Senate
18 May 1939

15th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 15th Parliament
  3. 1939

The President (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 479

TINNED PLATE INDUSTRY

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– by leave - The Right Honorable the Prime Minister has issued the following statement in relation to the establishment of the tinned plate industry in Australia: -

The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has submitted proposals for the manufacture of tinned plate. These proposals have been reviewed by the Government. Successive Commonwealth Governments have been anxious to see this great industry established in Australia. To this end, a deferred protective duty was incorporated in the Customs Tariff in 1920. Up to the present the whole of our requirements have been imported. Australia’s dependence on tinned plate is vital, as it is used for the canning of many essential foodstuffs, as well as for a large number of other commodities. The project involves a capital expenditure of from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000 in the tinned plate plant alone, whilst substantial additional outlay will be required for ancillary services. Direct employment would be given to about 1,000 hands. In addition, an appreciable number of men would be employed indirectly, such as in the mining of iron ore and coal, in the production of the necessary steel, and in transport services. The Government is intensely interested in the proposal to establish this industry in Australia and has decided to refer the matter immediately to the Tariff Board for public inquiry and report. All interested parties, including the canners of Australian foodstuffs, will therefore be afforded an opportunity to express their views on the proposal. The Tariff Board is being asked to ascertain whether assistance should be given to the production of tinned plate in Australia, and, if so, the form which such assistance should take. In order that this inquiry may be completed as expeditiously as possible, the Government of the United Kingdom has agreed that any evidence which tinned plate manufacturers of the United Kingdom may desire to submit should be given to the Tariff Board within eight weeks from the date of reference. Under the Ottawa Agreement the arrangement is that United Kingdom manufacturers should have three months in which to furnish evidence. As the result of this special arrangement the Commonwealth Government expects to receive the Tariff Board report in about ten weeks’ time.

The Government of South Australia is interested in the proposal to establish the tinned plate industry in Australia, and has formulated a plan for an extensive water reticulation system to provide adequate supplies of water to Whyalla in the event of the industry being estab- - lished and that site being chosen. The Commonwealth Government has under consideration a request from the Premier of South Australia for Commonwealth co-operation in this matter.

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

– If the Tariff Board should recommend to the Government that assistance be given, how soon will the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited he in a position to establish the works and supply Australia’s requirements ?

Senator McLEAY:

– I am not able to give the exact date, but I understand that the company would proceed with the immediate establishment of the industry.

page 479

MOTOR CAR MANUFACTURE

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– by leave -

In the House of Representatives yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) set out in the following terms the general principles in the mind of the Government in relation to the manufacture of motor cars in Australia: -

  1. The Common wealth . Government has definitely decided that motor vehicle engines and chassis are to be manufactured in Australia and that there should be no undue delay in establishing the industry.
  2. Defence preparedness, industrial expansion, conservation of overseas funds, immigration, employment and utilization of Australian raw materials are among the principal reasons underlying this decision.
  3. The Commonwealth Government is not able to grant a manufacturing monopoly to any single company.
  4. The Commonwealth Government desires that any company formed to undertake manufacture should be Australian in character and policy.
  5. The Commonwealth Government considers it essential that the prices of motor vehicles to be manufactured in Australia must he reasonable and the public interest in this respect will be protected.

The Commonwealth Government has not made any decision as to what its desires would be on the subject of the proportion of the capital of any company formed which should be Australian subscribed. Proposals which are under consideration embrace the following: -

  1. A company with all Australian capital.
  2. A company with Australian capital in combination with capital subscribed by an overseas motor vehicle manufacturing organization - the respective proportions to be determined at a later date.

page 480

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF ARTIFICIAL FIBRES

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Is it a fact that cheap rayon and staple fibres are being imported into this country?
  2. If so, what quantities, of these fibres have been imported each month since the 1st July, 1938?
  3. What is the duty per lb. (if any) payable on these fibres?
  4. What is the approximate landed cost per lb. in Australia.
  5. Is it a fact that large quantities of these artificial fibres are being blended with pure wool and the resultant manufactured articles sold as woollen goods?
  6. Will the Government have investigations made by the Tariff Board into these questions with a view to protecting the growers of pure wool against the unfair competition of imported artificial fibres?
  7. Will the Government introduce legislation providing for the correct description of all apparel displayed for sale, in order to protect the Australian public from being sold goods the texture of which is misrepresented?
Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

– The information is being obtained.

page 480

QUESTION

DETENTION OF JAPANESE PEARLING LUGGERS

Judgments of Judge Wells

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

Will he make available to members of the Senate the last three judgments of Judge Wells in the cases in which certain Japanese sued the Commonwealth in- respect of its action with regard to pearling luggers?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

Only two judgments in the matter were delivered by Judge Wells and copies of these have been laid on the table of the Library for perusal by members of the Senate.

page 480

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GROUP SETTLEMENT SCHEME

Senator CLOTHIER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What is the total amount owing to the Commonwealth for balance of fares paid under the Group Settlement Scheme in Western Australia?
  2. How many persons are indebted under this scheme?
  3. Is it a fact that such persons are required to report their financial position every three months or at other intervals?
  4. Is it a fact that persons so indebted are threatened with prosecution by the Crown Law Department ?
  5. Will the Government consider remitting this liability in all cases, or in any case, for instance, where the basic wage is the only income.
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The information is being obtained.

page 480

QUESTION

YAMPI SOUND

Compensation of Company - Survey

Senator CLOTHIER:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

What amount of compensation will be paid to the company that was developing Yampi Sound when the embargo was imposed on the export of iron ore? ‘ ‘

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– Payment of compensation has not been considered. Any claims which the company may make will be dealt with in accordance with the decision given in May, 1938, that “ The Government will be prepared to examine and consider equitable claims for the reimbursement of expenditure which up to this date has actually taken place in connexion with developmental operations directed towards the exploitation of our iron ore resources for export “.

Senator FRASER, through Senator Keane, asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What amount has been expended, up to the end of April, in connexion with the survey undertaken at Yampi Sound?
  2. What number of men are employed in connexion with the survey, and to what extent have the tunnelling operations proceeded?
Senator FOLL:

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

  1. ?19,246.
  2. Forty-three men. Tunnelling operations are proceeding satisfactorily in Nos. 4 and 5 cross-cuts and a further tunnel at Arbitration Cove has been approved.

Dr. Woolnough is now on his way to Yampi to inspect the work.

page 481

QUESTION

DEFENCE CONTRACTS

Albany Woollen Mills - Ipswich Rail way Workshops - Western Australia.

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
through Senator Keane

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

What have been the total purchases by the Department of Defence from the Albany Woollen Mills, Western Australia, for the last ton months, showing -

Quantity and variety of materials.

Contract price.

The total value of contracts now entered into with the Albany Woollen Mills?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The information will be obtained and a reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as early as possible.

Senator COOPER:

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

  1. What arrangements (if any) have been made for the manufacture of defence materials at the Queensland Railway Workshops situated at Ipswich?
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to build an armament annexe, at these workshops?
Senator FOLL:

– A reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as early as possible.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. . Is it a fact that all of the recent contracts for the making of uniforms for the Defence Department went to the Eastern States?
  2. Is it a fact that in the past Western Australian firms have shared in contracts of this nature, and that the results have been satisfactory to the Government?
  3. Are there any grounds for the complaint of young men in the Clothing Trades Union of Western Australia that the Federal Government wants them in the militia, but is not prepared to give them a share of its work?
  4. What steps does the Government intend to take to remove the cause of this complaint?
Senator FOLL:

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

  1. The most recent tenders for bulk requirements of clothing wore invited throughout the Commonwealth and closed on the 31st March. As a result of those tenders, contracts were placed in all States of the Commonwealth except Western Australia, where the prices tendered were too high to permit of acceptance.
  2. Prior to the invitation of the bulk tenders referred to in (1), tenders were invited in and confined to each State for its particular requirements of militia clothing. This action was taken on account of urgency, but the prices paid under the contracts arranged in Western Australia were generally higher than under those in other States.
  3. The Government is not aware of complaints of the nature referred to.
  4. As I have to-day explained in reply to another question by the honorable senator, tenders are generally invited throughout Australia for the bulk requirements of the Defence Department and delivery is accepted f.o.b. in the several States, the Commonwealth bearing the cost of freight. Manufacturers in Western Australia, in common with those in other States, thus have an opportunity of competing on an equitable basis for defence requirements not only for their own State, but for the very much larger requirements of the Commonwealth as a whole.

page 481

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF POTATOES

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

In view of the big decline of the price of potatoes, is it the intention of the Government to permit importations of potatoes into the Commonwealth after the end of the present month ?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The matter is at present under consideration by the Government.

page 482

QUESTION

AIR FORCE COURT OF INQUIRY

Chairman

Senator KEANE:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

In view of the congestion in the Federal Arbitration Court, will he see that the Chairman of the suggested Air Crash Inquiry Board is selected from some other jurisdiction?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

The selection of a Judge to constitute the Air Force Court of Inquiry is at present receiving consideration. As it is expected that the present proceedings will take no longer than a few days, it is considered that the selection of a Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration would not unduly interfere with the work of that Court.

page 482

QUESTION

CAPTAIN GREGORY

Purchaseof Cattle Station

Senator AMOUR:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Captain Gregory, of Darwin, chief of the Australian pearl industry, has bought a cattle station at Adelaide River?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The information- is being obtained.

page 482

QUESTION

MILITIA FORCES

Strength and Equipment

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

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

  1. What is the total strength of the Militia Forces in each State of the Commonwealth up to date?
  2. Have all members been supplied with the necessary equipment for the purposes of war; if not, why not?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The information will be obtained and a reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as early as possible.

page 482

QUESTION

CONTRABAND

Introduction by Aircraft.

Senator KEANE:

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

What precautions are taken by the Customs Department to ensure that contraband, especially drugs, is not introduced into Australia by commercialor other aircraft?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

All baggage brought by persons arriving in Australia by aircraft is examined at the first port of call in Australia and all precautions are taken to guard against smuggling.

page 482

QUESTION

POLICING OF COMMONWEALTH AWARDS

Senator KEANE:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Has the attention of the AttorneyGeneral been drawn to the many serious complaints from employers working under award conditions that they are unable to compete with the products of sweated labour, and from union officials and employees to the effect that large quantities of goods, hitherto produced under award conditions, are now being produced by sweated labour in backyards and private dwellings?

  2. Will the Attorney-General inform the Senate of -

    1. the industries and number of employees, working under Commonwealth awards, who a.re receiving protection by Commonwealth inspection and supervision; and
    2. the amounts recovered in each industry arising out of such inspection and supervision?
  3. Will the Attorney-General sympathetically consider the appointment of sufficient inspectors adequately to protect all industries covered by Commonwealth awards, particularly those industries in which refugee and other labour is being exploited?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Certain complaints have been received, particularly in relation to conditions in the clothing trade, and these are now receiving consideration.
  2. The information is being obtained.
  3. The matter of providing for additional inspection, either by the appointment of further inspectors under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act or by arrangement with the States for the utilization of’ the services of State inspectors, is receiving the sympathetic consideration of the Government.

page 482

QUESTION

MOTOR CAR MANUFACTURE

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a press report of a conference between the British car interests and the Customs Department, held at Canberra on the16th May, is to the effect that “While the British interests were not anxious to extend their activities to Australia, they desired to secure the first option on any manufacturing rights granted by the Commonwealth Government ?
  2. If this report he correct, will the Government see that any options given are at least first extended to Australian manufacturers?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The Government’s policy with respect to motor car manufacture is outlined in the statement that I have just read to the Senate. The point raised by the honorable senator is covered by the statement. No such question as is alleged arose.

page 483

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Congestion of Phonogram Business

Senator KEANE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. ’ Is it a fact that on Saturday last, the 13th May, the day preceding Mother’s Day, serious congestion occurred in the phonogram section at Melbourne, when apparently the business was so heavy that undue delay and inconvenience were caused to those desiring to use this valuable facility?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General inform the Senate as to whether the phonogram business exceeded the anticipations of his department on that day, and, if so, whether the necessary steps will be taken to see that additional lines are made available on such occasions?
Senator McBRIDE:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

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

page 483

QUESTION

MINISTERS AS DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES

Senator CAMERON:
through Senafor Keane

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many members (if any) of the present Ministry are also directors of companies?
  2. If any, what arc the names of such Ministers, and what are the names of such companies? .
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– No reason can be seen why information ‘ of this personal character should be supplied to the honorable senator.

page 483

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the number of unemployed is increasing, notwithstanding that a considerable volume of employment has been provided by the defence programme?
  2. If the number of unemployed is likely to be greatly increased when the defence programme is completed at some distant date, will he arrange an. all-party conference to discuss and formulate some plan which will tend to lessen the likelihood of nation-wide unemployment and its attendant misery?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The unemployment figure for March quarter (1939) was 9.8. The figures for 1938 quarterswereasfollows:- -
  1. Consistent with its powers under the Commonwealth Constitution, the Commonwealth Government will do everything possible to prevent any increase of the number of unemployed in Australia.

page 483

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIRFORCE

North- Western Australia

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

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

  1. With reference to the expansion of the Royal Australian Air Force, is it intended to establish an air squadron at a suitable point in the north-west of Western Australia?
  2. If not, why not?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Air Force is being developed on a national basis and, owing to its inherent mobility, is able to move quickly to any threatened point throughout Australia. In peace time, squadrons are located in those vulnerable areas which are most likely to be attacked, so that those forces ‘can come into immediate action if required. Two squadrons are located near Perth and two others will shortly be based on Darwin. The organized air routes available will enable these squadrons to move to the north-west coast as and when required, being reinforced as necessary from units . located in other States.

page 483

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Senator BRAND:

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

  1. Has any action been taken to bring the civilian or reserve rifle clubs into closer cooperation with the Militia Forces under Australian measures for home defence?
  2. Has the staff officer for rifle clubs, in each State, a nominal roll of fit members of military age?
  3. J.S the Minister aware of the valuable services rendered during the Great War by over-military-age rifle club men in guarding vulnerable points in various parts of the Commonwealth ?
  4. Is the Minister aware that these skilled marksmen are the counterpart of the British army sniping units which are armed with telescopic sighted rifles similar to those used by rifle clubs?
  5. As rifle club men have expressed a desire to receive instruction in the use of the Lewis gun and the Vickers machine gun, will facilities be afforded them, where it is possible to do so, to acquire that knowledge?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The staff officer for rifle clubs in each State has a nominal roll of all members showing the age, but not the medical fitness or otherwise, of each member.
  3. The Minister is well aware, and very appreciative, of the fine service rendered by rifle club members both at home and abroad during the Great War.
  4. Accuracy in shooting is certainly one of the main requirements of a good sniper, but there are many other requirements and much training in subjects such as the use of ground camouflage, scouting and tactics has to be given to members of sniping units, and it cannot be accepted that all Australian rifle club members possess these qualities as natural attributes requiring no further training.
  5. Where there are militia units in the vicinity facilities already exist for rifle club members to receive instruction and view demonstrations of the handling and working of Lewis and Vickers guns and other weapons.

page 484

QUESTION

AVRO-ANSON BOMBERS

Senator KEANE:

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

How many Avro-Anson aeroplanes have been involved in accidents during the past two years, and what were the total casualties, both killed and injured?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

Anson aircraft have been involved in five fatal accidents during the last two years, resulting in fifteen deaths and injuries to three others.

page 484

QUESTION

AERODROMES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the construction of additional aerodromes,* both civil and defence, in Western Australia?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

New aerodromes arc to be established at Busselton and Esperance. I am informed by the Minister for Civil Aviation that investigations regarding a possible alternative government civil aerodrome at Perth are almost completed, and it is anticipated that a decision will soon be made. It is not considered likely that the construction by the Commonwealth Government of additional civil aerodromes in Western Australia will be necessary in the near future.

page 484

QUESTION

GREAT WAR,

Cost to Australia

Senator CAMERON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What was the total cost to Australia of the Great War of 1914-18, as at December, 1.938?
  2. What amount of such cost was paid a.s interest on loans?
  3. What amount was paid as repatriation charges and as pensions for returned soldiers and dependants?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The total at Hie 30th June, 1938, was £861.000,000.
  2. £297,000,000 (to the 30th June, 1938).
  3. War pensions, £149,000,000 (to the 30tl June, 1938). The cost of repatriation benefits (excluding administration, education scheme, grants to persons not eligible under the act, and expenditure on works under the control of the Department of the Interior) was £22,000,000. Account is not taken in the above figures of exchange or of the amounts repaid by other countries for medical treatment, &c, of their soldiers resident in the Commonwealth, or of amounts repaid on loans and for interest, insurance and sundry services. The figures, therefore, are gross. (Note. - Figures to. the Hist December, 1938, ire not readily available.)

page 484

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE SUBSIDY

Senator CLOTHIER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon, notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to extend the superphosphate subsidy to an unlimited quantity purchased by producers?
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to review the amount of the subsidy?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. No.
  2. The existing subsidy applies to fertilizer used during the year ending the 30th June, 1939. The question of the extension of the subsidy beyond that date will be considered by the Government in connexion with the budget for the ensuing financial year.

page 486

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator KEANE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

What collaboration has been undertaken between the Federal and the State Governments to ensure work avenues for the unemployed young men of Australia?

Senator McLeay:

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer: -

The youth employment scheme inaugurated by the Commonwealth and carried out in collaboration with the States is a planned effort to provide training and work avenues for youths, of eighteen to 25 years of age who have been deprived of opportunities owing to the” depression of industrial conditions.

The Commonwealth is finding £400,000 (including £200,000 provided last year and a further sum of £200,000 being provided this year) and the States an approximately equal amount, representing a total of about £800,000.

The fund is being expended in training, both, tuition and equipment being provided, supplementation of wages of trainees unable to earn full rates during the process of training, sustenance and provision of employment.

page 486

SPECIAL ANNUITIES BILL 1939

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 17th May (vide page 407), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– This is a measure which requires more than ordinary attention. It would be easy for the members of the Opposition to express approval, of its provisions ; but in this as in other instances, great care has been taken to prepare a background thus making it very difficult for us to say what ought to be said regarding it. I can say, however, with perfect confidence, that I am expressing the earnest thoughts of every member of the party which I lead in this chamber when I say that our hearts go out in sympathy to Dame Enid Lyons and the members of her family. I know also that a mere expression of sympathy unbacked by some practical effort isof very little value ; but

I say quite definitely that the duty of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber is to every widow in Australia and not to one only. Therefore, before I commit myself or the members, of the Opposition to this proposal I should like to know a great deal more than I know at the moment concerning the intention of the Government with respect to all other widows in Australia. I am anxious to avoid introducing even a suspicion of bitterness into the discussion of this bill. In fact I am more than anxious to avoid it; but if the task with which I am confronted is difficult and unpleasant I am not to blame. The policy of the Government is at fault. This Government and those which have preceded it in recent years have always been bitterly opposed to -the payment of widows’ pensions.

Senator Dein:

– Not at all.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I demand from Senator Dein” or from the Ministers whom he supports, who occupy positions of greater responsibility than he is ever likely to, a definite declaration as to the attitude of the Government towards the payment of a pension to all widows in Australia. Because I do not expect an answer either from Senator Dein or from the Ministers whom he supports I propose to answer the question myself. Is there one line in any Commonwealth statute which evinces any desire whatever to grant a pension to Australian widows?

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– What of the national health and pensions insurance scheme?

Senator COLLINGS:

– I thought that some fool would rush in where angels fear to tread. The honorable senator is well aware that under the national health and pensions insurance scheme only widows whose husbands have contributed towards a pension canreceive one.’

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– A widow’s pension is provided for all the same.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I suggest to honorable senators opposite that they should refrain from trying to do in this discussion what some of them were unwise enough- to attempt yesterday. We should endeavour to discuss this measure on a high plane, and without recrimination. Personally I -will accept the challenge in whatever form it comes. I am sent here not to fight for well-to-do widows. I have been sent to this chamber not by widows who have capitalized their families. I have not been sent here to approve of every proposal which the Government submits to this chamber. It is my responsibility to represent the interests of breadwinners who, because of the unfortunate circumstances with which they are confronted, are faced with poverty. It is that section of the community that sent us here. It is not our duty to plead for any particular widow, but in season and out of season to demand some measure of justice for all of the widows of Australia. What are the facts? On the statutebook of this country there are acts providing for the payment of pensions to the widows of deceased soldiers. These widows have not been asked to pay for the pensions they receive, but their husbands have paid for them by making the supreme sacrifice on the field of battle at the invitation of the people of this country. Others who survived death on the field of battle have made sacrifices in the industrial arena, and are now suffering mental and physical injury. What pensions do they receive? I know of a soldier’s widow who is receiving a pension of only ls. 4id. a week. I know of other cases, some of which are known to honorable senators, of soldiers’ widows receiving sums which cannot be accurately described as other than a miserable pittance. The Government has utterly failed to recognize its responsibility to these unfortunate people. Provision was made in the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill for the payment of a pension to widows towards which contributions would have to be made, but owing to the bungling manner in which this Government conducts its business we shall be asked before this session concludes to postpone the introduction of that legislation still further. Senator Allan MacDonald, who said by interjection that provision is made for the payment of widows’ pensions under that measure, should hide his head in shame because he knows that nothing whatever is likely to be done, and that widows who would be willing to contribute towards a pension will not be able to do so.

Senator Dein:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of widows receiving a pension under that scheme?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The Labour party will, when it gets an opportunity, give the people of this country a sound national health and pensions insurance scheme, under which it will attack poverty, malnutrition and ill-health at its very base by insuring against unemployment. It is not our responsibility to prescribe the remedy to-day. In this instance the Government is the doctor, and if it continues with its present policy much longer the patient. will die. Unemployment is increasing and thousands of Australians are dying annually because of the callous neglect of the Government in this respect and others.

Senator Dein:

– That is utter rubbish, and the honorable senator knows it.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Senator Dein does nothing more than convict himself by his callous interjection. In addition to soldiers’ widows and the other widows to whom I have referred, honorable senators know that there are many widows for whom nothing whatever is being done. Whenever we are released from our duties in Canberra and return to our home towns - and we are released all too frequently because this Government does not provide business to keep us here and is, in fact, a Government without a heart to feel distress or a soul worthy to be damned - our homes are besieged all day long by people with pitiful tales of the poverty and distress of widows who have been left without means, and who have to go to the washtub or undertake some other equally arduous work to provide for their innocent little children running the streets all day because their mothers cannot stay at home to care for them. Not even a miserable pittance of a pension can be obtained for these unfortunate women. Because of these facts the Labour party cannot vote for this bill.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I admit fully and sincerely that something is due to Dame Enid Lyons, and something is also due to the widows of other former members of Parliament. During recent years death has taken heavy toll of members of the Labour party in the Commonwealth Parliament. Some of us have been trying for a long time to move this incompassionate Government to help the widows of some of our former colleagues. We have failed. A former President of this chamber, who was not a Labour member, left a widow who was practically penniless. After some agitation, the Government made a grant to her, but it was nothing like the grant proposed to be made to Dame Enid Lyons. I regret to say that we have had even less success in our efforts to obtain some assistance for the widows of former Labour members of the Parliament. Perhaps because of the introduction of this bill we may be able to get the Government to do something for these unhappy women, but I am quite sure that any success that we may achieve will be due solely to the circumstances that have lead to the submission of this bill to the Parliament. However, if by any means, or from any motives, we can get the Government to do something for these widows, we shall be glad. We have not asked for a pension of £1,000 a year as provided in this bill. We have simply requested a very modest sum to keep the ravenous wolf of poverty from the doors of these homes.

Honorable senators are well aware that I have declared in this Parliament on other occasions that the salary of the Prime Minister, prior to the increase made in the last year, was not adequate. I believe that it is now adequate. I do not say that it is sufficient for a large family such as that of the late Prime Minister, but that family cannot be capitalized as far as I am concerned. The family of the late Prime Minister was his own responsibility. I have heard Dame Enid Lyons, who is an eloquent and capable woman, appeal over the air, and from the public platform, on several occasions, to the women of Australia to do their duty in motherhood. I know that she has on occasions almost brought tears to the eyes of some of her listeners. But we have no more responsibility for the children of the late Prime Minister than we have for the dependants of other deceased citizens of this country. I say without reservation that if a means test is to be applied in one case it must be applied in all cases. If the Government tells me, in a nebulous kind of way, that probably the estate of the late Prime Minister will amount to no more than £100, I shall refuse to believe that the statement even approximates to the truth unless definite information is made available. If the statement is proved to be true, then I shall say, “ It should not be true “. The late Mr. Lyons had a long term of public service. I do not in any way whatever discredit the value of his public service. A man who renders service to the public to the best of his ability, according to his faith and beliefs, should be respected for it, regardless of the political party to which he happens to belong; but I remind honorable senators opposite that whenever they allude to the public service of the late Prime Minister they have in mind only the last eight years of bis activities. If anything so extravagant as this proposal is necessary to mark the service rendered to the country by the late Prime Minister in the last eight years of his life, then those interests which he so admirably served should accept the responsibility for it at least until such time as a Commonwealth Government is prepared to accept appropriate responsibility for all widows. Some one said to me yesterday when I made this suggestion in personal conversation that that procedure would lead to bribery and corruption. I replied that it would do nothing of the sort. It is impossible to bribe a man who is dead. I was told that one Australian statesman had received a monetary reward for his services while he was still alive. People may put any interpretation they like upon that case, but the case that we are now considering relates to the widow and children of a Prime Minister who is dead. I repeat that those interests which the late right honorable gentleman served with such distinguished ability should now shoulder the responsibility of maintaining) his widow and children. They should not expect- the general community to do so.

I admit that something is due to the widow of a Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, but any consideration extended to her should at least bear some comparison with the niggardly treatment meted out by this Government to other widows. If a means test must be applied in one case in respect of dependent children it should also be applied in the other case. If the pension to Dame Enid Lyons and her children is actually paid on the scale at present proposed, this Government will convict itself of being entirely without any sense of proportion.

I greatly regret that in another place the Government was not willing to accept the liberal compromise offered by the Leader of the Labour party. I notice from the report of the proceedings in the House of Representatives yesterday that Dame Enid Lyons expressed, by letter, the hope that any decision reached would be unanimous. Yet the Government went on in its imperious way and, with the force of numbers and its brutal majority, did in this case, as it has done in other cases, exactly as it desired. An admirable opportunity for a reasonable, decent and generous compromise was offered, but the Government refused it. For that reason Labour senators in this chamber have determined to make a very decided protest. If I did not know it was too late to do so, I should even now ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to use his influence with the Government to get it to accept the reasonable compromise offered by the Labour party in the other House, in order that a unanimous decision might be reached on this bill. But unanimity is manifestly impossible while such a cruel distinction is made between widows in this country.

If I thought it worth while, I could bring numerous cases under the notice of the Senate to show that many widows in this. country are living in dire poverty and distress. The logs of their breadwinners has robbed them and their helpless little children of the means of a decent livelihood. Other honorable senators could also bring cases of this kind under notice. We do not wish to lengthen the debate unnecessarily, but I say definitely to honorable senators and also to the general community of this country that the Labour party absolutely refuses to recognise degrees of widowhood. We are not willing to differentiate in the treatment of widows. We shall not, therefore, agree to the extravagant proposal of the Government in this particular instance. Until the Government is prepared to introduce a measure for the benefit of all widows, though I do not say that it should be in every case on exactly the same basis, for that would be just as ridiculous and just as preposterous as the action which the Government is now taking, we feel that we must offer our strongest protest against the passing of this bill in its present form. We desire the Government to introduce a bill which will provide reasonable pensions, on an entirely noncontributory basis, for all widows. We are not prepared to deal with this case in this extraordinarily generous way while we leave many other widows entirely without assistance. I believe that wise statesmanship could meet the circumstances of the widows of this country.

I conclude by reminding honorable senators of a passage in the Litany of the Book of Common Prayer, which I cited when supporting the motion of condolence to Dame Enid Lyons and her children, in which we pray -

That it may please Thee to preserve all that travel by land or by water, all women labouring of child, all sick persons and young children . . . that it may please Thee to defend, and provide for, the fatherless children, and widows, and all that are desolate and oppressed.

The prayer is for all who are in distress, and for all widows. My prayer and plea here this morning is still for all widows and all orphan children. I visualize the possibility of this Parliament doing something reasonable and rational for all widows and orphan children. I oppose this bill because I believe that it seeks to do something that Ls neither reasonable nor rational.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- With my leader, Senator Collings, I yield to none in human sympathy for the widow and children of the late Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). But I believe that the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, that the pension should be at the rate of £500 a year, and not £1000 a year, is fair and reasonable. It was, however, defeated in another place yesterday by thirteen votes.

I was a member of the House of Representatives when the late Prime Minister was a member of the Labour party. I, perhaps, am not so forgiving as other members of this party and remember what he did. I have a very distinct recollection of the fact that, for a long number of years, he received the eulogy of the Labour movement. It lifted him from comparative oblivion into one of the highest places in the Commonwealth Parliament. His having a big family was, as my leader (Senator Collings) has said, his own business, but it was a commendable business. He was blessed with a wife of outstanding ability and together they rendered signal service to Australia. The unfortunate part of this matter is that the late Prime Minister was scarcely dead when a section of the press started propaganda for some large amount of money to be made available to his widow and children. That propaganda, I suggest, was the main reason for the hasty pronouncement by the then Prime Minister (Sir Earle Page) that Dame Enid Lyons and her family would receive a pension of £1,000 a year. The newspapers went so far as to say that the right honorable gentleman conferred with the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Curtin) in Tasmania, and that he had agreed with the suggestion. He did not agree. He merely expressed sympathy with the objective and said that the whole matter had to be discussed by the Labour party.

I join with the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber in saying that discrimination in the treatment of widows and members of Parliament is unfair. When the right honorable member for Corio (Mr. Casey) was Treasurer, the case was submitted to him of the late honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), an old pal of mine, who was just as hard working a member as was the late Prime Minister, because he represented one of the most difficult electorates in Australia. When he died, leaving a widow and little children, he was not blessed with many of the world’s goods, but the right honorable gentleman was so parsimonious as to suggest that a pension of £78 a year, or 30s. a week, for his widow would be fair. What was fair for Mr. Riordan’s widow should be fair for the late Prime Minister’s widow; but it was not fair, and neither would it be fair to pay such a meagre amount to Dame Enid Lyons. The widows of former members, like Mr. McGrath and Mr. James Matthews,, were given a pension of £3 a week. These men had given just as good service in the federal arena as the late Prime Minister, who, I am prepared to admit, died in harness, and gave good service, a lot of which I did not like, but which was according to his lights. They even gave longer service to the Commonwealth. A pension of £1,000 a year to the widow and children of one man and £78 a year to the widow and children of another is nauseous. I believe, with our leader, that the salary paid to the Prime Minister has been inadequate. To a degree that has been rectified.

Senator Gibson:

– It has never been adequate.

Senator KEANE:

– As a member of Parliament with no extravagant tastes, who is alleged to have £1,000 a year, I say it is inadequate now. That amount can be halved by the time a member of Parliament has paid his expenses to and from Canberra, his hotel bills, and travelling expenses in his electorates, without being liberal with tips. The office of ‘ Prime Minister is disgracefully remunerated, even with the additional allowance which is now made.

I subscribe to general provision being made for former members of Parliament. Honorable senators know the men to whom I refer. We meet them in Melbourne. Senator Gibson knows them. There are at least three former members, trail-blazers in the Australian federation, two of them original members of this Senate, against whom not one word of suspicion has been levelled, who, having served this country, lost their seats in the whirligig of politics, and are now in dire straits. Their position is even worse than that of men who have to subsist on the old-age pension. A government which is so liberal with the dependants of one deceased member of Parliament must surely take steps to provide for them. I believe that the people of Australia would wish it to do so.

In Great Britain the Prime Minister has a call on a pension of £2,000 a year on the day on which he leaves office. It is a necessary provision to ensure that the chief man of the land does not end bis days in poverty, and it is one that should form some part of the organization of this Parliament. I offer no apologies for my belief that a contributory scheme should be adopted. If it be right for men who rank high in the Commonwealth Public Service to receive on their retirement a pension for which they contribute, it is equally right that similar provision should exist for members of Parliament. Public servants have a regular job’, but whatever be their political beliefs, the job of members of Parliament is, at the most, temporary. The late Prime Minister served as Premier of Tasmania for a number of years, receiving £1,100 a year - I concede its inadequacy - and he was Prime Minister at £2,000 a year for some years. An additional £1,500 a year was provided for him about a year ago. He was not able to provide for his future in a way in which some people might have done. The Government should have checked the financial position of his family before making this submission to Parliament. Frankly. I do not know what his family is worth, but I understand that it has been said that the estate will realize no more than £100 or £200.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorable senator, on his own admission, does not know the facts; yet he criticizes the Government’s action.

Senator KEANE:

– I criticize the Government for having introduced this proposal without being able to assure both Houses that a careful investigation of the position has been made. On former occasions, officers of the public service have been detailed to make a report as to the circumstances of the families concerned and the Government has acted on those reports. That is the correct thing to do, but evidently it has not been done in this case.

Senator McLeay:

– I assure the honorable senator that it has been done.

Senator KEANE:

– I accept the Minister’s assurance, but I remind him that there is no record of it in the debates on this bill, either in this chamber or in the House of Representatives. The fact remains that Dame Enid Lyons has eleven children, three or four of whom have reached the age of earning capacity. That, leaves seven or eight children for whom provision must be made. A reasonable allowance in those circumstances would be £500 a year. Similarly placed families of deceased members have received nothing like what is suggested in this bill. In the House of Representatives, various suggestions as to the amount of the annuity were made. A payment on a sliding scale was suggested. But the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), a hot-headed man, as Prime Minister had mentioned a pension of £1,000 a year, and it was on that basis that this bill was introduced. This bill had its birth in the wrong atmosphere. If the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) had been Prime Minister at the time, the matter would have been handled in a more businesslike manner. We, being in the minority, cannot amend it, but my contention is that £500 a year would be ample. It is a pity that it was ever necessary that this bill should have had to be introduced. The Government prides itself on its long-range planning for the defence of this country. Long-range planning for the maintenance of former members of Parliament or their families should also be its policy. There should be no need to consider what the people outside will think. I have never worried about that. If I have thought that a thing is right, I have supported it. But I am sure that the people outside, at any rate those represented by Labour, would welcome it. Honorable senators on this side of the House think that provision should be made for their old age. That feeling would apply more to Labour members than to honorable gentlemen opposite, who, ordinarily, are blessed more with the world’s goods than we are. They are usually in some business and are able to withstand the jolts of political life more easily than men on this side who have only their parliamentary allowance to live on. Even gentlemen opposite know how far that goes. I have no illusions about this Parliament. When I was outside I had as good a job as I have here, and had I stayed outside I should have been far better off than I am. I am not pleading for myself, although I shall be lucky if my family is reared, but the position of honorable senators on this side is more parlous than will be the position of Dame Enid

Lyons when this bill becomes law. The Government would have the assistance of the Opposition to initiate some contributory scheme so that legislation of this description will not be necessary in the future.

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
Western Australia

– I regret that this matter has been most unfortunately handled. Shortly after the death of Mr. Lyons, the then Prime Minister (Sir Earle Page) acted rather hastily in his pronouncement regarding the amount of the annuity proposed to be paid. We all agree, I think, that, if the matter had been left open for a little while, it could have been dealt with by the Government and the Parliament in a much more satisfactory manner than is proposed under this measure. The contemplated annuity of £1,000 a year is excessive, and the case would have been met by an annuity of £500. That would have given generous recognition of the services of the late Prime Minister. Regrets arc useless at this stage, and in all probability the bill will be passed. Yet we should not overlook the fact that by_ the enactment of this legislation we shall be setting a precedent, and in all probability similar annuities will be sought from time to time. In my judgment the proposed payment is over generous and unfair to the taxpayers.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I agree with honorable senators who have criticized this bill. The word “ unfortunately “ has been used in describing the way in which the Government has dealt with this matter, but “indecently” would have been a far more appropriate expression. Members of the Ministry are not neophytes in public life; had they been inexperienced politicians some excuse might have been found for their action in regard to the proposal. In my opinion, the unfortunate lady in question will suffer for years because of the indiscretions of the Ministry in this matter.

Senator Keane:

– Misdirected enthusiasm.

Senator CAMERON:

– I leave honorable senators to form their own opinions regarding the measure. The proposed annuity is, in my judgment, in excess of the legitimate needs of Dame Enid Lyons and her children; the payment of £500 a year would have been ample in the circumstances. The needs of thousands of widows who have reared families are at least not less than those of the widow of the late Prime Minister, but the Government does nothing to help them, except to provide them with jobs as office cleaners. Women in the autumn of life should not be called . upon to do such work, but should be able to pass their days in congenial surroundings and with the peace of mind to which they are entitled. It is sad to reflect that many of them are compelled to clean out dirty offices in order to maintain themselves and, in some cases, their husbands also.

Senator McLeay:

– I have seen that at the Trades Hall.

Senator CAMERON:

– All the cleaners at the Melbourne Trades Hall are men. Once we had a woman cleaner, and she was retired on a pension of £2 a week, which was paid to her for many years. I draw the attention of the Senate to the claims of thousands of other widows which are as great as, and even greater than, those of Dame Enid Lyons. Members of the Ministry have never shown so much concern about the welfare of those women as they have exhibited in this instance.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I admit that this is a very difficult matter to discuss in this chamber, but the country can afford to be liberal in this case, in recognition of the services of a man who, in a particularly trying period, sacrificed many years of his life through undertaking the strenuous work which the Prime Ministership involves. The people of Australia are, I think, willing to do what is proposed under this measure for the widow and family of the late Mr. Lyons. I do not consider that the bill will be regarded as establishing a precedent. Australia’s Prime Minister should not receive the comparatively paltry sum now paid to him, because it is less than that of many of the public servants under him. He should get at least £5,000 or £6,000 a year. The late Mr. Lyons received a salary under £2,300 a year, out of which he entertained distinguished visitors, paid for suppers of members of Parliament on the occasion of late sittings, and even paid taxi fares for members. A considerable proportion of his salary was disbursed in that way. Members of Parliament seem to imagine that the Prime Minister draws allowances to cover the cost of many services which he actually pays for out of his own pocket. I hope that in future the Prime Minister of Australia will be treated as liberally as those occupying similar positions in other countries. If an adequate salary were paid to the occupant of this high office, a case such as that with which this bill deals should not arise.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) and the Deputy Leader (Senator Keane), referred to the widows of former members of this Parliament, but it is unreasonable to compare their case with that of the widow of the late Prime Minister. Some of the men mentioned were members of this Parliament for only three years and others for six years. This Parliament cannot be expected to make provision for the widows in such circumstances. When a man contests a seat in this Parliament he knows that the period of his political ‘ life will be determined by public opinion, and that at the end of three years he may be defeated and thrown upon his own resources. He would not be justified in cutting himself adrift from his ordinary occupation if he had a wife and family dependent on him. He should do something to enable bini to earn a living as previously, on ceasing to be a member of Parliament. I have never relied on my parliamentary allowance, and I see no reason why members of Parliament should be placed in a better position than that of people outside the Parliament. The only way to provide for payments to ex-members or their widows is to deduct £200 or £300 a year from members’ salaries, invest the money in Government bonds and allow the Government to hold the bonds and the interest, so that when a member is defeated, he can receive his own money back, with interest.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– A member could do that himself.

Senator GIBSON:

– Tes, but some will not do it. My sympathies are with Dame Enid Lyons in this matter. The life of the late Prime Minister was cut short by years on account of the worries of public office during a time such as this iki ti on had never previously experienced.

Senator Collings:

– Surely he could have had insurance.

Senator GIBSON:

– A very large insurance premium would have been necessary to provide for a Prime Minister who had a family of eleven children, and who was liberal with regard to the duties of his high office. He would have little left for insurance premiums or any other extras.

Senator Dein:

– Was he acceptable to the insurance companies?

Senator GIBSON:

– That is another point to be considered. Many members would not be accepted for insurance. We should deal generously with the widow of one who held the highest office this country could bestow.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– I take exception to the amount of the proposed annuity, because the measure was conceived at a time when sympathy and, perhaps, sentiment were greater than discretion. The circumstances in which the decision was reached also, no doubt, induced the Government to feel that it had no option but to proceed with the measure. Like Senator Cunningham, I am as sympathetic as anybody in regard to the claims of the widow of the late Prime Minister, but I shall not allow my sympathy to overrule my judgment. Despite all that has been said by Senator Gibson about the claims made upon the private purse of the late Prime Minister, and the great responsibilities which he carried, I still consider that the payment of an annuity of £1,000 to his widow is not warranted. I agree that the occupant of the high position of Prime Minister of Australia is entitled to fair remuneration for his services. It would be wrong to tempt a public man to stoop to conduct which would not be to the credit of either himself or the nation. A man occupying a responsible position in the government of this country should be paid sufficient to put him beyond temptation of that kind. Despite our different political views I say that it is to the credit of the late Prime Minister that he left the world as poor a man as any of us. But we must remember that, in making provision for these annuities, we are dealing with the people’s money.

Senator MCLEAY:
UAP

– The honorable senator is not always so concerned about the people’s money.

Senator FRASER:

– I am here for the special purpose of safeguarding it. That is the sole reason why I address myself to this bill. I believe that the amounts proposed are too great. Under the bill as it now stands, the people of this country will be asked to pay annuities totalling £20 a week to the widow and children of the late Prime Minister, the annuity in respect of the children continuing until the eldest has reached the agc of 33 years. No one in this chamber can justify the expenditure of public money in that way. In common with other honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I recognize the value of the services to Australia of the late Prime Minister, but at the same time, I believe aat annuities one half the amount proposed by the Government would be sufficient to meet the needs of his widow and dependent children.

Senator AMOUR:
New South “Wales

– A lot has been said during this debate that cannot be denied. Although the Government believes that it is doing the right thing in this matter, I sincerely trust that in future it will not be unmindful of the claims on the generosity of the nation of a great and deserving class of widows in the community, the war widows. I hope that in future it will deal more leniently with applications for war pensions made by them, that death certificates of doctors attending deceased ex-soldiers will be accepted as final evidence of the cause of death, and that the official medical history of such men will be ignored. Honorable senators have deplored the low plane to which this debate has descended. If any attempt was made to lower the level of discussion in connexion with this proposal it was made in the House of Representatives yesterday when the Prime Minister so demeaned himself as to read a letter which he had received from Dame Enid Lyons.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– At her request.

Senator AMOUR:

– In attempting to put that over the Parliament the right honorable gentleman stooped to a very low level indeed.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– Shame!

Senator AMOUR:

– During this debate it has been said that Mr. Lyons5 life was shortened because of the strain of his public office. I remind the Prime Minister that he himself contributed greatly to that strain, when, at a critical time in the affairs of the nation, he walked out of the Cabinet and got the press to stress the need for leadership. I trust that the views expressed by Senator Gibson are not shared by his colleagues on the other side of the chamber. Every Australian citizen “has the constitutional right to enter this Parliament, be he a squatter or an industrial worker. If a worker leaves his occupation to enter this Parliament he cannot continue the occupation which formerly he had followed. I feel sure that -Senator Gibson does not think that such a person would be able to continue working in industry after he had become a member of this Parliament. On the other hand, honorable senators opposite occupy higher stations in life; their activities and commercial interests can continue despite their membership of this Parliament. Yet, if they had their way they would not allow an industrial worker to enter the legislature. I sincerely trust that honorable senators opposite will endeavour to induce- the Government to initiate a contributory scheme of widows’ pensions for all members of the Parliament, be they ordinary members or those occupying the highest political positions. I hope that never again shall we have to discuss a bill such as that which is now before the Senate. The Government, however, is responsible for the measure now before us, and I have no doubt that when the Ministers next face the electors the widows and the womenfolk who are liable to become widows will make their opinion known. They will want to know why similar consideration is not extended to them. I feel that a much more equitable measure than we have now before us could have been drafted. If that had been done the bill would have received the unanimous support of all sections of the Parliament.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– I shall not oppose this bill. I rise merely to draw the attention of honorable senators to the fact that I have constantly advocated a system of .finance which would give economic security to everybody in Australia. Proof of the failure of the present unsatisfactory system approved of by this Government is seen in the fact that not even the Prime Minister of Australia can have economic security under it. So long as the present monetary system exists we shall have to take action of the kind proposed in this ‘bill. It is quite possible to give economic security to the living and to the dependants of the dead, but not under the existing monetary system.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

.- I should like to correct an impression which Senator Keane and other honorable senators opposite may easily have given that this proposal was initiated by .the former Prime Minister (Sir Earle Page) in a hurried and impetuous manner.

Senator Collings:

– It was initiated by him at Deloraine on the afternoon of the funeral of the late Prime Minister. We know what we are talking about.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) was not a member of the then Cabinet which decided what arrangements should be made for the widow and dependent children of the late Mr. Lyons. I was a member of that Cabinet, and I assure him and other honorable senators that the decision as to what should ,be done was arrived at before we reached Deloraine, and that it was not made by Sir Earle Page alone but by the full complement of the Cabinet after the whole matter had been viewed calmly and reasonably. The decision was influenced by the wonderful service which the deceased gentleman had rendered to Australia. He gave his life for his country as truly as any man ever did. There is no need for members of the Opposition to heap odium on the head of Sir Earle Pago in regard to this matter, merely because his recent utterances have displeased them. Honorable senators know that I do not belong to the party led by Sir Earle Page. I ask them to treat this matter in a fair and decent way. The members of Sir Earle Page’s Cabinet who are still members of the Menzies Government have seen fit to introduce this measure. I can assure honorable senators that the previous Cabinet was unanimous that -this provision should be made in order to give some security to Dame Enid Lyons, and in recognition of the services rendered to Australia, not only by her late husband, but also by herself.* I feel sure that she will continue to render good public service.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– in reply. - The Government accepts full responsibility for this bill. All the facts of the case have been gravely considered. It is the policy of the Government to consider each such case on its merits. I assure Senator Keane that full investigations were made, and the information made available was given to a committee representative of all parties. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives was a. member of that committee. I can do no better than quote some of the remarks made by Mr. Curtin during the secondreading debate on’ this bill. The honorable gentleman said -

One of tlie submissions of my amendment was that we should bc assured as to the needs and circumstances of Dame Enid Lyons and her family. I think that I can say that the committee has been .completely assured as to those circumstances necessitating some provision being made.

Senator Collings:

– We have never denied that; we say that the circumstances do not justify this lavish provision.

Senator McLEAY:

– Senator Keane said that it was evident that we had not made complete inquiries as to the financial position of Dame Enid Lyons. I assure the Senate that all of the facts were considered and that the Government did not come to its decision hastily. Mr. Curtin was consulted. at Deloraine when members of the Cabinet considered the matter there, but in fairness to him I add that he did not agree to any particular amount. That decision was a matter for Cabinet, and I offer no apologies for the amount now proposed.

I regret that honorable senators are not unanimous in this matter. I repeat that each case for assistance of this kind is considered on its merits, and in this instance Cabinet had in mind the outstanding service rendered by Dame Enid

Lyons to Australia and the Empire. In rendering that service she undermined her own health, and her large family of eleven children was placed at a great disadvantage for a long period. Honorable senators are aware that Mr. Lyons died a poor man - poor in a material sense, but rich in. the eyes of God and in the hearts of the majority of our people.

Senator Collings:

– If the Government takes a referendum on this measure it will know all about that.

Senator McLEAY:

– I regret that interjection, because the Leader of the Opposition often sets a high standard in debates in this chamber. It is for this Parliament to lead and advise the people as to the fit and proper thing to do. Honorable senators are entitled to express their own opinions, and, generally, the opinions expressed in this debate, whether they have been good or bad, have been stated in a reasonable way. Out of respect to the memory of. the late Prime Minister and his widow, I do not propose to labour this matter. The Government is prepared to stand up to its decision.

Before concluding I propose to answer, briefly, two statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said that this Government was always bitterly opposed to granting pensions to widows generally.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear!

Senator McLEAY:

– That is not true. The Government’s record in respect of old-age and invalid pensions alone compares more than favorably with that of any other country. I do not deny that room still exists for improvement in this class of legislation, but this Government is just as much alive to that fact as are honorable senators opposite. Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition said of the late Prime Minister, “ The special interests that he served should be asked to provide the money”. The inference to be drawn from that statement is that the late Mr. Lyons served only one section of the community.

Senator Keane:

– What about the National Union?

Senator McLEAY:

– Let us be fair.

Senator Keane:

– Let us be clear.

Senator McLEAY:

– And in being clear let us be fair.

Senator Keane:

– The honorable senator was not a member of this Parliament at the time, so he knows nothing about the matter.

Senator McLEAY:

– No man in this country ever did more for the poor people of Australia than did the late Prime Minister.

Senator Collings:

– Every piece of legislation passed by his Government was enacted in the interests of the wealthy.

Senator Keane:

– He smashed our party and made the party of honorable senators opposite.

Senator McLEAY:

– Has any man done more than the late Mr. Lyons for the invalid and old-age pensioners?

Senator Keane:

– Definitely, yes. Ho brought- in the means test.

Senator McLEAY:

– Another honorable senator opposite objected to the action of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in reading a. letter from Dame Enid Lyons in the other chamber.

Senator Collings:

– Cheap showmanship.

Senator McLEAY:

– For the information of honorable senators I point out that Dame Enid Lyons forwarded a personal letter to the Prime Minister and asked him to read it to the House. In it Dame Enid said that she would like all parties to come to a decision unanimously.

Senator Collings:

– Of course she would ; so would any other widow expecting to be provided for on that scale.

Senator McLEAY:

– In her letter Dame Enid also said that when she recovered her health and was again able to provide for her family she would not require any assistance for herself. That, I suggest, is evidence of the high spirit which she displayed in her recent great difficulty, and which she previously displayed in rendering great service to this country. It was only after considering all the facts that Cabinet decided upon the amount proposed in this measure as a fitting recognition of the public service of Mr. Lyons and his widow. The Government is prepared to stand up to its obligations in this matter. I trust that Dame Enid’s health will soon be fully restored, and that she will live to enjoy her due reward for her great services to the Australian nation.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (President; - Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from, 12.48 p.m. to 2.15 p.m.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McLeay) pro posed-

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I do not propose to debate the bill further, but I desire to make a statement regarding a difficulty which arose this morning in connexion with pairs. An unfortunate mistake was made, with the result that five members of the Government parties who had been definitely paired with Senators Aylett, Brown, Courtice, Lamp and Sheehan, of the Opposition, voted in the division. That was due entirely to a misunderstanding. I rose solely to explain why the names of some of my colleagues are not accounted for in the division list.

Question resolved in the affirmative;

Bill read a third time.

page 496

DEFENCE (VISITING FORCES) BILL 1939

– Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 16th May, (vide page 342), on motion by Senator FOLL -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– The bill before us is a simple one, and I do not intend to say much about it, as the Opposition will not oppose it. For the most part, it is a machinery measure, but there are some points concerning which I should like some information. First, it appears to me that this bill proposes to do something which has been long delayed. It has probably been brought forward now only because there was no other business ready. Secondly, I am of the opinion that it should not have been introduced before the relevant provisions of the Statute of “Westminster had been adopted by the Commonwealth. I realize that that statute is not now before us, but I cannot understand why it has not been ratified by the Commonwealth.

Senator Abbott:

– It would be of no use if it were ratified.

Senator COLLINGS:

– My third point is that this bill will have the effect of depriving members of military forces of other parts of the Empire, who may be visiting this country, of their remedies under habeas corpus proceedings. I shall not attempt to elaborate that point, because my knowledge of the law is almost negligible, but it is a point on which I should like some of the legal members of the Senate to enlighten me. In his second-reading speech, the Minister drew attention to the fact that special provision had been inserted in the British Army Act with respect to the Dominions to which the Statute of Westminster does not apply. He went on to say that those provisions do not complete the legal machinery for the governing of dominion forces when acting in co-operation, and that, therefore, legislation is desirable. That is so. In my opinion it is desirable, but the point is that the legislation is not yet complete, and will not be complete until the Statute of Westminster is adopted by the Commonwealth. As to habeas corpus proceedings, we should realize the seriousness of adopting a measure which will deprive British subjects on British soil of their fundamental British right of resort to habeas corpus proceedings, even when they are being dealt with by military courts. It may be said that we need not bother about what may happen to British subjects on British soil. I realize that the bill does not apply to Australian soldiers who may be dealt with by Australian military courts in Australia, nor does it affect any dominion which has adopted similar legislation with respect to the forces of that dominion while at home; but it does deprive members of visiting forces of their right to resort to the long treasured and jealously guarded remedy of habeas corpus.. Normally, a person detained by a military court has the right to a writ of habeas corpus which is returnable in the civil courts, which will then inquire into the legality of the detention ; but clause 6, subclause 4, provides that a certificate under the hand of the officer commanding the visiting f force that a member of that force is being detained for certain purposes shall be conclusive evidence of the cause of his detention, but not of his being such a member; and a certificate under the hand of such an officer that the persons specified in the certificate sat as a service court of the United Kingdom, or of a dominion to which the act applies, as the case may be, shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. The effect of that provision is that the certificate is a complete answer to any writ, and the legality of the detention cannot be questioned by the civil courts, except as to whether the person detained is a member of a visiting force within the meaning of the act. There may not be much in the point which I have raised, but it seems to me to be worth .considering. I should be glad of some enlightenment in regard to it.. As I have said, the bill would have been more fitting had the Commonwealth ratified the Statute of Westminster, but as the Government does not appear to be anxious to do that, this bill becomes necessary. I shall not oppose its passage.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I shall not oppose the bill but, like the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), I desire to be satisfied in regard to the effect of clause 6, sub-clause 4, which reads - .

  1. For the purposes oi any such proceedings, a certificate under the hand of the officer commanding a visiting force that a member of that force is being detained for either of the causes referred in the last preceding sub-section, shall be conclusive evidence of the cause of his detention, but not of his being such a member and a certificate under the hand of such an officer that the persons specified in the certificate sat as a service court of the United Kingdom or of the dominion, as the’ case may be, shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.

That clause may contain dangerous provisions. It seems to me that this legislation has been designed mainly fo.r a time of turmoil in Australia. It would be easy for the officers commanding a visiting force to claim that a certain man was a deserter from the force without having to prove that, in fact, he was a deserter. It might be a case of mistaken identity. In a time of turmoil an Australian citizen might be arrested because some one thought that he was a man referred to in certain court proceedings. At such a time feeling runs high, and an innocent man might be deported to either the United Kingdom or a dominion without having a chance to prove that he wa3 not the man referred to in the court proceedings. It seems to me that this bill opens a door which might lead to a great deal of trouble. It may be that in most instances such mistakes as would occur would be made quite innocently, but, on the other hand, they may be the result of spite. I wish to be assured that no innocent Australian could be arrested and not given the chance to prove his identity.. Some provision to prevent possible abuse should be inserted in the clause.

Senator COLLETT:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · Western Australia · UAP

.- The bill will remove a number of anomalies which were revealed during the Great War, when Australian troops were stationed in the Old Country. As one who had some small part in administering the law then, I shall refer particularly to the point raised by Senator Leckie. The same position existed then with regard to Australian soldiers in England as will exist in Australia in respect of forces visiting the Commonwealth. Those in charge of gaols or detention barracks iu Britain, accepted a warrant signed by an Australian officer as sufficient authority to imprison or detain any person mentioned therein. They never questioned the membership of the force of the person that they received. As regards the administration of military law in England, I mention that I, as a commanding officer - and other honorable senators were similarly placed - had no status, but that difficulty was overcome” by our being * appointed officers of the British Army, because that gave to us jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. The measure before us contains no traps, but it will remove a number of anomalies and will ensure the fullest measure of justice. I commend it to the Senate.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator’s explanation is in accordance with my reading of the bill,

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– Does this bill mean that the law applicable to members of Australian military forces will apply to visiting British troops while in Australia?

Senator Collings:

– It means the very opposite.

Senator AMOUR:

– If it makes the British law apply to British troops in Australia, and the Australian law apply to Australian troops in England, I shall be satisfied.

Senator Collett:

– That is the position.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

.- If I thought that this bill would have the effect suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), namely, take away any man’s right to habeas corpus proceedings, I should certainly oppose clause 6, but I do not think that it does anything of the sort. As I read the clause, it sets up a military court to try military offences by members of visiting British troops, and provides that, when a member- of such visiting force has been tried and ordered to be imprisoned - he would be tried according to the ordinary rules of British justice, but in a special court set up for the purpose, instead of in an Australian court - a certificate under the hand of the commanding officer that he is the man to bc imprisoned shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. In my opinion, the clause does not take away the right to habeas corpus proceedings. It merely provides evidence. Habeas corpus has nothing whatever to do with evidence ; it is merely the right of every individual to require the court to say whether or not he has been properly imprisoned. Subclause 4 would apply to a person who had been properly tried by a recognized tribunal set up for that purpose. A. certificate from that tribunal would be conclusive evidence of something that had actually taken place - nothing more and nothing less. It is simply a procedural provision to deal with the points mentioned by the Assistant Minister (Senator Collett). I see no objection to the clause.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause C - (Discipline and internal administration of visiting forces.)

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I still am not satisfied about sub-clause 4. What would be the position of a man who had been wrongfully arrested, as the result, possibly, of mistaken identity and convicted by a. court hastily summoned? Would his rights as an Australian citizen be impaired?

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

– I am advised that in the circumstances mentioned by Senator Leckie, the person concerned would not lose. any of his rights. If he had been wrongfully ‘ arrested and imprisoned, he would have the right to approach the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– This sub-clause is important, and we should be extremely careful to safeguard the rights, not only of Australian citizens, but also of members of visiting forces. The provisions of sub: clause 4 would apply only after action had been taken under sub-clause 3, and after a man had been tried and sentenced by a properly constituted court. Such a sentence would be evidence of the fact that the man had been tried and ordered a term of imprisonment. Under our criminal law, when a man is tried and convicted, the warrant of conviction is handed to the sheriff. The sheriff’s warrant is the authority upon which the convicted man is imprisoned. The authority of a military court could not, of itself, be acted upon by the sheriff. All that the sub-clause provides is that the certificate of a military court shall -have the same effect as the warrant issued to the sheriff from a criminal court. It will be conclusive evidence of the fact that a man has been tried by a special court and has been convicted. I think the AssistantMinister will agree that the subclause merely gives to the warrant of a military court the same evidentiary value as attaches to a warrant of the criminal court. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) has raised this point; but, as I have said, I see no objection to it.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses, 7 to 13 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 499

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Department of External Affairs - Annual Report

Debate resumed from the 17th May (vide page 406) on motion by Senator McLeay -

Tl at the paper be printed.

Senator AMOUR:
New South “Wales

– I ask further leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 499

ANGLO-AMERICAN TRADE AGREEMENT

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from the 2nd December, 1938 (vide page 2585, volume 158), on motion by Senator MoLeay -

That the paper be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 499

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, the 30th of May next, at 3 p.m., unless the President shall, prior to that date, by telegram or letter addressed to each Senator, fix an earlier day of meeting.

page 499

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Currency - Australian Broadcasting Commission - Proposed Publication : Hobart Station - Sittings of Senate

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Yesterday, Senator Cameron asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following question, upon notice: -

To what extent has the purchasing power of the £1 note been depreciated up to date as compared with that of a sovereign, and by whose authority has it been so depreciated?

I informed the honorable gentleman that a reply would be furnished as soon as possible. The Treasurer has now supplied the following answer: -

I would refer the honorable senator to the reply furnished by the Treasurer to a similar question asked by him on the 17th November, 1933. I am entirely in accord with the reply which was furnished to the honorable senator on that occasion.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I take this opportunity to refer to the approval which, according to the press, has been given to the proposal of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to publish a new radio journal. I should like to know the reason for this new and quite unnecessary competition in a field which is already fully and efficiently served by private enterprise. Further, I should like to know why this unnecessary expenditure should be incurred when the commission is unable to meet the pressing requirements of outback communities which have asked for the establishment of new wireless broadcasting stations. The provision of such stations should be one of the first desires of the commission and a primary duty of the Government. For some years the commission has entered into serious competition with the legitimate Australian stage by giving preference to foreign artists, who are reputed to receive salaries out of all proportion to those paid to Australian artists when employed by the commission. I understand that the commission is about to publish weekly a new radio journal, and so far as I can gather from the newspapers which I receive in my own- home, the field proposed to be covered is already adequately served in every State. There are such journals as the Wireless Weekly published in Sydney, the Listener In, published in Melbourne, the Listener in Adelaide, and the Broadcaster in Perth. Doubtless there are many other similar weekly publications, which serve the people of the various States quite well. In these circumstances, I fail to see why the Australian Broadcasting Commission should publish a new journal which, if issued in Sydney, will be of little benefit to listeners in outlying states. If this journal is to be published in Sydney, it will be at least four or five days old before it reaches Perth, and, consequently the programmes it may publish will be of little use to the residents in Western. Australia. I do not know what the commission proposes in this respect. Is the journal to be a weekly or a monthly issue published in Sydney, or is it to be published simultaneously in each State? Instead of incurring expenditure in that way, any surplus funds of the commission could be handed to the Government for the provision of more broadcasting facilities, particularly in one portion of Australia to which I shall refer later.

Senator Gibson:

– Will the journal be of any value from a newspaper point of view, or is it to be used merely for advertising programmes ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If it is to be published in Sydney and is to contain weekly programmes, it will be out of date by tie time it reaches country districts, particularly in Western Australia. It is the policy of the commission to broadcast musical programmes, educational items, news and other matter, but it will be generally admitted that there is room for a good deal of improvement in the programmes broadcast from some national stations. The commission was appointed to control broadcasting by radio and not to enter into the journalistic field. For some time we have been asking for additional national broadcasting stations in Western Australia, particularly in the Geraldton and Murchison districts, which for a time might serve the northwestern portion of Western Australia. There is no national station north of Perth, and an additional station should be erected in the north-west. The Government, which should co-operate with the commission’ in regard to new stations has fallen down on its obvious duty to to supply a station that has been requested for years by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr- Green), public bodies, and honorable senators representing Western Australia. Repeated requests for the establishment of additional stations to serve Geraldton, the Murchison goldfields, and the northwestern portion of Australia have ‘been ignored. Although there are insufficient funds to provide additional stations or to provide better programmes, apparently the commission has money to start a journalistic enterprise of . this sort. No doubt this publication will be for the benefit of those living in the capital cities, which are already well supplied with both national and commercial broadcasting services and daily newspapers. Recently I made two trips to the north-west of Western Australia, -where the reception is often very unsatisfactory. The best reception obtained in that locality is from B class stations in Western Australia and the stations in Java and the Philippine Islands. I understand - that the commission derives an income of over £600,000 a year from the licencefees paid by listeners, and that there are over 1,000,000 licence holders, each of whom pays £1 ls. a year. The fee is too high, and it is virtually a tax on a majority of the householders of Australia. I object to this unnecessarily high fee being extracted from the pockets of the people, and used to produce a’ journal to compete with private enterprise in a field which is already fully supplied. The undertaking can be regarded only as a.n additional luxury to the residents in the large capital cities in eastern Australia. More efficient services should be provided to the people in the isolated parts of Australia before expenditure is incurred in tho manner proposed. Many of the residents in North- Western Australia do not receive newspapers until three weeks after they are published, and the least the commission can do is to provide a national station at Geraldton or Murchison, which would serve the north-western part of Australia and enable residents in those districts to obtain better reception than they are able to get from the south. Even with poor reception wireless transmission has been a great blessing to many people in the remote parts of the Commonwealth, who have to rely largely on the radio for communication with the outside world. These people have to rely in the main on the commercial stations to obtain news, ‘the transmission of which is sometimes seriously interfered with.

Senator Gibson:

– Can they not get programmes on the short wave sets?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Tes, but not every one oan afford such sets. Short-wave ‘programmes are transmitted from Perth for only an hour or so each night. ‘ I understand that national programmes are now advertised free of charge in the metropolitan dailies, which go into almost every home in Australian cities. No doubt listeners will have to pay directly for the new journal to obtain information which is now available from other sources without cost.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– Daily newspapers will not publish the programmes free of cost.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Even if they are paid for, it would be more economical to insert advertisements in the daily newspapers than to issue a new journal. I appeal to the Minister to confer with the Postmaster-General and use every endeavour to avoid this unnecessary expenditure, at least until the Postal Department and the commission between them, can provide an adequate broadcasting service to listeners in the out-back parts of Australia.

Senator McBRIDE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

.- -The representations made by Senator Johnston will be brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Harrison) who, I believe, will give them sympathetic consideration.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I disagree entirely with Senator Johnston’s outlook towards the journal proposed to be published, but I also object to the way in which the project is being undertaken. I have submitted & series of questions on this subject, and as the Minister representing the Postmaster-General has said that the representations made by Senator Johnston will be brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General and he believes will be sympathetically considered, I sincerely trust that I shall not be keptwaiting much longer for replies to my questions which could be answered in five minutes by communication by telephone with the commission in Sydney. What I object to is that members of this Parliament know nothing of the work of the commission apart from what they read in the daily press. The statement has appeared in the newspapers that a journal is to be published by the commission, and that Mr. S. H. Deamer has been appointed editor. I desire to know the purpose of this publication, and whether the Postmaster-General was consulted before the decision to publish it was reached. Who is Mr. Deamer? What are his qualifications for the position of editor of the journal? Were applications for the position invited by public advertisement, and was the Australian, Journalists’ Association consulted as to the terms of the contract with the editor ? Wo have had discussions in this Parliament concerning the activities of various boards and commissions, such as the board of directors of the Common- wealth Bank, and it seems that each- of these bodies has been made superior to its creator.

I desire the people to know that it is not with the approval of the Opposition that the Senate is to adjourn this afternoon until Tuesday, the 30th May. I do not blame the Leader of the Senate entirely for this adjournment, because he informed me yesterday as to the Government’s reason for it, but, as a member of the Cabinet, he cannot entirely escape responsibility. The proposed recess of ten days is due entirely to the ineptitude of the Government, which is unable to place further business before this chamber, although we have met for only a few days this year. I am aware that the Government intends, when we reassemble on the 30th May, to hurry into the winter recess, and I protest against its action.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

.- From time to time letters have appealed in the press complaining about the activities of the’ Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government is obviously so concerned about this criticism that it now intends to appoint a new commission. The dissatisfaction with the present body is largely due to the fact that Tasmania has never been represented upon it, and I am glad to know that one of the new members is to be a Tasmania!). Listeners in my State pay the ordinary licence-fees, but their interests have been neglected. A new radio station in Hobart has been promised to the people of Tasmania. A site was purchased in Macquarie-street, and the -building occupying it, previously occupied by a doctor, was demolished, but the promise has not been fulfilled.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

, - I join with my leader (Senator Collings) in his protest against the adjournment of the Senate for ten days. The members of this chamber have been in Canberra since the 30th April. We sat for an hour on the 1st May, and since then we have met only this week. Senators from Western Australia are at a great disadvantage because of the fact that they will have to remain away from their homes until the Senate meets again on the 30th May. It will be impossible for them to return to their own State, where they could carry out useful work on behalf of their electors. I hope that the Government will adopt the plan indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) for the arrangement of a schedule of parliamentary business which will enable the Senate to meet regularly over a continuous period. We are frequently called upon to sit for an hour or so and then adjourn for a fortnight, but it is usually necessary for us to remain in Canberra throughout short recesses. Members of Parliament who live in the adjacent States of New South Wales and Victoria can conveniently return to their own electorates. Members from Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania are, of -course, at some disadvantage in this respect, but West Australians suffer most. We are allowed one trip by aeroplane between Adelaide and Perth, but, even with that advantage, a ten days’ adjournment does not permit of our returning to Western Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 502

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Ordinances of 1939 -

No. 4 - Aboriginals.

No. 6 - Mining Development.

Senate adjourned at 3.7 p.m. until Tuesday, the 30th May next, at 3 p.m., unless the President should, prior to that date, by telegram or letter addressed to each senator, fix an earlier day of meeting.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 May 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1939/19390518_senate_15_159/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant