Whatever you would or would not do, you think it would be a suicidal policy for the party to advocate in front of the electors? - Yos, I would definitely say it is not, and never has been, the intention of the party.

By Mr. Hart. - Would you regard a person who gave vent to a sentiment Such as that a person loyal to his party? - lt would be the act oi a man who was deliberately disloyal to his party.

By His Honour. - Whatever you would or would not do you think it would be a suicidal policy for the party to advocate in front of the electors? - Yes, I would definitely say it is not, and never has been, the intention of the party.

The Labour party has said that Government control would be exercised over the national credit of the nation. It has been saying that for years -

By His Honour. - Do you mean that particular part or the whole of it? - I was referring to that particular part at the moment. Any person who gave utterance to those sentiments in public would be deliberately disloyal to the Labour party . . .

Go on? - The vesting of the control of the monetary policy of Australia in the hands of the elected representatives.

Is there anything in that contrary to the policy of the Labour party? - Yes, definitely.

In what way is it contrary? - Because it is in conflict with the policy of the party.

Is not one of the planks of- the platform the nationalization of the banking system? - Yes.

By His Honour. - That is a remote objective, is it? - Yes. This article purports to be dealing with the next election.

By Mr. Real. - You told me he had authority to say that they would not tolerate the domination of the banks? - Yes.

Was it not going to be a plank of their platform to have nationalization of the banking system? - Not at the next election.

By Hia Honour. - You say that requires education? - Yes.

It is a gradual process? - Yes.

As I understand it, you have in the platform the nationalization of all means of distribution, exchange and so forth? - That is so.

But you do not put that forward as something that is going to be done immediately you are elected? - No. Positively, it won’t be a plank of the policy of the next election.

By Mr. Rual. - But it is an object that is being aimed at? - Yes, just a remote thing.

You say he is guilty of disloyalty if he makes a statement that the vesting of control of monetary policies in Australia would be a plank-

By His Honour. - You must be fair. He said it would damage the prospects of the party at the next election.

By Mr. Riordan. - You would have a bank that would be under the control of the nation? - Yes. There would be a national bank under the control of a board of experts.

Senator Courtice:

– I remind the honorable senator that he is dealing with a libel case.

Senator FOLL:

– I have deliberately refrained from entering into the merits of the case. If I cannot get the policy of the Labour party of Queensland from Mr. Fallon, the vicepresident of the Queensland central executive, and branch secretary of the Australian Workers Union in Queensland, where can I get it?

Senator Collings:

– Labour will announce its policy during the election campaign, and the honorable senator will be given an opportunity to test it out.

Senator FOLL:

– The blue hook will become a blue pill for the Labour party before tho elections are over. Mr. Fallon’s examination continued -

Who would control the policy of the monetary system? - I have already said that it is inconsistent with our policy and in my opinion would have lost us the next election.

By His Honour. - I asked Mr. Baker what hu meant by tho words “ monetary policy “, and he gave me the answer that they were selfexplanatory. I suggested that they were not self-explanatory to me, but apparently he left it there. Monetary policy is a widely embracing term, is it not? - Yes, and we well appreciate that few people can expound the policy.

Just as a matter of curiosity, who would the board of experts be responsible to? - The intention is that a board of experts would control credits. They cannot be dismissed or interfered with in any shape or form by parliamentarians. They will be elected as Supreme Court judges are-

In exactly the same way as this Government has elected the present ‘board of the Commonwealth Bank -

You mean by executive appointment? - Yes. I did not mean to use the word *’ elected “.

You mean that they are to be an independent body with expert knowledge, appointed to discharge certain duties in relation to finance? - That is so.

And that when they are appointed they have no responsibility to Parliament except, 1 suppose, for misconduct of some kind. - That is so.

To be really in tlie independent position of judges? - That is so.

Of course the executive appointment then would be the crucial matter? - That is so, hut exact details of the scheme of that kind cannot be expounded, off-hand, but definitely there is no intention that the elected representatives should control.

You think that the electors would at once get a scare if they thought that the members of Parliament were going to be directly in control of the finances of the country, as suggested there? - I do not think we would be entitled to any support if we put that forward.

Senator Collings:

– Nobody has ever put it forward.

Senator FOLL:

– But the .blue book says that Labour will abolish the Commonwealth Bank Board. If Labour does that it must revert to political control of the board, which Mr. Fallon said is not intended.

Senator Collings:

– The bank was never under political control.

Senator FOLL:

- Mr. Fallon further said -

By Mr. Real. - I understood you to say before lunch that this statement in the report *’ the control of the monetary policy of Australia must be vested in the hands of the elected representatives of the people” would bo sufficient to justify Mr. Baker’s expulsion? That statement, including that, would be sufficient to justify his expulsion.

Senator Collings:

– I should think so.

Senator FOLL:

– If he advocated that control of the monetary policy of Australia should be put into the hands of the elected representatives of the people, that would justify expulsion from the Labour party.

Senator Collings:

– What about the late Sir Denison Miller? The honorable senator dare not misrepresent him. Parliament would lay down the general policy and the governor of the bank would carry it out.

Senator Arkins:

– On the dictum of Mr. Fallon the Leader of the Opposition (.Senator Collings) would be put out of his party.

Senator FOLL:

– Yes, if he advocated control of banking by the members of the party, he would automatically put him self out of the party. Probably he will not advocate it again. It is apparent that the Leader of the Opposition has for a long time been running the risk of expulsion from his party.

By Mr. Real. - But you are in a position to say that if he said that the control of tlie monetary policy of Australia must be vested in the hands of the elected representatives hu should bc expelled? - I am in a position to say that if he said that the policy at the nextelection would be vesting the control of the monetary policy in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, that is parliamentarians, he would in my opinion, be liable to expulsion.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear ! I am glad to hear that. None of us is insane yet.

Senator FOLL:

– I am glad to health at. I proceed with Mr. Fallon’s evidence -

You say that the ideal is an independent financial board, controlling matters of finance quite independently of Parliament? - Completely removed from political interference.

By Mr. Real. - That would be brought about by Parliament? - I expect Parliament would bring it about.

By Eis Honour. - Of course, they would appoint the board and pass the necessary legislation for its existence? - Yes, but the Parliament would not control credit or the monetary policy.

As a matter of fact - I must say I cannot claim not to read the papers - my recollection is that the Labour party are very sensitive about the suggestion that parliamentarians are trying to get control of finance and of banking? - Yes. We are very sensitive of that.

Yan think that would not be a very good election plank, would it? - We would go down to defeat every time, if we used it. The plank is really that Parliament should constitute a board independent of itself to run this very difficult business? - Yos, Your Honour.

I am pleased to note that the State I represent stands very much above the others with regard to these new industries. I am proud of the fact, as it means much added employment, greatly in creased capital investment, and a general improvement of conditions in my State. The speech continued, dealing with new industries,

The principal new Hues of goods which have been manufactured as a result of the abovementioned capital investment are: Steel plates cold rolled steel strip, nitralloy steel, steel pipes up to 3 inches diameter and tubular fittings therefor, wireless valves, citric acid, rimfire cartridges, shot-gun cartridge shells, process engravers’ zinc sheets, dredge buckets, apparel elastic, zipp fasteners, bobbins, paper” cones and pirns for textile industry, latex sponge rubber for upholstering, tacks, household pins.

That is a most illuminating list, and shows what remarkable progress can bc made in industry in this country.

Senator Collings:

– Cannot we take all that as read?

Senator ARKINS:

– No ; I wish to show that during the process of recovery, whilst finance and industry have been rehabilitated, and employment has been brought back to normal, there has been going on an increase in the actual manufacture of goods which were never manufactured in this country before. The honorable gentleman then gave the following list of special or new types: -

Spiral welded pipes; cotton yarns of denim, drill, tweed and mercerized types; 11Onmechanical refrigerators; steel drums, 44- gallon; tanning extract; tropical sun hats: waterproofed papers; automatic underteed stokers; warp knitted fabrics; shock absorbers of the double acting type, and handset telephones.

That is a remarkable record of absolutely new industries. Another phase ‘is the extension of existing industries, as to which the right honorable gentleman said -

It is generally acknowledged that the field for the manufacture of new classes of goods in Australia has certain limits, and consequently one turns to the older industries more truly to gauge the effect of the Government’s tariff policy.

Tlie extensions in those older industries, that is those engaged in the manufacture of classes of goods which were made in Australia prior to 1932, are more significant when viewed from the aspect of increased capital expenditure a.nd employment than are the new industries.

The limited survey shows that the capital investment in additional producing units for extending the production’ of classes of goods made prior to 1932 is £11,300,000, and that employment, as a result of the installation of the additional units has been given to some 23,000 hands. The annual valna of the output of the additional producing units is £14,115,000.

I wish, to recite the actual distribution of those extensions, giving the States and the quantities under the different heads. Again it is pleasing to me to note that New South Wales takes the lead: -

The only fault to be found with this splendid development, as the Prime Minister pointed o’ut, is in relation to the incidence of its spread. Although 1 am pleased that New South Wales has been the leading State in these improvements, especially in those two phases - new industries and the extension of new units within existing industries - I believe that one of the great drawbacks in Australia is that we do not distribute the various factories over a greater area. I should like to see them not only in other States, but also in some of the country areas of New South Wales. I should bc glad to see new industries springing up in places like Goulburn and Bathurst, and other towns all over the country. I believe there must be a reorientation of industry in. the Commonwealth. One vital factor which we have discussed very heatedly in. this chamber is defence, and from that aspect I think it is foolish to have all our eggs in one basket. Some of the industries which are closely allied with defence seem to me to be in very vulnerable spots, although I do not know whether the strategic distribution of military, aerial and naval protection is sufficient to cover them. I should like to see at least some of them placed in the hinterland of the various States. Another reason is that it is wrong to have all our industries in great cities, creating large industrial centres, where people are herded in crowds. My policy would be to get them out into the country, to take our factories out among the gum trees and the rural beauties, and, if necessary, give them rebates to enable their goods to be brought to the coastline or to the cities for consumption. I would put the factories in the large towns of the country, so that we should have big towns growing up all over Australia, and by that means destroy the harmful process of centralization which has been going on. I know that H. G. Wells,- one of the world’s greatest thinkers, forecast a great metropolis of the future. I disagree with him there. I want to hasten the process of decentralization; I want to see, not a great metropolis, but the people spread out into the open spaces in God’s fresh air, where the green grass . grows and the trees are a glory, in order that they may build up their health, strength, and vitality, instead of following the mistaken idea, adopted in England during the periods of its industrial growth, that all the factories must be put in one area. What was the result of that policy? ]m many places the atmosphere is unsatisfactory and other places suggest a land of stinks. I am not a believer in the great metropolis of the future. On the contrary, I believe in the development of economic units far beyond the crowded metropolitan areas. I believe that wherever God has planned a landscape man should not defile it by unsightly factory buildings.

Senator Collings:

– What a prospect !

Senator ARKINS:

– The Leader of the Opposition fears that if what I have envisaged comes to pass he will lose his occupation as an agitator. He lives on the business of persuading the workers that they are being exploited by some one else, and it has been for him a profi table occupation hitherto. The honorable gentleman has battened and waxed fat on the workers by telling them, that their conditions of employment are awful and “for God’s sake tear off the chains and become free men ! “ Apparently he re sents the existence of employers. Only the other day he blackguarded Mr. Davis in connexion with the proposal to develop the Newnes shale deposits. The truth is that the tendency of modern industrialists is to plant gardens around their establishments and provide all the necessary comforts for their employees.

Senator Collings:

– I rise to a point of order. I do not usually claim the prolection of the Chair, but the statement just made by Senator Arkins that I blackguarded Mr. Davis is not only false but is also repugnant to me. I ask for its withdrawal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sampson). - I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the words.

Senator Arkins:

– In deference to your request I should like to do so but 1. am at a loss to know what I should withdraw.

Senator Collings:

– I never tell lies, at all events.

Senator ARKINS:

– This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition, under cover of privilege, went out of his way to attack a woman. Such a spectacle has rarely been seen in this chamber.

I repeat that, in my opinion, more population is essential to the continued prosperity of Australia. Senator Allan MacDonald the other day asked the Leader of the Senate if the Government intended to appoint a representative to the conference on migration proposed to be held shortly in London. I strongly urge the Government to have a representative at that gathering, because of its importance to the future of Australia. Eminent authorities have estimated that, according to the present low rate of natural increase, the population of Australia 40 years hence will be about S.000,000. That suggests an alarming situation. If we are to enjoy security, we must have a flow of migrants to this country instead of away from it. The fertile coastline belt from Victoria up to Northern Queensland will support four times’ the present population of

Australia. Every possible channel for the introduction of migrants should’ be investigated.

Senator COURTICE:

– Why has not this G overnment done that ?

Senator ARKINS:

– I am glad that the honorable gentleman appears to be in agreement with me. I would like to believe that the Labour party would also see the wisdom of coming into line, because there is a distinct possibility of inducing a considerable number of very desirable young men and young women from Great Britain as well as from some of the central European countries and North America to make their homes in Australia. I feel sure that if we opened up some of the available land for closer settlement, we could attract from the United States of America a large number of young men who have “had training in afforestation and therefore would be a distinct asset. Our objective should be to attract to Australia, the highest type of youths - young men of Nordic descent - whose forefathers braved the perils ‘ of the Atlantic and established for themselves homes in the new world. Young men of this type should be welcomed in Australia and encouraged to carve out careers for themselves in this country.

Senator Collings:

– What would happen to the horde of unemployed Australian youths?

Senator ARKINS:

– That is the kind of objection which one always hears from Labour representatives whenever proposals are advanced for increasing the population of Australia. I am sure it is a groundless objection. If we had double our present population, we would be much better off as a nation than we are to-day. Our great disability, from an economic and defence point of view, is lack of population.

I should like the Government to reconstitute the Public Accounts Committee, which rendered distinct service for many years. I have received many letters from citizens who are interested in this matter. Mr. Remington, the president of the Constitutional Association of New South Wales, has made a very useful suggestion. Usually criticism from outside of parliamentary institutions lacks constructive suggestions, and shows antagonism towards members of Parliament, but Mr. Remington, in urging that, the Public Accounts Committee be reconstituted, suggests, and I heartily agree with him, that the Treasurer of the Administration immediately preceding the Government that is in office when th, committee is appointed should be its chairman.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Would the honorable senator approve of the appointment of Mr. Theodore, the Treasurer in the Scullin Government?

Senator ARKINS:

– If he were still in the House and stood in that category, he should be chairman. Of course the Government would have a majority on the committee. That is the method adopted in the House of Commons. By having the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer as Chairman of the Finance Committee a brake is kept on extravagance. The system operates irrespective of the party for the time being, in office.

Mr. Remington also had something to say regarding the insufficiency of the statistical information obtainable. L agree with him that the information is inadequate, and also that there should be a greater uniformity in regard to it. It sometimes happens that information on a certain subject is compiled on a different basis in almost every State. Statistics should be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and, moreover, it should be possible to obtain from the statisticians much more detailed information on a greater variety of subjects than is now the case. For instance, it would be useless to ask what quantity of flour, sugar, or yeast, &c, is used in the baking trade, or the quantity of bread produced, for the statisticians could not supply the information. I hope that before long there will be a reform of our statistical methods.

I could say a great deal about the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but I have become tired of criticizing it. I do say, however, that we in this Parliament should be able to obtain information regarding the activities of that body. We should be able to know, for instance, how much it costs to bring to Australia a conductor, singer, or instriunen.tali.st, or a group of instrumentalists from some other country. Such information is of public importance and should be supplied. Moreover, if a visiting conductor submits a report, that report should be made available to the public. Otherwise, of what use is it? The fourth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission contains the following reference to a competition for Australian composers: -

The results of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s 1934-1935 competition for Australian composers were announced during the period under review. The entries submitted were judged in England by a distinguished musical authority, Mr. John Ireland, who commented favourably upon much of the work. The competition drew 269 entries, covering a wide range of types of musical compositions - symphonic, choral, brass and military band, chamber music, operetta and vocal and instrumental solos. The commission was widely commended for this encouragement to local composers.

It is remarkable that the report does not give the name of any of the men and women who won the prizes; it merely says who the judge was. The public is concerned to know, not who judged- the contestants, but who among them were sufficiently brilliant to win prizes. I know some of the successful competitors; but in spite of the fact that they were adjudged, brilliant composers, not one of their compositions has been broadcast by the commission. These brilliant Australians have not had the advantage of having their names brought before the Australian public or at the least written in the records for posterity to read. Their only reward has been the few guineas which they earned as prizes.

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– Are there no competent judges in Australia?

Senator ARKINS:

– There are;, but it may be better to get an outsider to adjudicate. Even in Australia there are cliques. We sometimes hear of friction in public bodies. The Australian Broadcasting Commission runs on friction; and if its members are not careful, it will die because of friction.- If painters, sculptors or other artists entered a competition, and some of them won prizes, would not their names be made public and kept on public record and their pictures exhibited? It is time that the affairs of the Broadcasting Com mission saw the light of day. Despite all the complaints about the commission, we are told that its chairman is to receive an honorarium of £2,000. There has been much comment on this payment, and we in this Parliament have been wrongly accused of “ calling the dogs off “. The accusation is unfounded, but the fact that it is made shows the construction placed on these things by many members of the public. The ban placed by the commission on broadcasts by members of the executive committee of the 150th anniversary celebrations in New South Wales, merely because some of them are also members of Parliament, is most unfair. Some time ago, in referring to the treatment of Australian musicians by the commission, I described its action as a scandal, and said that many wrongs done had not been righted. For saying such things, I am criticized; but although I do not like having to bear the odium, I say these unpleasant things in the interest of the public.

Honorable senators, know that, from time to time, I advocate new and advanced ideas in my speeches. Some time ago, ‘I advocated that men without, academic attainments should co-operate with the scientists of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, but some honorable senators ridiculed the suggestion. Unfortunately we, in Australia, are far behind Great Britain in many matters; we are behind in matters of social security, affecting old-age, invalidity, health, and employment. In the House of Commons, there is what is known as a Science in Parliament Committee. Among its members are men of great scientific ability, who are charged with the duty of watching the various scientific matters which arise from time to time. ‘This Parliament, too, is fortunate in having among its members, men with scientific qualifications, and we would do well to follow the example of the House of Commons.

Reverting again to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, I suggest that, instead of expending large sums of money to bring to Australia, men and women from other countries which would not pay a brass farthing to assist an Australian, the commission would do well to encourage Australian artists. We have only to call to mind such names as Peter Dawson, Malcolm McEacharn, Madame Melba, Ada Crossley, John Brownlee, Percy Grainger, and a host of others, to convince ourselves that Australian artists are among the best in the world.

Criticism of the sort levelled by Mr. Scholfield is all too frequent, and the Government should see that Australian goods exposed in the shop windows of the world should be of the highest grade that this country can produce.

I have endeavoured to illustrate the wonderful progress which has been made in Australia during the regime of the present Government. I know that people have very poor memories, and that many see only the things that confront them at the moment ; for that reason I propose to give a summary of the tragedy that faced the State of New South Wales under the premiership of Mr. Lang, just before the Lyons Government assumed office. At that time the public debt had increased by £28,000,000 ; the deficit had increased to £14,227,884 and the accumulated deficit totalled over £23,000,000; building values had decreased by over £17,000,000; property sales had decreased 1.v nearly £13,000,000; mortgages had decreased by £16,250,000; the ‘unemployed had increased to 200,000; food relief had increased from £3,252,846 to £10,500,000; the interest rate on short term loans had increased to 6 per cent.; the wages tax bad increased from 3d. to ls.; expenditure on ‘relief works had dropped to £766,000, a fall of £1,500,000; the loss on Government enterprises amounted to over £9,000; railway losses amounted to £4,564,605; tramway losses “mounted to £290,140; hospitals all over the State were in debt to an amount in excess of £650,000; and no less than 30;000 employees were rationed in the railways service alone. Owing to the sound policy of the Lyons Government in the federal sphere and the Stevens Government in New South Wales, that State has emerged from disaster and chaos to the stable conditions enjoyed before the depression. The percentage of unemployment throughout the Commonwealth is the lowest on record ; our financial position and recovery from the depression is not only a credit to the Commonwealth and the Government, but is also, according to high officials of the British Government, a pattern to the rest of the world. It cannot be denied that the Commonwealth generally is in a ‘ flourishing condition as a result of the policy of the Lyons Government. Business has increased; primary industries are flourishing, although seasonal conditions have contributed to some extent to their success; secondary industries have gone back to normal; new industries have been established and previously existing industries have been expanded to a remarkable extent. While all of these things have been brought about, the economic power of this country has been developed and cared for by a paternal government, of which we should be proud. We should also be proud of the fact that, in spite of all the difficulties that confronted us, Ave are now laying the foundations of a defence policy that redounds to its credit. We have also commenced to create the basis of internal peace in this country. Already, large sums of money have been expended on investigation of national insurance, and £70,000 has been provide-.! in the budget for the establishment of unemployment and health insurance, which will do much to guarantee social security to the people of this country. When we review the progress that has taken place in this country during the last few years, we must remember that this Government was returned to hold thi! reins of office for one thing only, namely, to put the country on a solid financial and economic basis. And it has achieved its objective. We make no apology to anybody in the Commonwealth for the policy which we have followed, and which has been so successful. I. am confident: that the people of Australia will remember the tragedy of the past, and, comparing it with tile prosperity of the last few years, will return the present Government to office in order to ensure the security and future prosperity of this great Common wealth .

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Honorable senators have availed themselves of this opportunity to deal with quite a number of matters; but I shall deal shortly with only a few matters which call for some reply from me as the ministerial head of the Postal Department.

In passing, I direct attention to the lack of clarity in Labour’s defence policy as enunciated by the Leader of the Oppo- sition. The honorable senator indulged in a spate of words, but made the position no clearer than it was after his declaration a few days ago. The honorable senator talked about co-operation with New Zealand and about the immense production that was to be the result of better times in that country, and still he failed to tell us how he proposes to assist our sister dominion in keeping open the trade routes for the conveyance of the produce of the two dominions overseas.

– Objections have been raised on that account particularly by those interested in cer- tain competitors, but I think it wise that the decision should have been left with those who had no knowledge of the competitors, and were therefore impartial. Senator Arkins thought that that was the proper policy to adopt, but he complained because the names were not published in the annual report of the commission.

Senator Collings:

– The names of the prize winners.

Senator A. J. McLACHLAN.Possibly the commission did what was right; but I believe that the competitors had greater publicity in Australia than they would have had if their names had been published in the official report of the commission to Parliament. The results have been published throughout Australia. The non-employment of some of the persons interested is a matter for the expert members of the commission.

The second member of the commission, Mr. Herbert Brookes, graduated in engineering at the Melbourne University, and also served his country abroad. He rendered distinguished service on the Tariff Board, and also represented the Commonwealth in the United States of America. He has also been associated with many philanthropic works of a public character in Victoria, has a sound judgment, considerable culture and learning, and is equipped in a way that few men are equipped to pass judgment on the highest forms of art brought under his notice.

– I should like to see some of the gentlemen who are so ready to criticize, engaged in the maelstrom of the administration of this huge concern. I have seen a little of it from the outside. I have seen some of its troubles; I have them brought to me frequently, but I do beg of honorable senators, in. the interests of this concern, which is likely to grow into a very big thing in the national interests, to give it a chance. As Senator Collings pointed out, it may be that the conception we have to-day of having part-time people on the commission will ultimately prove to he wrong. It may be that they should be much more highly remunerated and employed as whole-time officers. I am not quarrelling with that at all, but this is what Parliament has done, and it cannot be undone until the time expires. We can then review the whole position. One or two things have been said about the B class stations in the same connexion.

I should like to make the Leader of the Opposition feel that I have not treated him unfairly over this matter/ He complained of the reply I gave to questions which he put to me away back in November, 1936. My answer was as follows : -

As it does not appear that there would be any benefit in making the extensive investigation suggested by the honorable senator, it is not intended to proceed further with the matter in existing conditions.

– I have been advised by my officers, who are in a position to know, that it would serve no good purpose to get the information for which the honorable gentleman asked. He also made a number of accusations about the monopoly control of commercial stations by the syndicated press. That is an old story, which we have heard over and over again. There is nothing in it. The Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill), who represents me in .the House of Representatives, supplied on the 25th August full information to an honorable member who had made allegations similar to those voiced by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He said that there were 90 broadcasting licences in force, and of these 39 are held by companies which have no interest in other stations. Eight stations were owned by individual companies, which were interested in or controlled the activities of two stations in each case. Advertiser Newspapers Limited controls the licence for 5 AD Adelaide, and controls companies holding licences for 5MU Murray Bridge, 5 PI Crystal Brook, and 5SE Mount Gambier. It also holds 112,732 shares out of a total of 365,327 in News Limited, which controls the licence of 2BH Broken Hill. The Age, Melbourne - David Syme and Company Limited- holds 1,500 shares out of 6,000 shares in 3 AW Melbourne. Members of the Syme family hold 3,250 shares out of a total of 4,975 in 3HA Hamilton, and Mr. D. S. Syme controls companies which, by agreement with the licensees, conduct the service of 3SH Swan Hill.

Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited holds licences for 2AY Albury, 3BO Bendigo, 4TO Townsville, and 4CA Cairns. It also holds all the shares in the licensee companies for 2GF Grafton and 2GN Goulburn. By agreement with the licensee of 2CH Sydney, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited conducts the service of that station. It has interests in 7LA Launceston, 2,500 shares in a total of 5,000; 2SM Sydney, 800 shares in a total of 6,500; 3HA Hamilton, 400 shares in a total of 4,975 ; 4WK Warwick, 3,800 shares in a total of 5,000.

The Argus, Melbourne, holds the licences for 3SR Shepparton, 3UL Warragul and 3YB Warrnambool. It also holds 200 shares out of a total of 45,000 shares in 3TJZ Melbourne.

The Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Proprietary Limited, Sydney, holds the licence for 2TJW Sydney, and through Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation (Queensland), has interests in 4BC Brisbane, owning all shares; 4RO Rockhampton, owning all shares; 4GR Toowoomba, 763’ shares in a total of 1,500; 4MB Maryborough, 530 shares in a total of 1,000; 4SB Kingaroy, 1,000 ordinary shares in a total of 2,265 preference and 2,045 ordinary shares.

The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, controls the company holding the licences for 4BK Brisbane and 4AK Oakey.

Denison Estates Limited, which may or may not be regarded as a newspaper concern, has interests in 2GB Sydney, 15,654 shares in a total of 24,230; 20A Canberra, 2,497 shares in a total of 2,700; 2HR Singleton, 1,500 shares in a total of 4,500; 2WL “Wollongong, 3,500 shares in a total of 7,00S.

– How can those small bond holders be separated from the big interest mongers?

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator might as well ask why pensions should be paid to some persons in the community who have spent long periods ingaol, or to others who, after having spent the best years of their lives outside of Australia, have returned and, because they are native horn Australians, are given a pension. The class on whose behalf I have spoken are much more deserving of consideration than are some pensioners. No one is more favorable than I am to the payment of pensions to deserving people. I admit that it is difficult to distinguish between those who are deserving and those who are not; but I ask the Government to give earnest consideration to my representations on behalf of those people with small incomes who have been so badly treated.

For several years we have been told that the income tax returns would be simplified, but if the returns which have had to be filled in by taxpayers lately represent the department’s idea of simplicity, I should hate to encounter a form that it regarded as complicated. Every year, more and more information is asked for, thereby increasing the difficulty of filling in the returns. This year an entirely new difficulty “was experienced by persons acting as attorneys for others. I have acted for years as attorney for persons, some of whom are residents of Australia; others are nonresidents. The department refused to accept my signature on the returns as attorney or agent, and insisted on the principals for whom I acted signing the returns in person. In some instances that was practically impossible, and in most cases it served no good purpose because the principals were not as well qualified to certify to the correctness of the returns* as I was.

In regard to the sales tax returns also, the department is constantly adding to its requirements. When the department spoke of simplification it evidently had in mind simplification from its own point pf view, not from that of the persons submitting the returns. Sales tax returns are so complicated that many companies and firms have to employ special clerks to make them out. It is bad enough to have to pay the tax, but it is worse when the returns have to be made out on a basis that alters almost every month.

In to-day’s Argus, reference is made to the shortage of steel in Australia. I asked a question on this subject a few days ago, and received the reply that there was no shortage of steel in Australia, and that figures relating to delivery were not a true indication of the position. Only yesterday, a new customs schedule was tabled in the House of Representatives. A glance at it indicates that there has been a shortage of steel, particularly steel for motor car panels, and that the statement that there was difficulty in obtaining supplies was justified. That bears out the complaint by Richards and Company, of Adelaide, that they could not get sufficient panels for their requirements, and that workmen had to be put off. When the complaint was made, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) said that he would have something to say about the companies, .financed by American money, which distributed Chrysler and Dodge cars in Australia. I have made inquiries, and find that not one penny of American money is invested in those companies. It is financed entirely by companies in Australia which sell cars of those makes. They had experienced difficulty in obtaining continuity of supplies of motor car bodies, although chassis were arriving regularly from the United States of America. The selling companies in Australia - companies financed with Australian capital and using Australian labour, decided to take an interest in the body-building company in Adelaide in order to ensure regular supplies of motor car bodies. They were only too willing to use Australian steel if they could obtain it. The latest relaxation in regard to the duty on steel panels suggests that there was something in the contention that it was almost impossible to obtain them.

I congratulate the Government on its defence proposals. Honorable senators know that I have never had a high opinion of the League of Nations as an influence in maintening the peace of the world. I regard the British Commonwealth of Nations as the body most likely to protect the British Empire and maintain peace throughout the world. After doing everything possible to bring about disarmament, Great Britain found that it must re-arm in the interests of peace, and it is now spending millions of pounds on re-armament. Australia must follow Great Britain’s example in this respect. I join issue with the Labour party regarding the defence of Australia. I do not agree with that party that we should not take action to defend Australia until the enemy has reached our shores. - That is the fatal defect in the Labour party’s defence policy. It is far better that an enemy should be kept at a distance than tha t we should, fight him on our own territory. How can we in Australia expect Great Britain to assist in our defence if we say that we will not go to the assistance of the Old Country in time of trouble? Unfortunately, it appears that we have to face the possibility of war sooner or later, and in that event we shall be called on to do our share to protect our part of tho Empire. That does not mean that there would be conscription. I believe in the voluntary defence of Australia, but I also believe that it is better to defend this country beyond its shores than to wait for an enemy to land here.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has done excellent work generally, but I do not agree with all that* it has done. Five or six years ago, the commission decided to build a studio, at Hobart. It bought a valuable block of land on which was a residence occupied by a doctor. He and his family were turned out, and the building was demolished. No new building has been erected on the site, which is vacant. It has been said that the commission is waiting for fuller information regarding further improvements of broadcasting studios before erecting a new studio at Hobart, but I doubt this. In addition to buying the block to which I have referred, the commission bought another block on which was an occupied residence. The occupants were turned out and the building has remained empty for several years. The first block purchased is a disgrace to the commission, because it has never even been cleaned up. The commission has displayed no business acumen in its transactions in Hobart. I understand that it has approximately £93,000 available for building operations, yet, although Hobart has been waiting for years for a new studio, there seems to be no more chance of getting it to-day than there was five or six years ago. What excuse has the commission to offer for this delay? Questions have been asked repeatedly in this chamber as to when the new studio will be constructed, but no satisfactory reply has over been given.

I congratulate the Government on the provision in the budget for the continuance of the apple and pear bounty. The amount proposed to be made available this year, however, is lower than that provided last year. Although, no doubt, the orchardists will be grateful for the bounty which it is proposed to pay this year, I am of opinion that at a time like this, when costs are rising, the amount should not have been reduced. I suggest that the Government might consider approaching the’ shipping companies for a reduction of the freight on apples and pears. Although’ a reduction of 3d. is to, be made next year, it must not be forgotten that the companies have increased freight rates generally from Great Britain to Australia by 10 per cent. The excess freight they will thus collect will offset many times over the small reduction of freight on apples and pears shipped from Tasmania. As the steamship companies will benefit from the proposal to reduce light dues by £75,000 next year, the Government might very well approach them for a substantial reduction of the freight on apples and pears shipped overseas. As honorable senators are aware the shipping companies load their freight rates with a surcharge of 18 per cent, for exchange. We all know that not all the money paid in freight in Australia is sent to England; a great part of it is spent in Australia on the purchase of ships’ supplies, oil, and- other expenses of running their businesses in Australia, and, therefore, the surcharge is unwarranted, particularly in view of the fact that the freight must be paid before the vessel leaves Australian shores. In the event of fruit arriving at its destination in a bad condition, due to a protracted voyage, no responsibility is accepted by the shipping companies, and no rebate of freight is made. I ask that the apple and pear growers of Tasmania be given an increased direct grant. I strongly urge the Government to endeavour to secure for them a reduction of overseas freights.

The Government proposes to make a large sum of money available for the development of the Newnes shale oilfields, yet apparently nothing is being done to assist in the development of the shale oil deposits at Latrobe in Tasmania: Only a little while ago the company proposing to work the shale deposits at Latrobe had considerable difficulty in securing a reduction of duty on the treatment plant necessary to carry on its operations. At first requested concessions were not entertained, but I am glad to say that the Government has since seen the reasonableness of the requests made, and has agreed to permit such machinery to be landed in Tasmania duty free. The company does not ask for direct assistance, either from the State Government or the Commonwealth Government; therefore, everything possible should be done to assist it towards the profitable production of oil which would be so vital to our welfare in time of war.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I understand that there is some difficulty about, the leases.

Senator GRANT:

– That is a matter for the State government. So far the Commonwealth Government has done everything it has been asked to do in regard to the development of the shale resources of Tasmania.

I am very pleased that the Government is pushing ahead with its proposal to. institute a system of national insurance in this country, and to that end has placed £75,000 on the Estimates for the purpose of defraying the initial expenses of such a scheme. It may be claimed that the Commonwealth is not ready to go on with the proposal, but the longer we put it off, the more acute will the position become. Invalid and old-age pensions this year will cost approximately £16,000,000, a sum in excess of the whole of the direct taxes levied by the Commonwealth. It is evident, therefore, that we shall have to take early steps to inaugurate a system of national insurance on some stable basis. When a concrete proposal is placed before this Parliament, I trust that, in the interests of the whole of Australia, we shall be able to put it into operation with the least possible delay.

Senator MARWICK:
Western Australia

– I was pleased to hear the references made by Senator Grant to the taxation laws. I believe that they could bc considerably improved. One improvement which I suggest is that primary producers be assessed on the average income derived during the three previous years. At present a taxpayer with an income from personal exertion of £500 pays a tax of £6 7s. 9d., or a total, over three years, of £19 3s. 3d., whereas an unfortunate pastoralist or agriculturalist who for two years has no income at all, but in the third year derives an income of £1,500, has to pay in tax £29 7s. 6d. for that one year, or £10 more than the total tax paid on a regular income of £500 from personal exertion for three years. I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration to the desirability of permitting primary producers to bo assessed on the average income of the preceding three years.

Senator James McLachlan made a wellfounded appeal on behalf of the primary producers. I endorse every word he said. We hear and read a good deal about the prosperity which is said to have returned to this country. I do not deny that a certain amount of prosperity now exists, but little of it is enjoyed by the primary producers, who produce the real wealth of this country. In saying that, I have no desire to come into conflict with my friend, Senator Leckie, who is a high protectionist. I fully appreciate the value of secondary industries in this country, but the great bulk of the wealth of Australia is produced by the men engaged in pastoral and agricultural pursuits. That cannot be denied. It has been said that the value of buildings erected in the cities of Australia has increased from £S,000,000 five or six years ago to £40,000,000 this year. I like to see the cities improve and advance and made more beautiful, but I shudder to think what will happen to these buildings if tho present policy is pursued. Unless there be prosperity in the outback areas, there can be no assured prosperity in the cities. Therefore, it behoves the Government to draft some long-range policy that will give to the people engaged in the great primary industries of this country some security for the future. It is evident from the enormous building operations carried out in the cities during the last six years that the big financial institu tions have found it more profitable - though it is a short-sighted policy - to finance the erection of urban buildings than to assist those engaged in the primary industries outback. If those who produce the real wealth of the country are neglected the whole country must suffer in consequence. I contend that the financial institutions have not “played the game “ during the last six years. Time after time they have refused assistance to men on the land. I speak from experience because I, myself, have been through the mill and know what it is to scratch for a few shillings with which to carry on. Wow that the tide of prosperity has turned I hope that people generally will realize where the real wealth of this country is produced, and that they will be a little more generous in their outlook. The return of prosperity, which is said to he greater now than it has been for many years, immediately creates a desire on the part of the financial institutions to increase rates of interest. Interest rates and exchange rates should be fixed by the Commonwealth Bank, and I hope that the recommendations of the Royal Commission oh Monetary and Banking Reform, in that respect, will be accepted, and that the Government will make a determined effort to see that interest rates are kept as low as possible. The establishment of a long-term mortgage branch of the bank will help primary and secondary industries materially.

Senator Courtice:

– The honorable senator should be sitting here alongside me.

Senator MARWICK:

– Ever since I came into this chamber I have endeavoured to express my own convictions. No one has ever made my politics for me, and no one ever will. If by any chance the party to which the honorable senator belongs is fortunate enough after the next elections to be sitting on the Government side of this chamber and. I am fortunate enough to be returned in Opposition, he may rely upon my support of any legislation which his government might introduce if I believe it to be in the best interests of this country. There is very little in the blue book issued by the Australian Labour party with which I can agree and if the party depends on the contents of that publication to win the forthcoming election, its chances of success are remote. I am not controlled by any caucus, but I pledge support to a policy that I can- conscientiously live up to. I earned my living before becoming a member of this chamber, and I can do so should I cease to be a member of the Senate; but while I remain here no one shall dictate to me as to the policy I should adopt.

– That is the last thing that this Government would do.

Senator MARWICK:

– Many returned soldiers support that policy. It is useless to try to mislead the people, arid to camouflage the actual position as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) tried to do this morning, lie declined an invitation to visit Great Britain during the Coronation ceremonies which would have enabled him to come in close contact with British Ministers and other leading authorities and in that way acquire a better knowledge of how Britain is attempting to secure international peace. By a remarkable coincidence, included in half-a-dozen newspapers which I received from Western Australia this morning was a country newspaper which expresses in a leading article opinions similar to those which I gave yesterday. It reads -

It is generally admitted, also, by exports in all countries that an adequate defence force depends on a nice balance between and thu co-operation of the navy, the array and the air force. Like many who ate devoid of all military knowledge, Messrs. Curtin and Co. interpret defence’ as sitting serenely and waiting to be attacked. They render lip service to the ideal of Imperial co-operation in defence but propose to make Australia’s co-operation abortive at the outset by insisting that no Australian troops should be called upon to servo overseas, except by the will of the people.

In other words, if New Zealand, South Africa or Singapore are attacked, we must hold a referendum before we decide to send a single platoon to the aid of a sister dominion or another part of the Empire; and the enemy will obligingly inarch at ease until we do so. Strangely enough, Mr. Curtin and his party raised no protest when it was announced in the news that Australians were fighting in the service of the Spanish Government. It is only when it is suggested that we send men abroad to aid in the defence of the Empire or one of its component parts that the matter should become the subject of a referendum and incidentally an issue of party politics.

When the blue book of the Labour party is available to the people of Australia they will realize that in the matter of defence they can expect very little from that party. Until recently I hoped that the three Labour senators in this chamber would be returned after the next general el notion, but having studied that publi- cation in detail I have alteredmy mind. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition should have made a determined attack upon certain honorable senators this morning. It appears to me that he thinks that while he may attack them indiscriminately they should not have the right to criticize him or the policy of his party. I believe that his tongue was working quicker than his brain. I am pleased to learn that the Government proposes to establish munition factories and other essential defence works, and I trust that some of the expenditure in that direction will be incurred in the less populous States of Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. It has been suggested, for instance, that the shale deposits in Tasmania should be developed. Further, inquiries should also be made into the possibility of producing power alcohol, which I believe can be undertaken commercially in various parts of Australia, and particularly in Queensland. A partially constructed naval base costing approximately £1,000,000 is lying at Fremantle. There may be good reasons why that work has not been proceeded with, but if such a base is likely to be of value to Australia the work which commenced some years ago should be completed. Further, more adequate provision will have to he made for bases for the storage of fuel oil in Western Australia, which has a tremen dous coastline. Such a base could be established at Albany, which possesses one of the most beautiful natural harbours on the Australian coast, and no expenditure on it would be necessary. Yesterday I asked a question concerning H.M.A.S. Sydney and the Minister in reply said that there was nothing in the suggestion which I had brought under his notice. I direct his attention to the following report in the Melbourne Herald of the 7th September -

Darwin Tuesday. -Private advice received here from Broome (Western Australia) confirmed the report - despite official denials - that H.M.A.S. Sydneyhas just made a thorough search of the ocean bed near Montalivet Island for an old Dutch man-o-war believed to be lying there. Montlivet Island is off Montague Sound on the north west coast of Western Australia. The result of the search is being kept a secret.

Probably the Western Australian Government hasrequested that such a search should be made by the H.M.A.S. Sydney.

Senator E E Johnston:

– The Premier of Western Australia has denied that such a request was made.

Senator MARWICK:

– I do not know where the press get its information, but I can honestly say that these reports are very close to the mark, because old Dutch relics have definitely been picked up on that island and in its vicinity, and I believe that, according to aviators who have flown over that particular part, there is a ship there. I should say “there is more behind the rumour than appears on the surface.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

[9.46]. - in reply - Senator Collings this morning brought up a pensions ease which had some unusual features, and I propose, although it is not customary to deal with detailed cases on the first reading of a Supply Bill, to give now the answer supplied by the Commissioner of Invalid and Old-age Pensions, as follows : -

During the debate on the Supply Bill in the Senate this morning. Senator Collings referred to a case in which a. claimant had a reversionary interest in an estate. The estate is worth £14,000 and the claimant’s share will be £900. Claimant is, however, destitute at present, but notwithstanding this, a pension has been refused. Tlie case is that of Emily J. Stanley., of Wynnum, Queensland, concerning which Senator Collings recently made representations to this office. The claimant is 02 yeans of age. The life tenant is 83 years of age. Allowing for interest at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, the present value of claimant’s reversionary interest (£900) is £610. As the limit of property is £400, claimant is disqualified. A reversionary interest in the estate of a deceased person is property for the purposes of the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act, even though it may not be returning income to a claimant. In that respect only does it differ from government securities, fixed deposits, bank shares, and tlie like. An interest in a reversionary estate can be disposed of or can be used as security for a loan. There are firms which transact this class of business.

Senator Collings:

– I said all that this morning. That is the Commissioner’s ruling as given to me. This woman has nothing, and would starve, but that the Queensland Government is giving her rations. No company will lend her money on her interest in the estate.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I thought I ought to give the reply to the Senate, as the honorable senator had raised de case.

I wish to say something about the many interesting subjects that have been raised in this debate. First of all, I share the disappointment of other honorable senators at Senator Collings’ failure to elaborate the so-called defence policy of the Labour party. I thought that he would seize the opportunity, after the criticism he heard the other day, to tell us what it really means.

Senator Collings:

– I read it all to-day.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I know the honorable senator did, but it is so vague and uncertain that it needs explanation. For instance, on page 22 of this blue book, which Senator Foll has lent me, I read the following: -

Labour’s defence platform is clear-cut and unequivocal. Broadly, it may be summarized thus :

Adequate home defence against possible foreign aggression.

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

That raising of forces obviously docs not relate to conscription, because, during the Great “War, Australia raised a force of over 300,000 men without conscription. They volunteered for service overseas, and, therefore, the meaning of this must be that even if the citizens of Australia were willing and desirous to take part in an expedition overseas for the defence of Australia, that is outside the 3-mile limit, the honorable senator’s party would not allow them to go, until first they had obtained the consent of the people. They could obtain that consent in only one of two ways - either by an election or by a referendum. Surely it is a practical thing to consider how such a policy would operate in these days of sudden warfare, in fact, of aggression without a declaration of war? We have seen several instances of that lately. There i3 a conflict going on in the East to-day in which, up till now, there has been no declaration of war, although thousands of people have been killed. It is of no use to shut our eyes, to these cruel facts. We have to recognize them. The honorable senator was good enough to let me peruse the proofs of his remarks to-day, as I happened to be absent when he was speaking, and I noticed that he referred to the foundation of the Australian Navy by the Fisher Labour Government. I was the* Minister for Defence in that Government, and I well remember the strenuous work that devolved on me in the preparations that had to be made to obtain and equip the first ships, and raise the necessary crews. The honorable senator says that the policy of the Labour party is the same as that of the Fisher Labour Government. He says that it has not altered, tout the naval defence policy of the Fisher Labour Government made specific provision to enable those ships to go to any part of the world. As the Labour Minister for Defence in 1911, I attended an imperial conference, and, with the authority of the Labour Government, and the consent of the Labour party, I signed an agreement by which - not merely in a time of war. but in a time of emergency - those ships could be placed at the disposal ‘of the Admiralty to fee sent anywhere. As a matter of fact, the agreement drawn up by the Fisher Labour Government was operated when the Great War broke out. As soon as the British Government notified the Australian Government that ‘ a state of emergency had arisen, those ships were at once placed by the Aus- tralian- Government under the orders of the British Admiralty, and remained under those orders for the whole period of the war.

Senator Dein:

– Was that a Labour government ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No. the Cook Government was in office at the time the war broke out, but the agreement under which that was done was tlie one drawn up at the Imperial Conference of 1911, and, signed by myself as a representative of the Fisher Labour Government of Australia. How can Senator Collings say that the policy of the Labour party of to-day is on’ all fours with the policy of the Fisher Labour Government? It differs fundamentally on that very point. It is obvious that, if a policy such as that of Labour at present is to operate, it can only operate when war takes place on our own soil - when the enemy has already landed!. We have only to look at the horrible pictures published recently, showing the wreckage of Chinese towns, to appreciate what might- happen. Does the honorable senator want that sort of thing to take place before the men of Australia can go to the defence of their homes, wives and children?

Senator Collings:

– We want to be ready to prevent that.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– But the honorable senator will not prevent it.. He will invite it. He is saying to the enemy : “ You can do what you like outside the three-mile limit, we will take no action until you actually land upon our coast “.

Senator Collings:

– The Labour party does not say that.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– If words mean anything, this blue book says it, because it says that the Labour party will not send any men overseas. It stipulates that there shall be no raising of’ forces for service outside the Commonwealth. The Navy is enlisted to-day for service outside the Commonwealth. There is no restriction in our Defence Act, and the- government of the day, if a threat of war occurred, could send the Navy to any part of the world.

Senator Guthrie:

– It would not ‘be of much use otherwise.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– It would be absolutely useless otherwise. That is why I think the Labour party has had one gleam of logic, and has spoken in such a hostile spirit of the navy. Members of the Opposition have shown that they have no time for a navy; they do not value it.

Senator BROWN:

– Who has spoken hostilely of the Navy?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Leaders of the Labour party have deprecated the value of out Navy, and that is why they are confining themselves to, and finding such great virtue in, an air force. I too have a great belief in what an air force can do. I notice that honorable senators speak of bombers. What are they going to bomb? Bombers are not very ornamental machines, and cannot be there just for ornament. I take it that the Labour party are not going to bomb their own cities, towns or ships. I should imagine that they would want bombers to attack the enemy’s ships1 that were approaching our shores’. Are they going to wait until the enemy’s ships come inside the three-mile limit?’

Senator Collings:

– According to the Minister, it might be in the North Sea or the Mediterranean.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Our policy is to raise men for the defence of Australia and to use them where they will be most effective for that purpose. That may be 1,000 miles from the coast of Australia. It may be that our most effective contribution to the defence of Australia would be to reinforce Singapore, but according to the policy set out in the blue book, neither the air force nor the Navy may be sent to Singapore, although that might be the most effective contribution that we could make to the defence of Australia.

Senator Guthrie:

– And of course, they could not be sent to New Zealand.

– There are only three Labour senators, remember.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.This booklet tells us that the Australian Labour party abhors war and fascism. What is meant by fascism? I take it that our Labour friends abhor fascism because it is opposed to our democratic system of parliamentary government.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– In other words, fascism is a dictatorship, find that, 1 suggest, is the reason for Labour’s objection to it. But is it not equally .true that communism is also a system of dictatorship?

Senator Collings:

– It is.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Therefore, if fascism is abhorred by Labour, what is the reason for differentiating between fascism and communism?

Senator Collings:

– We do not.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– But Labour does so differentiate. And i3 there any reason why Labour should not abhor the Nazi system of government in Germany? That, also, is a dictatorship, and, therefore, is opposed to our parliamentary form of government. Also, can the Leader of the Opposition seriously argue that the Communist Soviet Republic is a democratic system of government? Actually, it is just as absolute a dictatorship as is fascism in Italy or nazi-ism in Germany. This being so, I am wondering why Labour singles out fascism, and remains silent about communism and nazi-ism.

The attitude of the Labour party towards fascism reminds me of the story told of a young preacher who had an engagement to preach in a country town of South Australia. In conversation with a wily old gentleman who was one of the church elders, he announced his intention to denounce a number of things that were nice but wrong,, including racing. The local church leader heard him patiently, and then said, “ I would not say too much against racing, because racing is so popular in this town.” “When the young preacher said he would denounce some other local evil, he again met with the warning not to say too much about it. “But,” added the old gentleman, “you will be on safe ground in denouncing the publicans because there are only two of them in this town.” Thus it would seem that the Labour party, in declaring its abhorrence of war and fascism, displayed a certain amount of craft, because every one abhors war and comparatively few people in Australia believe in fascism. But again I ask, why is the Labour party silent about communism and nazi-ism?

Another interesting statement, to be found on page 11 of Labour’s blue book, is the following: -

The part played by the Federal Labour Government in the rehabilitation of the finances of the Commonwealth is not generally known. Nor are many people aware of (.hp benefits that accrued as a result of Labour’s policy.

When Mr. Scullin was Prime Minister, despite the hostility of financial circles, he converted £536.000,000 of Australian loan money to a rate of interest equivalent to about one half of the ruling rate.

It is really amusing to read that the author of Labour’s blue book claims credit for the Labour party in connexion with the conversion of the Australian internal debt. What are the facts? The conversion arrangement was part of the Premiers plan.

Senator Collings:

– It was not in the original plan ; Mr. Seullin persisted, and put it in.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Yes, it was in the original pa.n, which had to be taken as a whole. -The Scullin Government, to its credit be it said, took all the odium and responsibility for submitting the Premiers plan to the Federal Parliament. I suppose every honorable ‘ senator is aware of the reception which the bill received from Government supporters.

Senator Collings:

– It had a very rough reception.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Debt Conversion Agreement Bill was before the House of Representatives in June, ‘1931, and the division list on the motion for the second reading showed that sixteen of the Labour Government’s supporters voted for it, and twenty against it.

Senator Collings:

– That is right. Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The bill would not have been passed but for the votes -of the 30 followers of Mr. Lyons, the then Leader of the Opposition. The position was exactly the same in the Senate, the bill_ being carried on the votes of the Opposition and against the votes of Labour senators. Yet this famous Labour blue book boasts of the internal loan conversion as one of the triumphs of the Labour party!

Senator Collings:

– It is true.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That boast is on a par with the claim of the present Labour party that the present Austraiian Labour party enacted the legislation establishing the Commonwealth Bank and giving to the people of this country the invalid and old-age pensions law. To liken the nebulous and equivocal policy of the present Labour party to the policy of the Labour party in 1911 is to suggest, that black is white. Labour’s policy in 1911 was so definite that the wayfaring man could understand it. Because it was so positive and definite the people of Australia entrusted the Labour party of that day with power in this Parliament. I am quite sure that they will not put in power the present Labour party because its alleged policy, as outlined in this blue book, is merely a nebulous and meaningless abstraction.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · West ern Australia · UAP

[10.10]. - I move-

That thebill be now read a second time.

The provision granted by Parliament in June last in Supply Act (No. 1) for 1937-38 covered the first two months of the financial year. The bill now before the Senate provides for an appropriation of £8,323,000 from revenue to cover expenditure for a further four months up to the end of December next. It is based on the appropriations for the last financial year, and the items represent approximately one-third of those appropriations with two exceptions. The first relates to the salaries of the Public Service. As in the case of Supply Act (No. 1) allowance has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act and other regulations to meet increases due to the rise of the cost of living. The second exception relates to the cost of elections, for which it has been found necessary to provide in this hill for the full amount required, namely, £115,000. The amount shown in the bill for ordinary services may be summarized as follows : -

In addition, in accordance with practice, provision has been made for refunds of revenue and advance to the Treasurer, the amounts being £400,000 and £500,000 respectively. The Government has already submitted a bill covering appropriations for grants to the States of South

Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania in accordance with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It desires to proceed with the bill covering an appropriation for works and buildings. It is, however, not anticipated that it will be possible to pass the Annual Appropriation Act during the present session. For this reason supply for four months is necessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses one to four agreed to.

Schedule.

Proposed votes - The Parliament, £35,320; Prime Minister’s Department, £153,800; Department of External Affairs, £4,220; Department of the Treasury, £261,420; AttorneyGeneral’s Department, £64,270 - agreed to.

Proposed vote, £146,280.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– In view of the fact that the Estimates are not likely to be before the Senate for several months, can the Minister supply some information regarding several items associated with the meteorological branch, the solar observatory, and the forestry branch?

As regards the meteorological branch, it appears that several items appear for the first time. It will be within the memory of honorable senators that some years ago it was suggested that some of the State meteorological branches should cease to exist, and that only three should remain, of which the Commonwealth branch should be one. Can the Minister say whether that proposal has gone any further ? It was generally agreed that there was no necessity for so many branches, beyond the fact that no State wished to give up its own meteorological service. Apparently, some members of the central and Victorian staffs have disappeared, for the numbers have been reduced, whereas in other places the members remain substantially the same.

Can the Minister supply any information about the meteorological station in the Northern Territory? Is it to be replaced by an aviation section? That may be an excellent idea, but it represents au increase of £17,032 a year, and the employment of 51 new officers. An explanation of the intentions of the Government would be appreciated.

The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) will .remember that I have repeatedly urged that the higher personnel of the Solar Observatory should be brought up to establishment. That has not been the case since the commencement of the observatory. The first director, Dr. Duffield, died during the depression, and his place has not been filled. It is not easy to fill it, because of the special knowledge required. I understand that the observatory has been carried on under the direction of the gentleman who was Dr. Duffield’s second assistant. Probably he has some assistance; but I do not think that any of the men under him has specialized and skilled knowledge. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is useless to employ a number of hands at a solar observatory unless there is expert guidance from the top. There must be a first class man at the head of it. The number of the staff remains the same. The amount which was voted for the last year was not reached, and a somewhat similar vote is being made for this year, but the number of temporary and casual employees is increasing. Except for the purpose of providing employment, it is useless to have additional casual and temporary employees. t This is a highly skilled occupation, and there are few trained people capable of carrying out the duties. Unless there are at the top highly-skilled men, the observatory might as well be closed down, and the special instruments, some of which were given to us, returned to the donors.

I should like some information also about the Forestry Branch. There have been suggestions that this branch should be closed, and what one may call petitions and counter-petitions -have been presented. Will the Leader of the Senate be good enough to say where the matter now stands?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

[30.23]. - I shall deal first with the Meteorological Branch. The number of permanent positions provided for under the aviation plan has increased from 92 in 1936-37 to 151 in 1937-38. The list shows one meteorological assistant for Port Darwin, so it is evident that the station there is not being abandoned. The expenditure under aviation last year was £30,008. The increase for 1937-38, which is approximately £18,500, is almost entirely due to the creation of the new positions referred to. They have been made by the establishment of aviation meteorological sections to assist in developing and protecting, as far as possible, civil and military aviation activities. The officers are to undergo special training in forecasting and research, and will ultimately be stationed at various aerodromes throughout the Commonwealth. The amount of £48,500 includes provision for automatic increases, increases under arbitration awards and adjustments under Public Service regulations.. An amount of £800 has been included for payment to officers on retirement.

I listened sympathetically to the honorable senator’s remarks in relation to the solar observatory, which was a pet child of mine in years gone by. I am glad to say that it is proposed to call world-wide applications shortly for the position of director. That indicates that the Minister shares the view of Senator Duncan-Hughes that there must be a first class man at the head of that branch.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– Has anything been done in regard to the amalgamation . of the meteorological branches ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Some progress was made, but it was found that certain States would not give way. No agreement has been reached.

In the Forestry Branch permanent positions have been created, and pending permanent appointments to them, some temporary officers have been appointed, thereby increasing the cost of casual employees. There are five students at the school who should remain a further two years, and it is anticipated that more t students will be enrolled next year. I hope that that anticipation will be realized, for the school is performing useful service.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department op Defence.

Proposed vote, £1,743,180.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I should like some information regarding the Munitions Supply Branch, particularly in relation to subdivision B of division 79 dealing with “Munitions Establishments and Factories “. Is there any provision in this bill for the extension of factories for the manufacture of munitions, and, if so, is provision made for the construction of a factory in Western Australia?

It would assist honorable senators if another column were added to the schedule, in order to indicate the expenditure over a similar period of the preceding year.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That information is contained in the Estimates.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– It would be of assistance if it were contained in this bill.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That information has never been given in a Supply bill.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– It is not too late to start with the improvement. In the Estimates the expenditure for the previous twelve months is given; this bill deals only with a period of four months.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for External Affairs) [10.29]. - There is no provision in this bill for the erection of any munitions factories anywhere’. Provision for such buildings would be made in a works bill. The asterisk shown against subdivision B of division 79 indicates that the £94,180 is to be paid to the credit of various trust funds. The money will be used for the purchase of materials, and to meet expenditure incurred in connexion with the process of manufacture.. It will not be used for buildings.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Will any of it be used to purchase machinery?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I do not think so. Certainly none of it* will be used to erect new factories.

The honorable senator suggested that an extra column should be inserted in the Supply Bill to give additional information. As I explained in my secondreading speech, this, bill is based on last year’s appropriation. There would be nu object in inserting another column, for the expenditure proposed is merely onethird of the total for the previous year. Parliament is not asked to vote money for something of which it knows nothing.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed .votes - Department of Trade and Customs, £197,720; Department of Health, £41,870; and Department of Commerce, £142,400 - agreed to.

Miscellaneous Services.

Proposed vote, £320,620.’

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– Provision of £160 is made under item 1, division 105, for “ maternity allowances paid under special circumstances. “ Recently, I was approached by a very poor woman who, being illiterate and unaware of the requirements of the regulations that application must be made for a maternity allowance within three months of the date of the birth of a child, failed to lodge her application in respect of the birth of one of her children within the prescribed time. Is the provision in the Supply Bill for the payment of maternity allowances under special circumstances inserted to cover cases such as this? I trust that the Leader of the Senate can give me some hope that provision will be made for this unfortunate woman, notwithstanding the fact that her claim for the allowance was not rendered in strict accordance with the law.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

[10.34].- I regret that I cannot give the honorable senator that assurance. Provision has been made to cover cases which, strictly speaking, do not come within the terms of the act and regulations. There have been cases in respect of which the act has not been strictly applied, the surrounding circumstances warranting payment of the allowance as an act of clemency. I suggest that the honorable senator should make representations to the Treasurer concerning the case to which he has referred.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - “War Services, £381,900 - agreed to.

Proposed vote - Commonwealth KailWays, £157,000.

Senator ARKINS (New South Wales) [10.35J. - Some time ago a break of gauge device registered as Patent No. 19,952 of 1934, was demonstrated in this building. It was claimed by the inventor that the device would successfully overcome the difficulties associated with the breaks of gauge in the railway system throughout the Commonwealth, and that its use. would save the expenditure of many millions of pounds for the reconstruction of lines in order to secure a uniform gauge throughout. Is tho Leader of the Senate able to give honorable senators any information as to what has been done in regard to this device? 1 understand that the inventor was given an undertaking by the Minister for the Interior that an order would be placed for the construction of a demonstration model of full size in order to test its efficacy. Have the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and his experts found the invention satisfactory or otherwise, and will the Leader of the Senate obtain a report as to the position in regard to it at the present time ?

Senator Sir’ GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Westcm Australia · UAP

[10.36]. - No provision for any investigation of that kind is made in this bill. If the honorable senator will give me particulars of the device to which he referred, I shall obtain the information ho requires from the Minister for the Interior.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Postmaster-General’s Department, £3,583,000; Northern Territory, £81,520; Federal Capital Territory, £92,730; Papua, £14,750 ; Norfolk Island, £1,000; Refunds of Revenue, £400,000 ; and Advance to the Treasurer, £500,000- agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill 2-eported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 September 1937, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1937/19370908_senate_14_154/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 September 1937

MANDATEDTERRITORY OF NEW GUINEA

Volcanic Eruption

Senator SirGEORGE PEARCE:Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY

Senator HARDY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MARWICK:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

EMPIRE MIGRATION DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

QUESTION

AMERICA-NEW ZEALAND AIR MAIL

Senator COOPER:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

PAPERS

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38

First Reading

Senator COLLINGS:Queensland

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator Collings:

Senator Collings:

Senator Collings:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Arkins:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Foll:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Abbott:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Abbott:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Brown:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Foll:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Foll:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Foll:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Hardy:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Arkins:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senate
8 September 1937

Senator SirGEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator HARDY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MARWICK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931