Senate
8 June 1939

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- BANKING AND MONETARY SYSTEMS
QUESTION
- HOBART BROADCASTING STUDIO
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
PAPER

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

page 1448

QUESTION

BANKING AND MONETARY SYSTEMS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Government been drawn to paragraph 610 of the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Systems, in which Mr. J.P. Abbott, a member of the commission, recommends the appointment of a resident of Western Australia as a director of the Commonwealth Bank for reasons which are fully detailed? Will the Government consider this important recommendation before making any further appointments to the Board of the Commonwealth Bank?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I give an assurancc that the matter will be brought before Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

page 1448

QUESTION

HOBART BROADCASTING STUDIO

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– On the 18th May, Senator Darcey asked a question, without notice, relating to the erection of a new national broadcasting studio at Hobart. I now desire to inform the honorable senator that, under section 19 of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act, the provision of studios is the responsibility of the commission. The following information has been furnished by the commission : -

The first studios to be completed will be those of Sydney and Melbourne, because from these emanate principal national programmes. The new studio buildings in smaller States will be begun as soon as funds are available. In the meantime, the existing studios in Hobart have been modernized, and are giving satisfactory service.

page 1448

QUESTION

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– I ask that questions upon notice be deferred. Owing to the early meeting of the Senate, replies are not yet available.

page 1448

SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th June (vide page 1364), on motion by Senator FOLL. -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– I regard this bill as necessary in the interests of Australia; it is long overdue. I listened with a great deal of interest to the criticism of this measure in this chamber. In the speeches of honorable members I heard repeatedly the confident assertion that Australia is not in any way prepared for an emergency. I do not believe that that is the position. Since the last election the Defence Department has done much towards providing for the defence of this country. If honorable senators opposite do not know of some of these preparations, they should ask themselves whether they are entitled to know of them. I do not ask for such information, for I am prepared to trust the department which is responsible for them. I know that the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) and his staff, who have studied these matters for years, have not been idle. The money made available to them has been well expended. This continual depreciation of Australia’s preparations for defence is unwise; it offers an open invitation to a potential enemy to attack us as a helpless people. Why not adopt a different policy, and exercise a little bluff as other nations do? If other nations do not know to what extent we are prepared, they may hesitate to attack us, for fear that our preparations are more advanced than they know. Let us say to the world that, in the event of hostilities, wo intend to give a good account of ourselves and that the means for our defence are well on the way towards being provided. Only a week or two ago the. whereabouts of a big munitions dump was disclosed by some unauthorized outside body. Probably honorable senators did not know of the existence of that- supply of munitions; but it was there for use, if required. I deprecate these assertions of Australia’s unpreparedness for war and inability to defend itself. I admit that we have still a, long way to go before our defence preparations will be entirely satisfactory, but this bill is a step in the right direction; it provides for a survey of our_resources, so that the best use may be made of them in the event of war. Honorable, senators opposite resist any proposal advanced by this Government, whether it has merit or not. At the same time, however, they offer no constructive substitute. They simply say in this case, for instance, that the Labour party stands for the adequate defence of Australia. That sounds very well, but it is nebulous. In these circumstances,I am very much inclined to doubt the bona fides of honorable senators opposite. One argument which they advance in this very wordy discussion gives the impression that Britain is always wrong and that Australia is foolish to follow Britain’s example in any respect. Simply because we follow Britain’s example they say we must be working on the wrong lines. It seems extraordinary to me that such a feeling against the Old Country exists among honorable senators opposite. I recollect that in 1930-1931, when Britain was disarming in the hope that other countries would follow its example, the Commonwealth Labour government followed Britain’s example and also proceeded to disarm this country. At that time the Labour party closed the naval college at Jervis Bay. reduced the military training establishment at Duntroon, and suspended universal military training. In spite of that fact the Labour party says to-day that when we attempt to follow Britain’s example by taking steps to rearm in preparation for any emergency that might, arise, we are wrong.

– And they bought German typewriters also.

Senator LECKIE:

– The honorable senator would probably rely on typewriters with which to fight an enemy, asking the enemy to stand off while Australia took a referendum. Undoubtedly Germany led in developing this new technique in the manufacture of shells. Within the last year or two, however, British manufacturers, I understand, have developed machines which are an improvement on the German machines. The argument of honorable senators opposite that we should not acquire the best machines in the world for turning out a particular article which we need is absurd. That was the view which the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers naturally took in considering the request made to it by the Council of the Melbourne Technical School. The chamber, of course, is in favour of buying Australianmade machines if such are procurable, but decided that if certain machines are required and they cannot be made in this country, the reasonable thing to do is to acquire the best elsewhere in order that our young artisans may be properly trained. For that reason it agreed to purchase the German machine for the Melbourne Technical School.

I was very disappointed at the criticism levelled against this measure by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings). I could not help noting one particular phrase used by the honorable senator, “ I view every line of the bill with suspicion “. Is any honorable senator justified in adopting that attitude towards a measure which means so much to Australia? I suggest that the honorable senator is looking at the bill through what might be termed the miasma of a myopic mentality. He is totally blind to any merit whatever in the bill. He was very perturbed about what would happen to the workers who were engaged in the annexes when the educational trial orders were fulfilled and the annexes were closed down. Surely any honorable senator knows that the men who will be put, into an . annexe will be the most capable workmen in the parent factory. They will be instructed in the operation and care of these machines, and when the work of the annexe is completed they will be returned to their ordinary machines in the workshop, possibly better workmen than when they entered the annexes. The honorable senator, therefore, need have no qualms whatever as to what will happen to these employees when the annexes cease operations. But let us see what would happen if the proposal advocated by honorable senators opposite that this work should be confined to Government factories were adopted. What would happen to employees engaged on this particular work when the Government’s orders of munitions and materials were filled? The Government would be obliged either to dismiss those employees or to continue manufacturing munitions in normal times in order to retain them in employment. ,

Senator Brown:

– The Government would be quite able to find other work for them should they not be required in the annexes.

Senator LECKIE:

– Where would they be employed? Their work would be the manufacture of munitions. Men who had specialized in particular classes of work could not be employed indefinitely in government factories.

Senator Brown:

– Under the Labour party’s policy we would at least try to provide them with work so that they could be fed and clothed.

Senator LECKIE:

– A Labour government would try, but it would be an uneconomic policy to adopt. Is it not preferable to utilize the services of skilled men now employed in factories, than to have a huge staff of government employees who could not be employed indefinitely on producing defence requirements? The permanent employment of skilled artisans in government factories would be a greater burden upon the country than it could carry.

SenatorFraser. -The honorable senator is referring to the experimental period of manufacture.

Senator LECKIE:

– I am referring to the work that will be undertaken to train men in the handling of highly intricate machinery. The policy of the

Labour party is to manufacture munitions and other defence, requirements in government workshops; but the policy of this Government is to train men in annexes for the work, and when they become proficient there they can undertake the manufacture of ordinary civil requirements. -In an emergency these highly skilled men could be diverted from the factories to the annexes for the defence work in which they had been trained, and no unnecessary expenditure . would be involved. Surely honorable senators opposite realize that in an emergency practically every able-bodied man will be serving in some capacity, and that machinery and plant now employed on . ordinary work will, “wherever possible, be utilized for defence purposes.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Every thing will be subservient to the needs of the nation.

Senator LECKIE:

Sitting suspended from 11.45 a.m. to 2.15 p.m.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– It is claimed by the Government that this bill is an attempt to secure national efficiency. If that were the case, there would be no opposition to it from honorable senators on this side of the chamber who all agree as to the importance of national efficiency. A tremendous amount of money is to be expended on defence preparations. Honorable senators opposite have said that this bill will prevent overlapping of administration and extravagance in connexion with this expenditure, and that under it the taxpayers of Australia will be protected against profiteering in any form. I am very concerned, of course, at the way in which the money will be expended, but I am” more concerned about the way in which it will be raised. I was in Sydney over the week end and saw on every bank in the city large posters bearing the words “ Commonwealth Loan, issued at £99 at 37/8 per cent. I have already pointed out to honorable senators what, happens when these loans are raised. The charge made of 5s. per cent, by the banks for the work that they do in connexion with these loans seems very small, but when that percentage is applied to the whole amount raised through the banks it will be seen that they receive a very large sum of money for their services. Of the recent loan of £4,800,000, no less than £3,750,000 was underwritten by the bank. A charge of 5s. per cent, on that amount represents a considerable sum. Can it be said that the Government aims at national efficiency while it continues to borrow money upon those terms? This bill contains no information as to how the money proposed to be expended under it will be raised. As I have said on many occasions in this chamber, finance is government and government is finance. I have addressed numerous questions to Ministers regarding the operations of banks and have experienced great difficulty in getting satisfactory replies. I was told in answer to one question that the banks subscribe from 75 per cent, to 80 per cent, of government loans; but as I have said on other occasions, even the money that the banks obtain for bonds never reaches the Treasury. As a matter of fact, the only advantage the Government gains from these loans is the right to draw cheques against the banks which applied for the bonds. The public’s money is in the hands of the banks but the banks do not in turn hand that money over to the Government. All that the public gets is stock for the amount subscribed. I point out that if these loans were raised through the Commonwealth Bank the large commissions paid to the private banks and brokers would be saved. Of the last Commonwealth loans, £16,000,000 was supplied by . the Commonwealth Bank. Two questions which I asked in regard to that loan were -

What is the total value of Government bonds held by the privatebank’s of Australia?
What is the total amount or value of Government bonds held by the Commonwealth Bank?

The answers were -

The published returns of the private bunks in Australia show that during the March, 1939, quarter, their average holding of government and municipal securities( including Treasury bills) was £46,725,000.

Separate figures are not available for municipal securities, but they would represent only a small proportion of the total.

The total holding of British, Colonial and government securities (including Commonwealth Treasury bills) of all branches of the Commonwealth ‘ Bank of Australia at 31st March, 1939, was £206,260,000.

– How many millions of pounds of credit would the honorable senator advance?

Senator DARCEY:

– I cannot get the honorable senator to admit that I give fair answers to his questions. For years we have been told that u Labour government should not be put in office because the members of that party do not understand finance. Those who have said that do not understand the subject themselves. Addressing the Constitutional Association in Sydney on the 30th May, 1938, Sir Herbert Gepp, emphasizing the duties and responsibilities ‘of youth in a democracy, said -

The so-called mysteries of banking, finance and economics are mysteries only to those who will not take the trouble to try to understand.

He went on to say -

I do not suggest it is possible to obtain a complete appreciation of all factors operating in our complex civilization, but I do maintain that the colossal ignorance to-day of economic fundamentals is the gravest danger to the continuance of democracies.

Are we not here to protect the democracy? Is it not the duty of honorable senators generally to learn the truth about these things? There is no great mystery in finance. Banking is the simplest thing in the world. The banks have a fixed rate of interest for deposits and a fixed rate of interest for loans. Unless you happen to be a friend of the manager of the bank, the rate of interest fixed for loans is strictly adhered to, and persons can only secure loans from the banks on the soundest of security. Even in those cases the banks have a margin of 45 per cent, in their favour. It is impossible to secure an advance unless genuine security is offered. Even then the bank, merely by a book entry, opens a credit account in favour of the borrower. I propose now to quote no less an authority than William Ewart Gladstone, one of the greatest statesmen in British parliamentary history in relation to this subject. Exposing the ruthless fashion in which the Bank of England and London’s financial interests had asserted their power, he said -

From the time I took office us Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that, in the face of the bank and the city, the State had an essentially false position as to finance . . . The hinge of the whole situation was this: The Government itself was not to be a substantive power iri matters of finance, but was to leave the money power supreme and unquestioned. In the conditions of that situation I was reluctant to acquiesce, and I began to fight against it, by financial self-assertion, from the first.

Anybody who is frightened to tackle the mo-nev monopoly is leaving its power unquestioned. It is the duty of the Senate not to allow that position to go unchallenged. M’r. Gladstone continued -

I was tenaciously opposed by the governor and the deputy-governor of the bank, and 1 had the city for an antagonist on almost every occasion.

I remind honorable senators of what happened at the outbreak of war in 1914. The directors of the Bank of England went to the Government wringing their hands and asking for assistance. The Government told the banks to close their doors, and guaranteed to them a loan, which might be any amount from £50,000,000 to £150,000,000 on bills becoming due. The banks were to be recompensed if anything was lost between the Saturday and the following Thursday, during which period their doors were closed by edict of the Government. In the meantime, the Government was printing millions of notes’ to help the banks over the crisis. The same thing was done in Australia when the note issue was increased and three £1 notes were advanced for every £1 of gold offered as security by the banks. That sort of thing goes on all the time.

Senator Dein:

– When did that happen ?

Senator DARCEY:

– In 1914. This is what William Jennings Bryan, a famous American statesman, had to say in regard to this subject -

The money power preys upon tlie nation in times of peace mid conspires against it in rimes of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.

That is a striking indictment from one of the most enlightened men in the United States of America. In 1914, he was Secretary of State in President Wilson’s Administration. Did I not prove less than a week ago that one banking trust with a capital of $22,225,000 could, by refusing to supply money, hold up industry at any time? I have said before that if the Commonwealth Parliament declines to tackle the money monopoly there is no hope for Australia; in fact, there can be no hope for the world. If we cannot blame world governments for world conditions, whom can we charge? The financial power is rapidly heading” us for a war which may even destroy civilization itself. This bill should have shown how the money required is to be raised rather than how it is to be spent. Wc cannot borrow money for the defence of Australia without putting an insupportable burden on the taxpayers. I could tell honorable senators how the Government of America, came to heel at the behest of high finance. No government can function without money. When President Roosevelt enunciated his new deal, his first step was to borrow £1,000,000,000 sterling from the banks. They had brought about the depression, And they lent him the money with which to end it and got him under their thumbs, just in -the same way as the Australian banks have the Australian governments under their thumbs. In referring to proposed government works, Mr. Stevens, the Premier of New South Wales, pointed out that the extent to which any scheme could be carried out depended on how much money the banks were agreeable to advance. The Commonwealth is a sovereign power, and is the only country that has a bank belonging to the people. Since 1924, the Commonwealth Bank has really not functioned as its promoters intended. When the late governor of the bank died there was an opportunity for the private banks to secure control of that institution, and they did so in that year with the aid of the Bruce-Page Government.

Senator E B Johnston:

– The Commonwealth’ Bank has expanded since then and opened many branches.

Senator DARCEY:

– Yes, and it has made a profit of nearly £2,000,000. The operations of the bank might have been stopped. We can understand why there was so much objection to the foundation of the Commonwealth Bank when we see what it has done. Only recently, I addressed a meeting of 800 people in Perth on that very question. In dealing with some of the activities of the Commonwealth Bank I mentioned that if it had not been for the profit the bank made on the note issue there would have been no transcontinental railway. The bank found nearly £6,000,000 for the construction of the line from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie. That money would not have been available but for the profit on the note issue. So far no honorable senator has adduced proof’ to controvert the accuracy of my remarks on this subject. Some honorable members interject, but they do not furnish facts, and no member has declared that the Commonwealth Bank cannot issue interest-free money.

Senator Dein:

– A statement is not necessarily accurate because the honorable senator makes i’t.

Senator DARCEY:

– I am not expressing my opinion, but I am citing the finding of the Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Policy. Will the honorable senator say that the statement I have cited is not contained in the report of the royal commission? Only recently I spoke for one and a half hours on this matter to Senator Dein. Strangely enough there are many interjections by honorable senators who refuse to learn the true position of the banking monopoly. I advise Senator Dein to remember the observations qf Sir Herbert Gepp that I quoted.

Senator Dein:

– I want to know the facta.

Senator DARCEY:

– Then in that case, why does not the honorable senator read what Sir Herbert Gepp said. I am quoting from the findings of the royal commission and am not giving my own opinion. I knew years ago that money should have been advanced by the Commonwealth Bank, but it remained for the royal commission to tell the people that that was a function of the bank. I wonder whether honorable senators know what money is. Money is anything passing from hand to hand that will be accepted as payment for goods or services. That is an economic definition.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - I desire the honorable senator to keep within a measurable distance of the bill. I understand that he is trying to show bow the Government can raise the money.

– We do not know the productive capacity of this country.

A census should be taken to show, not only what this country is producing, but also what it is capable of producing.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Have not the States any responsibility?

Senator BROWN:

– Under our present system the Commonwealth is fighting the States and the States are fighting the Commonwealth, while thousands are on the verge of starvation. If we are to oppose the activities of totalitarian states we must commence with an inquiry into our economic capacity, and use our power for the welfare of the people. This Government appears to think only of a few manufacturers, share-holders in the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, rent-lords and money-mongers. The Labour party considers the interests of the masses, but this Government and those who support it think only of their bank accounts.

Senator Dein:

– The electors do not agree with the honorable senator.

Senator BROWN:

– Possibly not. For every 10,000 books written on war and military strategy, only one is written on the subject of supply. Major Shaw, an eminent, military writer, says “ Supply forms the basis of the whole structure of war “. With mechanized armies there must be greater mobility; but this Government, “and other tory governments which have preceded it, have not had the courage to undertake the standardization of our railway gauges. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) in two of his policy speeches, said that the Government would give immediate attention to the matter, but nothing has been done. Will the passage of this bill guarantee to increase the mobility of armed forces? Although there are varying gauges throughout the Commonwealth, only a few hundred miles of railway in South Australia has been converted to the standard gauge. Senator Brand, who is a military expert, has asserted that a standard gauge will not necessarily facilitate the transport of troops, but all other authorities have declared that with mechanized armies and improved mobility a standard gauge is essential. If a large number of troops had to be transported by train from the south to beyond Brisbane over the present varying gauges, unnecessary delay and inconvenience would occur. Is a measure such as this heeded to authorize tue construction of a main highway from the south to Darwin? Not at all. How can we have faith in the Government when it does not attempt to do’ these things which could have been done without this bill ? Colonel Lawrence, another writer on military tactics said -

The invention of bully beef has modified land war .more profoundly than the invention of gun-powder because “ Range is more to strategy than force.”

Yet we find that we are suffering from disabilities affecting mobility and range owing to the laxity and indifference of the Government. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber attack not so much the principle of this bill as the proposal that a new and expensive department is to be set up. Why should we be so enthusiastic about the setting up of a new department much of whose work could be done by departments already in existence? The efficacy of this measure will depend entirely upon its administration. If it were administered by a government sympathetically disposed towards the people of .this country - I refer of course to a Labour government - it could be made to achieve much good ; but so long as the present Government remains in office the workers will be afraid that this legislation may be used to their detriment.

– My only concern is to safeguard every worker who may be employed by the department or by organizations which are under it.

I think I can claim that I speak for my party generally when I say that I am pleased with the action which has been taken to make possible the production of aircraft in this country by Australian workmen.” We look, forward to the day when all of the necessary and essential work in connexion with the production of complete aeroplanes will be carried out by our own people. The Australian workman has the ability to do it. Yesterday, I listened with interest to a statement made by an honorable senator that this bill need not have been introduced but for action taken by certain rulers in other parts of the world. I point out that mistakes were made in the past by governments, of which the present government* is a lineal descendant, which have not been to the advantage of the aircraft industry in this country. Only a few months ago I was in close touch with “Wing-Commander Wackett, who is at present in charge of the aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend. He spoke very bitterly about the way he had been treated when some years ago he attempted to engage in the manufacture of aeroplanes in Australia, and had gathered about him 30 or 40 skilled workers. About that time a certain English gentleman came to Australia and convinced the Government that British manufacturers could supply all the aircraft it needed. The Government listened to him, with the result WingCommander Wackett had to abandon his enterprise and disperse his skilled men whose services to the aviation industry have probably been lost. Had the Government acted with foresight in this matter, the industry would be in a much better position than it is to-day. If this bill becomes law, we hope to see the rapid development of the aircraft manufacturing industry in this country, so that in the years to come we shall not have to depend on second-hand machines from England, which in the past have been readily acquired by the Commonwealth.

Have we any guarantee under this bill that the defences of Queensland will be strengthened? Dp to date, the defences of Queensland have been grossly neglected. In a letter dated the 7th June, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) advised our Leader in the House of Representatives (Mr. Curtin) that the amounts expended on defence works in Australia during the financial years 1935-36 to 1938-39 were-

The amounts expended in Queensland during the same period were -

– Another honorable senator will demonstrate that the important subject of finance is covered by the bill. Much of the argument that has been advanced in this chamber and in the House of Representatives has been directed to the profits made out of the manufacture of munitions. If members of the Opposition can show that it is possible to produce munitions without providing profits for individuals the

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator COOPER:

– I visited the Maribyrnong factory and saw the machinery. I could readily believe that a special precision machine, for example, could not be manufactured in Australia except at a very high cost.

SenatorSheehan. - Does not the honorable senator agree that it would be . better to have all this machinery for munitions in government establishments instead of having so much of it installed in private factories?

Senator COOPER:

– No. I believe in private enterprise. Does the honorable senator suggest that private manufacturers will use . the machinery improperly ? I have no misgivings on that score. I am quite satisfied that they will take every care of the machinery in order that it may be ready for use by trained operators the moment it is required. I was very much impressed with the munitions being produced at the Maribyrnong factory, especially the anti-aircraft- gun, which I regard as a wonderful piece of defence equipment, reflecting the greatest credit on the operatives who made it. At the aircraft factory at Fishermen’s . Bend, Melbourne, I was shown machinery which, I was informed, could not be manufactured in Australia.

Senator Cameron:

– Why ?

Senator COOPER:

– Because, as I have explained, the Commonwealth requirements are limited and it would not be economical to install the expensive plant required to produce it.

– I realize that after a war it is impossible to get back to a peace basis without some dislocation. There must be a transition period during which many- adjustments will have to be made. But men will have a better chance of remaining in employment if they have never left the service of their employers. They will work in the same establishments for the same employers all the time. I emphasize that manufacturers will make munitions only to the order of the Commonwealth Government. They will net be permitted to tender for the supply of war materials to other nations. Honorable senators will admit that one of the chief objections to the private manufacture of munitions is that makers of armaments supply war materials to both parties in a conflict. Australian manufacturers will not have to meet that temptation. They will pro duce munitions only to supply government orders, which will be for a certain quantity of goods at stipulated prices. It may be contended that rings will be established in order to maintain high prices; but we must remember that similar work will also be done in government workshops, so that any tendency to innate prices will be curbed. I promised just now to give an instance of profiteering by State enterprise during the last war. I shall do so by referring to the supply of meat by the State butcher shops of Queensland to the Commonwealth and Imperial Governments for consumption by the troops. I shall quote from the report of a select committee of the Legislative Council of that State, dated the 19th September, 1917-

State Butchers’ Shops.

These shops show a profit of about £35,000 for the financial year ending June, 1917; but included in this is the sum of £19,000 received from the Commonwealth Government, an amount in dispute regarding meat purchased by the Federal Government, apparently for the troops. It does not’ appear that the Government gave any value for this £19,000 and, in any. case, it cannot be said to he a legitimate profit made by the State Butchers’ Shops. The transaction does not show much solicitude for the Federal Government or the Imperial Government in their purchase of meat for the troops. The evidence disclosed that the Government, in consequence of their contract with the Imperial Government for the supply of meat for the Imperial troops, supplied meat to the State Butchers’ Shops at a price nearly 30 per cent, lower than the Imperial Government were paying.

It would appear that that State enterprise made huge profits out of meat urgently needed for the troops.

Senator Keane:

– Is that the only instance that the honorable senator could find?

Senator COOPER:

– It is the only one that I have in mind at the moment.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator has told only one side of the story. I shall supply the other side.

Senator COOPER:

– I have quoted from the official report. I may be misjudging the transaction, just as honorable senators opposite may sometimes misjudge contracts entered into by private enterprise.

Mention has been made of the advisory panels which are to be constituted under this legislation. The Government’s purpose is to obtain the best advice possible for its guidance. The establishment of these panels will ensure that a wise policy will be followed, and that all goods supplied will be of good quality and workmanship. No man can be an expert in every phase of industry, and the fact that these trained men will give their services voluntarily should be of inestimable value to the nation. Their appointment should mean that the best value will be received for the expenditure incurred.

The bill is to remain in force for five years. That provision should find acceptance with the Opposition, which is continually predicting that before long there will be a change of government. In that event, the powers which at first will be exercised by the present Government, would be in the hands of a Labour government.

– The honorable senator does not like what I am saying. But I maintain that this question of government enterprise is the essence of the bill. I now propose to deal with the trading results of the butcher shops conducted by the . State Government. This should be of interest because an army must be fed. The butchering enterprise was commenced in 1915 with three shops, the approximate capitalization being £100,000, and at the 30th June, 1929, the profit was approximately £57,711 ; but when operations were discontinued there were 90 shops, and a total loss of £28,014 had been incurred.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

Senator AMOUR:

– I know how the workers would be handled under this measure. I have no doubt as to what the Government would do in a state ‘ of emergency with the powers conferred by this bill. The measure provides unlimited powers, and they will be added to by regulations. The whole system is dangerous. I do not know why all this is necessary. According to the Government, the bill had been drafted to do something in the interests of the nation, but it seems to be propaganda to delude the people. I was astounded to learn that £40,000 has been paid to Germany for machinery. I am concerned about one aspect of that transaction. We have been making preparations for wai’. Surely those preparations were not being made against an unaggressive nation ! During the dark days of September last if Australia had gone to war, our enemy could only have been the nation that is now receiving £40,000 from us. If hostilities had broken out, after the order had been placed, Australia would have been unable to obtain the machinery subject’ to this purchase. It has been said that when Great Britain is at war, Australia is at war. Despite our experts, we hardly know where Australia would have been in the event of war. Light has been thrown’ on the preparations for the defence of this nation- against an aggressor, I take it that the only step an enemy would take to prevent Australia from accomplishing much in a war would be to see that no oil tankers reached the Commonwealth. The contribution to the debate made by Senator Brand was good. He has shown his wholly Australian sentiment by expressing the view that something should be done to develop our resources of flow oil. Light has been thrown on this subject by men of his type.

Senator Sheehan:

– The trouble is that the Government has been talking, but doing nothing.

Senator AMOUR:

– That is true.- Last night Senator James McLachlan- spoke on the same subject, and quoted a statement by a mine manager as to what could be done. The manager said that his concern could produce 150,000,000 gallons of oil. When it was pointed out that that represented half the quantity that Australia would require, he said that it could not be produced in less than twelve years. These particulars are also contained in the company’s report, and that is the position, because the Government is doing nothing. The powers that control the oil market will not permit the Government to do anything.

Senator Brand has stated that the people at Lakes Entrance in Victoria could produce 1,000 barrels of oil a day on every day in the year. Each barrel would contain 44 gallons. That is only one source of supply in this country. I believe that there are other places, particularly Roma, where oil could be produced if the Government were sincere. A member of a recent Ministry announced that the authorities would not permit any boring for oil on land that had been sealed. I believe that oil companies own land adjacent to areas where oil could be found. Those concerns can now induce men to say that oil is not available at this or that spot, but- the day will come when a government will be in office that will see that the oil resources of the country are successfully tapped.

Senator Dein:

– What absolute rubbish !

Senator AMOUR:

Senator AMOUR:

– The taxpayers want additional railways to be constructed, because increased transport facilities assist development and provide ‘ additional employment. Private enterprise is endeavouring to retard the search for oil in this country because its discovery would affect the price of the commodity which they have to sell. I trust that the Minister will be able to state that more effective measures are being taken to obtain oil in Australia so that users will not be exploited by the major oil companies. The advisory committee appointed to inquire into the production of liquid fuel should investigate the claim made by Phoenix Oil Extraction Limited that it can extract liquid fuel from coal at 5d. a gallon. As we have some of the finest coal-fields in the world, the process should be tested. If it can do what is claimed for it liquid fuel could be obtained at a lower price, and we could utilize large quantities of coal, thus providing employment for a large number of men. We should not wait until the existing oil-fields overseas become exhausted before endeavouring to locate fresh sources of supply. I trust that the Minister will . give to the Senate some assurance that the Government is wholeheartedly assisting in the endeavour to discover sources of oil fuel in Australia.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– Possibly this measure possesses some merit, but the powers to be conferred upon the Minister under regulations are unreasonable. Honorable- senators opposite have twitted the Opposition with opposing every measure brought before the Senate. At least one honorable senator has charged the Labour party with having no policy in regard to the defence of this country.- That gives me an opportunity to state for the benefit of honorable senators opposite just what is Labour’s policy on this important subject. It will be found that the policy advocated by the Labour party prior to the last general elections has now been largely adopted by the Government as its own policy. Reference has been made to the loyalty of some honorable senators. Senator Johnston said that we may be good Australians and still be good Britishers. I remind the honorable senator that the quality of loyalty is not to be judged by ..orations, . but rather by. deeds. The members of the party to which I belong have demonstrated their loyalty in a practical manner by doing everything possible to uplift the standards of the people of this country. They represent the masses of the people who, during the last war, were called upon to make the greatest sacrifices. I shall quote a few paragraphs from’ an official bulletin issued -by the Federal Labour party headed Labour and Defence. It was compiled by Mr. Curtin, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives -

I make it clear at the outset, as I did. when I placed the Labour party’s policy before the people in September, 1037, that there will be no weakness or hesitancy in defence policy when the Labour government assumes office. We recognize that circumstances ‘ impel Australia making full provision for its own safety - for how long- is indefinite, and neither myself nor any one. else can hazard a forecast with any degree of accuracy. Future developments are unknown.

The maximum of our resources is the minimum of our need and that is why I have refused to agree to allowing Australia’s strength to be dissipated in European affairs.

And this for the edification of those who have suggested that the question of Australia’s participation in a future war should be decided by taking a referendum of the people -

I might add that the Labour party’s policy has never envisaged New Zealand ‘ as an overseas country in defence matters, any more than it has placed Tasmania in that category.

As proof positive that the Labour party has not been backward in defence .matters but. indeed, has shown commendable foresight, I direct attention to comments from Australian newspapers on defence - arising from the recent international crisis and in the light of the conference of .Commonwealth and State Ministers - and contrast them with the proposals embodied . in the Labour party’s policy speech delivered by me in September, 1937.

The Melbourne Herald, 17th October, 1938, said : “ The facts in relation to the defence of Australia are that we now recognize how extremely difficult it would be for Britain, even with a preponderance of warships, to assist and maintain the mastery of the seas, particularly around Australia.”

On this point, I said in my policy speech, September, 1937 : “ It is foolish to say that Australia can sustain a sea-going navy” adequate to Australia’s needs. The strength of Australian defence must lie in aviation.”

In moving the second reading .of the Loan Bill (No. 2) 1938, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) said -

Development is necessary to provide the re: quired strength. As already announced in the new programme, adopted last March, provision is being made for the completion of the Salmond scheme by raising the strength of the Air Force from eight squadrons, with a first line strength of 96 aircraft, to seventeen squadrons with a first line strength of 198 aircraft, and with ancillary units in proportion. - These figures are now to be increased ito eighteen squadrons with a first line strength of 212 aircraft. ….

Thus, it is; obvious that the Government adopted almost word for word this portion of the defence policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition two years ago.

Senator Dein:

– Surely the honorable senator does not complain of that.

Senator FRASER:

– On the contrary, I am pleased that the Government has done so.- We on this side of the chamber have no desire to gain any kudos for having initiated a policy which has since received the imprimatur of the Government. All we ask is that, in justice, honorable senators opposite shall admit’, that the

Labour party, far from having no policy in regard to this matter, has made a very substantial . contribution towards, the defence of this country. The bulletin continues -

The Herald followed oil by proving the correctness of the Labour view by the statement: “It is clear that in air defence we must improve the standard . and increase the numbers of the force.”

Here again is recognition by the. press of the importance of the statements made in 1937 by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the adequate defence of Aus-: tralia. . It has taken two years for this Government, and preceding governments of the same political kidney, to see the value of the defence proposals submitted so long ago by the Leader of the Opposition. . The bulletin continues -

I said in my policy speech, over a year ago, that the “ primary need in Australia is the building up of industries until every possible requirement . of self defence can be supplied within the Commonwealth. The “Labour party will establish industries as an integral part of the defence organization.”

By an almost startling coincidence, coming from . a newspaper which assailed Labour’s policy at the last elections, the Herald now says : “ We must push on in every way with Australia’s industrialization; give it a wider spread;, be ready to meet the contingency of being cut off from overseas sources.”

Two years after this statement was published, a bill is brought before us for the control of the resources of this country in preparation for war and we are expected to deal with it as an emergency measure. The bulletin continues -

The Herald comments : “ Such needs include the building or duplication of roods, bridges and railways.”

Then on the question of industrial organization, I find that, the Melbourne Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Argus now make almost identical points. The Herald said that “ works and services must be reviewed “ ; the Argus pointed to “ planned development of industry”; and the Sun to the “ planning of supplies.”

Although it has taken two years for the Government and its predecessors to awake to their responsibilities in regard to the adequate defence of Australia, our friends opposite have the temerity to point the finger of scorn at honorable senators on this side and to utter the cheap jibe that La hour, has no defence policy.

Sitting suspended -from . 6.15to 8 p.m.

SenatorFRASER. - I point out that the ideas contained in the bill have been entertained forsome time by this Government. As a matter of fact, when . the Loan Bill (No. 2) was presented to the House of Representatives in December last, the Minister for Defence’ (Mr. Street) said -

Finally, I wish to say a word upon “the difficulties peculiar to and inherent in a defence programme. These are not the normal obstacles which can be readily overcome, but are those inherent in the nature of the defence programme and peculiar to the class of work being undertaken. A defence programme divides itself broadly into the following headings:

Material requirements, in the shape of armaments, munitions and equipment.

Works, such as fortifications, barracks and other accommodation.

Man-power, including its training.

Development in a co-ordinated. manner, so as to ensure that the results represent the maximum allround security obtainable from ‘the defence vote.

Taking material requirements, the resources from which supplies can be obtained are - ‘

Munitions factories specially created for the production of particular types of munitions;

The manufacturing resources of secondary industry;

Importations from overseas.

Accordingly, I say that the proposals embodied in the measure were in the mind of the Minister for Defence when he introduced the Loan Bill. The equipping of this nation for defence purposes, like the equipping of any other nation, is the responsibility of the Government. We, on the Opposition side, have a right to try to assist the ‘ Government with any measure submitted to Parliament. . That occurred recently in the House of Representatives, where the Labour party was largely successful in remodelling the legislation with which we are now dealing.

Senator Cooper:

– ‘The honorable senator flatters the party.

SenatorFRASER.- No. The Government has been willing to adopt the Labour party’s defence policy, and now that proposals for the development of the. country are under review Ministers are listening to reason. We have , already demonstrated that we are unwilling’ to support a proposal to give dictatorial powers to any Minister. History teaches. us ‘ that the greatest profits are made from the preparations against war rather than during the actual war itself. No. doubt, all the industries that have been supplying defence requirements to the Government during the last twelve months have been making handsome profits from these preparations for war. I shall - quote some comments on that point from an interesting publication, The Profits of War, by R. Lewinsohn - in any case, there is no room for reasonable doubt: the armament industry does not desire war, at all events, unless it is in some distant country. What it wants is a well armed peace and permanent tension. Too cloudless a peace is a misfortune - but so may be a war. The constant threat of war: that is what is most promising for this . particular business.

Senator FRASER:

– I have already stated ray view of that matter. I have said that T would support any action by the Government having for its purpose the treatment of iron ore from Yampi Sound at Bunbury, where an important industry could be developed.

Reference has been made to the control of newspapers and wireless broadcasting in a time of emergency. I have listened to broadcasts from 2GB and 2UE dealing with the Government’s preparations for war.

Senator Gibson:

– Or defence?

Senator FRASER:

Senator FRASER:

– I did not refer to the company as an arch criminal, andI ask the honorable senator to withdraw his remark.

Senator Foll:

– I withdraw it, and ask why the honorable senator objects to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ?

SenatorFRASER. - I object to it because I do not believe in the wealth of the country being in the hands of a few people.

Senator Wilson:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited should close down?

Senator FRASER:

– No.

Senator Dein:

– Perhaps the honorable senator would transfer its assets to the Trades Hall.

Senator FRASER:

– The following companies have shares in Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited: -

Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, 104,396 shares.

Broken Hill South Limited, 21,279 shares.

North Broken Hill Limited, 21,279 shares.

Electrolytic Zinc Limited, 42,559 shares.

Zinc Corporation, 21,279 shares.

Commonwealth Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, 538,729 shares, and Imperial Chemical Industries holds 4.2 per cent, in Commonwealth Fertilizers and Chemicals.

Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, England, 2,915,729 shares.

Australian Glass Manufacturers, 52,000 shares.

Imperial Chemical Industries holds 24.2 per cent, in Australian Fertilizers Limited and that company has shares in Australian Chemical Industries and Shirley’s Limited.

Just as Mr. Lloyd George, in 1915, placed representatives of Vickers Armstrong Limited on the panels which were appointed to advise the British Government, so on the panels being established under this bill there will be men financially interested in the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited.

Senator McBride:

– They will be on the panels because they will know something about the work.

Senator FRASER:

– And also because they understand profits. Imperial Chemical Industries Limited holds all the shares in the following companies : -

Brunner, Mond and Company Australia Proprietary Limited.

Zinc Proprietary Limited.

Nobel Proprietary Australia Limited.

Industrial Chemical Proprietary Limited.

Leathercloth Proprietary Limited.

Imperial Chemical Industries New Zealand Limited.

Imperial Chemical Industries Alkali Proprietary Limited.

Senator Wilson:

– Does the honorable senator object to such companies coming here and providing employment?

Senator FRASER:

– This illuminating graph also contains some very valuable information with respect to shipping companies. It shows that in Howard Smith Limited the Howard Smith family has 51,780 preference shares and 316,441 ordinary shares. Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Company holds ‘ 160,000 shares. [Extension of time granted.] Howard Smith Limited is one of the monopolies that we have to contend with. It has 45,000 shares in the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and controls Australian Steamships Limited. It holds 1,000 shares in Australian Iron and Steel Limited, and 255,067 ordinary and 142,299 preference shares in the South Portland Cement Company, which, in turn, owns the Berrima coal mine. It also has 325,034 preference and 869,539 ordinary shares in the Caledonian Collieries Proprietary Limited. That company owns Aberdare mine, Aberdare Central, Aberdare Extended, and the Waratah mine. It has also a parcel of shares in the Invincible Colliery Limited which, in turn, owns the Invincible mine and also 38.400 shares in J. and A. Brown coal mines.

– One of the most objectionable features of the bill is that extraordinary powers may be conferred upon the Minister by regulation. Parliament is elected to frame laws for the good government of the country, and powers conferred upon Ministers should be by statute and not by regulation. I. trust that the Government will give further consideration to the suggestions I have made concerning the establishment of annexes in Western Australia. Although it may be uneconomic to send raw material to Western Australia to be manufactured into shells and to return the shells to Victoria to be filled, surely other defence requirements canbe manufactured in that State. Last year, when I referred to the acute unemployment in Western Australia, an undertaking was given by the then Minister that £600,000 would be allotted to Western Australia, and that an annexe to be built at the Midland Junction railway workshops would provide employment for hundreds of men. Some days ago I I was told, in answer to a question, that only £170,000 had been expended in Western Australia. I understand that the whole of that amount has been spent on buildings. Some employment will have been afforded, but £170,000 is only a small proportion of the £600,000 that was promised. Reference has been made to the fact that during the September crisis the price of sandbags in London increased by 300 to 400 per cent Senator Leckie said that the retailers in London were hot responsible, as the price is fixed by the jute manufacturers in Calcutta. If that is so, those companies concerned in the production and sale of raw materials in Australia will also charge excessive prices, and, consequently, make huge profits.

Senator Leckie:

– We cannot control t he price of jute.

SenatorFRASER. - No, but the Government should have power to control the price of raw materials used in the manufacture of munitions. I remind Senator Cooper, who dealt at length with the losses incurred on certain State undertakings in Queensland, that an anti-Labour government in Western Australia wanted to sell the State Saw Mills. Senator Cunningham was the Minister controlling that industry, and he knows its value to the State; when . rumours were current that the mills were to be sold numerous deputations representing the master builders and others informed the Government that if the mills were closed the price of timber would bo increased. Senator Johnston knows that only a few years ago great efforts had to be made to prevent the sale of the East Perth power station to private enterprise. The general manager was sent to London by the Premier to negotiate for its sale.

Senator E B Johnston:

– The sale of the timber mills referred to by the honorable senator was effectively blocked by the Country party supporters of the Government including myself. .

Senator FRASER:

– That may be so. I am proud of the assistance which I was able to render in bringing about the preservation of the East Perth power station as an asset of the State. As . the Labour ‘ representative of the civic authorities,

I was responsible for convening the conference whose efforts resulted in. the reversal of the Government’s proposal to dispose of the plant. Thank God that Government soon went out of office and was replaced by a government - led by Mr. Collier. If that power station . had been sold to private enterprise the . people of Perth would have had to pay” through the nose “ for their electricity. It is . all very well for Senator Cooper to draw attention to the lack of success which attended State government enterprises in Queensland. Fortunately, the experiences of the ‘Queensland Government in this regard have not been repeated in other States. The Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, another Government enterprise, saved the primary producers -of this country many millions of pounds. Within a week after the sale of the ships by an anti-Labour government, freight rates were raised 10 per cent. These facts cannot he disputed. Just as a government of the same political complexion as the present Government sold the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, so also will the present Government dispose of these annexes to private enterprise at some, future date on the ground that their’ Upkeep is too costly. I have no doubt that they will then be handed over to the Government’s ‘ wealthy friends as a free gift.

During the war of 1914-18 the great armaments firm of Vickers turned out 9,000 guns, over 100,000 machine guns, 7 large warships, 53 submarines, 3 complete auxiliaries, 62 smaller vessels, and 5,500 aeroplanes. It is difficult to form any idea of what profits were earned by that concern. The profits of English armaments manufacturers were restricted by law. It was provided that profits must not exceed 20 per cent, above the average profits of the two years prior to the war.

For certain raw materials produced in Australia the Government is paying London parity price, plus exchange and freight. Is it fair that the prices of raw materials ‘ used for the manufacture of defence requirements in Australia should be based on. sterling, and that freight should : he. paid on commodities that, never leave . the Commonwealth? No attempt-.is made in thisbill to provide for. the restriction of . profits. The Minister, by the promulgation of regulations, may do practically anything he desires.

Abbott complained of a member of this chamber alluding to the ramifications of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and its affiliations, and the part they will play under this -measure. He sought to drag a red herring across the trail, and I hope I shall have enough strength to drag the red herring hack. We find that this is -

A bill for an act relating to the supply of munitions and the survey, registration and development of the resources of Australia and for other purposes.

When the bill reaches the committee stage, I propose to move an amendment to that part of the bill to make it read -

That this is a bill for an act to authorize the Minister to present to private enterprise a licence through the political agents to usurp the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament whereby the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited will be the central figure in the exploitation of the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator Dein:

– That expresses your opinion of this Senate?

Senator ARTHUR:

– Clause 4 of the’ bill states - “ Goods “ includes all kinds of personal property, and also includes anything growing in or on land and minerals or other deposits.

The bill- bristles with absurdities in regard to the regulations that can be issued by the Governor-General. Whether the Governor-General issues them or not, the Cabinet will be influenced by the Minister administering the act, and he in turn will be influenced by the directors of private companies who will be making profits from the manufacture of munitions.

Senator Dein:

the manufacture or assembly of aircraft or parts thereof by the Commonwealth or any authority of the Commonwealth.

It is remarkable that the drafters of the bill fell short of what they intended in the original measure presented to the House of Representatives, because they had forgotten all about aircraft, although one of the Ministers is a director of an aircraft company. Paragraph e refers to -

The investigation and development of Australian sources of supply of goods which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, are necessary for the economic security of the Commonwealth in time of war, and in particular, the investigation and development of additional oil resources.

Under the bill “ goods “ includes “ all kinds of personal property “. That might mean that the Governor-General could go to a private home, take any part of a person’s private property, and say that it was needed for defence.

Senator Dein:

– Nonsense !

Senator ARTHUR:

– It is not nonsense. Clause 6 provides that where, in the opinion of the Governor-General, it is necessary or desirable in the : interests of the defence of the Commonwealth that information shall be obtained in relation to industrial, commercial or other undertakings, the regulations may require the persons’ concerned to furnish the information and particulars as prescribed.

Senator McBride:

– Does the honorable senator know what that means?

Senator ARTHUR:

– Of course I do. The Minister’s interjection . reminds me of. an earlier statement . made in respect of this chamber, to the effect that the Senate, before Labour members came into it, resembled a graveyard in which corpses jumped up how and again to make a few commonplace observations. That cannot now be said of this branch of the legislature. Clause 8 provides- (1). The Minister may, in relation to all or any “of the matters specified in section 5 of this act, or in relation to such . other matters as are prescribed, constitute committees and appoint : persons, the members of those committeesto advise the Minister:

We are not told, but we can form a very good idea, who will prescribe these matters. I” regard this’ clause” as most’ important. Some time ago I asked for the names of the advisory panel on industrial organization, and was told that it would comprise Mr. Essington Lewis, Sir Colin Fraser, Sir Alexander Stewart, Mr. M. Eady, and the Hon. F. P. Kneeshaw. I mention these names because these gentlemen are also the advisory panel under the Defence Act, and a later clause of the billprovides that after assent has been given by the Governor-General all boards appointed under the Defence Act shall automatically become boards under this measure. ‘ Therefore these gentlemen will automatically become the., advisory panel on industrial organization; and the better to understand what this will mean we should learn something about their business associations. Senator Fraser, this evening, shed a good deal of light on this aspect of the Government’s proposal. Recently I asked the Leader of the Senate to inform me what were the special qualifications of these gentlemen, and I received the following reply:–

The first four gentlemen initially met as members of the advisory panel on the 10th March, 1938.

They were in existence even then -

The Hon. F. P. Kneeshaw joined the panel on the 11th April, 1938.

All members of the panel are leading figures in the industrial life of Australia. In view of their knowledge and experience, they arc eminently qualified to advise the Government regarding the organization of industry and associated matters.

Of course, they are. Let me. now tell the Senate something about their business connexions.

Mr. Essington Lewis is” the managingdirector of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ; managing director of Australian Iron and Steel; managingdirector of . Broken Hill Proprietary Limited Collieries ; a director of Ryland’s Limited, Lysaght Brothers and Company, Australian Wire and Rope Works, Commonwealth Steel Company, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, Stewart Lloyds Limited; he has interests in gold production, Wellington Alluvials Limited, a gold-mining company ; he is chairman of Bureau Steel Manufactures Limited, and vice-president- of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures.

Senator McBride:

– He has excellent qualifications.

Senator ARTHUR:

– I admit that he has, but when I was at Newcastle a few weeks ago, I saw on about half an acre of. ground, a shed filled with thousands of shell cases manufactured by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which is under the control of Mr. Essington Lewis; This company uses its ships for the, purpose of carrying iron ore from IronKhob in South Australia to Newcastle. Normally, -these ‘vessels ; return to IronKnob in ballast, but now’ they carry these empty shell cases from Newcastle to Melbourne at full freight rates. The shells are to be filled at the Maribyrnong munitions factory. ‘ Honorable senators should remember that Mr^

Essington Lewis is one of the gentlemen who under this bill will advise the- Minister ; in turn, the Minister will advise Cabinet and Cabinet will advise the GovernorGeneral, to issue regulations. Do not honorable gentlemen see the connexion?

Sir Alexander Stewart is another member of this advisory committee. He is consulting engineer to the boards of Broken Hill Smelters Association Proprietary Limited and Electrolytic Zinc Company Proprietary Limited.

Sir Colin Fraser, a third member of the advisory panel, is a director of the Broken Hill Proprietary Mining Company, . chairman of directors of the Broken Hill South Mining Company; a director of Electrolytic Zinc Company Proprietary Limited, Metal Manufactures Limited, Broken Hill Associated Smelters Proprietary Limited, Electrolytic Refining and Smelting Company of Australia Limited, North Broken Hill Mining Company, Zinc Corporation Limited, New Broken Hill Consolidated Limited, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, and the Associated Paper and Pulp Manufacturers Limited. I am not sure, but I think that the regulations to be issued may have something, to do with paper pulp.

Mr. Marshal Thomas Wilton Eady, another member of the panel was president of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia in 1937-38 ; a director of McPherson’s Proprietary Limited; president of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures since 1935; and a member of the Victorian Apprenticeship Commission; This last-named gentleman might, with advantage, make inquires into the manufacturing of models for aircraft searchlights in Sydney. If he did he would possibly be surprised to learn that this Sydney concern employs 200 youths under the age of 21 years and only eighteen adults. If he is so much concerned about the apprenticeship of Australian youths he should be able to give the Government some advice.. As these youths reach the age of 21 years they are dismissed, so that, to all intents and purposes, the work which they are doing for this company is a dead-end job.

I come now to the Honorable F. Kneeshaw, O.B.E., M.L.C. ; This gentlema’n is director and general manager of

Australian Portland Cement Company Proprietary Limited. I presume that under this bill some regulations will be issued concerning the production and prices of cement. He is also a director and general manager of Kandos Portland Cement Company and Kandos Collieries.

Senator Dein:

– All are very capable men.

Senator ARTHUR:

– Undoubtedly they are capable men; but we on this side question . the propriety of the Government seeking advice from gentlemen who are so closely identified with industrial enterprises that will be vitally affected by regulations to be made under this bill. Surely there are sufficient eminent scientists and technical advisers in the employ of the Commonwealth Government to furnish the necessary advice in connexion with any defence works to be undertaken !

We ‘have been told that certain mat-, ters mentioned in the debate to-day will not come within the ambit of this legislation. On this point I invite honorable senators to read carefully clause 27. It appears to be all-embracing, and gives one the impression that when this new department is functioning the GovernorGeneral will be working overtime issuing regulations. I regard clause 27. as one of the most important in the bill. Under it, persons, who in some respects may be regarded as political agents, will virtually usurp the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. The clause reads -

The Governor-General may -make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, prescribing all matters which by this act are required or permitted to be prescribed or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or- giving effect to this act and in particular for prescribing matter’sproviding for or in relation to - (a.) the matters specified in section 5 of this act.

If honorable senators’ will read clause 5 in conjunction with clause 27, they will discover that almost anything may be done by regulation. As Parliament is closed for long periods each year there will be very few opportunities -for’ either House to consider and, if thought desirable, reject any particular regulation.. Paragraph b of sub-clause 1 reads - :

The establishment, maintenance, or operation of factories for, or in relation to, the provision or supply of munitions.

-At Mort’s Dock and Cockatoo Dockyard, where one would “expect the Commonwealth, defence activities to he reflected, men are being sacked. At the same time, the New

Zealand Government is obtaining the services of our best artisans. Most of them are under 21 years of age. A man was once said to be too old to work at 45, but now even youths of eighteen are dismissed. Boys of thirteen are getting permits to leave school. Unfortunately, some boys are compelled to leave school because their home conditions are such that every shilling counts. Almost daily youths of seventeen tell mo that they have been sacked and that their places are being taken by boys of fourteen or fifteen.

Senator Dein:

– I do not deny, that such cases exist, but they are . rare.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The practice is general. Four months ago, an American friend asked me if I knew why our manufacturers are making such huge profits. I asked him what reason he had to offer, and he mentioned the exploitation of child labour. Child labour is. not exploited in the United States of America because of the statutory school leaving age. In Australia the school leaving age is fixed at fourteen years, but a child obtaining a permit may leave school at* the age of thirteen years. In the United States of America the permit to leave school is not granted to children under sixteen years of age. I mentioned figures in regard to the Scullin Government’s administration, because I believe that when the history of this country is written, the name of Mr. Scullin will be prominently mentioned. The good that Mr. Scullin did while in office is beyond question. Senator McBride asked what the Scullin Government did for thedefence of this country. Presumably the honorable senator was referring to the fact that it was responsible for the discontinuance of the compulsory military training system. I was one of those required by law to undergo a period of compulsory military training. What I learned to fit me to defend my country was negligible. Like the general in the song, our officers marched us up a hill and marched us down again. During the whole period of my training I was given an opportunity to aim a rifle at a target on only one occasion, and that at a range of only fifteen yards. There is no doubt that the Scullin Government was justified in abolishing the compulsory military training system, which was admitted by every one to be a farce.

Senator Keane:

– The Government did not have the money to carry on the system if it had wished to do so.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Even if the Government had had the money, the system was a failure and was properly abandoned. It had been- kept going merely to keep a few brass hats in cushy jobs.

In his second-reading speech on this bill the Minister endeavoured to make out a case for the establishment of the new Department of Supply and Development. He pointed out that the extra work brought about as the result of the implementation of the Government’s defence policy made its establishment necessary. He referred to the fact that it was found impossible for one Minister to control the whole of the defence activities of the Commonwealth. That may be so; but is that any justification for the division of the work between three Ministers and one Assistant Minister? Surely the splitting up of this work »in.to four sections will present great difficulties in the future. In any case I cannot see why the Government could not divide the extra work between these extra Ministers without having to provide for the establishment of a new, and possibly expensive, department. The Minister, in introducing this bill, said that to supply is to plan. In my opinion, this Government is notorious for its failure to plan anything. It has been said that these defence annexes are similar to shadow factories established in Great Britain. The English factories may or may not be an outstanding success. Lord Nuffield, who is, perhaps, the most eminent manufacturer in Great Britain to-day, absolutely refused to associate himself with the establishment of shadow factories, with the result that he fell out with the Government of the day; but after a few months he was approached by the Government to commence the manufacture of aeroplanes on his own terms. It appears, therefore, that in England there was some doubt as to the efficiency of these shadow factories. The Minister has told us that these annexes are to.be built near big works utilizing precision tools. One of them is to be constructed at Pyrmont, next to the works of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited. In order to provide the necessary ground space for this new building, half a dozen houses have been demolished. As I read this portion of the speech of the Minister I wondered what kind of precision tools would be utilized by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited which could be of assistance in the manufacture of munitions. We all know that the workmen at Pyrmont are engaged in the treatment of sugar.

Great play is made of the fact that we are to secure our supplies of raw material from the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited at an appreciably lower price than that at which they could be imported. We all know that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is able to outsell its competitors, and why. As a matter of fact, the New Zealand Government had to bring down special legislation to prevent the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited from dumping steel into that dominion at a price which prevented British manufacturers from sharing in the market. It is said that the Government is to assess the profits of the annexes on the “ cost plus “ basis. Under this plan the manufacturer is to be paid the actual cost of material and labour, and so much for overhead. How is the Advisory Committee to determine accurately costs of production when men may be transferred between the annexes and the main factory practically at will? What check can possibly be imposed on the cost of raw materials and labour while this is possible? If the Government expects its expert advisers to impose a satisfactory check in these circumstances, it is asking them to achieve the impossible. It will be absolutely impracticable to check the profits made in the annexes operated in conjunction with existing factories.

During his second-reading speech Senator Foll said -

On bell alf of the Government, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the generous manner in which men of business and science, although already burdened with responsibility, have offered their services as advisors and consultants generally in an honorary capacity.

– I have no doubt- that the Government will find means of overcoming that. Already it can be seen that it is handing over to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited a good deal of the £63,000,000 to be- expended on defence. That company is being given a large share of the manufacture of shell cases which might well be done by the munitions establishment at Maribyrnong.

– The honorable senator knew as little about the bill as I did until the Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll) submitted it to this chamber. The Government may have shown some consideration .to Senator Foll and consulted him, because he would have to read the statement that it provided, but the rank and file of the party received no information beforehand.

– No ; hut 1 atn afraid that the Minister is missing my point. What 1 object to is the appointment by the Government to this advisory panel of three men who are so closely associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which, as 1 have shown, is now exporting rearmament material to Great .Britain. I am not objecting to this exportation of Australian material. On the contrary, [ consider it a wonderful achievement for an Australian company; but I contend that when these establishments commence the manufacture of munitions of whatever form the understanding is that they should not be allowed to supply any other customer but the Government of Australia.

Sena tor McBride. - With munitions.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– There are many other things besides shells . and shell cases. I should be grateful to the honorable senator if he would give us the facts about these things. I know that following the setting up ‘of its own factories, the British Government reduced the cost of Lewis guns from about £160 to £35. The Senate has already been reminded of the huge profits made during the September crisis by the suppliers of sandbags. All these things led up to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said in the Sydney Town Hall last week. By inference, he admitted that profiteering was taking place. He said on that occasion -

We also have the negative function to see that in these years of crisis, no people will grow1 rich in the defence of Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Dein) adjourned.-

page 1506

ADJOURNMENT

Purchase of German Machinery by Melbourne Technical College - Commonwealth Bank - Conduct of Business : Rights of Senate - Sydney General Post Office.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– During my absence from the chamber this morning Senator Leckie, in referring to me as a myopic person, said that I, with others, had been responsible for the purchase of a machine made in Germany for the Melbourne Technical College. That statement is not true. My authority is the principal of the college, Mr. Frank Ellis. As a member of the council, I attended the last meeting and the sale was never mentioned, and neither my colleagues nor I, representing the Trades Hall Council, had anything to do with the purchase of the machine mentioned. I regret that Senator Leckie should have made an inaccurate statement, and I feel it my duty to vindicate myself. The position is that a machine made in Germany was purchased in Australia. The purchase was a result of a conference between the members of the staff of the Melbourne Technical College and representatives of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. The council, of which I am a member, was not consulted and had nothing whatever to do with the sale. In future, when Senator Leckie makes statements concerning me or my colleagues, he should be more careful.

On the 31st May, I asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following question : -

From what, fund or source, or bv what method, was money obtained by the Commonwealth Bank and subscribed by it to the last three internal loans including the conversion loan.

The answer I received on the 7th June read -

The bank operates as a savings bank, a trading bank, and a central bank, and the subscriptions were made from the resources resulting from these different functions.

I regard that as an impertinent and evasive answer. If honorable senators are expected to discuss subjects intelligently they have a right t«> receive intelli gent answers. This evasive answer has been made with the object of trying to mislead honorable senators or of making it more difficult for them to understand the position of the Commonwealth Bank. I should like to know what the board of that bank has to hide? I believe thai the Commonwealth Bank is depreciating currency by printing and circulating notes, and is afraid to acknowledge the fact. The answer I received convinces me that the bank desires to withhold knowledge from the public. The facts are that depreciation of the currency is increasing the cost of living and the poorest people are suffering most. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition directed attention to a letter written by a Mr. Lewis, who stated that the old-age pensioners are not now in a position to provide for themselves owing to the steady increase of the cost of living. He said that some were forced to sleep in the open, because they did not have sufficient to pay the rent of a room, and because the price of meals had increased. That is one effect of depreciating the currency. I record my protest concerning the unsatisfactory nature of the answer J received. I also protest against the policy being adopted by the Commonwealth Bank in that direction, and direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that this Government for all practical purposes is being dominated by that body. Instead of the board being a subordinate body under the direction of the Government, the position is reversed. The effect is, as I have said, that the cost of living is going up at the expense of the poorer sections of the people. Those who have no legal right to appear before wages boards or the Arbitration Court to ask for increases - the invalid and oldage pensioners, most of whom have worked all their lives and individually and collectively have helped in building up the wealth pf this country - are being penalized. The Government is silent on the matter; it will not make any admission. That, in my opinion, is a cowardly attitude for the Government to take up. If it believes that depreciation of currency, or inflation df currency, is necessary, let it say so; let it be prepared to stand or fall on the merits of the policy it has adopted. Attempts to evade the issue by submitting answers of this kind are despicable; any government that adopts such practices is unworthy of the name.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - In the early part of his remarks the honorable senator referred to a statement made by Senator Leckie as being not true. He must not use that word, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator CAMERON:

– I withdraw it and substitute the word “incorrect”.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– I join with Senator Cameron in protesting against the giving of incorrect answers to questions asked in this chamber. Recently I asked a question of the Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll) concerning the non-payment of wages to carpenters employed by a Sydney firm. The reply was to the effect that the union had been approached and was then searching for the sub-contractor, who had defaulted in respect of wages due to these men. I then communicated with the secretary of the Carpenters Union in regard to the matter, and received the following reply:-

A perusal of your statement in the House regarding the failure of a sub-contractor to pay a number of carpenters their wages who were employed in the construction of a building near Victoria Barracks, Sydney, contains a reference that the Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll) referred this matter to the Carpenters Union. I would like to point out that whatever may have been the Minister’s intention, he certainly did not refer the matter to my union. The only report I had of the failure of this sub-contractor Banbury to pay these carpenters their wages was your telephone message to me. Up to the present, the -union has not received any advice in any way from the Department of the Interior in connexion with this matter.

That is a very serious matter. When unsatisfactory answers are given to questions of such importance as this, it is time that some action was taken by the Government to- see that stricter supervision is exercised over the answers submitted. That is not the first occasion on which I have received incorrect answers to questions. Last year I asked a question relating to the total profits earned by the Note Issue Department of the Commonwealth Bank. In 1932, the answer given to a similar question was that the profit amounted to £21,000,000; but in 1.938, when I asked the question, the profit, had dwindled to £15,000,000. I asked a further question as to the total paid-up capital of all of the trading banks of the Commonwealth. In 1932, the answer to a similar question was that the total paid-up capital amounted to £60,000,000 ; by 1938, when I asked the question, it had dwindled to £39,000,000. Later the then Treasurer (Mr. Casey) forwarded to me a letter in which he stated that in making up the figures the paid-up capital of certain foreign banks operating in this country had not been included. I found, however, that the total paid-up capital of those foreign banks is out of all proportion to the error contained in the answers to my questions. Up to date I have not received correct answers to either of these questions.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– Senator Cameron has complained of certain statements which I made and has characterized them as not true.

Senator Cameron:

– They are absolutely untrue.

Senator LECKIE:

– In the first place, I did not apply to him the word “ myopic “. In the second place, I did not say that a request from the council of the Melbourne Technical College to the Chamber of Manufactures for the purchase of a German machine was made with his knowledge. I said that the college council, of which he and other representatives of the Trades and Labour Council are members, requested the Chamber of Manufactures to buy that machine; the chamber agreed, and I, as treasurer, signed the cheque.

Senator Cameron:

– The council made no request at all. The principal made the request without any knowledge of the council.

Senator LECKIE:

– The principal applied on behalf of the council. However, 1 accept the honorable senator’s statement that he knew nothing about this request. At the same time I cannot admit that what I said was incorrect. It was absolutely true, and J when the honorable senator, as a member of the council which had made such a request to the Chamber of Manufactures, criticized the Government for contemplating the purchase of German machinery. my sense of humour was tickled. I have no intention of saying anything derogatory of Senator Cameron; in fact I would not do so. I assure him that I did not say that he was myopic.

Senator Cameron:

– The press represents that the honorable senator did say that.

Senator LECKIE:

– That is not correct.

Senator WILSON:
South Australis

– I direct the attention of the Senate to a deputation of Labour senators and members of the House of Representatives requesting that a wheat stabilization scheme should be adopted. I congratulate Labour senators upon their interest in this important subject, belated though it is. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the fact that Labour senators are now advocating a plan, the greater part of which has been copied from the plan placed before the public last August by Senator Uppill and myself, cannot be regarded as anything else but flattery. On the 15th August last, Senator Uppill and I put forward a plan for the stabilization of the industry. On the 25th August it was placed before the Wheatgrowers’ Conference in Sydney, and on the following day before the Premiers Conference. Subsequently it was referred to the Commonwealth Government for consideration. In December, the Government introduced legislation to establish a homeconsumption price for wheat, and a few days later, after that legislation had been passed, I introduced a bill to this Senate to stabilize the wheat industry. The plan that Labour has now requested the Government to adopt is almost identical with that put forward by Senator Uppill and myself, except for two modifications. Both plans provided for the stabilization of the industry, the establishment of an equalization fund, contribution by farmers of 50 per cent, over the minimum price, and the stabilization of flour and bread prices. The variations that Labour has made from the proposal placed before the public by Senator Uppill and myself are as follows : -

Our proposal is permanent in character, whilst the Labour proposal is limited to a period of five years;

Our proposal provides for a minimum equalization price of 3s. 8d. at ports; the Labour party’s proposal provides for a minimum of 3s. 6d. at sidings;

Our proposal provides for individual debits and credits; the Labour party’s proposal provides for a pool. Under our scheme the farmers have the choice of either pooling or having individual accounts, as they prefer; under Labour’s proposal pooling is compulsory.

I am pleased that the differences have been narrowed down to such small limits. At the same time I maintain that the proposal that we have put forward has merits over the modification put forward by the Labour party. Under our proposal each farmer would be entitled to the full benefit of price, together with the benefit of the subsidy provided out of Commonwealth revenue. Under it the man who sells wisely would get the full benefit of his wise selling. Under Labour’s proposal, the man who sells wisely would, in part, have to make up for the losses of the man who sells unwisely, for the simple reason that when the price of wheat goes over the equalization price he would have to make contributions to make up the deficiencies of the fund caused in part by the bad selling by some farmers. Under our proposal every farmer would receive the benefit of his wise selling and be penalized for bad selling. I repeat that I am delighted to know that at last the Labour party has shown some interest in the wheat industry, and has put forward a plan which, though obviously copied from a plan already placed before the public can, in my opinion, be worked, although it will not be as advantageous to either the farmers or the community as the plan already before the Senate.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I desire to raise a question affecting procedure in this chamber. On two days last week the Senate was occupied in discussing notices of motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) relating to the proposed extensions to the General Post Office, Sydney. The Government managed to avoid a vote on the matter, but I make no comment on that; that is the Government’s job. On Friday we were told by the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) that it would be wise to wait until a statement had been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in the Souse of Representatives. I resent the subordination of the Senate to the House of Representatives. The Leader of the Senate had every right to make a statement . on the subject not necessarily before the Prime Minister spoke. In the House of Representatives the Prime Minister announced the terms of the commission and mentioned the judge who had been appointed, but there has been no reference to the matter in this chamber, and I resent that, too. I can assure the Government that this party will see that the dignity aud rights of the Senate are preserved. We have already asked the Ministry to restore to this chamber some of the importance that it was intended to possess when it was designed under the Australian Constitution. We have also requested that bills be introduced in the Senate. This party has practically made the business that has been dealt with in this chamber. The Leader of the Senate would have been showing no more than ordinary courtesy had he made to the Senate a full statement regarding the royal commission, not necessarily earlier than it was made in the House of Representa-‘ lives. He must have been in possession of a copy of tho statement made by the Prime Minister. When an inquiry was decided on, that fact should have been communicated to this chamber, more especially as the matter was brought before the Senate because when a motion on the subject was submitted in the House of Representatives, the Government placed it at the bottom of the noticepaper. The view of the Opposition was not disputed to any extent by the Government. My main complaint is against the subordination of the dignity and importance of the Senate to the House of Representatives on practically every occasion. My last word is this : I suggest that when the forthcoming short recess is over, the notice-paper for the Senate should be furnished with some measures - of course, not money bills - that will warrant honorable, senators in displaying , a live interest in the activities of what is the senior branch of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Senator McLeay:

– The points raised by honorable senators will be considered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1509

PAPER

The . following paper was presented : -

Post . and ‘ Telegraph Act - Regulations amended- Statutory Rules 1939, No. 44.

Senate adjourned st 11.49 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 June 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1939/19390608_senate_15_160/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 June 1939

QUESTION

BANKING AND MONETARY SYSTEMS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

HOBART BROADCASTING STUDIO

Senator McBRIDE:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Senator McLEAY:UAP

SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939

Second Reading

Senator LECKIE:Victoria

Senator Darcey:

Senator FOLL:Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Brown:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Brown:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Brown:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Brown:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Brown:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Brown:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Gibson:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Gibson:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator DARCEY:Tasmania

Senator Wilson:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Gibson:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Dein:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Dein:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Dein:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Cooper:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator McLeay:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Leckie:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator Collings:

Senator DARCEY:

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator DARCEY:

Senate
8 June 1939

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BROWN:
Queensland