Senate
5 May 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- RANDWICK MILITARY HOSPITAL
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP OP BROADCASTS
QUESTION
- SUBSIDIES FOR SURF LIFE SAVING CLUBS
PAPERS
TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
- Methyl Ethyl Ketone
QUESTION
- GAS MASKS
QUESTION
- ENGLAND-AUSTRALIA AIR MAIL SERVICE
QUESTION
- MOTOR CARS AND MOTOR CAR CHASSIS
QUESTION
- ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE
TIN PLATE
- Primage Duty
QUESTION
- HICKORY FOR TOOL HANDLES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH LOAN
WHEAT INDUSTRY
- Home-Consumption Price
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY
QUESTION
- OIL AND PETROL SUPPLIES
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
GENEVA CONVENTION BILL 1938
QUESTION
- DEFENCE PROGRAMME
INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1938
- Second Reading
LOAN BILL 1938
- Second Reading
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Travelling Arrangements of Members. - Censorship of Broadcasts

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 855

QUESTION

RANDWICK MILITARY HOSPITAL

Senator DEIN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Repatriation aware of the serious congestion at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick? If so, what steps does he intend to take to meet the situation?

Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · UAP

– I am aware of the congestion. At the present time, the hospital is carrying on with a very low margin of safety as regards spare beds. Recently my colleague, Senator MacDonald, and 1 accompanied by some other members of Parliament, visited the hospital to obtain first-hand information of the conditions there. As a result of our visit, I have made certain recommendations to meet the situation.

page 855

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP OP BROADCASTS

Statements by Judge Foster.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– My attention had not previously been directed to the newspaper report ofthe comments made by Judge Foster, but I shall examine it most carefully. I feel sure that if the zeal of His Honour Judge Foster in the cause of peace caused him to make the statements attributed to him, it will be sufficient to direct his attention to the matter.

page 855

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES FOR SURF LIFE SAVING CLUBS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– Having regard to the splendid services rendered by surf life saving clubs throughout Australia, will the Leader of the Senate invite the Government to consider the desirability of paving subsidies to such clubs?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– It is not customary to make statements of policy in reply to questions, but I may tell the honorable gentleman that I doubt that it is within the power of the Commonwealth Government to do as he suggests.

Senator BROWN:

– In. view of the fact that the Government pays grants and subsidies to various industries, can the Minister say why, in his opinion, it is beyond the scope of the Ministry to pay subsidies to surf life saving clubs?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper I shall see that he ia furnished with an answer.

page 855

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Postmaster-General’s Department - Twentyseventh Annual Report, 1936-37.

Power Alcohol Industry, possibility of expansion in Australia - Report by Mr. L. J. Rogers, Commonwealth Fuel Adviser, dated 21st July. 1937.

Orange Bounty Act (No. 2) 1936 - Report on the working of the Act, together with return showing the amount of bounty paid.

page 855

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Senator FOLL laid on the table reports and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: -

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

Pencils of wood, including Pencils with metal or other clamps or attachments.

page 855

QUESTION

GAS MASKS

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Fol lowing on previous questions which I have asked regarding this matter, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether he will take an early opportunity to make a statement indicating what steps have been taken during the last six months to provide gas masks for the people of Australia for use in time of war?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– I understand that a letter, setting out the position, was sent to the honorable senator by the Minister for Defence.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– That was several mouths ago.

Senator FOLL:

– If the honorable gentleman desires further information and will place his question on the noticepaper, I shall see that an answer is supplied.

page 856

QUESTION

ENGLAND-AUSTRALIA AIR MAIL SERVICE

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

With reference to the reported agreement upon the subject of an Empire flying-boat mail service, will the Minister give his confirmation to the press statement that Darwin has been chosen as the distributing point for mails to be sent, amongst other routes, down the western coast to Perth?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer: -

The Government has not completed its consideration of the re-organization of internal air services consequent upon the forthcoming inauguration of the Empire flying-boat service, but it has been decided to maintain land-plane services between Darwin and Perth and Darwin and Adelaide, and these two services will carry overseas air mail.

page 856

QUESTION

MOTOR CARS AND MOTOR CAR CHASSIS

Permits to Import

Senator COLLETT:

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

Regarding the existence of the system of permits for the importation of motor cars or motor car chassis, has the Minister been approached with a request that quota units not fully utilized by the importers of one make of car or chassis be re-allotted to other importers desiring further supplies?
If so, what action is proposed?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers : -

Yes.
It is not proposed to vary the existing arrangement.

page 856

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

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

How many cadets are enrolled at the Royal Military College, Duntroon?
How many are there from the various States?
How many cadets are there likely to be when the defence programme is in full operation?
Is there, or is there likely to be, any quota system as regards the number of cadets from the various States?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

Australia 67, New Zealand 20, total 87.

1939 - Australia 77. New Zealand 20; 1940 - Australia, 85, New Zealand 20.
No.

page 856

TIN PLATE

Primage Duty

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has the Government received representations from the Chamber of Manufactures of Western Australia, and from similar bodies in Victoria, urging the removal of the primage duty on tin plate?
Can this concession be granted, in the interests of those concerned in the canning of fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, honey, milk, and other primary products?
If not, why not? ,

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers : -

Yes. 2 and 3. The Government’s policy is to reduce or abolish primage duties, particularly on essential raw materials not produced in Australia, but the extent of these reductions or remissions is necessarily governed by budgetary considerations. However, very practical effect has already been given to primage remission on tin plates. In October, 1933, the rates were reduced from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent., irrespective of the origin of the plate. The cumulative value of this remission to the end of April, 1938, has amounted to approximately £368,000. Drawback is allowed of the primage duty paid on tinned plate which is used in the manufacture of containers of goods exported from the Commonwealth, and consequently primary producers and others are under no disability in regard to their export trade by reason of this duty.

page 857

QUESTION

HICKORY FOR TOOL HANDLES

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

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

Have inquiries been made as to the possibility of hickory for tool handles being grown commercially in Australia?
If so, with what result?
If not, will he have the necessary inquiry and investigations made?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer : - 1, 2 and 3. The Commonwealth Forestry Bureau has recently obtained supplies of hickory seed from America, and it is proposed to plant it in selected areas. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has, for some time, been carrying out experiments with a view to discovering an Australian timber which might be suitable as a substitute for hickory. These experiments have, up to the present, shown that brown mallet, a Western Australian timber, should prove to be a satisfactory substitute for hickory for all but the most exacting purposes.

page 857

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOAN

Senator GRANT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that a Commonwealth loan of £7,000,000 has been underwritten in London?
If so, for what purpose is the money required, and on what terms is the loan to be floated?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

Yes.
The amount of the loan is required for the following purposes: -
1. £2,000,000 for defence purposes in accordance with the authority recently granted by Parliament in Act No. 45 of 1037.
2. £5,000,000 for the purpose of converting a portion of the Commonwealth short-term debt in London represented by Australian treasurybills held by the Commonwealth Bank.

The terms of the loan arc as follows: -

Nominal interest rate - 3¾ per cent, per annum.

Price of issue - £99 per cent.

Currency - Eighteen years with the option of redemption at the end of fourteen years.

page 857

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Home-Consumption Price

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Is it a fact that the Government, at an early date, intends to convene a conference of representatives of the Federal and State Governments, to devise a scheme for the purpose of guaranteeing to wheat-growers a price of not less than 3s. 4d. per bushel for wheat delivered at railway sidings?

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Acting Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answer : -

The Government has not considered the convening of a conference for the purpose stated. The question of deciding whether constitutionally sound legislation can be introduced by Commonwealth and State Govern ments to deal with schemes involving the fixing of a homeconsumption price is to be considered at the meeting of the Agricultural Council to be held next week.

page 857

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

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

Is the statement in the Canberra Times of the 4th May, to the effect that the Health Department will not be allowed to encroach upon the premises of the Institute of Anatomy, correct?
Is there any intention of altering in any way the present officials in charge of the Institute ?

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers: -

In view of an opinion given by the Solicitor-General it is not intended to erect buildings at the Institute of Anatomy to house the Department of Health.
This matter is under consideration.

page 857

QUESTION

OIL AND PETROL SUPPLIES

Senator BROWN:

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

During the last twelve months have any steps been taken by the Defence Department for the provision of storage facilities for oil and petrol ?
If so, could any estimate be given of the length of time such petrol and oil would last if supplies from abroad were cut off?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Defence has furnished the following answers : -

Certain steps have been taken by the Defence Department during the last twelve months to increase stocks of and storage accommodation for fuel oil, but it is not in the public interest to disclose details.
See No. 1. The position regarding commercial stocks of petrol and fuel oil is under continuous review by the departmental committee, which works in close collaboration with the major oil companies of Australia. It is not, however, advisable to disclose details of the length of time for which it is estimated those stocks would be sufficient in the event of a cessation of importation.

page 858

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Payne Report

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

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

Is it the intention of the Government during the present session to bring down any legislation to implement thePaynereport on the Northern Territory?
If not, why not?

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answer : -

The recommendations made in the Payne report are of such importance that the Minister for the Interior must give themthe most careful consideration before submitting them to the Government. The Minister for the Interior has already carried out a considerable amount of investigation into the recommendations, but feels that he will not be in a position to make definite recommendations to the Government until he has visited the territory. He will visit the territory at the earliest possible date. The question of bringing down legislation to implement the recommendations made in the report must await consideration by the Government of the Minister’s proposals. It is improbable that any such legislation will be brought down this session.

page 858

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL 1938

Bill read a third time.

page 858

QUESTION

DEFENCE PROGRAMME

Paper

Debate resumed from the 4th May (vide page 782), on motion by Senator FOLL-

That the paper be printed.

The honorable senator also had something to say about the manufacture of munitions of war by private enterprise. The Government has not lost sight of what has taken place in other countries in regard to profiteering out of the manufacture of armaments, and in its negotiations with manufacturers and by public statements it has made it clear that it will not permit the private manufacturers of munitions in this country to make huge profits out of such activities. In my statement I said -

Large additions are under construction at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and the Government is providing £1,000,000 towards the cost of organizing civil industry to meet any emergency. The plant provided under this scheme will, in the main, remain the property of the Government and subject to our control. This will enable a close check to be maintained on the cost of production, and will facilitate the control of profits. The Government, therefore, will not relinquish control of the manufacture of munitions but will, in effect, enlist the aid of private firms for management and operation.

– I say quite frankly that I believe the defence force of Australia is going to benefit very greatly by the selection of an Inspector-General from overseas, because of the fact that through his associations in Great Britain and Europe he will be better acquainted with the latest methods of war than is any expert we could find among our own people. A statement made in Melbourne yesterday by three military leaders - General Sir Harry Chauvel, Major-General Sir Julius Bruche, and

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 4th May (vide page 742) on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– It is fitting that at this juncture we should review briefly the history of this matter. It will be remembered that a bill on the same subject was introduced in the Senate by Sir George Pearce on the 18th June of last year and was eventually passed by this Chamber with amendments of only a minor character. The original Inter-State Commission Act of 1912 purported to set up an Inter-State Commission possessing judicial powers. I stress that point, because the Opposition is opposing this measure for the reasons which I am about to recite. In 1915, the High Court held that the judicial powers of the Inter-State Commission f-re unconstitutional; that meant that the most important part of the 1915 legislation, which had a great deal to recommend it, became inoperative. The commission, however, did not take the verdict of the High Court too literally and functioned for a time purely as an investigating body ; but eventually suffered from heart failure and then collapsed. The glorified and expensive body which it is proposed to reconstitute under this bill will have only powers of investigation. It has been admitted that some States suffer disabilities as the result of federation, but nearly every one of these are disabilities as between a State or States and the Commonwealth.

We, therefore, have the spectacle of the Commonwealth Government setting up an expensive commission in order to enquire into disabilities, for the creation and perpetuation of which it is itself responsible. States suffering any disability have (lie right of redress. If disabilities are due to unconstitutional action, a State has the right of appeal to the High Court, and any other disabilities can be ventilated in Parliament. I can see no reason whatever why this farcical body should be re-constituted. Members of the Opposition are not alone in this respect, as I can quote from fairly respectable public authorities, such as newspapers which are not in any way sympathetically disposed towards the Labour party, but have sufficient intelligence and honesty of purpose - a rare virtue in capitalist newspapers - to admit that the Government is wrong in proceeding with this proposal. On the 28th April last, the Melbourne Herald had something to say.

Senator Grant:

– Nearly every newspaper in Australia has condemned the re-constitution of the commission.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Yes. The Government proposes to reconstitute a totally unnecessary body and that suggests that there is behind this bill a motive which will not stand the light of day. The paragraph in the Melbourne Herald reads -

Federal Ministers apparently persist in their intention to appoint a standing royal commission of enquiry, under the name of an Inter-State Commission. This commission is mentioned in the Constitution, and twenty years ago, was appointed as a judicial body to administer the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce.

After :in unproductive career of six years, it was abolished because the High Court held that the action creating it was ultra vires or unconstitutional. The use of its name for a permanent royal commission does not give the proposed new body a recommendation. The only useful work that such a body could do would be to deal with needy State grant.s, work that is already being well and economically done by the Slate Grants Commission, which has laid down the principles of future procedure.

The new permanent royal commission could have no judicial powers. It would merely make recommendation that it might or might not suit political interests to adopt. . The days of royal com miss ions have passed. Instead of employing laymen to spend months or years in enquiry, the approved modern practice is to call in the assistance of experts.

The experts have been called in. “We have heard this afternoon a great deal about the opinions of experts upon national insurance. A royal commission investigated that subject twenty years ago. but nothing came of it, and it now appears that the Government has to send to the Old Country for further experts to report on the recommendations of the royal commission experts who have already investigated the question.

The proposal before the chamber is utterly ridiculous. If it were not so expensive, it would be a farce; it is, instead, a tragedy. This measure does not differ greatly from legislation passed by the Senate last year. There is, however, on? very important alteration, namely that the commission is now to consist of five members as against three under the original proposal. I recognize that the bill does not provide for the payment of salaries on the original basis. The coinmission composed of three members would have cost the country in salaries alone £6,500 per annum, whereas the present proposal will involve a salary bill of £8,000 annually. “Why was there delay in proceeding in the House of Representatives with the measure passed by this chamber? The reason is perfectly obvious. It was decided to delay the passing of this legislation until after the general elections, and the increased membership of the commission arises, I suggest, from the fact that the Government lost more seats at the election than hnd been anticipated. I forecast then that the proposed commission would be made a refuge for discredited ex-politicians, and I submit that the evi dence shows that for an amateur, mv prophecy was not far wrong.

Senator Dein:

– The Leader of the Opposition is no amateur in forecasting.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am not too bad at that. The honorable senator is about to lose several of hi3 colleagues. I told him that that would occur. However, that, to him, is a rather painful subject, and J do not desire to pursue it. The Opposition cannot be persuaded to become a party to the creation of tins useless and powerless commission, the cost of which will be hh unnecessary and unjustifiable burden upon the taxpayers.

There are some features of the bill which require investigation, but I shall deal with them in Committee. The Opposition opposes the bill, because it does not believe that it has been honestly conceived - I mean as far as honesty of purpose is concerned. The Opposition being also of the opinion that the commission will be of no value to i.he country, washes its hands entirely of hie pernicious proposal.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I did not anticipate that we should be called upon to deal with this measure to-day, and I take the opportunity of pointing out that it is rather difficult for senators ‘ to know exactly what measures are to be dealt with. I attended the chamber yesterday, prepared to sneak upon two of the major issues which appeared on the notice-paper, and found myself confronted with a third matter with which I attempted to deal last night. However, when the House of Representatives does not transmit to th<“Senate the legislation expected, it i3, I suppose, rather difficult for the Government to proceed with the business of this chamber.

Senator Collings:

– Government supporters are stone-walling the Government’s legislation in the other chamber. Sir Henry Gullett and other supporters of the Government are having an afternoon out.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I have no comment to make upon that beyond saying that possibly the Government has not made a compact with its supporters there to agree to the passage of I he hill within a certain time. I desire to speak on the measure now before the

Senate, particularly because when similar legislation was submitted last year, I was absent and, therefore, had no opportunity to express my views upon it. I notice that on that occasion, Senator Allan MacDonald said -

Nothing is to be gained by traversing the ancient history contained in the musty tomes of the previous Inter-State Commission.

That may be true, but when I make a remark of that sort, I do so, I fear, because I am not particularly anxious to traverse the “musty tomes”. I have, as a matter of fact, studied certain tomes which are a great deal older than those containing the reports of the proceedings of the former Inter-State Commission, and have found them not musty, but extraordinarily instructive and interesting. I refer to the proceedings of the last Federal Convention which was held in Melbourne in 1898. I have always been impressed with the directness’ of the section of the Constitution relating to the establishment of an Inter-State Commission; it commences with the words, “There shall be”. That, I think, is a rather unique introduction to the relevant provision. It is stated with particular abruptness that there shall be an InterState Commission. I confess that I have never quite understood why the provision was so framed.

When the clause which eventually became the section was submitted to the Federal Convention in 1898, it read: -

The Parliament may make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain upon railways within the Commonwealth and upon rivers flowing through, in, or between two or more States, the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce. 1 shall not quote at length from the report of the proceedings, but briefly the effect of the discussion was that the president of the convention, Mr. Kingston, moved to omit the words : “ The Parliament may make laws constituting” and insert in lieu thereof the words. “ There shall be “. This amendment of the original clause was agreed to without a division. In other words, the convention was determined that the question of whether or not an Inter-State Commission was to be created should not be left to Parliament, but that it should be obligatory upon Parliament to appoint such a body. After relating briefly the history of what occurred at that time, I shall read a few extracts which show clearly the attitude of the leaders of the convention. Although the section of the Constitution to which I have referred was agreed to by the convention on the 25th February, 189S, the matter apparently still occupied the thoughts of some of the delegates, and on the 11th March of that year the clause was reconsidered. An amendment to omit the words “ There shall be “ and to insert the words “ Parliament may constitute “ was moved by Sir George Turner, a Victorian delegate. After debate, the amendment was negatived, the voting being 23 to 13 against it. Among those who voted with the majority were Sir John Forrest, Mr. Holder, Mr. Kingston, Mr. O’Connor. Mi-. George Reid, and Mr. Edmund Barton, while the minority included Sir Edward Braddon, Mr. Deakin, Mr. Lyne, Sir George Turner, and Mr. Isaac Isaacs. The decision arrived at by the convention was incorporated in the Constitution, and it would appear that “the convention was emphatically of the opinion that an Inter-State Commission was essential.

Senator Payne:

– That was after reconsideration of the subject, too.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Yes. In the first place, the provision was agreed to without a division and when the matter was subsequently re-opened it was definitely confirmed that an Inter-State Commission was essential. The Constitution as adopted made it obligatory upon Parliament to create an Inter-State Com mission, just as Parliament was obliged to create the High Court of Australia. In passing, may I say that there was no reference in the Constitution as originally framed to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which has since been established. Although great emphasis was not laid upon the fact that the InterState Commission was designed for the protection of the smaller States, the object of the convention in agreeing to its appointment was to ensure fair dealing between the States, and it was resolved that provision for the commis- sion should form a definite part of the Australian Constitution.

Senator Courtice:

– Apprehension on the part of the States was one of the obstacles in the way of federation at the time.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Yes. There was a feeling that it would be in the interests of Australia generally to have an Inter-State Commission. This was the subject of an interesting debate at the Melbourne convention, which passed the final draft of the Constitution, and I have culled from the speeches some statements, one of which, I feel sure, will interest the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Reid, a representative of New South Wales, in the course of the debate, interjected while another member was speaking -

Surely Parliament will have more important work to do than that of acting as an InterState Commission!

I shall allow that statement to stand without comment. When the convention was discussing an amendment, which originated in the South Australian House of Assembly, to omit “may ma.ke laws constituting”, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the words “shall constitute”, Mr. Barton said -

This amendment involves a difference, and I am not quite prepared to say whether it will be an improvement or not. … If this alteration is adopted the clause, instead of giving the Parliament leave to make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission, will make it compulsory on the Parliament, as far as you can direct a Parliament, to pass such laws. Of course, Parliament may, nevertheless, take its own good time about doing so. I thought it well to draw the committee’s attention to the nature of the proposed amendment.

Although the Constitution contains provision for the appointment of the InterState Commission, that body was not appointed until 1913, and there has been no Inter-State Commission for the last eighteen years, so that out of the 37 years that have elapsed since the inauguration of the Commonwealth, for 30 years we have been without a commission. Mr. Kingston said -

I would suggest to our leader that the better course would be, if we alter this clause, not to put in the bill a direction to the Parliament that it shall legislate to constitute an Inter-State Commission, but rather, in so many words, say that there shall be an

Inter-state Commission, and then without any further interference of Parliament, that body can be created … If we intend to have an Inter-State Commission let us say so in the Constitution in the plainest possible way.

Mr. Barton interjected

As we have done about the court, meaning the High Court, and Mr. Kingston replied “ Yes.” I have cited Mr. Kingston’s opinion, because he was the president of the convention, and the provision relating to the appointment of the Inter-State Commission was inserted at his instigation, was carried with the overwhelming support of a body of probably the most eminent public men who have ever been gathered together in one Australian assembly. Later in the debate, Mr. Kingston said -

It seems to me that when, in one clause, you provide that the decision of the Federal Parliament on the subject of State rates can be reviewed or abrogated by the Inter-State Commission, if you are going to allow the Constitution to remain in this shape that the Federal Parliament can either appoint that commission or hold its hand, you run a very great risk of the Federal Parliament refusing to do anything, or delaying to do anything, to call into existence a body which will, in the slightest degree, review the Parliament’s decisions. … I call the attention of this convention to the necessity of creating, So far as they can, this Inter-State Commission independently of any subsequent legislative act on the part of the Federal Parliament . . . What is the good, I venture to ask, of having a commission to review, to some extent, the decisions of the Federal Parliament as to State rates, if that commission owes its existence to the Federal Parliament, and is subject to the Parliament for the continuance of its existence, and if its constitution may be repealed or altered at any time?

When the final attack on the proposal was made by Sir George Turner, and before the vote was taken, Mr. Kingston said -

I have no other option than to vote for the principle affirmed in the .clause itself, putting within the four corners of the Constitution the express determination that there shall he an Inter-State Commission.

If I have not made it abundantly clear that the Melbourne convention, which approved the final form of the Constitution, was firmly resolved that an Inter-State Commission should be appointed, I do not know what words mean. The convention debates show clearly that a decision with regard to the appointment of the commission was not to be left to Parliament. Doubts having been raised as to whether Parliament might not postpone or decline to appoint the commission, the convention laid it clown, in the most explicit terms, that the Inter-State Commission was to be constituted. This meant that there should have been an Inter-State Commission from the inauguration of federation, whether it was operating, as the framers of the Constitution intended it should, or not. The reluctance on the part of the Parliament to appoint the commission has given rise to criticism in those States which feel that they have suffered certain disabilities under federation. They quite naturally believe that the function of the InterState Commission should be to see that justice is meted out between the States and they contend that the commission should have been appointed.

Senator Courtice:

– Was not the Senate constituted for the purpose of protecting the States?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I thought I had already made it clear that, in the opinion of the convention, the functions of an. Inter-State Commission differed from the functions of the Senate. Let me repeat what Mr. Reid said -

Surely Parliament will have more important work to do than that of acting as an Inter-State Commission.

By that, I think, he meant that the duties of th’1 commission would be entirely different from the work of the Senate.

Senator Courtice:

– Has not Parliament the responsibility of ratifying or rejecting recommendations of the Interstate Commission?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That interjection leads me to the consideration of the judicial powers exercised by the Interestate Commission. Most honorable senators will recall the finding of the High Court that the commission had no authority to make a judicial decision or to issue an injunction. But I wish to emphasize first a rather different point, namely, the precise work of the InterState Commission. Any honorable senator who studies the reports presented by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which in recent years ha3 been doing work which could have been entrusted to the Inter-State Commission had it been in existence, will admit that the statistical information contained in them is of great value, and could not very well have been compiled by members of Parliament sitting as a Parliament. Those reports are the results of intensive study in a committee room. It would be impossible for members of Parliament, whose time is fully occupied with the consideration of so many bills and reports bearing on legislative measures, to devote time to detailed examination of statistical information relating to claims by States. Moreover, members oi Parliament have not that detachment of mind which one would expect from members of a properly constituted Inter-State Commission whose deliberations would not he influenced so much by political or party considerations. I hope I have made my point clear to honorable senators.

It will be recalled that a Labour government, desiring to authorize the Interstate Commission to exercise its power to the fullest extent, and not, I imagine with the intention of impairing the usefulness of that body, passed an act conferring on the commission very much wider powers than it had previously possessed. The commission duly exercised those powers, which later were challenged hy the Government of New South Wales. The case was heard in 1915. It was held that section 301 of the Commonwealth Constitution did not authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth to constitute the Inter-State Commission a court, and therefore the provisions in Part V. of the Inter-State Commission Act 1912 were declared ultra vires the Parliament of the Commonwealth. This view was held by Chief Judge Griffith and Justices Isaacs, Powers and Rich, Justices Barton and Gavan Duffy dissenting.

The Inter-State Commission has no power to issue an injunction.

The whole court held that none of the provisions of the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914, of New South Wales, violated the provision in section 92 of the Constitution that trade, commerce and intercourse anions; the States should be absolutely free and that therefore the Wheat Acquisition Act was ultra, vires the Parliament of New South Wales. The decision of the Inter-State Commission was reversed. Chief Justice Griffith, in his judgment, made clear the distinction between judicial powers and powers of adjudication. He said -

It is plain, therefore, that the word “ adjudication “’ is well known to lawyers and regarded as apt to describe the functions of an administrative body entrusted with quasi-judicial powers. On the other hand, no instance has been found in which it has been used by a legislature of the British dominions to create a court … In my judgment, the functions of the Inter-State Commission contemplated by the Constitution are executive or administrative, and the powers of adjudication intended are such powers of determining questions of fact as may be necessary for the performance of its executive or administrative functions, that is, such powers of adjudication as are incidental and ancillary to those functions . . . For these reasons I am of the opinion that the Inter-State Commission was not in any relevant sense of the word a court.

It was really the excessive zeal of the then Labour party in trying to give to the commission powers that it should not have tried to give to it that caused the trouble. In other words, it was the mistake of Parliament rather than of the commissioners themselves, although they also were at fault, which resulted in the commission crashing completely, and going out of existence. Mr. Justice Barton did not agree with Chief Justice Griffith, but I do not think it necessary to my argument to read his judgment. The judgment of Chief Justice Griffith makes it clear that, in his opinion, the intention was that the commission should have administrative and only quasi-judicial powers. It is interesting to read also what Sir William Harrison Moore, had to say on this subject. His views are interesting to lawyers, because the second edition of his work - The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia - was issued before the Inter-State Commission was created. His book was published in 1910, whereas the commission was not created until 1912. He said in his book -

O’Connor and Higgins J J. regarded the section as mandatory so far as the establishment of the commission was concerned, but as to its powers, they were such merely as Parliament conferred upon it . . . leaving the Parliament its general power of disposing according to its discretion for the administration of the laws of trade and commerce . . The commission was suggested by the Inter-State Commerce Commission in the United States and the Railway and Canal Commission in the United Kingdom, and may be expected to exercise the powers of each of those bodies.

I think that the following is particularly to the point: -

The commission is a special tribunal whose duties, though largely administrative, are sometimes semi- judicial, but it is not.a court empowered to render judgments and enter decree?.

That waa written before this question arose. It is an accurate statement of the position as subsequently laid down by the High Court. If the Parliament and the commission had taken those words to heart before the commission entered on its labours, the lawyers who were concerned in the case would have been worse off than they were eventually. That clears up the judicial side of the question; obviously, we cannot create a commission with full judicial powers.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– We cannot create a commission that can function as a court of it3 own motion, but we can create a body from which we may get judgments which will enable us to move some other body.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– In any case there may have, been delays. I have frequently advocated that, as the Constitution makes mandatory provision for the Inter-State Commission, that body should be re-constituted as quickly as possible. Thus, on a broad basis, I am glad to see that that is about to be done. However, it is proposed to reconstitute it on much narrower lines thai those of the original commission. I think the lines are too narrow. It may be difficult, indeed, it is practically impossible, to transfer the work of the Tariff Board to this commission. Lt will probably find plenty to do, however, without having to concern itself with tariff matters which, in themselves, are a full-time job for specially qualified men.

I wish now to refer to the guidance that we have been given with regard to the Inter-State Commission by the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which said -

It was suggested in evidence before this Commission that the position of three States dependent on grants from the .Commonwealth Government, and the position of the State of Queensland, of which a large section of the population is dependent on the price of sugar fixed from time to time by agreement between the Commonwealth and State governments, and of other States claiming bounties and concessions, point to the advisability of appointing some independent body which will advise on such applications, and will - to repeat the nhra.se used by Mr. Deakin, of the Inter-State Commission - be “ the eyes of Parliament “. Tn the absence of such a body there must be a danger lest, in addition to the competition between rival parties for the votes of hlic electors by offers of economic benefit’, there should be added the possibility of com petition for the votes of the States by offers of grants ot of special legislation.

The royal commission’s report also said -

Section 101 of the Constitution provides that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. and we recommend that the Inter-State Commission he re-constituted. . . .

We t’,ink that important duties may be carried nut by an Inter-State Commission in addition to those mentioned in the Constitution and in the Act of 1012. In the section of thi” report dealing with the financial relations of the Commonwealth and the State* (section xix 1 . reference is made to the sums of money granted from time to time to the

Status of Western Australia and to Tasmaniaand to the grant to South Australia recently recommended by a royal commission. Those grants were recommended partly on the ground that thu finances of a State hail been adversely affected by Federation and partly on the ground that the State was in financial difficulties. We think that a permanent body should lie established which should continuously watch the effect of Federal laws and administrative machinery on the various States, and should be in a position to advise, either with or without a special inquiry, whenever applications for grants are made to the Commonwealth.

The same permanent body should, we think, inquire into and report on such transactions as the agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and of she State of Queenslaud relating to the purchase and disposal of the sugar crop and the embargo on imported raw sugar, and inquire into and report on proponed bounties, and the effect of the Navigation Act on the various States.

The advantage of the establishment of such a body foi- these purposes would, we think, be twofold. There would be a tribunal in existonce equipped with a knowledge of Australian conditions and of the working of the Federation, and the claims of necessitous States would no longer afford an opening to the benevolence or the opportunism of political parties. An analogy may be found in the position of the Public Works Committee in the Common wealth and in some of the States. Public works costing more than a prescribed a.mount will not in normal circumstances be sanctioned by Parliament unless favorably reported on liv the Public Works Committee, and in our opinion it would be to the advantage of the Federation if it were provided by law that grants under section !)(! wore not to be made unless first recommended by such a body as the Inter-State Commission.

Senator Collings:

– Make the joh comprehensive. Why not give the commission power to say whether Parliament should be abolished and then name a dictator?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– The honorable senator does not seem to realize that the Inter-State Commission has exactly the same right to exist as has this Parliament. It has as much right to take power from Parliament as Parliament has to take power from it, but, of course, not so much power to do it.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The special three years’ defence programme contemplated by the Government has already been outlined in this chamber by the Minister for Repatriation (SenatorFoll). In doing so, he stated that approximately £45,000,000, or about £15,000,000 a year, will have to be found for the completion of the programme.

The defence expenditure programme for the current year totalled £11,500,000, This amount was found as follows: -

Practically the whole of this £11,500,000 will be expended or committed by the 30th June next, thus leaving no balances in the Defence TrustFunds uncommitted.

As I have mentioned, £6,000,000 only is being found from the budget of 1937-38, and as the Government is to provide for a programme of £15,000,000 in the coming year 1938-39, £9,000,000 must be found from either revenue account or loan account over and above that found from the budget in 1937-38. Obviously, the Government is not yet in a position to give final consideration to this matter until the results of the current financial year are apparent, and until it is possible to make reasonably accurate forecasts of the accounts for 1938-39. Some months must elapse before this can be done.

In the meantime, it is necessary that steps be taken to launch the programme without delay. Certain orders for additional defence equipment should he placed immediately. Expenditure at an increased rate must be authorized and the authority of Parliament obtained for certain items of expenditure which have not yet come before it. The Government is, therefore, asking Parliament for authority to raise loan moneys to the amount of £10,000,000, and will regard this appropriation as authority for the capital works set out in the schedule to the bill. It is, of course, not necessary that all of the £10,000,000 should be raised at once, or even in the near future. On this authorizing measure being passed, £4,000,000 out of the £10,000,000 will be raised at an early date. As an indication of urgency, I may say that it is desired to place orders before the 30th June next for capital works of a total value of £5,250,000. During 1938-39, a further £7,750,000 will be authorized. Very little of the expenditure of the £5.250,000 to which I have just referred will he expended during the current financial year. The loan programme of £10,000,000 will be allocated in the following manner : -

These particulars are set out in the schedule to the bill.

During the remainder of the current year, it will be necessary to go ahead with certain proposals which will involve an increase of ordinary maintenance votes as apart from capital authorizations. The additional expenditure for the year is comparatively small - about £70,000 - and it is proposed to find this sum from Treasurer’s Advance.

The financial agreement exempts the Commonwealth from placing its defence loan requirements before the Australian Loan Council, and generally exempts them from the provisions of the financial agreement. In view, however, of the fact that the present £10,000,000 required for defence will be taken out of the same market as that which supplies the requirements for State loan programmes, the position was explained to the recent meeting of the Loan Council in Melbourne. The Loan Council, as the result of its deliberations, decided to raise a loan of £10,250,000 in the near future. Of this, £4,000,000 will he for defence, and the balance, £6,250,000, for public works, and the like, for the various governments. The reason for combining the requirements of the Commonwealth and States in one loan was to minimize the number of appeals’ to investors for loan moneys. The Commonwealth pro- portion of £4,000,000 will cover defence requirements during the early part of 1938-39.

As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the new loan cannot be placed on the market until Parliament has passed the bill under consideration, and has thereby authorized the schedule of expenditure. Honorable senators will, therefore, realize that it is very desirable for the measure* to he finalized as soon as practicable, and I accordingly ask them to co-operate with the Government in securing its early passage. As the subject-matter of the bill has been discussed from all aspects during the debate on the statement made by the Minister for Repatriation, there is, I think, no necessity to discuss in detail its principles, but if any information is desired by honorable senators I shall be happy to supply it in committee.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– “We are now called upon to deal in concrete form with the Government’s proposed loan expenditure for defence purposes, which has been the subject of debate following upon statements made by representatives of the Government in this chamber.

It is quite unnecessary, I am sure, to repeat at this stage that the Opposition is definitely opposed to the authorization of vastly increased expenditure upon defence, particularly as it has not been taken into the confidence of the Government. It has not been informed, except in very indefinite terms, just how the money is to he spent. “While the Opposition is of the opinion that the defence of Australia is exceedingly important, it also holds the view that no defence expenditure should be permitted without the most careful scrutiny, because the history of every country, including Australia, is that nothing offers such inducement to profiteering and nepotism a3 money spent upon military operations.

In response to comments by various members of my party and, perhaps, myself in particular, with respect to the farming out of defence undertakings to private enterprise, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) stated that no profits will be made by any industrial concerns, but the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Foll) told honorable senators very clearly that action is to be taken to enable a close check to be made of the cost of production of munitions, and to facilitate the control of profits made by the manufacturers. I assume that a responsible Minister of the Crown would not suggest that profits are to be controlled if he were convinced that there would be no profits. Members of the Opposition continually protest against being treated like school children when they ask for information.

There is a great difference between the amount indicated in the schedule as required for defence works and that for which authority is sought to be raised by loan, and the whole of the money is to be paid to people who have no right or title to it. I repeat what I said yesterday that all y government that proposes to finance preparations for war by raising a loan commits an unmoral act. The nation receives no return upon money spent in preparation for defence or upon the conduct of a war. A war, whether of aggression or defence, causes the destruction, not the production, of assets. When I referred yesterday to wasting assets it was suggested that I was so foolish as to think that money could be spent only on war materials that could not be classed as wasting assets; but every penny spent upon the production of war material is spent upon the creation of wasting assets, and in a few years many of the works detailed in the schedule of the bill will not be merely wasting assets, but will have disappeared entirely. 1 know the reply I shall receive to the comment that in order to pay for defence, social services will be starved, and I perceive the sophistry of it. I shall be told that if we are not properly prepared for defence our social services will be of no value whatever because they will become non-existent. Sophistry of that kind does not cut any ice with the Opposition. Every country that engages in war declares that it, is a war of defence, not aggression. Australia is in no different position in that connexion from any other country. Members of the Labour party agree that Australia must be defended. Our opponents in this chamber and in the other chamber assert that we have no defence policy, but T have in my hands a document from which I have quoted on previous occasions. I do not propose to read at length from it now, but I would point out that the party’s defence policy occupies two pages of the document and explains exactly what we propose for the defence of this country. I shall read some passages in an endeavour to make it clear that those who charge the party with having no defence policy are untruthful and arc guilty of falsehood.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should use that expression in referring to members of this chamber.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I have no desire, Mr. President, to run counter to your ruling, .and I <hall say thai they are guilty of inaccuracy. 1 draw the attention of honorable senators to this statement in the Labour party’s defence policy : -

The institution of a scientific search for additional oil storage, natural or artificial, throughout the Commonwealth.

– It had not even thought about the matter. If it had, it would have given the railway workshops some of the orders which have been placed or promised elsewhere.

– What is the present standard?

Senator Collett:

– Low !

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Another loose, irresponsible, and haphazard statement made by the Leader of the Opposition was that this Government was doing nothing to ensure for Australia oil supplies and reserves. If there is anything on which the Commonwealth Government has expended money, it is the endeavour to find local supplies of oil. The expenditure by the Commonwealth Government on that objective runs into millions of pounds. In New Guinea, alone, the previous Government, a Labour Government, spent no less than £300,000 in boring and searching for oil. Last year the Commonwealth Government spent many thousands of pounds in subsidizing companies engaged in the search for oil on the mainland, and to-day it is not only subsidizing companies but also providing them with boring plants. The Newnes shale project also has been mentioned, and Commonwealth Oil Refineries is another phase of the continuous attempt of the Commonwealth Government to ensure local supplies of oil.

The honorable senator said that loans are not justified for defence purposes. I agree with him to this extent : Loans are unjustifiable for annual expenditure on defence maintenance; such cost3 should be borne out of revenue. Expenditure on defence should be looked at in the same light as premiums for fire or life assurance. A business man would be a fool to try to pay fire or life insurance premiums out of capital; he would of course try to pay them from current revenue. If I were running a business I should pay premiums out of profits, but if I were acquiring an appliance to prevent or fight fires, it would be justifiable to charge the cost to capital account. The expenditure provided for in this bill is mainly of a capital character; very little of it relates to maintenance.

The honorable senator made another rash and irresponsible statement - he is a very rash person, although one would expect that at his age he would have acquired discretion - when he said that the greater part of this money would be expended outside Australia. He had before him at the time the schedule which the Minister has circulated.

Senator Collings:

– Does the right honorable senator suggest that I have had time to read it?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The honorable senator should have read it before he made his rash statement. If he had done so, he would have seen that the only considerable item of expenditure overseas is the £1,000,000 for two cruisers. The greater part - I should say 85 per cent.- of the total of £10,000,000 is to be expended in Australia. When dealing with a subject so important as this bill, the honorable senator should show more sense of his responsibility.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

.- In speaking of this bill, I do not wish to pose as an expert on military matters, although I have always endeavoured to study them, and I take a deep interest in them. I wish first of all to congratulate the Government on the steps it is at last taking to endeavour to prepare this country for its proper defence. Personally, I am sorry that these moneys were not borrowed at an earlier date, and that the defence programme was not put forward some years ago, because now, with world conditions as they unfortunately are, it will be necessary to hurry on that expenditure, with the result perhaps that we shall not be able to get as much value for £1 spent as we would have got had we started some years ago. Unfortunately, this Government has to revive and develop the defences of the country after the Scullin Labour Government had scrapped practically the whole of them, including those national assets, the Duntroon Military College, and the Royal Australian Naval College at Jervis Bay. In fact, under that Government, the defence of Australia was scrapped almost entirely, and that is one of the reasons why such a large sum of money as that provided for in this bill has to be raised; we have to build on foundations which, if they were not ruined, were at least, seriously weakened by the neglect of the Labour Government. The closing of the colleges at Duntroon and Jervis Bay was tragic. Both of those institutions were a great credit to Australia,, and they turned out some fine young officers who subsequently distinguished themselves in India, Great Britain and Australia. I am very glad that the military college has been returned to Duntroon, and that the number of cadets to be trained there - and very efficiently trained too - are to be increased as are the number of naval cadets at Flinders.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Collings), in his tirade this afternoon, gave me the impression that he was not so very sincere about the defence of Australia as he pretended. He said, that Labour sincerely believes in the adequate defence of Australia, but he went on to say that the money to be raised under this bill would largely go to profiteers, and be spent outside Australia. * The implication was . that unless every penny was expended in Australia, n)o money should be spent on defence at all. With reference to the proposed purchase of cruisers from Great Britain - thank goodness that we have the Mother Country willing and able to provide us with the vessels and not at profiteering prices - the honorable senator said that if they could not be built in Australia, they should not be acquired at all. Senator Pearce who had a long and distinguished experience in the Defence Department has just said that of this loan of £10,300,000, fully £8,500,000 will be expended in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition also spoke about employment. If he is sincere, he must know that the expenditure in Australia of more than £8,000,000 on the building of aerodromes, aeroplanes, sloops, munitions and everything else connected with defence, will give a vast amount of employment to our people.

I have already referred to the calibre of the officers that have graduated from the Royal Military College, and this brings me to one point at which I am in disagreement with the Government. It intends to import an InspectorGeneral of the Australian Military Forces from England. I think, that our Australian generals conclusively proved in the last awful world war that they were equal to any. I believe, and I have a great deal of support, that there was no better general in the field than the late Lieutenant-General Sir John Monash. He was only one of many able Australian generals who distinguished themselves. Some of them are alive and fit to-day, and 1 think their services would be available to the Government for the work for which a man is to be imported. It would be invidious to mention names, but if honorable senators read books of military history, whether British, French or Gernian, they will see that the Australian generals were very good indeed, and as they have proved their worth, I think it is a pity that the Government did not decide to appoint an inspector-general from within Australia.

Australia’s air force, although not large is of excellent quality. I attended the air pageant held recently at Flemington, Victoria, and was proud of the exhibition. It was a magnificent display in every detail. As all the world knows, Australia has airmen equal to the best that any country can produce. Many Australians, like the late Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith and others, have made world-wide reputations as airmen. Within three weeks of the pageant, in which I have referred, 4,000 young men in Victoria alone offered themselves for service in the Royal Australian Air Force. There is no dearth of men who are willing to be trained as pilots, but there is a shortage of machines. I am glad, therefore, that much of the money to be raised under this bill will be expended on the air force.

Senator Collings and others of my friends opposite - I am glad to call them friends, for alt-hough we differ politically, 1 realize that we are all trying to do the job that we are sent here to do - urge that the railway gauges should be standardized. I am opposed to spending millions of pounds on the standardization of the railway gauges, not only because of the huge cost of the undertaking but, more particularly, because railways are becoming obsolete. The transport of the future will be along roads and in the air. Motor transport is more mobile than is transport by rail, but, of course, air transport is the most mobile of all- In a large country like Australia, air transport is essential for defence purposes. I am giving away no secret when I say that when Earl Kitchener was in Australia in 3909, I was sent for to consult with him, because at that time I was the managing director of a pastoral property on the Barkly Tableland, where good horses were bred. The British Government contemplated buying that and other properties as horse-breeding depots for the Indian army. One of the last things that Earl Kitchener said to me was that it would be most unwise to build the north-south railway. He explained that its construction would play into the hands of any aggressor who might attack Australia. He went on to say that one of the greatest factors in the defence of Australia was the barrenness of the coastal strip in the north. He said that in the event of invasion, the driving of the herds before the invading army, as was done in Africa, would seriously hamper the enemy’s progress.

Having emphasized the importance of motor and air transport, 1 now exhort the Government to provide large supplies of oil fuel in Australia. The present supplies are inadequate, and, moreover, they are neither well spaced nor sufficiently concealed. Whilst 1 agree that the production of oil from shale and other products for peace use is not sound economically, I regard it as absolutely necessary to press on with the Newnes oil scheme and the distillation of fuel oils. I also urge that large stocks of oil fuel be provided in different parts of Australia where they will not be too conspicuous. Recently I asked a question about oil supplies and was informed that the Government had the matter in hand. I commend the Government for its general defence policy, but I am not convinced that it has made adequate provision for supplies of oil fuel in case of emergency.

In an excellent speech, Senator Courtice mentioned yesterday that the British Empire had made great efforts to preserve the peace of the world. I was glad to hear that statement from the honorable senator, and also his approbation of the scheme of re-armament that had been undertaken by Great Britain. Not many people in Australia realize that the Mother Country is expending more than £300,000,000 a year on defence. Not onethird of that expenditure would be necessary to protect Great Britain itself - a comparatively small country with a population of about 47,000,000 people. It is spending the bulk of the money for the defence of the dominions, of which Australia is one, and also for the protection of the trade routes. Its huge navy is not necessary to defend the British Isles, but it is required, and is maintained,- in order to protect the interests of the Mother Country’s children, who are scattered to the four corners of the world. I disagree with the suggestion of the Labour party that we should defend only Australia. Where is it proposed that we should defend Australia? Surely it is not suggested that we should allow an enemy to come here, and take no action until we are attacked? It is quite probable that in time of trouble our base will be at Singapore. With our Navy, our Air Force, and any other means that we have, we must work in the closest co-operation with Great Britain and the sister dominions of New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, and we must not wait until an enemy attacks us. The Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr. Curtin), in his famous blue book, said that Australia should not send its Navy or its man power outside the 3-mile limit. My friends of the Labour party have never explained to my satisfaction what they would do in the event of the sister dominion of New Zealand being attacked. Should we remain within the 3-mile limit, or go to its assistance? Great Britain’s efforts have been marvellous. It is still policing the seven seas of the world, not in an aggressive manner, but with a view to ensuring freedom of trade to every nation. One of the greatest bulwarks for the safety of Australia is, undoubtedly, Singapore.

I have said that I agree with the Labour party in stressing the importance of the Air Force. I have been told by military authorities in this country, and I was told in Europe during my visit there last year, that Australia would be reasonably safe if it had a sufficient number of bombing planes stationed along the north coast of Australia. Although it has not been shown that a bomber can sink a battleship, it can certainly sink transports. Any country that proposed to attack Australia would need a tremendous number of transports. A fleet of transports can travel only as fast as the slowest vessel in it, and they are most vulnerable to attack from the air.

Senator Cunningham yesterday made an excellent speech, in which he stressed the poor physical standard of the trainees in the militia. I am very sorry that that is so. It shows that there is something deplorably wrong, and indicates the desirability of establishing some form of universal physical training throughout Australia. In a country with such a wonderful climate, which produces the best food in the world, and which turns out athletes who can hold their own anywhere, there is no excuse for such a large proportion of our young people who offer themselves for service in the militia being discarded on account of physical unfitness. That condition of affairs should be remedied. A little drill would not do any harm. Senator Collings has stated that a certain degree of hardship is associated with the training. I maintain that there is none. While undergoing training as cadets at school we had a lot of fun and sport, and were taught to be manly. That training did us good both physically and morally. It gave us self-respect. Surely the young men of Australia would not object to being made physically fit and to being taught something about the rudiments of defence. I refer, not to compulsory military training for the purpose of sending men overseas, but to some form of physical military training which would fit them as good citizens to defend their country in case of emergency.

Honorable senators opposite have also referred to the subject of employment. Senator Collings has said that the most important thing in this country is not to spend this money on defence, but to make the lot of the people as nearly ideal as possible. I agree with the latter suggestion. Any human being who has any feeling for his fellow men surely must always wish to help the under-dog, and to raise the standard of living. That is only ordinary decency and humanity, and, in my opinion, common sense. I would point out, however, that during the regime of the Scullin Government the unemployment figures in Australia reached the high level of 30 per cent. Since the present Government came into power, employment has increased to such an extent that to-day the figures are down to as low as 8 per cent., which is below normal. Unfortunately, there will always be a few persons who are more or less unemployable. I consider that, in addition to a stocktaking of the health of the youth of Australia, there should be a national stocktaking, because in time of emergency everybody should be able to do something. We should collect information with respect to the man power of Australia between the ages of 18 and 65 years, or even older than that. After a man has passed the military age, he should be an expert in some branch of work or industry. We should all be ticketed, so that in time of national emergency we may be allocated to the particular jobs for which we are best fitted. I am very keen on such a proposal, and believe that steps should be taken to implement it.

In regard to finance, some honorable senators opposite have said that the Commonwealth is more or less crippling the States. What do we find? Out of the money raised by the Loan Council the Commonwealth Government has made available to the States for public works, roads and farmers’ debt adjustment many millions of pounds. [ consider that it has been liberal to the States. It is entitled to 20 per cent, of the total amount borrowed by the Loan Council, yet at the end of the year, after making a very liberal allocation to the States for farmers’ debt adjustment and roads, it will take only 4 per cent., instead of the amount to which it is entitled.

I support the Government in the raising and spending of this money, with the proviso that I should like provision to be made for a much stronger air force in the north of Australia, and immediate steps to be taken for the distillation of oil supplies for emergency purposes.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I have listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks that have been made on this important measure, especially those made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings). The honorable senator evidently thought it was advisable to arm himself yesterday with a double-barrelled blunderbuss, one barrel to be discharged yesterday, and another to-day. Fortunately, both barrels were filled with blank cartridges, with the result that, when they were discharged, there was only a lot of smoke and noise. That has been the only effect on honorable senators. In this chamber Senator Collings has gained the reputation of being a past-master in the art of using what I know as soap-box oratory. This oratory may go down with an audience on Yarra Bank, in Melbourne, the Domain, in Sydney, or the place where people of the same type congregate in Brisbane. To use it here is to insult the intelligence of the people in Australia, of whom we are the representatives. Time after time the honorable senator has stood up in this chamber., and, in unmeasured terms, denounced the Government which controls the destinies of Australia to-day with respect to practically every matter it has brought forward for discussion. As a political acrobat I know of no one who is the equal of the honorable senator. He can always trim his sails to meet what he thinks is public opinion.

The important matter that we are now considering deserves rauch more serious attention than has evidently been given to it by Senator Collings, who is the leader of a very important party in this chamber. Personally, I must view the matter from an Australian viewpoint. I have first to consider whether any government is justified in retaining its position unless it is prepared to take adequate measures for the defence of Australia. At the outset I ask myself if Australia is worth defending. The only answer that 1 can make is that there is no country on the face of the earth which offers as many advantages to the square yard as Australia offers to the square foot. Every one who has travelled knows that, and, if fair, is prepared to admit it. If that be so, surely we arc justified in considering favorably any measure which may have for its object the more adequate defence of this beloved country !

Senator Courtice:

– Wc arc all agreed on that; why labour it?

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator professes to believe in the defence of Australia. He demonstrates that belief by denouncing an honest effort to grapple with the problem with which we are confronted.

Senator Courtice:

– I object to borrowing money to do it.

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator says he is prepared to do anything he can to help to defend this country, provided that a defence policy can be put in operation without borrowing the money necessary for the purpose. He argues that the wealthy capitalists of Australia should be called upon to pay out of their pockets for the cost of the defence of this country. He professes to be a champion of the rights of the under-dog - the working man - and is always denouncing the government of the day for not using every means possible to reduce the volume of unemployment in this country; yet he advocates a course of action which, if followed, must necessarily increase unemployment immediately. If he is earnest in what he says, he would withdraw for all time from the capitalist - I do not know whether he has in mind the individual or the financial institution - the amount requisite to carry out those measures of defence which are needed in Australia. He does not realize, apparently, that that money is to-day being utilized in every direction in the best interests of the mass of the people, that it cannot be of any use to the holder of it unless it is in circulation earning something, and that it cannot earn anything unless it is enabling people to produce. The honorable senator ignores that fact, and suggests that we should “be very much better off if WE imposed enormously heavy taxation, or even went so far as to confiscate the capital of those who have always had to pay heavy taxation in time of war, or when any costly measure of defence has had to be put in operation. The great bulk of the receipts from taxation come from those to whom Senator Collings refers as the capitalists. He knows that, but is not prepared to admit it, because he does not think it would find favour with individuals of the type he is so apt at addressing in the capital cities of the Commonwealth. f heartily support this measure, but, at the same time. 1. regret very much the necessity for it. I had hoped that long before this, signs of peace would have appeared upon the horizon. Honorable senators must admit, however, that until the. last week or two no such signs were in evidence. Certainly, there has been a change for the better in the international situation, hut no such change was apparent when this Government determined to do its duty with regard to the defence of Australia. I remind honorable senators i that, although Great Britain, for many years now, has been the greatest factor in preventing another world war, it has been a much greater factor in that respect since it decided upon a policy of re-armament. Honorable senators opposite should not forget that fact. Although Britain has by its influence prevented, time after time, the outbreak of war during the last eight or ten years, its influence for peace has been much greater recently because it has embarked upon a policy of active defence and re-armament.

shall confine myself to the broad principle of the measure as to whether we should authorize the expenditure of so large a sum of money in order to strengthen our defences. Should the need arise, our country is worth fighting for, and such expenditure is necessary. I repeat my regret on that point, and take this opportunity to suggest that we in

There shall be no raising of forces for service outside the Commonwealth or participation or promise of participation in any future overseas war except by a decision of the people.

Senator Collings:

– We will stand to that.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The Leader of the Opposition threatened to tell us yesterday about Singapore, which is our greatest bulwark; but I am certain from the general tone of his criticism that he is not going to say anything favorable concerning that important base. Only last week he summed up the policy of his party in these nebulous words -

We say our first line of defence is to make this country worth defending for the people who live in it.

Apparently he forgets that if it be worth defending by the people in it, it may be worth attacking by people outside. Not long ago he told us of another first line of defence which included, I think, some method of improving the physical standard of the young. Senator Courtice should not be surprised, as the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Foll) reminded him, if this violent language of his leader provokes some violent language against his party. He should remember that “ those who take the sword shall perish by the sword “, and that those who resort to violent language and misrepresentation of a policy of a party must not be surprised if the party against which it is directed is prepared to defend itself by the same weapon which he himself has employed. He should remember that misrepresentation may beget misrepresentation. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that the British Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain) had stated that the situation had eased, but that according to Mr. Lyons it was ten times worse. Mr. Lyons said no such thing.

Senator Collings:

– I did not say that Mr. Lyons said that it was ten times worse. What I did say was that Mr. Lyons said that the position had worsened.

Senator BRENNAN:

– What Mr. Lyons said was that although a decrease of tension was noticeable, there was still cause for anxiety. Senator Pearce asked Senator Collings if the situation was not such as to cause anxiety, but he declined to answer the question. Yet, if he knows anything of world affairs he must know that that is so. He knows what happened in Austria a few weeks ago, and he also knows what happened in the demilitarized zone on the Rhine a year or two ago. He should realize that we live in an age when the rules of international law no longer operate and that in international affairs we have got back to the law of the Scottish Borderers “ He may take who has the power, and he may keep who can”. Are we not wise in taking every precaution against these things ? But, as Senator Pearce said, the Leader of the Opposition draws no distinction between defence and war. As has already been pointed out, to be prepared for waT is the best way to avoid it. There is an old Latin saying “ If you want peace be prepared for war “. Those who have read Gilbert Chesterton’s autobiography will recall that he said that if he were asked what caused the war he was not going to say that it was the Kaiser, but he would say it was the pacifist. If it had been made clear, he said, before the war and at its outset, what England’s position would he, the war would not have taken place, but, owing to the cry of pacifism, it was believed that Great Britain would not intervene and Germany was tempted to go on. There are old sayings about “jumping our hurdles before we get to them,” or “ meeting trouble half way “ and “nodding to the devil before you meet him,” hut that does not apply to defence. Defence is necessarily a slow process, and there is no virtue in a peace which consists in sitting still until our enemies are strong enough to destroy us. So far as I can understand, and having regard to the criticism which every measure of defence receives from honorable senators opposite, that, apparently, is their policy. As Lord Halifax said a few days ago -

The world faces the ugly truth that, in the sphere of power politics force alone decides. It is the ruthless application of power politics which so profoundly shocked the world and which is responsible for the grave apprehension which exists in so many quarters to-day.

About the same time, the United States of America Secretary for State, Mr. Cordell Hull, said -

The momentous question is whether the doctrine of force shall become enthroned again and bring in its wake international anarchy and a relapse into barbarism or whether we shall work singly in co-operation for peace.

The Leader of the Opposition further said that there was no fear of war in Australia unless old men talking in the Senate produced it. I can only say that if old men talking in this chamber should bring on war, it is a wonder we are not in Armageddon. Mr. Cordell Hull further said -

The interest and concern of the United States of America, whether in the Far East, other parts of the Pacific, or in Europe or elsewhere, are not measured alone by the number of American citizens there or the volume of investments or trade. We have a much broader and more fundamental interest., namely, the orderly process of international relationship. What is most at stake throughout the world to-day is the future of order. We want to live in a world in which the forces of militarism, territorial aggression, and international anarchy in general, will become utterly odious, revolting and intolerable to the conscience of mankind, and in which there will be no longer one code of morality, honour, justice and fair play for the individual, and an entirely different co.de f«r government and nations.

As Australia will not be able in the future to look to the British Navy for assistance as has hitherto been the case, we ought to do as much as we can to improve our own position. The purpose of Labour senators in participating in this debate is to make constructive suggestions to that end. I regret that a good deal of the debate on this measure has consisted of personal remarks. While I am a member of the Senate, I hope to devote myself to constructive criticism. I commend that attitude to honorable senators opposite. They should be more tolerant, of the views of those who differ from them. At present only four or five Labour senators occupy seats in this chamber and the Government ought to act reasonably towards them. I am sure that after the 30th June, when the Opposition strength in the chamber will be greatly increased, we shall act in a reasonable spirit towards the Government.

I observed in the speech which I delivered last night, that one of the most effective steps which the Government could take towards the fulfilment of any defence programme would be to expedite all efforts to ensure an independent oil supply for Australia. In New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland, and other States which have shale deposits, intensive action should be taken to produce oil. States which have no shale deposits, but which have coal-fields, could also be ncluded in a plan with this object. It can never be said that Australia is selfcontained until independent oil supplies are assured within this country. If, as part of its defence policy, the Government would take some effective acton in this regard, it would simultaneously be doing a great service to commercial interests. During the inquiry in 1933 into the possibility of producing oil from shale at Newnes, the price of petrol in Sydney dropped very remarkably. This is shown by the following extract from the report of the Newnes Investigation Committee presented to Senator A. J. McLachlan, as the then Minister in Charge of Development for the Commonwealth, and to the

Honorable R. S. Vincent, Minister of Mines for New South Wales : -

Since the committee’s appointment in February, 1933, the oil companies have reduced the retail price of petrol from 2s. and 1$. lOd. per gallon, to ls. 7d., and ls. 6d., the present ruling rates for first and second grade spirits respectively in Sydney. Vor a time, the prices were as low as ls. 5d., and ls. 4d. per gallon.

In my opinion that fall in price indicated very clearly that the major oil companies wished to show that it would not be a payable proposition to attempt to produce petrol in this country. This view is substantiated by the next paragraph of the report which, reads as follows : -

This reduction has had a profound effect on the economic aspect of the shale oil industry. Twelve months ago, a company producing shale petrol at Newnes and selling through its own distributing organization, would have received 4d. more for each gallon of petrol than it could hope to realize to-day. On an output of 0,000,000 gallons of petrol per annum this difference represents a loss in revenue of approximately £100,000 each year.

– Probably, I was drawn off the track by the Leader of the Senate. I am of the opinion, however, that the Government should take very definite action to develop the oil resources of this country.

I think also that the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow should have been developed to a greater extent than has been the case. In a recent issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the following report, appeared - tn peace time Lithgow Small Arms Factory was not intended to work at full capacity, the Minister for Defence said yesterday.

He was referring to a report that the factory was now employing 400 men, only onefifth of its capacity.

Although the factory would become progressively busier in the next few months, it would fall well short of its capacity.

I do not wish to challenge the accuracy of the figure given in that report, but I know that only 370 men are employed in the Small Arms Factory at present. In this connexion, I direct attention to the following items in the detailed schedule of expenditure which the Government has made available in connexion with this bill:

Contribution towards the amount required for building and the provision of plant and equipment for armament annexes. These will be established as extensions to selected factories at present engaged in commercial manufacture, so that the experience of their technical managerial staffs and the skill of their employees may be available for the manufactureof munitions in an emergency. The loca tion of these annexes has not yet been finally decided upon.

It has been stated in this chamber by the Minister and by Government supporters that it is proposed merely to place a few machines in factories already in existence. Now, however, we find that £60,000 is to be provided for buildings, and this notwithstaziding that the pioneer munitions factory, that at Lithgow, is working to only one-fifth of its capacity. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are to be expended upon exploring the possibilities of manufacturing munitions by private enterprise while the Government’s own munitions factories are almost idle. The Minister for Defence, who represents a New South Wales constituency, will surely have to answer to his electors for this, just as the members of this Senate will have to answer to the electors in the various States for the unfair allocation of defence expenditure throughout the Commonwealth. I believe that economy should be subordinated to efficiency in defence matters, and that every effort should be made to promote employment among our own people. I am far from satisfied with the position in regard to the Lithgow factory. Hundreds of men in the district who have been trained in the use of the various machines are now out of work. During the hearing of an application recently for increased wages and improved conditions by workers in the factory, the manager stated that he could take men from the gate, and put them to work on any of the machines in the factory within 24 hours. It is clear, therefore, that it is not necessary to have skilled labour to tend these machines. They are fool-proof, and can be worked by men almost entirely unskilled. I admit that there is a shortage of skilled labour in the engineering trade, but that does not affect the Lithgow factory. I have been informed that there has been machinery in that, factory for years that has never been opened up.

I suggest to the Government that it should give consideration to the claims of States other than Victoria for a share in the defence expenditure, so that the carry ing out of the Government’s defence programme may help to reduce unemployment in all the States.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.During the last weekI have become more than ever convinced that the expenditure of this money is necessary. I understand from the remarks of honorable senators opposite that the recipe for avoiding war is to cultivate friendly relations with other countries. I remind them, however, that a certain section of their supporters is actively engaged at the present moment in antagonizing a friendly nation by refusing to load that country’s ships with commodities necessary for its industrial life. The worst feature of the affair is that the country thus being antagonized is the very one from which we have reason to apprehend the greatest danger in the future.It may be’ true ‘that; at the moment, that country is not having things all its own way in the little “ scrap “ in which it is engaged, but it will not forget what some of our workers of Australia are doing at the present time. Things of that kind stickin the memory in after years. It is for the Government of Australia to say what goods shall go out of the country or come into it. The Government should exercise its authority in this matter, and see that the laws are obeyed.

Senator Courtice:

– The honorable senator does not suggest that the Labour party is in sympathy with the action of which he complains?

Senator LECKIE:

– I have not paid that it is, but the action is being taken by supporters of the honorable senator’s party.

Senator Collings:

– The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Curtin) successfully used his influence with one section of the people to whom the honorable senator has referred, and caused them to change their attitude.

Senator LECKIE:

– I do not believe that the responsible leaders of the Labour party support the boycott, but the fact remains that a section oflabour is refusing to obey the Government and its own leaders. I appeal to honorable senators opposite to use their best endeavours to prevent their supporters from thus antagonizing a friendly nation. I have recently received information that these boycotts are to be extended, ‘but I hope the information is untrue. Two years ago,when the Government invited the Parliament to impose sanctions against Italy, there was a tremendous outcry from honorable senators opposite, but now a section of their party is doing the very same thing in circumstances much more dangerous. I appeal to honorable senators opposite, for the sake, not only of Australia, but also of their own party, to exercise what disci pline they can among their supporters. If they are not able to do so, the Government should step in to ensure that the laws are obeyed.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South. Australia

– I support Senator Ashley in regard to the two points he raised in his speech. The first one is in connexion with the provision of armament annexes, plant, &c, for which the amount provided in the bill is not very large. It is only £60,000 for buildings, and I should not have been disposed to cavil at it, if it is really necessary for defence purposes, had it not been that we were definitely assured by the Minister only yesterday that plant and equipment only were to be found by the Government, the firms concerned being responsible for the buildings.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Perhaps the money is to be used for the extension of existing buildings.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That cannot be intended, because it has been stated that the location of the annexes has not yet been decided.

The other point is very much more important, and we should have a statement from the Minister regarding it. 1 refer to the division of defence works among the various States. All the States have been claiming that it is only fair that the actual defence construction work should be divided as far as possible among them. We have had an assurance from Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), that, so far as is possible, this would be done. I have glanced through the schedule dealing with the allocation of items of expenditure, and I have discovered only one or two which can definitely be said to concern my own

State. One is a proportion of the expenditure in Melbourne, Adelaide and Hobart, of £80,000 for the modernizing of fixed coast defences that existed before the development programmes were started. As Adelaide is only one of the three capitals mentioned, the probability is that the expenditure there will not exceed £15,000.

Senator Leckie:

– Under the heading “ Laboratories and inspection “ there is provision for expenditure on the extension of proof facilities at Wakefield.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I should have been better pleased if Senator Leckie, when speaking this evening, had told us that Victoria appeared to be getting a rather disproportionate amount of the total defence expenditure. He might also have suggested that some of the smaller States should get a little more. The item to which he has directed my attention is an expenditure of £50,000 for additions for metallurgical laboratories, chemical defence purposes and other scientific equipment, but it is impossible for one to . say what amount of this is to be expended in any particular State. I raise these points now because Senator Ashley mentioned the matter, and I thought that the Leader of the Senate might, in his reply, deal with them, and so save time when the bill is in committee. An examination of the schedule would suggest that New South Wales and Victoria are not doing so badly, for ‘I notice that £320,000 is to be expended in connexion with the explosives factory at Maribyrnong, £200,000 at the ammunition factory at Footscray, £300,000 at the ordnance factory, Maribyrnong, and £150,000 at the small arms factory, Lithgow, also £’275,000 is set down for construction work at Cockatoo Island. Having in mind the importance of those establishments, I do not suggest that a disproportionate amount of the money available is to be expended in the States in which they are situated ; but I rose to point out - I think the matter should be raised now - that if all the States expect to have to pay for the defence of this country, they equally expect to participate in the work created by that expenditure.

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

There has been a steady decline of the prices of those metals. The Leader of the Opposition speaks with a recklessness which ought not to characterize a man of his age and wide reading. At times, he almost appears to defy the lightning when hu is speaking. He suspects every one, and he is particularly critical of war profiteers, but I assure him that there will be no profiteering in this business, if the Government can prevent it.

Objection has also been raised to bori owing money abroad. Senator Cunningham, that genial gentleman who recently reached us from Western Australia, stated that this bill provides for borrowing £2,000,000 abroad. That is not so. When the time comes to justify the borrowing of £2,000,000, the position will be explained.

Senator Cunningham:

– The £2,000,000 is part of the £43,000,000 to be expended over three years.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– It is not provided for in this bill. That is my point. When the proper time arrives, the proposal to borrow that money can be discussed. The honorable senator said that the only policy of the Government was “follow Britain’s lead”.

Senator Cunningham:

– I did not make any such remark.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I accept the honorable senator’s statement. The honorable senator then went on to deal with unemployment. I remind him that a sensible rider jumps the fence immediately in front of him, and considers the next jump while his horse is moving towards it.

Both Senator Duncan-Hughes and Senator Ashley were critical of the provision for the erection of additions to private factory buildings. At this stage it is not proposed to disclose where some of these buildings and certain fittings will be situated. It is sufficient to say that they will remain the property of the Government, to be used as and when required.

Another point raised was the allocation of expenditure between the States. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby), who has grappled manfully with an herculean task, has supplied me with the following information: - Works and buildings in Queensland will aggregate £88,000, while maintenance and services in that State will represent another £396,000. The total expenditure in Queensland will be about £484,000. Works and buildings in New South Wales will aggregate £507,000, compared with £438,000 in Victoria, the reason for the smaller sum in the latter State being that more buildings are necessary in New South Wales than in Victoria. For other capital items £954,000 will be expended in New South Wales compared with £1,617,000 in Victoria. Maintenance and services will represent about £3,000,000, and £2,898,000 in New South Wales and Victoria respectively. However, 1 do not propose to discuss the nation’s defence programme in terms of States. I am afraid that another honorable senator, to whose speech I listened with interest, is suffering from “ Lithgowitis “, and although I have a great respect for Lithgow, I have a greater regard for the necessities of the situation and the interests of the nation. In South Australia, under £250,000 will be expended, the reason being that that State is the least vulnerable portion of Australia. Western Australia is apparently not so happily situated, for about £500,000 is to be expended in that State. The expenditure in Tasmania is estimated at £183,000. A large amount is provided for the Northern Territory, for reasons which honorable senators will understand. I think that I have answered most of the points raised during the debate.

Another opportunity will be afforded me to deal with the subject of oil supplies. At this stage, I can assure honorable senators that every effort is being made to produce oil locally, and also to provide adequate supplies of imported oil. Any further information which honorable senators may desire in committee, I shall be happy to supply. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4. (Purpose for which money may be expended.)

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– The bill authorizes the raising of £10,300,000, but the items in the schedule total only £10,000,000. What is the reason for the difference?

Senator Collings:

– That represents the rake-off for obtaining the money.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The difference represents the expense of flotation and discounts, which are always added in the way shown in this bill.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 900

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator A. J. McLachlan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday next at 3 p.m.

page 900

ADJOURNMENT

Travelling Arrangements of Members. - Censorship of Broadcasts

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

I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Some time ago Senator Leckie raised certain questions in relation to the arrangements for the travelling of members of this Parliament. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) had the matters looked into and has since supplied me with the following information: -

The Federal Government pays the sum of £160 per annum in respect of each member of Parliament for travel over the State railways of Australia, and this sum is distributed among the State Commissioners in the fixed proportions agreed to by them.

The £160 per annum is a special concession rate, and includes the provision of sleeping berths. It is a lower rate than is charged for an all-lines annual ticket over the New South Wales railways alone, the charge there being £170 per annum, not including sleeping berth fees. It is very much lower than any rate that would be quoted for an annual ticket over all the State railways.

The interstate railway journeys are faster than they were, and very large sums of money are being expended on rolling-stock, &c., to ensure more comfortable travelling. In the near future, more time will be cut off the journeys between certain of the capitals.

Any adjustment in regard to the amount charged for railway travel would need to be considered by the Railway Commissioners of Australia as a whole, but it is not considered that there is any justification for any change in the present arrangement.

Since this afternoon, I have had an opportunity to peruse the report of the remarks of Judge Foster, to which Senator Pearce referred earlier in this sitting. In my view, attacks by the judiciary on the legislative or executive organs of government are as much to be deprecated as are attacks by the legislative or executive organs on the judiciary. This matter, however, appears to be one of taste rather than one calling for action such as that suggested by the right honorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 May 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1938/19380505_senate_15_155/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 5 May 1938

QUESTION

RANDWICK MILITARY HOSPITAL

Senator DEIN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator FOLL:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · UAP

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP OP BROADCASTS

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES FOR SURF LIFE SAVING CLUBS

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BROWN:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

PAPERS

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

QUESTION

GAS MASKS

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:UAP

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator FOLL:

QUESTION

ENGLAND-AUSTRALIA AIR MAIL SERVICE

Senator COLLETT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

MOTOR CARS AND MOTOR CAR CHASSIS

Senator COLLETT:

Senator FOLL:UAP

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA

Senator FOLL:UAP

TIN PLATE

Primage Duty

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:UAP

QUESTION

HICKORY FOR TOOL HANDLES

Senator PAYNE:TASMANIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOAN

Senator GRANT:TASMANIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Home-Consumption Price

Senator CUNNINGHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

OIL AND PETROL SUPPLIES

Senator BROWN:

Senator FOLL:UAP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL 1938

QUESTION

DEFENCE PROGRAMME

Senator FOLL:Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · UAP

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

Senator FOLL:

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Gibson:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senate
5 May 1938

Senator DEIN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · UAP

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator GRANT:
TASMANIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

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