Senate
15 June 1939

15th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 15th Parliament
  3. 1939

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

page 1862

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR. A.C. CEABROOK

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

– by leave - I move -

That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death of Mr. Alfred Charles Ceabrook, a. former member for the Division of Franklin in the House of Representatives, places upon record its appreciation of his meritorious public service, and extends to his widow and family its deep sympathy in their bereavement.

Itis with great regret that I submit . this motion. The late Mr. Ceabrook was elected to the House of Representatives in 1922, and was re-elected in 1925. While a member of the Parliament he was a member of the Royal . Commission appointed to inquire into the effect on trade of the operation of the Navigation Act. He was a member of the Public Works. Committee from January, 1926, to . September, 1928. In 1931 he was elected to the Tasmanian House of Assembly, and he retired in 1934. I express to his widow and family our sincere sympathy in their bereavement.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I second the motion. I had not the privilege of acquaintance with the deceased gentleman, but he obviously had rendered a distinguished public service to the Commonwealth and to his own State. We record our regret athis passing, and extend our sympathy to his relatives.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– I should like to associate the members of the Country party in the Senate with this expression of regret at the death of Mr. Ceabrook. I had the opportunity of knowing him for a short period, and I recognized his sterling qualities. We offer our sympathy to his widow and family in their ‘bereavement.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - I personally served for many years with the late Mr. Ceabrook. I endorse all that has been said about his good qualities, and I extend my sympathy to his relatives.

Question resolved in the . affirmative, honorable - senators standing’ in their places.

page 1863

QUESTION

NATIONAL REGISTER

Senator DEIN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister repre senting the Minister for Defence aware that the “ monster “ protest meeting against the National Register, held in the Sydney Town Hall last night, which was convened by the Australasian Council of Trade Unions and others with doubtful credentials, and was paid for out of union funds, was a miserable flop? » SenatorFOLL. - I have no knowledge of the meeting, but I accept the honorable senator’s description of it.

page 1863

QUESTION

ARTESIAN BORE WATERS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– On the 7th October, 1938, I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question regarding the alarming decrease of the flow of artesian bore waters. I was then informed that the whole matter would be considered by the Government, and that an announcement would be made at a later date. Has any announcement been made, and, if not, when is one likely to be made?

SenatorFoll. - The matter is, apparently, still under consideration. I shall ask whether the answer can be expedited.

page 1863

QUESTION

STABILIZATION OF PRICE OF WHEAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister state whether the Government intends to ask the wheat-growing States to pay half of any bounty or payment to the wheat-growers in connexion with the stabilization of the price of wheat? Is it a fact that the finances of Western Australia would preclude such a payment being made by the Government of that State? Why does not the Commonwealth

Government accept full financial responsibility for the proposed stabilization of the price?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The whole matter of the stabilization of the price of wheat, and of other assistance to the wheat industry, is under consideration by the Government at the present time.

page 1863

QUESTION

BOUNTY ON WOOL

Senator BROWN:

– Will the. Minister representing the ‘Minister for Commerce, state whether a request has been made by the wool-growers of Australia for a bounty on . wool ? If such a request has been made, -what action does the Government . intend to take ?

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

– I have no knowledge, of such a request having been received. .

page 1863

CASE OF CAPTAIN T. P. CONWAY

Progress Report ok Select Committee.

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

– by leave - brought up a progress report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the discharge from the military forces of Captain T. P. Conway, and the refusal of compensation and removal allowance to that officer.

Report read and - by leave - adopted.

page 1863

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Riverina Training School

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On the 17th May, I ‘ asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence if a copy of the detailed report of the official party led by Group-Captain Wrigley, investigating the Flying Training School in the Riverina for the Royal Australian Air Force regarding the comparative suitability of the area selected between Narrandera and Grong Grong would be made available to the Senate as soon as possible. Has the report come to hand?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– I have not yet received it, but I shall make inquiries regarding the matter.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Can the Minister say why a month should elapse before the report is tabled ? Two or three days should be sufficient. Should the report become available after these sittings close, will the Minister forward a copy of it to me?

Senator FOLL:

– I shall bring the matter under- the notice of the Minister for Defence. I cannot say what has caused the delay.

page 1864

QUESTION

SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE

Royal Commission

Senator COLLINGS:

– Is the Minister for the Interior yet in a . position to make a report to the Senate regarding the inquiry into the additions to the Sydney General Post Office, and, if not, can he give an indication of when he will be in a position to do so? In view of the fact that the Parliament will be in recess at an early date, will he see that members of this chamber are given an opportunity to hear a ministerial statement on the matter, and to deal with it, if necessary?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– Obviously, it is impossible for me to make any statement while the matter is the subject of an in- . quiry by a royal commission. It would be improper for any member of the Government to make a statement regarding the matter while it is sub judice. We shall await the report of the royal commission.

Senator Collings:

– What will be done then?.

Senator FOLL:

– When the report is received by the Government, it will be considered.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN. Even if the Senate be not in session when the report is received, will copies of it be sent to senators?

Senator FOLL:

– Usually such reports are printed and become public property. I shall bring under the notice of the Government the request that all honorable senators be. supplied with copies of the report.

page 1864

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Fees and Allowancesof Cadets

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– On the 8th June, Senator Collings asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What are the conditions of entrance to the Royal Military College, Duntroon?
  2. Are any fees, entrance, or otherwise, payable . by cadets before or during their period of training?
  3. Is any remuneration or allowance paid to cadets during their period of training?

The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. General conditions to be complied with by candidates for entry to the Royal Military College : -

    1. Normal entrance. - Candidate must -
    1. Be medically fit.
    2. Be unmarried.
    3. Be a British subject permanently resident in Australia.

    4. On the last Saturday in February in the year in which he joins the College be under the age of twenty years and over the age of sixteen years.

    5. Have passed the prescribed public examination, i.e., obtained a “ Pass “ or higher certificate at the examination for Leaving or Intermediate Certificate.
    1. Be recommended by a Selection Board consisting of three officers appointed by the Military Board.

    2. Be approved by the Minister for Defence. -

    3. Service entrance (for serving members of the forces). - Candidate must -
    1. Be medically fit.
    2. Be a British subject permanently resident in Australia.
    3. Be a member of the Defence Forces.
    4. , Have passed the prescribed examination.
    5. Be recommended by a Selection Board.

    6. Be approved by the GovernorGeneral.

    7. Special entrance. - Candidate must -
    8. (ii) and (iii) As for normal entry.

    1. On the last day of the month on whichhe joins the College be over the age of twenty years, and under the age of twenty-five years. In special circumstances the Minister may direct that a candidate over the age of twenty-five years shall be eligible for admission.

    2. Have attained the minimum educational qualifications, i.e., a Leaving (or equivalent) certificate including at least two mathematical subjects at a public university examination.

    1. Be recommended by a Selection Board consisting of three officers’ appointed by the Military Board.
    2. Be approved by the Minister for Defence.
  2. No.

  3. The following’ allowances shall be credited to the account of each cadet admitted: -

    1. By normal or service entrance -
    1. Outfit allowance - £30.
    2. Maintenance allowance to cover cost of uniform, clothing, books, instruments, messing, washing, and other approved expenses (this allowance varies between 5s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. per diem, as approved by the Minister).
    3. By special entrance -
    4. Outfit allowance - £30.
    5. Maintenance allowance- at rate of £262 per annum to cover cost of uniform, clothing, books, instruments, messing, washing, and other approved expenses.

The balance remaining in each cadet’s account is paid to him on graduation.

No actual payment is made to cadets during their training, except in the case of special entrants who may draw from time to time from their accounts such amounts for their personal expenses as are approved by the Commandant.

page 1865

QUESTION

DARWIN

Accommodation for Troops

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Is it a fact that the Darwin mobile force is housed in a portion of Vestey’s meat works, and that the conditions are unsatisfactory? If so, how long are the existing conditions expected to continue?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– It is a fact thatsome members of the Darwin contingent are housed either in barracks that were originally erected in connexion with the meat works, or in a portion of the meat works themselves. On account of the necessity for getting the troops there early, it was not possible to provide, completely for them in advance of their arrival, but the Government is doing everything possible to expedite the erection of necessary accommodation.

page 1865

QUESTION

POSTAL LINEMEN’S LABOURERS

Senator BRAND:

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

Will the Postmaster-General consider placing linemen’s labourers and cleaners on a permanent basis with the same Tights as other temporary returned soldier employees under sub-section 9 c of section 84 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act?

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

Having regard to the nature of the work performed by line labourers and cleaners, the requirements of the department are best served by their employment under exemption from the provisions of the Public Service Act.

page 1865

QUESTION

ASSISTED MIGRANTS

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
through Senator Dein

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. How many assisted migrants entered Australia during the twelve months ended 31st May, 1939?
  2. What was the cost to the Government?
  3. What are the trades, professions, &c, of. these migrants?
  4. How much capital did they bring to Australia?
  5. How many of them went on the land?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The information is being obtained.

page 1865

QUESTION

INGLEWOOD -POST OFFICE

Senator CLOTHIER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

In view of the statement of the then PostmasterGeneral (Senator A. J. McLachlan) on the 19th October, 1938, that provision had been made towards the cost of building a new post office at Inglewood, Western Australia, at a cost of £1,600, will the Minister inform the Senate when a start will be made with this work ?

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer: -

It is not practicable to indicate when the erection of a new post office at Inglewood will be commenced. Negotiations for the acquisition of a site are proceeding.

page 1865

QUESTION

GERALDTON BROADCASTING STATION

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

With reference to the question asked by Senator E. B. . Johnston on the 7th June regarding the necessity for a new national broadcasting station in the Geraldton district (Western Australia) -

Is it the intention of the Government to erect a national broadcasting, station in the Geraldton district?

If so, when?

If not, are Western Australian listeners to understand that, in the largest State of the

Commonwealth, the Federal authorities consider that no national broadcasting station is required north of Perth, for the major area of the State?

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

  1. In the comprehensive plan for the national broadcasting system, the provision of a regional station in the Geraldton district is contemplated.
  2. Owing to the Government’s many commitments, it is not possible to indicate at this stage when the station will be erected.
  3. See answers to No. 1 and No. 2. Itshould be pointed out that one station has been completely rebuilt and three new and most modern stations have been constructed in Western Australia. In addition, a short wave station is at present under construction at Perth for the provision of service to the less populous areas of Western Australia.

page 1866

QUESTION

CANBERRA OFFICE ACCOMMODATION;

Senator BROWN:
through Senator Arthur

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice-

  1. Has the Minister’s . attention been called to the following statement published in. the Canberra Times: - “Some months ago, Mr. Casey was ‘ ‘ responsible for the leasing, remodelling and furnishing in the City< Buildings at Canberra of considerable office space for the Invalid and “Old-Age Pensions branch of the Treasury. The space was not used because Mr. ‘ Casey insisted that ‘ this staff should be situated in immediate proximity to the rest of the Treasury staff. He wouldnot have a gap of two miles between two branches of his department in Canberra. Other Ministers have not yet realized the weakness of a gap of 500 miles between the Seat of Government and essential departmental headquarters in Melbourne “ ?
  2. What is the cost to the Government of such leasing, remodelling and furnishing?
  3. How long has this paid-for space been empty ?
  4. Is it the intention of the Government to occupythese premises?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The cost of leasing is £460 3s. 3d. per annum; remodelling and furnishings’ cost approximately £1,252. .
  3. Space to the extent of about 1,447 square feet (secured for the National Insurance staff) has been vacant since the 1st June, 1938.
  4. Yes; it is anticipated that it will be found possible to utilize the space for Commonwealth activities.

page 1866

QUESTION

ALLOWANCE POST OFFICES

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– On the 9th June, Senator Herbert Hays asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. How many allowance post offices are there within the Commonwealth?
  2. What is the average salary paid to allowance postmasters?
  3. What is the basis upon which such salaries are fixed? ‘.

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answers : -

  1. 7,040.
  2. Extensive inquiries would be necessary in order to ascertain the exact figure. The approximate average remuneration is £96 10s. per annum.
  3. Non-official postmasters are remunerated on a basis of actual business transacted at their offices plus additional payments for the provision- of accommodation, lighting and any special services rendered by them The allowances are reviewed annually and necessary adjustments made on the statistics of business for the previous financial year.

page 1866

QUESTION

FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– On the 8th June, Senator Cooper asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What amount was originally voted for relief of distressed farmers under the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act?
  2. What amount has been advanced to each State for this purpose to date?
  3. What amount has been actually paid out by each State to date?
  4. What is the capital value of’ the debts taken over by each State to date?
  5. Is provision being made for further amounts to be made available to the States for the purpose mentioned at an early date?
  6. What amount is still available of the original amount allocated for this purpose?

The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. An amount of £12,000,000 is appropriated under the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act 1935-1936.
  2. The total amounts advanced to the States under this act to date are -
  1. Amounts paid out by each State to 31st May, 1939, are-
  1. The value of debts as at 31st. March, 1939, on approved claims prior to and after adjustment is as follows: -
  1. At its forthcoming meeting, the Loan Council will consider the total amount to be borrowed for the financial year 1939-40 for all governmental purposes, and what proportion of that amount can be made available to the Commonwealth for its loan requirements including the amount required for further payments to the States on account of the appropriation of £12,000,000 for farmers’ debt adjustment purposes.
  2. The proportion of the appropriation of £12,000,000 which has not yet been paid to the Statesis £5,683,000.

page 1867

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1939

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia-

Assistant Minister for Commerce) [ 11.29]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has been introduced because it would be quite impossible for the scheme of national health and pensions insurance to commence on the date fixed, by procla mation, namely, the 4th September next. It is generally understood that delays were occasioned by events over which the previous Government had no control, and by differences of opinion the effects of which have already been sufficiently discussed. It had been intended to introduce during the present sittings amending legislation to deal particularly with extensions of medical benefits to the dependants of insured persons. That matter, and questions of insurance for persons not covered by the present act, were postponed last year with the intention that they should be dealt with before the act came into operation. Obviously, the proper course to pursue at this stage is to rescind the proclamations which, if no action were taken, would bring the act into full operation in September. The rescission of the proclamations will leave the acts as passed on the statute-book and will give the Government an opportunity to review the whole position afresh. In view of the Government’s intention to proceed with national insurance as soon as may be possible, the bill does not propose the annulment of the proclamations of those parts of the act which deal with administration and. are now in force.

The principal provision in the bill - namely clause 4 - may be very shortly explained. It consists of three subclauses. The first annuls the proclamationswhich were to have come into force in September. The parts of the act which are excluded from this annulment are Parts T. and II., which provide for administration, Division 3 of Part VII., which provides for the establishment and administration of approved societies, and section 192 which provides the power to make regulations; that power may be necessary in connexion with administration. Sub-clause 2 annuls the proclamations for the Contributions Acts. Subclause 3 is formal and merely declares that the power to proclaim the commencement of the remaining provisions of the acts is retained. This power is not to be exercised, however, unless a resolution approving the exercise of it has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Later in the year it will be necessary to submit proposals for the appropriation of funds in connexion with administration. In the meantime I can assure honorable senators that the work of both the commission and the approved societies has been reduced to a minimum.

The Government greatly regrets any disturbance to individuals and to societies by reason of the suspension of the act, and it is anxious that all interests shall receive equitable treatment. The bill itself is merely a machinery measure, but it is one that is absolutely essential in the existing circumstances of national insurance. I ask honorable senators to support the bill.

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– I am unable to answer that question immediately, but I shall obtain the information for the honorable senator before the second reading is proceeded with.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1868

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL 1939

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 14th June (vide page 1799), on motion by Senator collett-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- Whilst it would be very difficult to throw any new light on this bill, I consider that it is necessary for me at least to state my opposition to this measure. That opposition is based on many reasons. When we see the revolt against the proposals that is occurring outside the chamber we realize their unpopularity. The trade union movement has gone to . the full -limit in its efforts to prevent the bill from becoming law, and the upper classes also are afraid as to the effect of the wealth census. I recently had conversations with some rich persons, and they expressed their fears to me. So we see that the proposed legislation is causing a great deal of hostility and annoyance, and the opposition of members of this party is justified in view of the feelings of all sections of the community. I could allay any suspicions in the minds of the wealthy classes as to anything that might happen to them in consequence of the operations of the bill. My attitude - has been strengthened by two speeches delivered on this subject by. the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) in the House of Representatives. On the first occasion he gave excellent reasons for not accepting the amendment of Mr. Nairn, favouring a wealth census. He said that the adoption of that proposal would have the effect of frightening away capital, but he was not very solicitous about the trade union movement’s fear that industrial conscription would be eventually introduced as a result of the enactment of this measure. He was concerned about those apprehensions of the conscription of wealth, but not about those fearing the conscription of Australia’s manhood. When Mr. Nairn moved his amendment the Government realized that it would be carried, and so the Ministry agreed to it. Then Mr. Street advanced just as good reasons for the amendment as he had previously advanced against it. The Government’s altered “ view was dictated by political expediency, but I believe that it has no intention to implement that portion of the bill. The introduction of this measure demonstrates once again that the Government is interested only in maintaining its hold on the Treasury for a few more months. After the new Governor-General and the Duchess of Kent have been received in the Commonwealth, Ministers will not be so eager to retain office and they will be prepared to gamble their political future on the hustings. The Government wishes the Governor-General to. meet the right people. No doubt it will be very nice to be introduced to the royal couple, but it will not mean a knighthood for me, as it may do for members of the Government.

The Leader of the Government interjected that he was opposed to Senator Amour reading his speech, and threatened to apply the “ gag “. I object to that attitude. During my membership of this chamber I have not heard a ministerial speech that was not read. Senator Brown made an inquiry as to whether the Ministers purchased their speeches at so much each. It is a compliment to the public servants that the Ministers read their speeches word for word as they are prepared for them. It seems to me that many of the secretaries of the departments should be in the chamber themselves doing the job instead of through the Ministers. It is extraordinary that such a threat should have been made by the Leader of the Senate who has read every speech that he has delivered in this chamber since he became a Minister.

I shall deal with Senator Dein’s wonderful address. Many uncomplimentary remarks have been made concerning this uh amber, but speeches of the type delivered by the honorable senator lower the tone of the Senate. He referred in contemptible terms to the “ hangers on “ nt the Trades Hall and described union officials as parasites. Senator Brown wisely took him to task and reproved him. I hope that Senator Dein’s future conduct will be on a higher plane. I do not know why he has such antipathy to trade union officials. I recall his interjection’ when he rather sneering] y proposed that a trade union official might be on the Advisory Committee on Industrial Organization. Actually such an appointment would have been very wise. It seems to be regarded as a crime for the Opposition to be associated with the trade union movement, but when the Government seeks men for one of its proposed panels it selects some connected with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. That is good politics. This country owes a debt to the trade union movement, but when that movement is mentioned Senator Dein regards such a reference as a tragedy. The fourth man selected for the Advisory Committee on Industrial Organization by the Government is Mr. Kneeshaw, the United Australia party nominee for the Legislative Council in New South Wales, who is interested in cement. He will be very active when the authorities are building underground shelters and other structures requiring cement. The Minister for Defence has hart more experience than Senator Dein, and he appreciates the assistance given to him by trade union officials. Already the Metal Trade Unions have pointed out to the Minister for Defence that much of the iron fittings now being imported for use at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard could be manufactured in Australia. I am sure that, unlike Senator Dein, who says that no good can come from suggestions made by the Opposition or its friends, the Minister for Defence appreciates that advice.

Senator Dein:

– The honorable senator must admit that some of the Opposition’s friends are, to say the least, undesirable acquaintances.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That also may be said of the friends of honorable senators opposite. During the course of this debate much comment has been made regarding the methods adopted by the Fisher Government in the early days of the world war to render more effective Australia’s participation in the war. Unlike some other honorable senators in this chamber, I have no personal recollection of what happened in those days, but I know from my reading of the political history of this country that the Fisher Government had to withstand the abuse levelled at it by the then Opposition for everything it did. It will be remembered that when the Fisher Government first established the Australian navy its opponents were so ill-informed as to say that the vessels of the “river” class would never dare to go outside the harbours. Actually the vessels of the Australian navy were able to render valuable service in keeping open the trade routes of this country. Every legislative enactment of a Labour ‘ government has’ been subjected to hostile criticism by its opponents, but when the opportunity is again presented to Labour to take the helm of State it will carry out its programme, regardless of the criticism of its opponents. We have only to look at the barren legislative record of anti-Labour governments to see how utterly they have failed to face up to the task they were called upon to perform. We have but to remember the failure of this Government and its immediate predecessors to implement the national insurance scheme. Only last night a proposal to set up a committee to investigate that subject was defeated in the House of Representatives by 43 votes to 19. The only social legislation on the statutebook of the Commonwealth has been placed there by a Labour government or at the instigation of a Labour opposition. Only by the utilization of Labour’s legislation is the anti-Labour government in New South Wales able to remain in office. Honorable senators opposite have asked why we do not trust the Government. They ask: “What is behind this opposition to the taking of a national register? Surely Labour senators do not really believe that there are any undesirable features in this bill. We are men of honour and we shall not be parties to any underhand tactics “. Unfortunately, we have had too much experience of antiLabour governments in the past to trust the Government now in office. We know that the policy of anti-Labour governments has not changed throughout the years. During the troublesome days of the war the then Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) made the definite promise that there would be no conscription in Australia

Senator Dein:

– I remind the honorable senator that Mr. Hughes was then a Labour Prime Minister.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That is true, but within a few months he threw overboard the ideals for which he had stood so long, and endeavoured to introduce conscription into this country. The right honorable gentleman said, “What does it matter? The promise that there would be no conscription was made yesterday”. He was prepared to jettison his Labour ideals and aspirations for a price.

Senator Dein:

– For what price?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– We know that he received £25,000; we do not know what else he got. Our principal objection to this bill is that it has been introduced for the purpose of compulsion. During the last few months I have met quite a number of men and women, not Jews, but people as Aryan by birth as . Hitler himself, who have left the middle European countries to establish new homes for themselves in this country. Many of them left their home-lands because they rebelled against the restrictions imposed upon them by the totalitarian states. I made a persona] friend of a young man who left Germany, merely because he was not able -to turn one way or the other without first advising the local leader of the Storm Troops. He even found it difficult to leave one job for another without first giving reasons why he should do so. These people came to Australia believing that they would be able to live in peace under a democratic system of government. Little did they know that shortly after their arrival in this country a so-called democratic Government would bring down a measure such as this, the purpose of which is to achieve the very undesirable objectives against which they had rebelled in their home-lands. Every Australian is willing and anxious to fight for the preservation of his democratic rights. That is why there is so much opposition to the bill now before us.

Senator McBride:

– This bill will be passed by the democratic Parliament of the Commonwealth. If the honorable senator had his way we would be ruled by the minority.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– This measure of compulsion is repugnant to the ideals of a democratic people. Surely the Government appreciates the splendid manner in which the people responded to the voluntary appeal during the war. Why can they not be trusted to do so again should the need arise? The Government should recast its policy in connexion with this matter-

Senator McBride:

– The honorable senator’s policy has been considerably recast, during the last six months.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I have only one, and that is the policy of the party to which I belong. The only . purpose for the introduction of this bill is to prevent the putting of round pegs into square holes. All of the information proposed to be obtained by this bill could be obtained by taking a census of the people. If instead of this partial census a complete census were taken, all the ‘ necessary information could be obtained and a saving of £40,000 could be made.

Senator Dein:

– Then the honorable senator does not object to the taking of a compulsory census?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– There are different degrees of compulsion.

Senator McBride:

– For instance, compulsory unionism.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– There is also the compulsion imposed upon honorable senators opposite to obey the dictates of influential concerns such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. When it is considered how splendidly the nation responded to a voluntary appeal during the Great. “War, how can it be claimed that this bill is necessary? Apparently it is not so much a’ matter of putting round pegs into square holes as having no holes in which to put any pegs. What does the Government propose to do for the unemployed of this country? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that no less than 34,000 men are on the employment register of the munitions factories in Victoria alone. That register contains a complete record of a large number of the unemployed in Melbourne.

Senator Dein:

– The honorable senator would do better to base his objections to the bill on the cost of taking the register. He has already said that he has no objection to compulsion in certain directions.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The introduction of this bill is only part and parcel of the policy of the Government to instil in the minds of the people a fear of possible aggression. The international situation to-day is such as to leave no room for this fear. Great Britain and Germany are trading freely with each other; this Government is purchasing from Germany machinery for the manufacture of motor cars; Great Britain is buying marine motors from Italy for torpedo chasers;’ and France and Great Britain are buying war planes from the United States of America. Does this indicate that there is international tension? All countries are anxious to maintain friendly relations. We are frequently told that it is Germany that threatens us. Germany is certainly not buying Australian wool . and wheat, but . we are buying German machinery. Is it likely that machinery would be sold to Australia for the manufacture of war material which might be used against German soldiers? As the result of the “ jitters “ of the Government the people of this country are driven half crazy with fear that the next day may bring war upon them. I oppose the policy of creating war hysteria with all the vigour I possess. I do not say that I approve of the proposal by the trade union movement that the questionnaire included in this bill should be burned. As a responsible member of this branch of the legislature I believe in democratic govern ment, and so long as the present Government remains in office’ I shall advise the people to obey any laws which it is instrumental in placing upon the statutebook. Nevertheless, I shall use every means in my power to prevent the bill now before the Senate from becoming law. Although I am not in favour of the drastic measures advocated by the trade union movement, I can appreciate the view of the workers in regard to this measure. They are entitled to their beliefs just as I am entitled to mine. I urge upon the Government, however, the desirability of reviewing this legislation in the light of the manifest disapproval of it -voiced by. the people. I do not believe that such concerted opposition has been directed towards any other measure brought before this Parliament for many years.

Senator Dein:

– Opposition to it does not come from the trade union movement, but from the Trades Hall Council. The unionists did not support the resolutions carried at the meeting in Sydney last night.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I know nothing of the meeting in Sydney, but we have been informed that 3,000 unionists attended a meeting at the State Theatre in : Melbourne last Sunday and registered their whole-hearted protest against this bill. But that is not all. The leaders of the trade union movement have declared that they are prepared to support this protest and take the consequences of their action. Therefore, we may be quite sure, that, in their view this legislation will . hit them where it hurts them most - the effectiveness of their organizations. They are determined that if the active objection to this compulsory national register leads to the imprisonment of members of their industrial unions they will endeavour to get all organizations wholeheartedly behind a movement having for its purpose the tying up of industry until the men are released.

Senator McBride:

– That, apparently, is the view taken by some industrial organizations of democratic government!

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; ALP (N-C) 1941-42

-But a democratic government must be fair. Because we believe that the day is not far distant when the Opposition in this

Parliament will occupy the treasury bench and will pass legislation which, being in the interests of the people, must be obeyed.

Senator McBride:

– So should this legislation he obeyed.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– There is a definite revulsion of public opinion against this bill, and the one that was forced through the Senate a few days ago. There is a strong feeling that this Government is not legislating in the interests of the people. Consequently, there will be an inevitable reaction against this proposed law.

Senator Dein:

– All this objection is being organized by Trades Halls officials and the Australasian Council of Trade Unions.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; ALP (N-C) 1941-42

– If the Government does not heed these protests, I believe that the time will come when it will be called upon to handle a very difficult situation. I do not envy Ministers their job.

I see little in the bill to recommend it. It is like other measures that have been passed by this Government. It will not serve any purpose that could not have been achieved under other legislation. I am aware that the Minister believes that what the Government has in mind could not be achieved so quickly under existing legislation.

Senator Collett:

– It would involve too much’ loss of time, and time is an important factor.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I admit that if the Government attempted to take an ordinary census, more time would be required. The last census was taken in 1933. I do not know how long will be occupied in collecting the information desired under this bill.

Senator Collett:

– I have not been able to form any estimate, but the procedure under this bill will be more expeditious.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I believe that the Government has all the necessary powers under existing legislation, but for some reason the Ministry decided to bring down this bill, and the measure which we passed a few days ago. But I am convinced that these will not react to the credit of the. Government. They have aroused a definite feeling of hostility, not only among members of the Labour movement, but also among the people generally, particularly those who have a little money in the bank, and are nervous of what may. happen.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), posing as the guardian of liberty, carried his argument a little too far when he said that he was , opposed to compulsion in any form. He does not oppose compulsion in any form.

Senator Collings:

– I did not use those words.

Senator WILSON:

– If the honorable gentleman will read the Hansard report, of his speech he will see that the words I have quoted were used by him. He knows that, in order to preserve liberty, some, compulsion is necessary.

Senator Cameron:

– We object to the compulsion that is provided for in this bill.

Senator WILSON:

– Would the Leader of the Opposition say that he was opposed to compulsory education or compulsory voting? So far, I have not heard the honorable gentleman express- an opinion to. that effect.

We have many forms of compulsion in our democratic system of government. There is, for instance, to mention a few only, compulsory registration of motor cars, of clogs, and other animals, and compulsory registration of births, deaths and marriages. This being so, what possible objection can be raised to this bill which provides for the compulsory registration of certain information necessary to complete a survey of the nation’s resources for defence purposes? In 1915 a Labour government introduced a measure providing for a compulsory and complete census. Honorable senators may say that the Labour party of 1915 was different in its outlook from the Labour party of to-day. In that I should be inclined to agree with them, and I add that the people of Australia in those days were prepared to trust the Labour party because it was determined to defend Australia from external aggression. The Labour party of to-day, apparently, is not prepared to do this. It opposes every measure necessary for the adequate defence of this country. It criticized severely the Government’s defence expenditure. It opposed the hill introduced last week for the purpose of ensuring the efficient manufacture of munitions and supplies, and for the limiting and control of profits in respect of Government contracts for defence. Now it opposes this bill, which is a preparatory and simple measure designed to obtain necessary statistical information so that, if war unfortunately does come to Australia, the Government will be able to determine what classes of persons should not be engaged in the active service of war because they could be more usefully employed on essential home services.

In order to defend Australia, we must have efficient organization, so that each person will play his part in his allotted avocation. The basis of unionism is compulsory sacrifice by the individual for the common good ; similarly the basis of Commonwealth defence is some sacrifice by individual citizens for the security of all the people.

The proper preparation for defence of the country must be preceded by a plan for the collection of essential information so that when the time comes, every man may be given duties to perform for which he is best fitted. It would he useless to require an expert’ technician, for instance, to undertake the duties of a cook, or to expect a cook to carry out efficiently duties ordinarily discharged by an expert technician. Every individual of the community is qualified to discharge some duty, and under a properly organized system he will be able to play an importantpart in defence. It has been suggested or inferred by honorable senators opposite, quite unfairly in my opinion, that the bill will give the Government power to conscript the man-power of the Commonwealth. There is not one word in it which suggests that the Government shall have power to do other than collect information.

Senator Cameron:

– That statement is not quite correct; the Government will have power to act on that information.

Senator WILSON:

– If the honorable senator will read the bill carefully he will see that the powers given under it, in clauses 17 to 21, relate only to the collection of information, in respect of which there is an element of compulsion on the individual.

Senator Keane:

– That is our objection ; we suspect the bill.

Senator WILSON:

– There is no provision in it to restrict the liberty of any individual who furnishes the required information.

Senator Collings:

– The bill is the nearest thing to totalitarianism that this Parliament has been called upon to consider.

Senator WILSON:

– The Leader of the Opposition gives free rein to his imagination. I have endeavoured to show, that this is a simple measure for the collection of information ; yet the honorable gentleman reads into it a sinister purpose that is not intended, and he conjures up all sorts of bogeys and ghosts which exist only in his imagination.

Objection lias been raised to clause 25 of the bill which places upon the individual the initial onus of proof in respect of furnishing the return. That is to say, he is required to show that, having filled in the return, he posted it to the Commonwealth Statistician. On this point, I would ask the honorable gentleman and his colleagues, how would it be possible for the Statistician to prove, for instance, that Senator Collings had posted a letter? Obviously in a formal matter of that kind, it is necessary to say that the averment shall be prima facie proof. It would not be difficult, surely, for Senator Collings to get into the witness box and declare on oath that he had posted a letter. Having done that, he would have discharged the onus upon him of proof.

Senator Collings:

– ‘How could I prove that I had posted a letter?

Senator WILSON:

– Ordinarily, I should oppose placing an unnecessary onus of proof on the defendant.

Senator Collings:

– Under this bill the Government is creating a new crime which will make criminals of decent citizens.

Senator WILSON:

– In cases where it would bc impossible of proof by the prosecution, but simple of proof by the defence, the onus could only, without injustice be placed on the defendant himself.

Senator Collings:

– But how could T prove that I had posted, a letter?

Senator WILSON:

– By getting into the witness-box and saying so. As the honorable senator is so suspicious, I suggest that if he were called upon to furnish a return under this bill, he should take a half a dozen of his colleagues with him in order to prove that he had posted a return and had complied with the law. But in a simple matter such as this, a declaration by any person of repute - and I would regard the Leader of the Opposition as such - that he had posted the return, would be the complete discharge by him of the onus of proof under clause 25.

Senator Keane:

– This bil] will make more work for lawyers.

Senator WILSON:

– On the contrary, it will provide very much less work for lawyers than if the onus of proof were on the prosecution. The hill will place no obligation on the individual citizen other than to furnish a return which is not very different in form from other returns that are required under various acts of Parliament. It is necessary for the Government not only to obtain a survey of the man-power, wealth and resources of Australia, but also to see that every body, is trained to defend the people and the property in the country. I have stated from almost every public platform in my own State that I believe in ‘both compulsory education and compulsory military training, and that I regard the latter as essential for the adequate defence of Australia. I hope that the Government will eventually adopt the policy of compulsory training. When that is done, every honorable senator will have’ ample opportunity to express his views regarding it; but, whether that action be taken or not, it is essentia] that Australia should .be in possession of the information indicated by the bill, so thats in a national emergency, each man may be allocated to his proper sphere- of activity for the adequate defence .of the -country.-

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Government has no mandate from the people for the introduction of this bill, and I intend to vote against the measure. When the Cabinet met in Hobart some time ago, the Government decided to establish a national register foi” the purpose of ascertaining -the industrial resources of the nation. When a previous national emergency arose, no need was apparent for an industrial register. Every man who then volunteered to defend his country had to give his name, address, age and occupation, and practically all the other information proposed to be obtained under this bill. Therefore, I see no necessity for the measure. The only new feature is that the bill is made applicable to youths between the ages of 18. years and 21 years who will be compelled amongst other things to notify the department of changes of address. It has been said that this measure is complementary to the Supply and Development Bill, which was “ gagged “ through this chamber. The effect on the Opposition of the application of the “ gag “ might well be described as similar to that of a kick from a dying mule received by an intelligent person. I doubt whether by the application of the “ gag “ the Government secured the passage of the bill any sooner than it otherwise would have done.

I regard this measure as the first step towards conscription. We” on this’ side fear, not the contents of the bill, so much as what, lies beyond it. Unlimited power is to be given to the Governor-General, mid this implies legislation by regulation.

Senator Wilson:

– Can the honorable senator mention, one clause which provides for anything other than the supply of information ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I refuse to be cross-examined by my legal friend opposite. I am not now in the witness-box ; but the Government is in the dock. It says that this measure is necessary to ensure that, in a time of national peril, it will be able to call on the men of Australia to play their part. We are told that the bill would be the means of preventing those desirous of serving their country from taking an active part in military operations when they might be able to render more useful service at home. That would mean that they would be given sheltered positions similar to that filled by Senator Dein in the ‘last war. Senator Wilson, remarked that it would be undesirable to. employ a highly-skilled technician as a cook, and Senator Brand was greatly concerned yesterday that an engineer might be called upon - to peel potatoes. I point out, however, that, during the last war, when men and women enlisted voluntarily, they were drafted to the sections to which they wished to go, and in which they were best fitted for service.

Senator Collett:

– That is not so. We had neither the machinery nor the. time to do that.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Government had the necessary power, but did not exercise it. The Minister’s remark is a reflection upon the administration of the Defence Department. Under the conditions obtaining at that time, there would have been no danger of .Senator Wilson being asked to peel potatoes. He might have been detailed as an officer’s orderly.

The Government has declared that the object of the bill is to have the qualifications of people tabulated, but I do not believe that- it is sincere in that statement. I fear that there is an undisclosed motive behind the bill. If that were not the fear of the people, we should not have mass protest meetings at large ‘centres, attended by thousands of people. There must be some reason for the mistrust of the Government in regard to the bill, and proof of lack of confidence is furnished by the. results of the by-elections in Wakefield, Griffith and Wilmot. The reason given by the late Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) for a. national register was that it would enable a survey to be made of the supply of various classes of skilled persons to meet the demands of the navy, army and air force, government munitions factories, annexes to private factories, essential industries and other industries. I can place no interpretation on that statement other than that a survey is proposed of the supply of the various classes of skilled labour. Surely the fact that many thousands of people are offering in Victoria for employment in munitions factories shows that there should be no difficulty in drafting men into their proper avenues of employment. In New South Wales, also, many thousands of men are applying for similar work. The ministerial statement suggested the necessity for an individual record of the skilled persons in the schedule of reserve occupations, so as to ensure that the requirements of the army, navy and air force would be provided for by the allotment of persons to technical units. Applicants are .always available for these positions, particularly in the navy and air force, and the Government has a surplus of applicants for employment in the various industrial activities associated with defence. Those applications should be easily classified. The bil] requires all male persons between the ages of IS and 21 years to notify any change of address. It is interesting to note that at last the Government intends to take some notice of the lost legion - the unemployed youths of Australia - but it is significant that no consideration was given to them until there arose the possibility of their being required to defend the interests of the capitalists. It cannot be said that this clause is designed to ascertain the number of skilled technicians between the ages of 18 and 21 years, for, unfortunately, as the result of the depression, thousands of youths who are now between those ages have never had an opportunity to learn a trade. Even if they obtain jobs, they are sacked when they become 21 years of age, and younger lads take their places. In New South Wales thousands of young men are walking the streets and roads seeking employment. From time to time numbers of them are carted to country centres to work two weeks in eight for the princely sum of less than £9. They are set to work on the roads, under conditions not unlike the- treatment of convicts in the early days of Australian settlement. Men stand over them and hardly allow them to straighten their backs. At the conclusion of a fortnight of such treatment they go back to the cities, where they remain in idleness for another six weeks. Out. of the miserable pittance that they receive, they are expected to maintain themselves, and, in some instances, assist in keeping a home together. These conditions prevail to-day in New South Wales and elsewhere, in Australia. Why is it that special provisions, which do not apply to other males, are to apply to these youths ?

Senator DEIN:

– The honorable senator should tell us how he tried to ger. them jobs at Newnes.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Senator Dein told us that 600 nien were employed ;ir Newnes.

Senator Dein:

– I said “ nearly 600 “.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That is a deliberate mis-statement.

Senator Dein:

– I rise to a point of order. I take exception to the honorable senator’s remark. The figures that were cited by me were official. In my speech I did not say that exactly 600 men were employed at Newnes, but that that, was approximately the number. There were certainly well over 500 men there.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Ashley to withdraw the word “ deliberate “.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I do so, Mr. President, and say that the honorable senator’s remark was a mis-statement.

A paragraph in a cognate bill authorizes the conscription of these youths, in respect of whom, the Government has displayed callous indifference, when thrGovernorGeneral apprehends a state of war or danger thereof. Apparently these lads are of use only to defend the financial institutions and the capitalists of this country, for at no previous times have they been given any consideration by the Government.

The cost of the Government’s defence programme has progressively increased, until it is now estimated at £78,000,000 ; but not one shilling of that money is to be allocated to assist these unfortunate youths to whom I have referred. A bill to provide £200,000 to assist them has been submitted to Parliament.

Senator Dein:

– The honorable senator said that the Government had not assisted them at all.

Senator ASHLEY:

– A significant feature of the proposed grant is that it will benefit the capitalists of Australia even more than it will help those on whose behalf it is supposed to be made available. When that sum is divided among the different States, it will be found that it will be like a drop in the ocean in relieving the situation. The amount is insignificant in comparison with the needs. At least £1,000,000 a year should be provided by the Commonwealth Government for the relief and training of these youths.

A noticeable feature of the colossal expenditure on defence is the intention of the Government to build annexes on property owned by its wealthy friends, and to install machinery in such buildings. Senator James McLachlan cited figures in order to show that the sacrifices made during the Great War were not one-sided. He referred to the money raised for war loans, but he conveniently forgot to tell us that those loans were free of income tax and that the money invested in them was, in many cases, the yield of profiteering during the war period. Fortunes made in Australia overnight were invested in war loans free of income tax. To-day the people of Australia are paying, and they will continue to pay, interest on loans which were subscribed largely by profiteers at a time when other men were dying on the battlefields of Flanders and elsewhere.

Sitting suspended from12.45 until. 2.15 p.m.

Senator ASHLEY:

– During the last seven years, this Government has made many promises and given many assurances to the people, but they have not been kept. That is why we fear that there is an undisclosed motive behind the introduction of this bill. Senator Brand told us that he did not favour compulsion, and after describing us as good fellows, suggested that we were being pushed from behind. I rather think that he is being pushed from behind to support this measure, particularly in view of his disbelief in compulsion, and possibly he may yet support us. The greatest and most convincing argument that can be advanced against proposals involving compulsion is the result of the voluntary enlistment campaign. A Minister who delights to parade under the sobriquet of “The Little Digger “ led the campaign and the response was wonderful. The number of volunteers was greater than the most sanguine member of the Government anticipated, and the campaign was an unqualified success. When it was completed, “ The Little Digger “ began to advise the Defence Department how it should dress the soldiers. He proposed a brighter uniform such as would be popular at Pott’s Point, Sydney, or Toorak, Melbourne. He hinted that the men should wear elastic-side boots and have zip-fasteners in their puttees. What has followed that successful enlistment campaign? No assistance has been given to the men of various ages who volunteered in many centres, particularly in New South Wales. They have not been supplied, with any equipment; they have no rifles, and nothing is being done to encourage them in their efforts to be of service to the nation. That condition of affairs was admitted in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin).

During the debate, several queries have been raised concerning the Labour party’s defence platform. Government supporters have spoken of the blue-book containing our platform, which is quite clear. We advocate first -

Adequate home defence against possible Foreign aggression.

Only yesterday a Government supporter informed the Senate that he had consulted a dictionary to ascertain the meanings of “ adequate “, which are, “ to make equal to “, “ commensurate with a requirement or occasion “, “ fully sufficient for a purpose “, and “ proportionate to a specific end “. Another plank on the Labour party’s platform, is -

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

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– A referendum.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes. The party also adopted the following declarations in amplification of its policy: -

  1. The Australian Labour party expresses its greatest abhorrence to war and Fascism and urges that the Commonwealth Government should endeavour to establish and maintain friendly relations with other nations.
  2. That the complete control of the production of munitions and war materials of all kinds should be vested entirely in the Commonwealth Government.

Those views were adduced by honorable senators of the Opposition against the Supply and Development Bill. In the event of future hostilities, the people of Australia will be called upon to make sacrifices similar to those made during the Great War, and so the Government should insist that no profit shall be made out of the manufacture of arms and munitions necessary for the conduct of such a conflict. I am giving the Senate the defence policy of the Labour party -

  1. That preparation to counter any possible foreign aggression be made by the establishment of a defence scheme commensurate with Australia’s ability to maintain it and adequate for our needs, and that this be done by concentration on the followingessentials: -

    1. Aerial defence, and further development of commercial and civil aviation capable’ of conversion for defence purposes.
    2. The establishment of air ports and depots at strategical points on the coast and inland.
    3. The provision of adequate stores of oil fuel, and concentration upon the production of oil from coal and/or shale; and the production of power alcohol from crops suitable for the purpose.

I do not wish to read all the planks in the platform, but these matters are constantly referred to in a sneering way by Government supporters. That is why I produced the blue-book to show that there has been no alteration of our policy. The name of our party has never undergone the variations that have characterized the anti-Labour parties. Yesterday, Senator Dein quoted from a letter that he had received from Mr. Stout, the secretary of the Trades Hall Council, Melbourne. I also have a copy of that communication, and as Senator Dein quoted only certain portions, I shall quote from the remainder. Early to-day, the honorable senator asked a “Dorothy Dix” question on the matter. Mr. Stout’s letter stated that the following motion had been adopted by the executive : -

The Australasian Council of Trades Unions having considered proposals from trades and labour councils and such unions as the Amalgamated Engineering Union, ironworkers, and the boilermakers in the metal industries, and the waterside workers, and many other organizations, bearing on the Menzies Government’s bill introduced into the Federal Parliament to provide for a national register of the manpower of the Commonwealth, and having examined the ‘ bill is convinced that it will inevitably lead to the conscription of the workers of the Commonwealth both for industry and military purposes under conditions imposed by regulations from the Government or by the departmental Minister.

To defeat the national register proposal the executive decided -

A national campaign of protest and opposition.

The Labour” councils under the direction of the Australasian Council of Trades Unions to be responsible for the campaign in each State.

The trade unions to seek the cooperation of the Labour party in the campaign against the scheme.

Meetings and demonstrations to be held to demand the withdrawal of the measure.

Protests to be forwarded to the Government and all federal parliamentarians.

In the event of the measure becoming law, a. boycott to be organized to prevent the filling in of national register forms.

The boycott to be organized on a collective basis by trade unions, shop committees, mass meetings.

The immediate calling of a federal conference of unions in key industries for the implementing of the above decisions, and to consider such other action as may be deemed necessary.

That passage is sufficient to show that people outside Parliament have not forfeited their right to protest against the introduction of. objectionable proposals here. Did we not have similar demonstrations when the Government sought to enforce conscription? Have people surrendered their right to hold meetings? The record of this Government, with its unfulfilled promises and assurances, justifies the citizens in voicing their strong opposition to this undesirable measure.

I regret that a member of this chamber descended so low as to stigmatize union secretaries and leaders as parasites. The use of such an appellation was quite uncalled for, and unjustifiable. Ex-officials of the Labour movement occupy seats on this side of the chamber. Senator Cameron, Senator Keane and Senator Sheehan have been secretaries and leaders of unions. Any reflection cast upon the elected leaders of trade unions is east equally upon all the members of those organizations. Having made this attack upon the trade union leaders, Senator Dein qualified his remarks by saying that he did not intend them to be applied to . the unionists themselves. I remind the honorable senator that the leaders of industrial organizations are elected to their positions by the members of unions, and that, therefore, his disparaging remarks were applicable, to all the members of the trade unions, It ill becomes any person occupying such an honorable position as that of Senator Dein to abuse his privileges by making unwarranted and disparaging remarks of this kind. My conception of the meaning of the word parasite is “ one who frequents the table of the rich, and lives at. another’s expense”. In my opinion the term might more aptly be applied to the honorable senator.

SenatorFraser. - The Government even asked these “ parasites “ of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions to join with it in giving effect to the provisions of this bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– We are asked by those whom we represent to fight this bill to the last ditch. It cannot be denied that all the humanitarian legislation now on the statute-book was placed there by Labour governments.

Senator McBride:

– The honorable senator will believe that if he says it often enough.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Honorable senators on this side of the chamber were questioned yesterday and to-day in regard to the introduction of legislation providing for the payment of invalid and oldage pensions.

Senator McBride:

– Who was responsible for cutting the rate of pensions?

Senator Keane:

– A government which the honorable senator supported.

Senator ASHLEY:

– In Labour’s bluebook we find that the first Commonwealth Old-age Pension Act was introduced in 1908. . Although Labour was not in power at the time, being only a small party, it held the balance of power between the two other parties. Having such power it forced the Deakin Government to make provision for old-age pensions, agreeing, if it did so, to allow the government to remain in office. Senator Mulcahy, a tory from Tasmania, speaking” in the Senate at that time, left no doubt as to who was actually responsible for bringing into existence the first pensions legislation. Senator Mulcahy is reported in - the Parliamentary Debates on the 3rd June, 1908, as having said -

I am prepared to give the Labour party every credit in the matter, and I assert that if a scheme for the establishment of old-age pensions is approved this session, the whole of the credit for it will be due to the Labour party, and not the Government.

That the people have lost confidence in the Government is shown by recent byelections for the Houseof Representatives, and by the failure of the last two internal loans floated by the Government. It will be seen that the Government has forfeited the confidence, not only of the workers but also, of those persons upon whom it has always relied for support in the past, the moneybags who supply the sinews of war. The recent loan floated in London for defence purposes was also a flop, and a large proportion of it was left with the underwriters. The Government’s appeal to the so-called patriots who, to-day, are still collecting interest on the investment of their ill-gotten gains during the war, fell on deaf ears.

Senator Dein:

– Was the money provided ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The money sought to be raised in Australia was provided only through an instrumentality established by a Labour Government, the Commonwealth Bank. ‘That institution is the salvation of the Government to-day. -just as it was the salvation of this nation during the war.

I am not responsible for what may be done by people outside this Parliament with the questionnaire. It has been stated that processions will be held and that bonfires will be made of the question papers. One of the questions proposed to be submitted to the people seeks information as to whether the person questioned is blind, deaf, dumb, crippled or otherwise maimed. May I respectfully suggest that a further question should have . been included to ascertain how many of the people between the ages of 18 and 65 years are suffering from malnutrition, chiefly as the result of the mismanagement of the Government now occupying the treasury bench. Another question seeks to ascertain the number of unemployed, including sustenance and relief workers. The information collated as the result of the replies furnished to that question will be very valuable and should be made known in this Senate. No exact information on that subject is at present available.

Senator McBride:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that union returns of unemployment- are falsified?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Not at all, but they are incomplete because a great number of the unemployed are not registered members of trade unions. This Govern ment must accept its share of responsibility for the plight of those unfortunate people.

Senator McBride:

– It has no apologies to make.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Surely the honorable senator does not contend that it is the fault of the Labour movement that so many unemployed are not registered members of unions. Even if the prosperity which it is suggested abounds in Australia, to-day, really existed, it would not be possible to arrive at an accurate calculation of the number of unemployed from the returns furnished by the trade unions, because all persons in employ-, ment are not members of unions. I com mend to honorable senators generally the arguments which I have advanced against this bill. I trust that the bill will be rejected, but in any case I promise honorable senators opposite a not very happy-time when it reaches the committee stage.

Senator Dein:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. When I was speaking last Friday on the Supply and Development Bill I stated that nearly 600 men were employed on the Newnes shale field. To-day ‘Senator Ashley accused me of making a deliberate misstatement in regard to that matter.

SenatorCollings. - He withdrew the word deliberate.

Senator Dein:

– This afternoon I have been officially informed that on the 24th May last, over three weeks ago, over 400 men were employed on the field itself, and another 150 men were employed in road making between Capertee and Glen Davis. That means that over three weeks ago, there were 550 men on that field. That number is daily increasing. Also, we should remember that persons employed there have been responsible indirectly for the employment of a considerable number of other men.

Senator Collings:

– I ask for your ruling, Mr. President, as to whether Senator Dein is in order. He is supposed to be making a personal explanation, whereas he is merely contradicting a statement made on this side of the Senate.

Senator Dein:

– I am correcting a misstatement.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator has no right under- cover of a personal explanation to say what he has been saying.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Standing Order 410 reads -

A senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard, to explain himself in regard to some material part of his speech whichhas been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce new matter or interrupt any senator in possession of the Chair

Senator Collings:

– We did not misquote the honorable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Standing Order mentions that an honorable senator whose remarks have been misunderstood, has the right to make a personal explanation.

Senator Collings:

– I do not wish to dispute your ruling, Mr. President, but if I interpret that Standing Order correctly, it means that an honorable senator may make a personal explanation in respect of any misunderstanding in connexion with a speech made in this debate. The statement of Senator Dein was made in another debate a week ago.

Senator Dein:

– It was misrepresented in this chamber to-day.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that Senator Dein has said enough on the subject.

Senator Dein:

– With all due respect to you, Mr. President, I claim that I have the right to make my position clear. I was accused in the debate this morning of having said certain things.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the meaning of the Standing Order is clear. If an honorable senator has been misunderstood or misquoted during a current debate he is entitled to be heard in explanation.

Senator Dein:

– I submit to your ruling, Mr. President, and shall reserve any further remarks on this subject until the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. What has been said has been recorded in Hansard at all events.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I do not think that it is necessary to reply to very many of the statements that were made by honorable senators opposite in this debate, because they obviously have been based not on provisions contained in the bill, but on something which they read into it. Senator Cameron, for instance, said, “ We do not view the bill as it exists”.

Senator Cameron:

– I did not say that.

Senator LECKIE:

– That is precisely what the honorable gentleman did say. He and his colleagues read into the measure something that is not there, and their attitude generally indicates that they regard this bill and the one which preceded it, with suspicion. They suggest by their arguments that their opposition to this proposal was conceived in- doubt and reared in suspicion. They affect to fear its effects, and generally they appear to be suffering from a nightmare due to unjustified fears.

Senator Collings:

– Probably because we have to listen to what the honorable senator says.

Senator LECKIE:

– I should be very much surprised if the few words which I have to say from time to time in this chamber create any mistrust in the minds of honorable senators opposite. They all have spoken of the measure of compulsion in respect of certain things to be done under the bill. One would think that hitherto the people of Australia had never been compulsorily required to do anything. Our friends opposite conveniently forget entirely that the Commonwealth Government has been compelled, to take this action owing to the disturbed condition of international affairs, a matter over which we have no control whatever. World unrest compels the Government to put its house in order without delay. Labour senators declare a belief in adequate defence measures; yet for some undiscovered reason, they are bitterly opposed to these proposals. Do they say that these measures are not adequate? Or do they believe that the measures are more than adequate?

Senator Collings:

– We say that this bill is unnecessary.

Senator LECKIE:

– Does that mean that in the opinion of the honorable gentleman the measures that are to be taken are more than adequate?

Senator Collings:

– It means that we view them with suspicion.

Senator Arthur:

– What did Mr. Bruce say?

Senator LECKIE:

– Our friends opposite have been suspicious from the outset.

Now Senator Arthur wants to know what Mr. Bruce said. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bruce, in his interviews with members of Parliament throughout Australia a few months ago, did not tell us anything that we had not read in the newspaper’s during the previous fortnight. He told us nothing that was confidential.

Senator Keane:

– What did he say about Japan?

Senator LECKIE:

– It is true that Mr. Bruce clarified the position with regard to some matters that had been given prominence in newspapers, but he certainly gave no instructions or advice to members of the Commonwealth Parliament, and he did not tell us anything that we had not already read in the newspapers.

Senator Cameron:

– Yes he did.

Senator LECKIE:

– I do not agree with the honorable senator. Therefore, it serves no purpose for Opposition members to evade the issue by asking what Mr. Bruce had to say about international affairs.

Senator Collings:

– We say that the Government, and its supporters are not prepared to admit what Mr. Bruce said.

Senator LECKIE:

– I repeat that Mr. Bruce did not give any instructions, and I doubt whether he gave very much advice to the Government concerning the international situation.

Senator Cameron:

– He did give advice to the Government.

Senator LECKIE:

– Many things have been said by honorable senators opposite in justification of their objections to the bill. Senator Aylett, for instance, said that the bill was designed to aid the wealthy manufacturers and Senator Cameron urged that it would establish the principle of profits in connexion with government, contracts for defence requirements.

Senator Cameron:

– Not establish, but increase profits. The principle of the proposal is already established.

Senator LECKIE:

– The honorable gentleman affects to believe that unlimited profits will be made on government orders. He knows otherwise. Then lie went on to define what he meant by industrial conscription, of which he appears, to be so much afraid; and argued that if some people took things that did not belong to them and were put in gaol, that would be tantamount to industrial conscription.

Senator Cameron:

– I did not say anything of the sort.

Senator LECKIE:

– I have it all written down, so the honorable senator cannot escape in that way. Labour senators seem to gloat over any suggestion of failure in connexion with Commonwealth loans in London or loan flotations in Australia.

Senator Armstrong:

– The failure of the last loan is proof of lack of confidence in this Government.

Senator LECKIE:

– I do not think that the result can he interpreted in that way. It may be regarded as proof that the unlimited profits which manufacturers are supposed to be making out of the people of Australia do not exist. That is more likely the reason for the partial failure of recent Commonwealth loans. The under subscription of the London issue cannot possibly be attributed to any fear by the people of Great Britain about the stability of the Commonwealth It may be due to the fact that London investors are fully occupied with British loans. Why are honorable senators opposite always so pleased whenever anything goes wrong with Australian financial matters?

Senator Collings:

– This Government is supposed to represent the last word in public finance.

Senator LECKIE:

– Not at all.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable gentleman and his friends have hitherto eulogized the Australian High Commissioner in London for his brilliance in being able to select the right time for loan operations.

Senator LECKIE:

– Honorable senators opposite to-day complained that Senator Dein last evening cast some reflections upon the secretaries or officials of various trade union organizations who have been active in opposition to this measure. Whatever feeling I may have about that matter, I should say that resentment against ‘Senator Dein does -not come well from honorable gentlemen who, throughout this debate, have repeatedly impugned the sincerity of the Government and have spoken with the greatest freedom about bloodthirsty racketeering manufacturers. They have also referred in the most disparaging terms to the gentlemen of high repute and wide experience who have been appointed to the Advisory Committee on Industrial Organization. These gentlemen have patriotically undertaken without remuneration to advise the Government on the industrial side of its defence measures. To me it is extraordinary that they should be held up to scorn and branded almost as traitors.

Senator Keane:

– That is not true.

Senator LECKIE:

– To suggest that the advice which they may give to the Government will bring trouble upon the workers of Australia is fantastically untrue.

Senator Keane:

– How many honorable senators on this side suggested that?

Senator LECKIE:

– I should say at least ten out of the sixteen Labour senators in this chamber referred to the personnel of the proposed Advisory Committee on Industrial Organization in most opprobrious terms. Yet, when Senator Dein said something about the activities of executive officers of trade union organizations - probably I would not have said what the honorable gentleman did - there was a howl of indignation from honorable senators ‘opposite, and Senator Dein was assailed as a man without decent human feelings. I take the view that what is medicine for one side is medicine for the other. If our friends opposite show reasonable appreciation of men who from a sense of patriotism and public duty offer their service gratuitously to the Government in a national crisis, we shall be content and, for my part, I shall give honorable senators opposite and the members of industrial organizations all credit for sincerity of purpose.

Senator Keane:

– That is fair enough.

Senator LECKIE:

– Although the Leader of the Opposition did not open the debate for the ‘Opposition on this measure, the honorable gentleman gave us one of the most vigorous expositions of his views on this subject that I have ever heard. His speech appeared to be a condensation of all the soapbox orations that the honorable gentleman has delivered during the 50 years of his political career. I have no doubt that he even convinced himself that what he was saying was the last word in political wisdom, for I cannot imagine the honorable gentleman continuing for so long had he not been convinced of his own infallibility.

Senator Arthur:

– Tell us something about the bill.

Senator LECKIE:

– The bill is really a measure to ensure the enrolment of certain classes of people. As I have said, it has been forced on the Commonwealth Government by political developments in other parts of the world. We must put our own house in order and be in a position to defend our people. The fear and suspicion that exist about the bill and the objections taken to the compilation of a national register which would enable the classification of the people, are beyond my comprehension, had not Senator Cameron supplied the reason. He said, “ We do not look at this bill as it exists “.

Senator Cameron:

– I said nothing of the sort.

Senator LECKIE:

– Because honorable senators opposite read into the bill purposes that are foreign to it, they criticize it. I commend the Government for having introduced this bill. If the Opposition advises its adherents to refuse to supply the desired information, the people will know which section thinks that Australia is worth defending. The Government is perfectly justified in providing for ‘ compulsory registration, so that every body in the community shall do his duty. If the bill does no good, it cannot do any harm, and it will be an earnest to nations overseas which may be looked upon as our potential enemies.

Senator Cameron:

– Who are those people ?

Senator LECKIE:

– The honorable senator desires to place me in an awkward position, but I am not likely to be attracted by a bait such as that offered by him. He desires to make political capital out of this debate by inviting me to make a dangerous statement that might create ill-feeling between Australia and some other nations. This is not the first time such a question has been asked. It is not only a cowardly question, but also one that is not in the best interests of Australia. I hope that such a question will not be submitted again. I believe that this legislation is on right lines, and that the suspicions of members of the Opposition are groundless. Whichever political party is in power, it is in office by the will of the majority of the people, and the laws of the land must be obeyed.

Senator UPPILL (South Australia) 3.4 J . - I have listened with attention to all of the arguments for and against the measure, and the only conclusion that I can reach is that the bill deserves support. The chief objection offered to it is that there is an undisclosed motive ‘for it. In that regard, however, my conscience is quite clear, and I accept the bill as it stands. If the Labour party were in power to-day, I have no doubt that it would be compelled, by force of circumstances, to do exactly as the present Government proposes to do under this bill. I. base that statement on the following remarks said to have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) -

I now present a programme as being Labour’s conception of Australia’s defence needs, and which it will implement as a government: - Survey of man-power and woman-power resources (industrial and primary) is essential, that the number of nien and women able to carry out all forms of work be known. The Labour party believes in organization, not disorganization. It would be fatal to have all the best men called up for active service, leaving industry at a standstill. There should be an allotment of man-power and woman-power between services and industry.

Senator Aylett:

– Nothing is said there about compulsion.

Senator UPPILL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– How else could the information be obtained? If the Leader of the Opposition was serious, he would have admitted that the proposal could not’ be given effect other than by compulsion. I see no difference between this bill and many others. The registration proposed under it would be little different from the registration of births, marriages and deaths.

Senator Fraser:

– Could not all of the information required be obtained by means of the census that is taken periodically?

Senator UPPILL:

– If we desire to organize industry properly, and do justice to the people generally, a measure of this description must be passed. I shall not enter into a debate on the various matters that have been introduced, such as the way in which elections have been fought and won during the last twenty years.

Senator CAMERON:

– by leave - I desire to make a personal explanation regarding a statement by Senator Leckie, which I regard as inaccurate. He said that the first words I used in addressing myself to the bill were, “ We do not look at the bill as it exists “. I did not use those words. According to Hansard, what I said was -

This bill, like the Supply and Development Bill, has its origin, in my judgment, not in what the Government would have us believe, namely, the meed for a national register for defence purposes, but in the economy peculiar not only to Australia, but also “ to other countries - unlimited profits for capitalists and war-time financiers.

Senator Leckie also declared that I referred to industrial conscripts as people who went to gaol, but I said nothing of the kind. The words I used were - 1 assure the Minister that I am saying seriously that we have to-day industrial conscription. I challenge the honorable gentleman to dispute that. Thousands of young men and young women in this country are denied the right to earn a decent livelihood and access to many of the things to which they are entitled. They are industrial conscripts. They have either to submit to that form of conscription, or be treated as the law prescribes they shall be treated.

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

– in reply. - On behalf of the Government I thank honorable senators for the close attention that they have given to this bill, the importance of which is generally admitted. I express my personal thanks to honorable senators for the consideration they have shown for me in the handling of this measure, which I was called upon to undertake at short notice. I now have half an hour in which to reply to fourteen hours’ debate, and, if there are any shortcomings on my part, I hope that similar consideration to that which I have already received will be extended to me. It is said that truth is to be found at the bottom of a well. In this debate the suggestion has been made that truth is masquerading in the form of noise and verbosity, and in that regard let me present to honorable senators an allegory. During mobile warfare, when there is perhaps a temporary halt in operations, certain tactical points are seized, and at each of these is established what is called a strong point. This is an earthwork garrisoned by ten, twenty or even more men. The position of the earthwork is observed by the enemy, and an attempt is made to get possession of it, or, at any rate, to destroy the troops in occupation of it. A bombardment is concentrated on the point, with the result that there is much noise, much mud is flung about, and an unpleasant odour arises. I suggest to the Senate that the Government is the garrison, that the hill is the strong point, and that the Government is still in possession of it.

Senator Keane, who led the debate on behalf of the Opposition, said that the’ Government had no man-date to proceed with this measure, or to submit a proposal of this kind ; but I contend that every government elected by the people has a mandate, not only to provide for the welfare of the inhabitants, but also to take effective measures for the defence of our long coastline. In view of our small population and remote geographical position, it is essential, therefore, that the resources of the nation should be completely organized. I remind honorable senators of the sound dictum of Senator Sheehan in, I think, his first speech in this chamber in regard to defence, that Australia must be prepared for any emergency. In placing this bill before the Senate I assure honorable senators -and the public that there is no underlying or overt purpose to impose conscription for either the armed forces or industrial operations. I cannot help thinking that the word “ conscription “ in its sinister meaning has been purposely introduced into the debate for purely political reasons, in order to create that hysteria which the Opposition so rightly deprecates. There is no legislative power to conscript for overseas service, nor is there any relation between the bill and any system of military training. The last census did not provide all of the information now asked for, and for that reason the bill provides for a record of the qualifications of the man-power of the Commonwealth. The object of the national ‘register is to en- sure that men whose occupations show that they may be required for industries and occupations on the reserve list, shall be reserved for national requirements.

Regarding the element of compulsion, I remind the Senate that Part IV. of the Defence Act makes service for home defence compulsory. That has been the law for 36 years. As several honorable senators have pointed out, the element of compulsion exists also in relation to electoral enrolment and voting, taxation, hours of labour, holidays, payment of wages, payment of bills, public health, licences, census, and the closing hours of hotels. The Opposition believes in compulsory unionism, and in Western Australia no man can get work on a government, undertaking unless he is a unionist. In this bill there is nothing to take away the rights of the workers; the rights that they already enjoy are fully conserved.

In regard to Labour generally, Senator Keane said that when the Labour army marches, it marches as one body. He did not tell us that there are several Labour armies with no common leader. Mr. Curtin, who for the time being is recognized as the leader of the political Labour movement, made a declaration on defence; but the very first point that he made has since been repudiated by his party. As to that gentleman’s views regarding the purposes which this bill seeks to achieve, I suggest that he be judged by his peers. Mr. Dwyer-Gray, who is now the Premier of Tasmania, according to the Burnie Advocate of the 9th June, stated recently -

If the Federal Parliament institutes any sort of compulsory national register, I trust the requirements of the law will be observed by Australian democracy.

He could not understand the argument that a compulsory register would facilitate the conscription of men for military service, since, under the Defence Act, the Menzies Government could conscript everybody in Australia to-day, following the simple proclamation that Australia was imperilled by invasion.

Another Labour Premier, Mr. Forgan Smith, is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 12th June as having said that he was opposed to using defiant methods against the national register. He stated -

Amendment of what is considered an unjust law in a democracy can only be obtained through Parliament itself by constitutional methods. To advocate any other course would be contrary to democracy and would mere,3 play into the hands of those anti -social forces who seek an opportunity to destroy parliamentary methods and replace them by dictatorship.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear! We all subscribe to that.

Senator COLLETT:

– I am gratified to find confirmation of that attitude by the Premier of my own State. The Sydney Sun of the 10th June, contains the following report of an interview in Melbourne with the Premier of Western Australia : -

Approval of the stand taken by the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, in opposing the use of “ defiant methods “ against the national register, was expressed to-day by the Labour Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Wilcock, who is at present in Melbourne. “ I agree with Mr. Forgan Smith that what is considered to be an unjust law should bc amended in a democracy only through Parliament itself by constitutional methods,” Mr. Wilcock said. “ I do not like the idea of a national register, but if the National Registration Act is merely what it purports to be - a measure for securing information about Australia’s resources and wealth - I can see no great harm in it. The significance of the measure will depend on what action is taken on the information obtained.”

Senator Collings:

– Those quotations show Labour’s attitude.

Senator COLLETT:

– I turn now to statements made in this chamber by honorable senators. Senator Johnston expressed the desire that there should be more practical evidence of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in regard to defence measures. I can only say that that phase of the relations between the Commonwealth and the States will be an important topic for discussion at the Premiers/ Conference which is to be held in Canberra next week.

It is generally agreed that honorable senators who make statements in this chamber must make them with a full sense of responsibility. During the discussion of this bill, Senator Aylett made what appeared to me to be a determined attempt to foster class hatred.

Senator Sheehan:

– -He does not look very violent.

Senator COLLETT:

– Malignant elements often exist in small bodies. The honora’ble senator said that this hill contains an outline of a plan by which the

Government can segregate its enemies from its followers and friends.

Senator Aylett:

– I did not use those words.

Senator COLLETT:

– I have given the sense of the honorable senator’s remarks. He said that the friends of the Government will be placed in sheltered positions, whilst its political opponents will be put into the front line. That is the effect of his remarks.

Senator Aylett:

– No.

Senator COLLETT:

– As the result of my experience, which is probably wider than Senator Aylett’s, I am convinced that, taking mankind as a whole, most men are inherently decent. I find that reflected in this Senate; men have the courage to stand in their places and give expression to their honest opinions. I mixed with over 300,000 picked Australians abroad, and I found them consorting with one another without any reference to politics, or sectarian issues, and without regard to the fact that some were wealthy and others poor. All were Australians, engaged in achieving a common objective, and they behaved decently to one another. In that community of 300,000 men, there was less crime than in any other community of the same size.

Senator Cameron:

– They were well paid and clothed.

Senator COLLETT:

– As to sacrificing the poorer men in the operations of war. one has only to read of the early days of the war in Europe to realize that the best of England perished during the first six months. The history of the Australian Imperial Force proves that during that first twelve months of its operation ~ the flower of Australian manhood largely disappeared. This country would be very much richer to-day if those men were with us.

Senators James McLachlan and Amour referred to the duties of the registration board, but I shall not comment on thai subject, for it is one for consideration in committee.

Senator Cameron laid stress on the distinction which is given in the bill to men between the ages of 18 and 21 years. Hp complained that they had to notify any change of address. There are two reason? for that provision. In the first place, tlx-

Electoral Act already provides that all persons of 21 years and over shall notify any change of address. Persons under 21 years of age are not covered by that act and therefore, special provision must be made in respect of them. Another reason is that, at eighteen years, a youth is generally about half way through his apprenticeship, assuming that he is an apprentice. He is, therefore, of considerable value as a skilled artisan, although not fully developed as such.

SenatorFraser. - That information could be obtained from a general census.

Senator COLLETT:

– I have already endeavoured to explain that the taking of a general census would involve more delay than we can afford.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) stated in definite terms that he would withdraw the statutory obligation imposed upon every person to serve Australia in time of need. The public should be aware of this attitude. As I imagine that the honorable senator referred to section 59 of the Defence Act, I. shall read it -

All male inhabitants of Australia (excepting those who are exempt from service in the Defence Force) who have resided therein for six months and are British subjects and are between the ages of eighteen and sixty years shall, in time of war, be liable to serve in the Citizen Forces.

I shall read section 49 also -

Members of the Defence Force who are members of the Military Forces shall not be required, unless they voluntarily agree to do so, to serve beyond the limits of the Commonwealth and those of any Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth.

I was glad to hear Senator Armstrong’s views regarding possible opposition to this bill should it become law, and I was gratified to hear similar utterances from other honorable senators opposite.

I desire now to make some general observations regarding what the bill contains or seeks to achieve. The bill has been subjected to a great amount of review and criticism. Its very character invites that. Should it ever- function at the full - we hope it will not - its effects must be marked throughout the manufacturing and industrial interests of Australia. In itself this is one of the major legislative projects necessary to bring the means and machinery for the successful defence of the Commonwealth into more or less perfect alignment. In other words, the more complete our organization the less the risk of war, or, if that tragedy should overtake the people, the better the chance of a successful outcome. More would be involved in a war than a mere question of the utilization of human life. There will of necessity be included human energy and industry, the products and manufactures of the country, and all its financial resources. I emphasize that point. The bill is a corollary to the policy proclaimed and entered upon by the Lyons Government, and that policy has been extended and broadened by the present administration.

Senator Collings:

– It has been broadened.

Senator COLLETT:

– Yes ;I used that word purposely. I may add that, whether or not honorable senators opposite know it, the action now proposed through the instrumentality of the bill would be the inevitable outcome of a policy, hints of which have from time to time been dropped by them; indeed, no scheme of defence could possibly be adequate without it. This is an emergency measure, the outcome of a critical period in our history. We devoutly hope that that critical period will pass, and that the operations of the measure will in time be shortened. ‘ My hope is tha t the Australian Labour party will support the legislation in the interests of the nation. I have personal friends among the members of the Opposition. On previous occasions I have voiced my respect for the ideals and legitimate aspirations of the Labour party. That respect is based on a record of worthy achievement. The party of the past justly earned Australia’s gratitude. In the prewar days it had broad comprehensive views on the defence problem. It gave us theRoyal Australian Navy, which in 1914 effectively shielded these shores from bombardment and kept open our trade routes. If the navy had not been in existence the eastern shores of the Commonwealth would have been bombarded and the trade routes would have been’ closed. The Labour party imposed upon the people the obligation that every suitable person should submit to training under arms for the protection of his home-land, and that burden has been willingly borne. For a time during the Great War the Labour Government maintained abroad with commendable efficiency that magnificent army, the Australian Imperial Force. If we compare the party’s national ideals, it stood then where, if the press correctly informs us, the British Labour party stands to-day. But what do we find in relation to those who are at present sheltering under the banner of the Australian Labour party? I maintain that for years they have placed themselves in the wrong with the people, because they have refused to explain frankly the details involved in that nebulous slogan, “ the adequate defence of Australia”. During the debate we have heard many comments on that subject. I n effect, if there be a policy at all it has chameleon-like qualities. This time last year it had an isolationist aspect, but that has been altered. In October the Leader of the Labour party in the House of Representatives (Mr. Curtin) announced changes, the first item of which- a survey of man-power - is being opposed by his followers here. In May the Labour Conference gave matters of policy further consideration, and arrived at conclusions which, inter alia, provide for the admission of the Empire into a kind of partnership in defence measures. That fact should be compared with the party’s previous attitude, which I say bore an isolationist aspect. The party is on the way back to sensibleness. The present parliamentary Labour party has failed to take an active part in the move to better our defence system, it has hindered legislation intended to effect such improvements, and, in spite of its professed belief in democratic government, it has failed to repudiate threats from the ranks of its followers to sabotage what will eventually be the law of the land. By these acts of commission and omission, the party’s members have completely negatived the high traditions left by their forebears. If the party desires again to occupy in the public life of Australia the position that it should, it must first set itself right with the people upon the great issues which are before the nation at the present time. During this debate, the Opposition has gone out of its way to provoke unwarranted suspicion and make baseless charges in respect to all the Government’s defence measures. Nevertheless, when this bill becomes law, as it must, I feel that, as good Australians, they will give the ready help that should be given by them. They may, I think, be relied upon to see that our defence measures secure what we aim- at - adequate protection for the people.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2-

This act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I move - ‘

That all the words after “ operation “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : “ after the electors have declared by referendum that they approve of the principles of this act”.

I know that to honorable senators opposite this word “ referendum “ has a very sinister meaning, because it occurs in the Labour party’s policy with respect to foreign wars. We are always told that a referendum cannot be taken in the face of an enemy ; but a government, of which the Menzies Government is .the lineal descendant, succeeded in taking two referendums while the Great War was actually being waged, and while our men were dying in the different theatres of war. No state of war exists at the moment and, therefore, no just reason can bc advanced ‘.’.gainst granting to the people and to those who are vitally inly res ted in the provisions of this measure - and no section of the community will be called upon to render a greater service under this bill that the section which we on this side of the chamber represent - the opportunity to express their opinion in regard to it before it becomes law. If the Government is of the opinion that this bill is vitally necessary, what reason can it offer for refusing to consult the people before finally placing it upon the statute-book? Either it is afraid to trust the people or it is fearful of their verdict. If the Government objects to the taking of a referendum on this matter it can ascertain whether the electorate is prepared to accept the principles laid down in this bill, by refusing any longer to attempt to carry on the government of this country under th extremely difficult circumstance’s in which it finds itself to-day. Hour after hour in the House of Representatives, it has had to eat its words and accept the demands of first one and then the other of the competing parties in the House. Why does it submit to the dictates of the Opposition parties? Merely to deny to its masters the right to say once and for all whether or not they are satisfied with the policy of this Government and the legislative means by which it proceeds to implement that policy, one feature of which we are now discussing.

Senator Leckie:

– Does the honorable senator really want, an election?

Senator COLLINGS:

– We all respect Senator Leckie, though we do not like his political affiliations. We are of the opinion that there are no good nationalists except dead ones;-

Senator Cameron:

– And we are doubtful even of them.

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is so; nevertheless, I ask Senator Leckie to bear this in mind: On this side of the chamber all but one of us are secure in our jobs for we have another five years to run, whereas only three honorable senators opposite are secure in their jobs for that period. In these circumstances, why should we fear an election? We have far more reason to view with equanimity an approaching election than have honorable senators opposite. We are prepared to face our masters at any time that the . Government is ready for the contest, and we are fortified in that preparedness by the results of the recent by-elections for the House of Representatives. I am not asking for an election; I am merely suggesting that, if’ the Government has an unholy fear of this word “ referendum “ it can take other action to ascertain the feelings of the people in regard to this bill. I do not wish to traverse the ground so thoroughly covered during the second: reading debate; it would be unfair to attempt to do so during the comparatively short time allowed for the committee debate. The Minister in charge of the bill delivered what I consider is one of the best replies to a second-reading debate delivered by any Minister in this chamber in recent times. It was not of the stereotyped officially-prepared type ; the Minister, breathed into it a little of the soul of his own personality. I am grateful to him for the nice things he said about the Labour party of earlier years, though I knew when he said them that he was only leading up to some unkind remarks regarding the present Opposition. In no part of his reply to the debate, however, did he remove one of the defects which we see in this bill. He spoke of unnecessary fear and unfounded suspicion.

Senator Cameron:

– And military tactics

Senator COLLINGS:

– Yes, and on those military tactics lie is a very satisfactory authority for us. We are not so concerned, however, with that phase of the bill as with others. I may perhaps be excused if I repeat that we object to this bill, because it is compulsory, because it has been rightly termed by Government supporters a stock-taking bill, and because under it men and women of this country will be treated as so much raw .material along with machinery and goods of every description. I was about to say that I hope my amendment would be, carried. I know that it will not be because we cannot move this Government in its desire to stay where it is against all odds. I want it to be put on record that at the eleventh hour the Opposition gave the Government an opportunity through this amendment to retreat from the unworthy position which it had taken. After all, the amendment does . not discuss the merits of the measure; but asks that, before it is put into operation, its proposals be submitted to the people of Australia, who are vitally interested in it. They are more interested than many honorable senators, whose age will prevent them from coming under the operations of the measure. I, myself, would be exempt, but I am giving the Government an opportunity to do the decent thing, the Australian thing, which is to say to the people, openly and with every confidence - if it can work up that confidence - “ You are our masters. This is an important measure, and we submit it to you by means of a referendum in order to know, before we bring it into operation, whether you approve of it of not”. ‘

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- In supporting the amendment, I do not propose to discuss the general purpose of the bill. It has been well discussed by the representatives of all parties in this chamber. I point out, however, even at this late hour, that there has been a decided alteration of the position of the Government. In the House of Representatives a few hours ago it was overwhelmingly defeated on a very important matter, which has given the Opposition further reasons for saying that the Government has no mandate, no authority, and no support from the electors for bringing this legislation before Parliament. Its action is in marked contrast to the action of the Scullin Government, which resigned on the very day that a vote was cast against it as the result of an almost innocuous objection raised against the action of a Minister who was being energetic at his own election. The present Government has no warrant to introduce a national registration scheme, because it does not possess the confidence of either the Parliament or the electors..

Senator Dein:

– The Scullin Government was defeated.

Senator KEANE:

– So was the present Government - by a vote of 42 to 19.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I support the amendment for the reason that at the last federal elections the Leader of the Government (Mr. Lyons) gave a definite pledge to the electors that he would not impose compulsory methods upon them without first holding a referendum.

Senator Dein:

– What does the honorable senator mean by “ compulsory methods ?”

Senator AYLETT:

– The Leader of the Government was referring to methods of compulsory training or any other form of compulsion. This measure proposes compulsory registration, which is viewed with grave fear, not only by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, hut also by a large section of the community outside of the Parliament. I hold the definite opinion that the rural and industrial populations of Australia will resent the national registration scheme, and therefore I claim that the duty of the Government, if it does not want to break the pledge given by its leader, is to submit the proposal to a referendum.

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

– This amendment contains a little more than at first meets the eye. Clause 2 of the bill provides that the act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal assent. This provision, as honorable senators will recall, has been inserted because of the requirement in the Acts Interpretation Act that, unless the contrary intention appears in a particular act, the act is to come into operation on the 28th day after it receives the Royal assent. It may be presumed, therefore, that in fixing the date of operation as the day of the Royal assent, the Government was of the opinion that the measure was of an urgent nature, and that its commencement should not be delayed once it had been assented to.

Starting with this presumption, I now come to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings). It suggests that a referendum should be conducted to ascertain whether the people approve of the principles of the bill. The Constitution makes no express provision for a referendum of this description and some doubt exists as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament has power to pass effective legislation for the holding of such a referendum. Even assuming that there is no constitutional objection to the conduct of such a referendum, the Government is unable, in present circumstances, to agree to any proposal which would have the effect of postponing the commencement of the operation of the bill. . Of necessity, the submission of the bill to a referendum would cause considerable delay in bringing the measure into operation and, as a natural corollary, would delay unduly the carrying out of the Government’s mandate for taking adequate and prompt steps for the defence of this country. The defence programme must, in the opinion of the Government, be implemented with the least possible delay, and the Government is unable to countenance any action that would cause delay. I ask honorable senators to reject the amendment.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– There has been considerable agitation throughout the country with regard to this measure, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has stated that the contemplated action by certain trade unions is grossly undemocratic. Whatever may be our view as to that, I submit that it is of the essence of democracy that the people shall be consulted on any vital matter. The Prime Minister has criticized trade unionists and their executives, on the ground that their attitude is undemocratic. We reply that the action taken by the Government in introducing this bill is undemocratic. I do not remember any stage in the last general elections when the late Mr. Lyons declared that there would be a compulsory register of the man-power of this country.

Senator Leckie:

– This is a time of emergency.

Senator BROWN:

– Some statements were made by the late Prime Minister with reference to a voluntary register, but I do not recall any member of his Government or any of its supporters referring at the last election to a compulsory register. In minor matters, governments of democracies may, without consulting the electorate, take action to meet certain conditions that arise, but an essential feature of the democratic system is that any party which aspires to govern a country shall place vital principles before the electorate and allow the people to decide whether or not it approves of the action proposed to be taken. Can any honorable senator supporting the Government say that the late Mr. Lyons put this issue before the electorate? If the people had been consulted about a compulsory register of man-power and if it had approved the proposal, the Government would be justified in asking Parliament to pass this bill. But the electorate has not been consulted, and we submit that the Government is now acting in a most undemocratic way in endeavouring to force this bill through’ * Parliament. My leader (Senator Collings) is endeavouring to put the Government on the right path of democracy by submitting an amendment to make possible the consultation of the electorate on this vital principle. The proposed referendum would not take many weeks. There is no need for a general election, nor do the circumstances warrant such a course. It would be possible, within a few weeks, to get a definite expression of opinion from the people by means of a referendum a definite declaration of whether or not they favour a compulsory registration of the man-power and wealth resources of the Commonwealth. If honorable senators supporting the Government believe in democracy they will vote for the amendment.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has declared that members of trade unions and their executives, and the workers generally should conform to the laws that are passed by this Parliament. I emphasize also that there is an obligation on the Government to make laws in conformity with the wishes of the people. We say that this proposed law is not in conformity with the wishes of the electorate.

The CHAIRMAN:

- (Senator James McLachlan). - Order! The honorable senator must connect his remarks with the amendment.

Senator CAMERON:

– I am showing reasons why the amendment should be carried. We challenge the position of the Government in this matter. As the largest party in this Parliament we assert that the proposed law is not in conformity with the wishes of the people. Our request for a referendum is fully justified. Not one Government supporter and not one Minister has been able to show that the Government has a mandate from the people for the introduction of this bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- I support the amendment. In my speech on the second reading I challenged the right of the Government to introduce a measure of this description which is not in conformity with the wishes of the Australian people. Something has been said about urgency. One would gather, from what some honorable senators have said that it was imperative that the bill be passed within the next few hours, otherwise the safety of the Commonwealth will be jeopardized. During the election campaign in October, 1937, the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. Lyons, stressed the defence policy of his Government. To all intents and purposes, this is the same Government, though there has been a rearrangement of certain portfolios. If, during the general elections in 1937, no mention was made of a compulsory register of man-power, this Government now has no warrant for the bill. At the meeting of the Cabinet in Hobart early in the present year, there was general agreement to prepare a voluntary register. Can any Government supporter contend that there has been such a drastic change in the position of Australia since that time as to warrant the introduction of this bill for a compulsory register of man-power and wealth resources?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– But what about the world position?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Has there been a drastic change in the world position within the last few months?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The honorable senator should read the cable news in the Sydney Morning Herald to-day.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– In December last we were given to understand that the world was on the brink of a volcano, yet ‘the Government complacently closed the doors of Parliament until a few weeks ago. If Senator A. J. McLachlan believes that the present world position is such as to demand that more legislation should be introduced in this Parliament, why is ‘the Government, which he supports, in such a hurry to get into recess?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The committee is discussing an amendment for the holding of a referendum. The honorable senator must not indulge in a general criticism of the Government.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am replying to statements made by the Minister. If, as has been suggested, the world position is so desperate as to justify this Government, without having received a mandate from the people, in proposing legislation of this character, why should not this Parliament remain in session in order that the representatives of the people may be consulted with regard to measures that may be brought forward to meet the. situation? But the one idea of Ministers is to get into recess as quickly as possible in order to stave off defeat. They know that if this Parliament be allowed to remain open for a few more days, they will be forced to relinquish their hold of the treasury benches. Their only hope of safety is to close the National Parliament. Although the nation is said to be in dire peril, the people’s representatives are not to be. allowed to express their opinion in respect of this legislation which will give to the Executive, in recess, complete control over Parliament, over property, over goods and even over the lives of citizens of the Commonwealth.

Senator Leckie:

– The bill does not do anything of the sort.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The people should be consulted in connexion with this vital matter. We appeal to the Government to seek a mandate. It has been suggested that we on this side are not sincere in our objection to the bill. My reply is that, the Labour party is always ready to heed the voice of the people. If the Government consults them in this matter by referendum, and if the people approve of the Ministry’s proposals, those in the industrial movement who at present are opposing the measure will accept the decision of the people. The Labour movement believes in trusting the people. I now challenge the Government to refer this matter to a vote of the people.

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

– I should not have spoken on this clause had it not been for the disgraceful misrepresentation of the late Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). We all remember well that, in 1937, prior to the last elections, the Government of which he was leader was challenged, and it was stated by our opponents that, if the Government were returned to power, it would introduce conscription. That charge originated in New South Wales, and Mr. Lyons stated definitely that his Government would not introduce conscription.

The CHAIRMAN:

– How does the honorable senator propose to connect his remarks with the clause?

Senator DEIN:

– I am merely replying to what has already been said. Therefore, this bill is not a violation of any undertaking given by the late Prime Minister, or anybody else. In February last, the Lyons Government proposed to provide for a voluntary register, believing that it would be successful; but, in March, the; Government decided that a compulsory register was required, and the present Ministry is. merely carrying out the decision of the Lyons Administration. The Opposition now asks for a referendum, so that the people may decide whether they should be asked to put their names to a paper and answer a few simple questions. If the Opposition wishes to convey to the electors that it has not sufficient ability to govern this country, it is at liberty to do so in that way. It has been said that the late Prime , Minister declared that no compulsion of any kind would be applied. I point out that, when the periodical census is taken, compulsion is exercised, and the questionnaire for the purpose of an ordinary census is far more comprehensive than is that proposed in connexion with the national register.

This amendment has been tabled for the specific purpose of misleading the people into the belief that the bill implies conscription. In drawing that inference, the Opposition is dishonest, because no mention is made in the bill of either conscription or compulsory training. Without consulting this Parliament, the Government could introduce compulsory training, because that power has never been repealed. Therefore, the amendment is an idle one, being designed merely to lead the people to believe that, there is a hidden motive behind the bill, despite the guarantee given by Ministers in both branches of the legislature that the idea of conscription is not entertained.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

. - It seems to me that the only way in which the Government could justify its existence would be by the acceptance of the amendment, which merely proposes that the operation of the measure as a whole should be postponed. The Government has not obtained a mandate from the people to introduce compulsory registration of the. man-power of Australia. As to the proposed register of Wealth, the bill leaves one in doubt regarding the form that it would take. In my opinion, a very small proportion of the people understands what is contained in, or implied by, this measure. Clause 15 provides that a census or censuses of male persons, or classes of persons, between the ages of 18 years and 65 years, and a census of property shall be taken in such States, territories, or parts of the Commonwealth, and on such day or days, or within such period or periods, as the Governor-General, by proclamation, directs; but the schedule of particulars required to be furnished is nullified by sub-clause 2, which states -

The nature of the particulars required to be furnished by the persons or classes of persons of whom a census is taken under this section shall be specified in the proclamation.

The proclamation might come from an indirect source, and not from the Government at all. Obviously, the matter should be submitted to the people. We have heard that bonfires are likely to be made of the cards, that the Government proposes to distribute. Since the Government has no mandate from the people regarding this bill, the people think that they would be justified in ignoring the cards. The Minister in charge of War Service Homes (Senator Collett) did not reply to any question as to what classes of people would be called upon to fill in the cards. Would a census be taken of invalid and old-age pensioners, or persons suffering from occupational diseases, or Australian aborigines?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I fail to see why the Government should not accept the amendment. All that Senator Sheehan has said is irrefutable. The Senate has been in session since the 16th May last, prior to which it had been in recess since the 9th December, 1938. This Parliament was closed during a period when we were on the brink of a European catastrophe that would have seriously affected this country. Wo are now told that the necessity for the passage of this legislation is urgent, although the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) has stated that the international situation is not so serious as it was in September last. In a national emergency, the persons covered by this bill could foe called up under the provisions of the Defence Act ; but the bill goes further than that, and I am still convinced that there is an undisclosed motive behind it. Industrial conscription will be possible under the terms of the measure, and it would be difficult to say precisely how far it would permit the Government to go. The bill is entitled “ A bill for an act to provide for the taking of censuses for the purposes of national registration, -for the establishment of a national-register, and for other purposes “. We fear that the bill will give to the Government the authority to establish, by regulation, while the doors of Parliament are closed, a dictatorship similar to that which exists in some other countries, and that in the event of an emergency that authority may be used harshly. The position would be different if it were a matter of the Defence Act being used in an emergency. When the conscription issue was submitted to the people in 1916, they spoke with no uncertain voice. I submit that legislative power to enforce conscription should not be included in any enactment until the people have expressed their views on the subject. As the result of the efforts of Labour candidates during the last election campaign, the late Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), two or three days before polling day, made a pronouncement in which he said that the Government had no intention to introduce conscription.

Senator McBride:

– It was about that time that the Labour party expressed itself on the subject of isolation.

SenatorFRASER. - If this bill means only what Senator Dein says it means, there is no harm in it; but why is there no reference in the schedule to any military service rendered by members of the community? It has been said that members of the Opposition are unduly suspicious, and are looking for something which the hill does not contain. We are urged to pass the bill in its present form. However, we desire to go further. We do not want this legislation to be ineffective; and, therefore, we ask that the people of Australia shall be permitted to say whether or not they favour it. I wish to make clear that if this bill be passed, whether or not a referendum be taken, we on this side will respect the law. We stand for majority rule, even though we may not agree with the legislation that is passed. The only excuse offered for not holding a referendum of the people is that it would occupy too much time. I support the amendment.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I shall be brief, because I realize that it is practically useless to endeavour to persuade the Government to submit this bill to a referendum of the people. The present Government is similar to that which in 1916 was opposed to a referendum of the people before the manhood of Australia was conscripted. On that occasion, however, the Senate compelled the Government to agree to a referendum. To-day the position is different, for the Government has a majority in this chamber and can do what it likes. We fear that this measure will be the forerunner of conscription. I am particularly concerned about the hoys between the ages of 18 and 21 years, who will he liable to ‘ be conscripted, but have no votes. Their parents, particularly their mothers, who are anxious that they shall not become “ gun-fodder “, should have a voice in determining the fate of this measure. The mothers of the nation are wondering for what purpose they have raised sons; they have higher hopes for them than that they shall become “ cannon-fodder “. It has been said that the purpose of the register is to ensure that men shall be employed where they will be of the greatest use, that the intention is to avoid making a cook of the mechanic, or a batman of the engineer; but the truth is that the Government wants to find secure and safe jobs for its friends. As boys between the ages of 18 .and 21 years cannot be classed as skilled tradesmen, they will be available only to serve as “ foot-sloggers “, whilst the sons of wealthy parents, who, in many instances, will be university students or graduates, will be placed in safe positions. Moreover, the index cards of men ‘and boys who are not wanted by their bosses will probably be specially marked. During the last few weeks, I have attended a number of meetings at which this legislation has been discussed. On each occasion I could sense the fear of the people as to its purpose. I have no doubt that Senator Dein’s mother was very concerned about the referendum submitted to the people in 1916.

Senator Dein:

– All mothers were concerned at that time.

Senator AMOUR:

– The Government should accept the amendment and allow the fathers and mothers of the community to say whether or not their sons shall be indexed for the purpose of being used as “gun-fodder”. It has been said that Australian troops will not again be sent overseas; but I point out that, by the simple addition of the words “ and overseas “ to the Defence Act, the manhood of Australia could be conscripted and forced to participate in a blood bath at any place that might be selected. I again appeal to the Government to accept the amendment, so that the mothers and fathers of the nation may decide whether or not some men and boys ‘are to be indexed so that they may be placed in safe jobs, whilst others will be forced into the trenches.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The Minister in charge of the bill (Senator Collett) said, in effect, that time is of the essence of the contract. That contention cannot be justified on the facts. If war were declared to-morrow, the Government would have all the powers its needed under the Defence Act, and it would be able to do all that it considered it should do in the circumstances.

Senator Wilson:

– The honorable senator would not prepare until the enemy was at our doors !

Senator CAMERON:

– There is plenty of time to give effect to the purpose of the amendment. Time does not enter into the matter to the extent that the Minister would have us believe. If the Government did not possess all the powers necessary to do what it considered should be done in a state of emergency, or if war were declared, the position would be different, but it already has the powers to do what it proposes to do under this bill. I feel that the Minister is not stating the position’ as it should be stated. No fewer than 47 members of this Parliament believe that this measure is highly provocative and dangerous, and that its purpose is to enable the Government to employ compulsion in a way that would be injurious to the people. The opinion of the 47 members should weigh with the Government, when a request is made on their behalf.

Senator Dein:

– -Forty-seven out of 110 members ?

Senator CAMERON:

– The request is made on behalf pf the strongest party in this Parliament, and as time does not matter, it should be agreed to.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I have a distinct recollection of the Minister stating that the bill was a matter of urgency.

Senator Collett:

– It is.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I do not know whether I misunderstood the honorable gentleman, but I think that he said that it would take about twelve months before the information could be obtained.

Senator Collett:

– I said that I could not state definitely what time would be occupied.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– The time would be approximately twelve months.

Senator ASHLEY:

– As it will take twelve months before the information can be obtained, there is no obstacle in the way of the Government’s agreeing to conduct a referendum, because it could be held within three months. I do not think that there would be any grave objection to the Government in the meantime taking the necessary preliminary steps to implement the legislation; in fact, it would do so, if it thought that it had the confidence of the people. “We have a vivid recollection of what happened during the Great War. The right honor able member for North Sydney said in the House of Representatives that the Government would not introduce conscription. When later he brought it measure before Parliament to do so, he was asked , why he had changed his mind, and he replied that what he had said yesterday did not matter. What was done by that Minister could be done by this Government also. There is ample time for the Government to take a referendum and to dispel the fears of the people concerning the measure. Surely, no one really believes that the meetings held to protest against the bill are all “ hooey “ as Senator Brand suggested. Demonstrations have been made in centres throughout the country, as well as in the large cities, and they all indicate the people’s apprehension that the Government is actuated by motives which it has not disclosed. The refusal of the Government to accept the amendment justifies that fear. I take it that if the referendum proposal were agreed to, that would mean the postponement of the coming into operation of the act. Now, [ should like to refer to clause 22.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may not discuss that clause now, but he may refer to it in a general way.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Senator Amour drew attention to the effect of this clause on youths between the ages of 18 and 21 years, and appealed for an opportunity to be given to the parents to say whether or not they would agree to the conditions laid down in the measure. Clause 22 is really sectional legislation. The Government proposes to impose certain obligations upon a section of the community.

Senator Collett:

– That provision is common in legislation.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes, when it affects working-class people. The clause will compel youths who are between the ages of 18 and 21 years to notify the powers that be whenever they change their addresses. I should like to know how clause 22 will be made applicable to the thousands of youths who are travelling the roads looking for work. What will their addresses be? How can they fill in census forms? I ask the Ministerthese questions.

Senator Collett:

– The matter is not mentioned in clause 2.

Senator Collings:

– The youths may be fined £50 if they do not get addresses.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Senator Dein stated that the former Prime Minister did not make a certain promise, and complained that Mr. Lyons had been disgracefully misrepresented. I do not know that I have misrepresented anybody.

Senator Dein:

– What I said did not apply to the honorable senator.

Senator ASHLEY:

– [When I make a statement I believe it to be correct. Honorable senators may differ from some of my opinions, but they are honestly expressed. That applies to my colleagues, too. We have referred to Mr. Lyons, but the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has not announced whether or not he will introduce conscription. We had a declaration from the former Prime Minister, and we were glad that he kept his promise; but no definite statement has been made as to what the present Prime . Minister would do in an emergency.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Coixmos’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 15

Majority ……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Appointment of National Register Board).

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– Sub-clause 2 provides that a representative of the Defence Department shall be chairman of. the board. At present there is in existence a man-.power committee which has done good work in collecting information, especially during the recent recruiting campaign. Is it possible for the chairman of the Man-power Committee to be appointed chairman of the National Register Board? I am not sure whether or not he is still an officer of the Defence Department.

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

– There is nothing to prevent the appointment of the chairman of the Man-power Committee as chairman of the board. So far as I am aware, the Government has not under consideration the appointment of any particular person to the position.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Is there any necessity for arepresentative of the Defence Department to be chairman of the board and for the Commonwealth Statistician and a representative of the Department of Supply and Development to be members of that body ? Honorable senators supporting the measure have gone to a great deal of trouble to assure us that there is nothing sinister in it and that it will not be used as we fear. They say that it is harmless, that its only purpose is to make a survey of the man-power and resources of Australia, and that the information gathered will not be used to conscript the manhood, wealth, or industrial resources of the community. The Government must realize by now that the objection to this measure is based on the taint , of militarism which permeates it. Our suspicions and fears, as they are termed by honorable senators opposite, are strengthened by the proposed composition and powers of the board. I believe that there is no necessity for such a body, and that the survey could be conducted by theCommonwealth Bureau of Census andStatistics.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South. Wales

– The Senate yesterday passed the Supply and Development Bill, under which variation boards or committees will function. We understand that a staff of 50 will be required at the outset for this new department. I believe that appointments to it are in the nature of a consolation prize for those officials who had joined the national insurance staff.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator ASHLEY:

– I should like to know who will be appointed to this proposed new board? Also why should it be necessary to appoint so many boards? The tendency of this Government is to shirk its responsibility by delegating authority to boards. Could not the functions of this proposed board be performed by the new Department of Supply and Development ?

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

– In general terms the board to be appointed will be responsible for the form and manner in which the national register is made. Its constitution has been planned in order that all departments interested in the compilation and subsequent utilization of the information obtained shall be represented on the controlling body. It is hoped that by this arrangement the registerwill be kept in such a way as to facilitate its use by. all departments concerned. As to its composition, one will be the Commonwealth Statistician who will devise and conduct the collection of data. The other members of the board will represent the Department of Defence and the Department of Supply and Development. The representative of the latter department will take note of those people who, in time of war, will be useful to ensure the collection and utilization of raw materials and manufactured articles. The representative of the Department of Defence will note these people who will be useful in making, forwarding or ordering supplies which will be needed. immediately by the services. As about seven men behind the lines are needed to keep one man in the front line, honorable senators will see that the services are very extensive and the demand for expert or skilled artisans will be heavy.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I am not altogether satisfied with the answer given by the Minister, especially in view of the. fact that, in the next clause, provision is made for the appointment of a salaried executive officer. Can the Minister state what will bethe salary and functions of this executive officer ?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– We now understand that there will be a munitions supply board, a military board, a supply and development board and a national register board, all having something to do with the supply of arms and munitions to the Defence Department. Where is the starting point for the board to be appointed under this bill?

Senator Collett:

– This board will have nothing to do with the supply of arms and munitions.

Senator ASHLEY:

– What will be its functions ?

Senator Collett:

– It will collate information as to personnel that may be available for the services.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

. - The answer given by the Minister conflicts somewhat with statements which he made in his second-reading speech. In one part of his speech the honorable gentleman said -

The Department of Commerce has made considerable progress with regard to the planning necessary for the regulation and control of primary production in emergency.

Finally a great deal of preparatory work on industrial mobilizationhas been done by the advisory panel. The work of this panel will be continued by the Department of Supply and Development.

Senator McBride:

– That has nothing to do with this bill.

Senator ARTHUR:

– This clause deals with the personnel of the proposed National Register Board which will include the Commonwealth Statistician. I understand that the Government proposes to appoint to this board one member of the Advisory Committee on Industrial Organization. Knowing the personnel of that body and their addresses in Melbourne - they are all located in one building opposite to a building occupied by a firm of financiers from whose directorate the Prime Minister recently resigned - I have no doubt of what will happen. They will be able to consult freely and give advice with regard to industrial mobilization which the Minister mentioned in his second-reading speech. Therefore, I contend thatI am justified in viewing this clause with some suspicion. The Minister’s explanation has not removed my doubts.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I regret that the Minister has not seen fit, to reply to Senator Arthur.

Senator Collett:

– What is there to reply to?

Senator SHEEHAN:

- Senator Arthur referred specifically to the relation between the Department of Supply and Development and the National Register Board. The first schedule to this bill requires persons to supply information with regard to the value of stock in trade; the value of livestock; the value of plant, including machinery, tools, implements, rolling stock, &c., used for trade purposes, and the value of land owned, including the unimproved value and value of improvements, as well as the value of the interest of a sole owner of property. We believe that this will have something to do with matters that will come under the control of the Department of Supply and Development, and it would appear that the Minister’s explanation is in conflict with his second-reading speech on that bill. To which authority will people requiring to furnish information be responsible? Because of the confusion that exists, I am afraid that a far greater section of the community will refuse to supply information than has already been indicated. The people will not know where they stand.

Senator McBride:

– They cannot hear the honorable senator.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– They will hear me just as effectively, if not more effectively, than they will hear the Minister. This measure is further evidence of the failure of this Government to do anything of a constructive nature in order to place Australia in a sound position. I should like to hear the Minister explain how these boards will operate.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia · UAP

– I have already explained the functions of the proposed board, and I must leave Senator Arthur to his fears.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority…………………….. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5. (Executive officer of board.)

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- This clause is a good indication of the vagueness of the bill. Sub-clause 1 states : -

There shall be an executive officer of the board who shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral and who shall, subject to the control of the board, exercise and perform such powers and duties of the board as it directs or as are prescribed.

The duty of this officer will be to collate the information obtained throughout Australia for the national register, but I submit that the Public Service already contains a sufficient number of officers capable of performing that class of work. Lt seems to me that such an appointment is unnecessary. The only clear thing about the clause is that it provides that the executive officer must not be appointed for a period which will expire after he attains the age of 65 years. In view of. the admission by the Minister’ that his duties will be similar to those of a senior officer of the census staff, I submit that a clearer definition of the duties should be given.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Possibly this appointment is intended to provide a consolation prize for one of the officers engaged in connexion with the national insurance scheme, which has been held up for the time being. I suggest that anordinary clerk would be competent to do the work that will be required of the proposed executive officer.

Senator Collett:

– It does not matter by what title he is known.

Senator ASHLEY:

– What salary is to be paid to him? This clause consists of five sub-clauses, and I take that to indicate that the officer will be regarded as holding a position of some importance. Will he paid £1,000 a year, or more?

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– The committee is entitled to further information on this matter. Plums have been handed out by the Government to various persons. Will this officer receive£4,000 a year out of the £73,000,000 provided for defence?

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– The concluding words of subclause 1 indicate that this officer will be required to “exercise and perform such powers and duties of the board as it directs or as are prescribed”. These duties may be prescribed by proclamation or by regulations, and the committee is entitled to further light on the matter. Sub-clause 2 states that the officer shall be appointed for a period not exceeding five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment. The clause further provides that he shall receive such remuneration as the Governor-General determines. The Supply and Development Bill will operate over a period of five years, and, assuming that the measure now under consideration will operate for a similar period, it appears that the expenditure in connexion with the undefined emergency that has been responsible for the introduction of these two measures will be £2,777 15s. for every hour during the next three years, or £46 6s. for every minute in every day of the year for the next three years. The remuneration to be paid to the executive officer should be set out in the bill.

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

– The official note before me states that the clause provides for the appointment of an executive officer of the board to carry out certain duties in connexion with the utilization of the register. The work of this officer will be chiefly concerned with the administration of the detailed register, after the national register cards have been collected, coded and classified by the Commonwealth Statistician. The officer is to be appointed for a period not exceeding five years, but the term of his appointment must not carry him over the age of 65 years. He is to be exempt from the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. Sub-clause 5 is a usual machinery provision to safeguard the rights of any officer of the Public Service who may be appointed to this position.

Senator Keane:

– But an outsider may be appointed.

Senator COLLETT:

– Possibly.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– The Government, no doubt, does not rush into proposals of this kind without knowing their probable cost, and, therefore, it should be able to say how much money will have to be expended in connexion with the national register. As the executive officer will occupy a good, sheltered position, can the Minister give any idea, as to the remuneration that he will receive, and will applications be called from persons willing to fill this position?

Senator Collett:

– The reply to the first question is “ No “, and, as to the second inquiry, I believe that the normal practice is to call for applications for such a position.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister has dealt in detail with the duties of this officer, and I desire to know the reason why he is not to be subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act. If an officer of the Public Service is appointed, will his rights under that act be assured to him?

Senator Collett:

– . Speaking off-hand, I should say that, if he were not a member of the Public Service, and was not exempt from the provisions of the act, he would, upon appointment, have to pay ‘certain sums of money towards the cost of superannuation, but he would receive no benefit, his appointment being limited to five years.

SenatorFRASER. - It does not necessarily follow that, if he were appointed from outside the service, he would have to avail himself of the benefits of the act.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I can appreciate the reason for the inclusion of sub-clause 5. Possibly a person well advanced in years will be appointed to the position and will not be prepared to contribute to the superannuation fund, owing to the heavy contributions that the age-rate basis would involve. But what is exercising my mind is the question of the necessity for this appointment. I hope that I understood the Minister, who, I realize, endeavoured to explain the situation by means of information received second-hand. The Minister stated that the executive. ‘officer will carry out such powers and duties of the board as it directs, or as are prescribed. He said, too, that the Commonwealth Statistician would be responsible for the method of collection. What responsibilities will the other two members of the board assume? Senator Collett. - They will be re- sponsible for the selection from the register.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Are we to understand that the Commonwealth Statistician, who has all the necessary machinery as well as a trained staff for the purpose of collecting the information, will have the assistance of two untrained representatives of two other departments ?

Senator Collett:

– The Statistician will know how to collect the information ; the other two will know how to apply it.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Where will the executive officer come in?

Senator Collett:

– He will do the executivework.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It will be a remarkable body. By the time that the gentlemen from the Defence Department have instructed the Statistician and his skilled officers, and the officer from the Department of Supply and Development has had his say, the executive officer will not know where he is. Or is the executive officer to be a kind of lord high executioner ?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The board will be similar to the organization of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which has worked well.

Senator SHEEHAN:

-The only portion of this clause which is clear is sub-clause 5. With a piece of machinery like this in operation, is it any wonder that there, is overlapping and confusion in the Public Service of the Commonwealth? I shall have pleasure in voting against the clause.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Removal from office).

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Were the position not so tragic, I should say that in this clause we have another act in the comedy. The clause reads -

The Governor-General may at any time remove the executive officer from office on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.

The Governor-General means, as we know, the government of the day. In practice, the responsible Minister would make to Cabinet a recommendation which would come before the Governor-General in Executive Council. The Minister in charge of the bill (Senator Collett) has told us that there is tobe a board which will do certain things, and also that there is to be an executive officer, who shall, subject to the control of the board, exercise and perform such powers and duties of the board as it directs, or as are prescribed. The ‘board, however, will have no power to dismiss the executive officer. Should that official become recalcitrant, or refuse to obey . orders, neither the Minister nor the board willbe able to remove him from office. Even if the executive officer does not go so far as to refuse to carry out instructions, it is easily conceivable that there may be conflict between him and the board. This highly paid executive officer will, undoubtedly, have many friends at court, or he will not got the appointment. But the board, whose instructions he is supposed to carry out, will not be able to remove him. Even if the board should recommend his removal from office because of incapacity or misbehaviour, no notice need be taken of its recommendation. One would have thought that power would be given to the board to remove from office an officer over whom it has control. The clause does not even say that the board shall have power to recommend his removal. On the other hand, he may be a most efficient officer, and the board may desire to retain his services, but some Minister, or combination of Ministers, may think differently, and desire his removal from office. One would think that the board would have power to retain the services of an officer in whom it had full confidence.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– It is usual to provide that the person who appoints shall also dismiss.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The whole procedure is ridiculous !

Senator Crawford:

– Is it not the usual procedure?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Possibly, it is. I know that, for many years, honorable senators have not critically examined the legislation that has been introduced into this chamber. They have been pleased to acquiesce in anything submitted to them by the Government. I notice that, as the result of the observant and legal mind of Senator Wilson, various amendments appear on the notice-paper. Why is it that, for a long period, the Government has used in its legislation phrases and words that, were thought to be necessary, until Senator Wilson came along and showed otherwise? As this clause stands, we shall create a board, and supply it with an executive officer who will be supposed to work under its direction; yet he may be either removed from office or retained in the board’s service against its will. The whole thing is ridiculous, and will lead to confusion.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7-

The executive officer shall be deemed to have vacated his office if -

he becomes bankrupt or insolvent, or applies to take the benefit of any act or State act for the relief of bankruptor insolvent debtors . . .

he resigns his office and his resignation is accepted by the GovernorGeneral.

Amendments (by SenatorCollett) agreed to -

That the words “or insolvent” (twice occurring), paragraph (a), be left out.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– Why is paragraph c included in the clause? If the Governor-General did not accept the resignation of the executive officer how would the operations of the department be affected? The executive officer will be appointed for five years, and in that period, three different men may occupy the position of Governor-General. One GovernorGeneral may be partial to tin hares and another to night clubs. He might think that the executive officer was all right and, therefore, refuse to accept his resignation.

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

– In general terms the clause provides that if the executive officer becomes bankrupt or absents himself from duty for fourteen consecutive days or for 28 days in any twelve months, or resigns with the approval of the GovernorGeneral, he is to be deemed to have vacated his office. I am not prepared to discuss what might happen in any hypothetical circumstances that honorable senators choose to imagine.

Senator WILSON (South Australia; [6.8] - It is essential that the clause remain as it is. Senators know of cases where a man for a particular reason has sent in his resignation, and the committee employing him has returned it and asked him to reconsider his decision. That is common. If the notificationof the resignation were automatic it might have unfortunate consequences for the department.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The contract might be one-sided.

Senator WILSON:

– I think that the clause is sufficiently flexible to meet a situation such as I have mentioned.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– Is there any provision in the clause whereby the other members of the board may be dismissed?

Senator Collett:

– No.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– Itake it that this clause is similar to the provision placed in every measure appointing officials, and under it, if an officer becomes bankrupt, he must resign. Although there is no’ hope of amending the clause, I know from personal experience that a man’s , financial position may become unsatisfactory through no fault of his own. In such circumstances if he is a member of Parliament he must vacate his seat, and if he is an executive officer he is dismissed. Why should that happen ? A man holding a position may not be of the best type morally, and he can get away with almost anything and continue to be an officer employed by the Government, but if he happens to have monetary difficulties and becomes bankrupt he must give up his position. Should not some consideration be shown to persons who can prove that their unfortunate financial position is due to circumstances over which they have had no control?

Senator Collings:

– Executiveofficers are dismissed, not because they are bankrupt, but because as public officers they might be bribable in their unfortunate financial position.

Senator BROWN:

– Even when no blame is attachable to a public servant who is in an unfortunate financial position, it is immediately said to him, “ You are open to bribery, and must be sacked “.

Many men are unfortunate, but they are not venal.

Senator Collings:

– There is the temptation.

Senator BROWN:

– We know that bribery and corruption occur all the time, but because a man is financially unfortunate he is suspected of being corruptible. That is not right. If he were venal, the odds are that he would not be bankrupt. In some cases it is because a man is honest that he becomes bankrupt or compounds with his creditors. We all know men who have been on the verge of bankruptcy, but have suffered no penalty, it is not right that a man should be forced out of a position because he actually becomes bankrupt. The present social system attaches more significance to a man’s financial obligations than to his moral obligations. He can be immoral and refuse to regard his obligations, and nothing is said, but if he fails to carry out certain financial obligations he must cease to be a member of Parliament or lose his job in the Public Service, as the case may be. It is grossly unfair that such a provision should be included in the bill. There may be extenuating circumstances, and a man dismissed from his post on account of bankruptcy should have an opportunity of appearing before a proper tribunal and explaining his position.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– If a public servant, who is dismissed, has a clean character, as the honorable senator suggests, there is nothing to prevent him from being re-appointed.

Senator BROWN:

– It might take a man years to obtain his discharge from bankruptcy. I am watching the interests of the bottom dog, and I am sympathetic with those who have been in a. bad financial position, because I know what that means.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to8 p.m.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– This clause provides that if an executive officer of the National Register Board becomes bankrupt he shall be deemed to have vacated his position. Senator A. J. McLachlan said that in such circumstances if a man’s character is clean, he can be immediately reappointed ; but I point out that no provision has been made in the clause to enable that to be done. Undue hardship may be inflicted upon an executive officer who, through no fault of his own, finds himself declared bankrupt. Because of the tightening up of bank credit or an unfortunate purchase of shares in a public company, he may become bankrupt and never be able to secure a certificate of discharge. This provision is vastly different from that which applies to the election of members of State parliaments. Not so long ago, Mr. Stuart Robertson, a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales was called upon to vacate his seat after having been declared bankrupt; He subsequently submitted himself for reelection and was successful in regaining his seat. This clause does not confer the right on the executive officer to submit himself for re-appointment after removal from office. It should be amended in such a way as to provide that a man who becomes bankrupt through no fault of his own shall not be dismissed from office.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– The honorable senator is overlooking the significance of the word “ becomes “ in the clause. Under this clause it is quite possible for a person who has become bankrupt to be elected to the board; the only disqualification applies to a person who, having been appointed to the board “ becomes “ ‘bankrupt. However, the Governor-General could immediately re-appoint him.

Senator Amour:

– The clause makes no provision for that.

Senatr WILSON. - But it places no restriction upon the appointment of a bankrupt as executive officer. His posi tion is exactly the same as that of a member of Parliament who, on becoming bankrupt, must vacate his seat, but may stand for re-election.

Senator Collings:

– I do not know whether a member of Parliament who had vacated his seat on becoming bankrupt could nominate until he obtained a certificate of discharge.

Senator WILSON:

– There may be some provision in the Electoral Act to cover that. It is only right that this clause should be allowed to remain in its present form. All the pointsraised by Senator Amour are completely covered by the clause if he places the proper emphasis on the word “ becomes “.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I had some experience of cases of State public servants who, having become involved in financial difficulties, were forced into the Bankruptcy Court. In some instances an officer is not compelled to vacate his office when he compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his salary for their benefit. It is not mandatory on the executive to remove such an officer from office in certain circumstances. It is possible that a person appointed executive officer of this board may become financially involved through no fault of his own.

Senator Cameron:

– Perhaps through being involved in a motor accident.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– That is so, or through other unforeseen circumstances. We know of men who have been forced into bankruptcy owing to the insistence of a single credi tor that his demands be met, although, other creditors have been prepared to give reasonable opportunity for the debtor to retrieve his position. I am afraid that the provisions of this clause may operate harshly in certain circumstances. In my opinion each case should be treated on its merits.

Senator Wilson:

– Even if an executive officer, on becoming insolvent, were forced to vacate his position, he could be immediately re-appointed.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– If the clause were amended in such a way as to provide an opportunity for each case to be dealt with on its merits, I would have no objection, but I am afraid that, as the clause stands at present, it might operate unfairly in respect of an executive officer who, through no faut of his own - possibly through the ill health of his wife or members of his family - is forced to file his schedule. I point out that the position of the executive officer under this clause is quite different from that of a member of the Commonwealth Public Service. Section 63 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act provides -

  1. If the estate ofan officer is sequestrated either voluntarily or compulsorily forthe benefit of his creditors, the officer shall apply as soon as he may legally do so, to the Court of Bankruptcy or Insolvency for a certificate of discharge.
  2. If it appears to the Court that the applicant has been guilty of fraud, dishonorable conduct, or extravagance, the Court shall direct the clerk of the Court thereupon to report the same to the permanent head or Chief Officer of the Department in which the officer is employed.
  3. If the officer does not apply as aforesaid for a certificate of discharge, or if he applies, and it appears from the report that the officer has been guilty of fraud, dishonorable conduct, or extravagance, the officer may be dismissed by the Board from the Commonwealth Service, or reduced to a lower Division, class or position, or salary, or punished in such other manner as the case demands. ..

It will be seen, therefore, that it is not mandatory for the Governor-General to remove from office a public servant, who becomes bankrupt. The same conditions should apply to the appointment of an executive officer.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The honorable senator will see that he is dealing with two different cases - on the one hand a responsible officer appointed to the National Register Board, and on the othera whole class of officers.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I assume that responsible officers and beads of departments are covered by the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. It should be laid down definitely in this clause that the question of whether or not the executive officer of the board should vacate his position on becoming a certified bankrupt should be decided on the merits of each individual case. A Commonwealth public servant may be appointed to the position of executive officer. If so, he will come under the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, and not under this clause. Unsatisfactory discrimination of this sort should be avoided. I ask the Minister to agree to the postponement of the clause so that I may have an opportunity to frame an amendment to bring it into line with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act-

Senator Collett:

– I am not prepared to postpone the clause.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– I also record my protest against the clause. I cannot see the necessity for it. I believe that it is just one of those stereotyped clauses which are already set up in the Government Printing Office for inclusion in any bill in which it is thought they mightbe appropriate. The time has come when the legislature should disregard some of the precedents that have been followed in the past.

I have in mind a man who, through no fault of his own, became involved in a motor accident, and as a result of subsequent proceedings lost his home. If he had not possessed a home, a claim would probably have been made against his salary for the recovery of damages and legal costs. We have all heard also of persons occupying high positions becoming involved in domestic troubles and suffering heavy monetary losses. The late Prime Minister, in the policy speech of his Government, featured a proposal to establish a. branch of the Commonwealth Bank for the granting of small loans to public servants who, under present conditions, are forced to pay excessive rates of interest on loans from private money lenders, in order to tide them over temporary difficulties. This clause provides that, in the event of the executive officer becoming bankrupt, or being obliged to make an assignment of his salary for the benefit of his creditors, he shall be removed from his position. His re-appointment is doubtful. I shall vote against the clause.

Question put -

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (Thechairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Woes ……….11

Majority . . 4

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

– I declare the bill an urgent bill.

Motion (by Senator Foll) put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 10

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Poll) put -

That the time allotted in connexion with the consideration of the bill be as follows: - For the committee stage of the bill - until 10.15 p.m. this day.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration resumed.

Clause 8 (Illness or absence of executive officer).

Question put -

That, the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. . (This Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Norn? . . 11

Majority 3

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Delegation by board or statistician).

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– Under this clause the board or the Commonwealth Statistician may, in relation to any particular matters or class of matters, delegate all or any of its or his powers and duties under the act to any officer in any part of the Commonwealth. This means that several boards could be set up under this legislation. Under a later provision, officers may be appointed by a State. I presume that police officers in each State will be made officers for the purpose of this measure, and men carrying their swags along the roads could be subjected to an inquisitorial examination by police officers. It seems to me that this legislation will involve a great deal of work which will have to be undone when the Labour party is returned to power.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– This clause has to be read in conjunction with clause 4, which relates to powers to be conferred upon the board by regulations. This is a sinister feature of the measure, because it will be possible to give very wide powers to the board, which will be practically part and parcel of the Defence Department. A representative of that department will be chairman of the board, and another member will be a representative of the Department of Supply and Development, which is practically a part of the Defence Department. These powers may be delegated to almost any body, and, knowing the . psychology of the Defence Department, I fear that the powers conferred may be too great.

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

– I invite honorable senators to give their attention to the definition of “ officer “ in clause 3. The purpose of the clause now under consideration is quite clear. A similar provision is to he found in the Census Act and in similar acts. This is a usual provision, to make it possible for the Statistician to carry out the duties allotted to him. Such a clause is essential in a country such as Australia, where the distances are so great. Provisions are included to prevent the misuse of these powers, which can be exercised only with the approval of the Minister.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 12

NOES: 10

Majority…….. 2

AYES

NOES

Question, so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10. (Arrangements with State governments as to execution of act).

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– Since the States are suffering from lack of funds, will the Government pay the States for work done by State officers on behalf of the Commonwealth ?

Senator Collett:

– That practice is observed in connexion with the administration of war service homes.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee, divided. (theChairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

Ayes . . 13

Noes . . . . 10

Majority… 3

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Declaration by officers).

Question put -

That, the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 13

NOES: 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 1.2 (Officers to observe secrecy).

Question put -

Thai the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 13

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Disclosure of Information).

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– This clause provides that information obtained under this act shall not be divulged, except in the public interest, and then only to the Minister, or to such other officer or officers as the Minister directs. The proviso sets out that the contents of any form relating to property shall not be divulged to the Minister, and the Minister shall not direct that its contents be divulged to any officer other than the Commissioner of Taxation. Does that differentiation mean that the Government thinks that information in respect of property should be treated with greater secrecy than information relating to individuals? I should like an explanation of this distinction.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I. am at a loss to understand the opposition to these clauses. Do honorable senators opposite believe that the information contained on the forms should be disclosed ? That is what their opposition to these clauses means.

SenatorCollings. - We are fighting every line of this bill.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– The position is not exactly as Senator Leckie would make it appear. The bill distinguishes between information relating to persons and information relating to property. The former may be divulged to the Minister or to such officer or officers as he directs; the proviso in respect of information relating to property reads -

Provided that the contents of any such form relating to property shall not be divulged to the Minister, and the Minister shall not direct that its contents be divulged to any officer other than the Commissioner of Taxation.

The clause appears to make a class distinction.

Senator Collings:

– Information in respect of flesh and blood may be divulged, but not information in respect of bricks and mortar.

Senator ARTHUR:

– Th is clause is typical of much of the legislation introduced by this Government. There is to be a card relating to life and limb, but by proclamation a different -card may be required. That different card may contain private information which the individual concerned may wish to keep secret. The Minister is tobe debarred from directing that the contents of the card relating to property be divulged to any person other than the Commissioner of Taxation ; but there is no such restriction in respect of information relating to individuals. Are we to understand that the information on the cards relating to property will notbe known to the board ?

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– We have been accused by Government supporters of being saturated with suspicion. I have already said that the Government will not pay much attention to the census of the wealth of the nation ; it has no intention to ascertain that information. As soon as Senator Brown mentioned the matter, Senator Leckie, who represents big business, rose and protested indignantly against any senator speaking of wealth. Senator Leckie said nothing about the persons referred to in the -first part of the clause- the cannon fodder. A man may be forced out of the Government service, or kept out of private employment by an organization with which Senator Leckie is connected, but that does not matter. The measure has been sugar-coated in an endeavour to persuade organized labour to accept it. This clause proposes that only, the Taxation Department may learn the contents of the wealth cards, but the department should already possess that knowledge. We know that the details set out on the census cards will correspond to those already supplied to the Taxation Department. On taxation returns, all people do not tell the truth, but dishonest persons will make the two documents agree one with the other. The Government supporters know that this clause is to insist on the supply of information from the poor sections of the community, and not from the wealthy classes. The scream that came from Senator . Leckie was mild in comparison with the opposition that would be fomented by big business if the Government sought to gather real information about the wealth of the nation. In such a case slides would be exhibited at the picture shows and large advertisements would appear in the press. If an attempt were made to interfere with the wealthy they would see that the Government was removed. This proposal emanated from a Government that is noted for sham and humbug.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I regret that the Opposition should view this clause with suspicion, because it is quite clear. Both classes of forms will be sent to the Commonwealth Statistician who will tabulate them, and the figures so obtained will be Available for the general planning of the man-power and resources of the country. Particulars of the man-power may be disclosed to the Minister, but the one man in Australia who may see whether the wealth statistics are correct is the Commissioner of Taxation. He already has details of each taxpayer’s income, but this balance-sheet will be of great importance to him, because he wilh be enabled to see whether the taxation returns are correct, or whether the wealth census is correct. The bill provides that the information shall be disclosed to the particular officer to- whom it will be of use in the public interest. There is no need to be suspicious about the clause in relation to its references to the man-power register, because those particulars will be available to the Minister for public purposes.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– Can the Minister tell me in what way the correct tabulation of the general wealth of the community will assist the cause of defence ? We have been told that this measure has been brought in for the purpose of successfully building up the defence of Australia. Senator Wilson has informed us that when the registration cards have been received, they will be shown to the Commissioner of Taxation who will find out whether the declarations of wealth correspond with the taxation returns. In what way will that help defence ? For years there has been a Commonwealth Statistician. Only a little while ago I submitted to bini a few queries about old-age pensioners and general wealth, and if the Minister asked him a number cif questions the officer could give him the figures in a few hours. My p01.11 is that there is a purpose behind the compulsory registration of the man-power. When the bill was first brought in it contained only the schedule relating to manpower, but later, as the result of a member -of the United Australia party in- the House of Representatives moving an amendment, the Menzies Government was compelled to insert another schedule relating to wealth. The Government is not sincere, because it has : distinguished between the two schedules in clause 13. If it is necessary for the real defence of Australia that power should be given to divulge to the Minister information concerning -the man-power, is it not only right for the further defence of Australia that the Minister in the public interest should have the right to’ know any information dealing with wealth ? Why should one set of details be withheld from the Minister and the other set, docketing, ticketing and cataloguing the worker, made available to the Minister? Why is there that distinction?

Senator Wilson:

– -The information is not secret. It will be disclosed to the Commissioner of Taxation.

Senator Crawford:

– The information is not obtained to satisfy the curiosity of “Peeping Toms”. ‘ :

Senator BROWN:

– I hope that I do not come within that category. The clause provides -

The board and the Commonwealth Statistician, and any officer of the Commonwealth or a State to whom any information obtained under this act is made known in accordance with this act or the regulations, shall not, unless the Minister certifies that it is necessary iu the public interest that the information contained .in any form filled in in pursuance of this act or the regulation should be divulged, divulge the contents of any such form, and then only to the Minister or to such officer or officers as the Minister directs.

Those provisions refer to the man-power. Cannot the Minister and Senator Wilson conceive that it may be in the public interest that certain information collected under the first schedule should be divulged? There would be more reason tor divulging that information for defence purposes than for divulging that obtained under ‘ the second schedule. Senator Wilson’s argument that the Commissioner of Taxation will have the information is so much poppycock. That official already has the information and may not divulge it. We want to know more about these proposals for the safety and defence of Australia.

Senator SHEEHAN (Victoria) [9.15 1. 1 appreciate that the clause, as drafted, provides a certain amount of protection, but when we consider the schedules in relation to it, we find that a very great distinction is made between the personal information and property information. Individuals will be called upon to state the country of birth of their fathers and mothers. There may be some people, not so fortunate as we honorable senators, who do know the country of origin of our parents, but I have yet to learn that an Australian who does not know where his parents were born is likely to be a less distinguished soldier than those who are placed in a more fortunate position. Under this clause the rights of property shall never be queried. The information collated regarding property is to be kept secret. ‘ This clause provides that the contents of any form relating to property shall not be divulged to the Minister, and that the Minister shall not direct that its contents be divulged to any officer other than the Commissioner of Taxation. It is this discrimination between personal information arid pro perty information to which we object. What does it matter where a man’s father or mother was born? Did we ask the sons of Germans or Austrians who enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force where their parents were born?

The CHAIRMAN:

- (Senator James McLachlan). - Order! I have permitted the honorable senator to discuss the schedules insofar as they were related to the clause under discussion; but I shall not allow him to deal with them in detail. An opportunity to do so will be afforded when the schedules are under discussion.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I. content myself with drawing the attention of the Senate to this unfair discrimination. I hope that when future schedules are drawn up, some respect will be paid to the rights of individuals asked to supply information for use in the defence of their country.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– I join with other honorable senators on this side of the chamber in protesting against the unfair discrimination in this clause. In his secondreading speech, ‘the Minister set out very clearly that the purpose of the register of man-power is to ensure that, as far as possible in time of emergency, every man shall be allocated to the part for which his training and calling best fit him. To that objective, we have no objection. The honorable senator, however, was strangely silent about the purpose of the wealth register. Apparently, the decision to include a wealth register was an afterthought of the Government after a count of heads had been made. I can appre*ciate the necessity for secrecy in regard to the information collated by the National Register Board regarding the wealth of the community, and I am only concerned about the purpose for which the wealth register is to be compiled. Is it intended to be used for the purpose of imposing a levy upon wealth in time of emergency ?

Senator Dein:

– Nobody knows.

Senator FRASER:

– Then why has provision been inserted in the bill for the compilation of such a register? Another notable omission from the bill is a question relating to military service. .1 hope that the Minister’s reply will set out clearly the purpose for which the register of wealth is designed.

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

– I can see no necessity for the confusion that has arisen, or the heat that has been engendered, during the discussion of this clause. Two schedules have been provided in the bill, the first relating to man-power, the second to wealth. When the information has been collected, no use can be made of either register without legislative sanction. I am one of those who believe that in a state of emergency equal demands should be made upon the wealth and man-power of the country. Having a register of the wealth of this country, it should be very easy for any government, whatever its political colour, to impose, if it thought fit, a levy on wealth in time of emergency. In respect of the register of man-power, certain disclosures have to be made, but the position in regard to the register of wealth is entirely different.

Senator Collings:

– There is no doubt about that.

Senator DEIN:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) invariably looks for t,he sinister side in everything.

Senator Collings:

– We know with what we are dealing.

Senator DEIN:

– The honorable senator may regard me as a sinister individual, 1 am not ruffled by what he says; after all, there may be a little decency in me. f. see nothing ulterior in this clause, and [ see nothing sinister in the questions to be put to the people with the object of eliciting information regarding manpower. Senator Sheehan complains that those submitting to the questionnaire will be called upon to divulge the country of origin of their parents. There is no disgrace in that. I cannot imagine any man being afraid to disclose to anybody the country from which his father or mother came. The honorable senator is suspicious of that, but unfortunately, honorable senators opposite are always looking for some ulterior motive. I have made my position clear. I am delighted to know that a register of wealth is to be compiled, and that if the man-power of this country is ever called upon to defend the nation, we shall also have information available regarding the wealth of the community for possible use.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Senator Dein has expressed astonishment that confusion should exist over the provisions of this clause. There is no confusion among honorable senators on this side of the chamber. Perhaps, I may be permitted to illustrate the difference between the tabulation of manpower and the tabulation of wealth by an analogy. Let us take, for instance, the case of a man who liberates a basketful of tabulated trout fry and allows them to go serenely on their way upstream. The only opportunity to check their subsequent movements is when some of them are hooked on a fisherman’s line. And I tell Government supporters that trout are just about as hard to hook as are some of the capitalists, who have been evading the income tax in Australia for so many years.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator ASHLEY:

– On the other hand, the tabulation of man-power will enable the Government to place its hand upon the- manhood of this country at any time. What we object to is the distinction that is made between the two forms of registration. Protection is given to the capitalists and the moneyed class: but the unfortunate worker’s name will be in the register, and he may be called upon at any time to make the supreme sacrifice. A later clause of the bill makes a further distinction in respect of youths between the ages of 18 and 21. They will be required, some of them at frequent intervals, to furnish to the Commonwealth Statistician information of changes of address. I shall vote against the clause.

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

– There is no need for heat to be engendered in the consideration of this clause. It is well understood that everything that Australia possesses will be thrown into the scale in a national emergency. All that the Government proposes to do is to conduct a survey of the material, man-power and wealth resources that may be made available in an emergency. All of the data collected will be treated as confidential : the material sources will be handled by the Supply and Development Department, the man-power information by the Defence Department, and the wealth census by the Commissioner of Taxation, to whom the Government will look for advice in an emergency calling for additional financial measures. All taxation information is confidential, yet the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and States are able to levy upon the wealth of the nation through the various taxes. The wealth of the nation will be made available in such manner as Parliament may determine, but information of a private nature will not be divulged.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– This clause enacts that information obtained may in certain circumstances be divulged to the Minister or to such other officer or officers as the Minister may direct. Also it stipulates that any form relating to property shall not be divulged to the Minister or to any officer other than the Commissioner of Taxation. A later clause provides that this new department will co-operate with State officers of taxation. I warn the Government that when the workers discover that they have been gulled there will probably be a repetition of the experience in NewSouth Wales, following the introduction of what was known as the Taylor card system which was responsible for one of the greatest industrial upheavals in this country. What is required is a balanced scheme for the collection of this information; otherwise there will be active opposition to it, not only by the working classes, but also by people who are in more comfortable circumstances.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– The Minister’s interpretation of the clause is not reassuring. There is no reference to the Commissioner of Taxation in any other clause of the bill”. We on this side are not quite satisfied that all Commissioners of Taxation are beyond criticism. I have in mind particularly the incidents in connexion with a gentleman named Kidman who at one stage was well behind with his taxation dues.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator ARTHUR:

–In States where provision is made for the joint collection of Commonwealth and State taxes, this provision relating to divulging the contents of any form, may lead to confusion. What would be the position, for instance, if the Commonwealth Minister directed the State Minister administering a State Taxation Department not’ to divulge the contents of any return made under this bill ?

Senator McBride:

– State Ministers will have nothing whatever to do with this measure.

Senator ARTHUR:

– Some State budgets show that some financial provision is made by the Commonwealth for State officers. How will it be possible for the Minister to discriminate between State Commissioners of Taxation who are rendering service to the Commonwealth, and various other officers who will be concerned in the collection of information in the several States?

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– The ignorance displayed by honorable senators opposite in the discussion on this provision is appalling. The clause provides that the form relating to property shall not be divulged to the Minister. Clause 17 enacts that every person who owns property of a value not less than is prescribed, shall fill in and furnish to the Commonwealth Statistician, information relation to it. The Commissioner of Taxation will not receive these returns; they will be handled by the Commonwealth Statistician who will do all the tabulating that may be necessary, and without the consent, of the Minister, he will not be permitted to disclose any information to any body. The Minister may authorize the Statistician to disclose information contained in the property census to the Commissioner of Taxation, whose office is in Canberra. The information obtained will be tabulated, and be used in the public interest. No unauthorized person will be able to get information for private purposes, or simply because he is inquisitive.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

. -I have been anxious to expedite the discussion of this bill in committee, but time is now limited ; because the Government has brought the guillotine into operation.

Senator McBride:

– Much to the honorable senator’s satisfaction.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The Minister will know all about that when we appeal to the people. I object to the frequent attempts on the. part of Government supporters to offer explanations which have no application to objections raised by honorable senators on this side. We know perfectly well how the Government will get the information. We know also what will be done with it. This . clause says definitely that information relating to man-power may be divulged by direction of the Minister, but in no circumstances whatever will the Minister be allowed to divulge to any body information relating to wealth. If the Minister in charge of the bill dared to be honest in regard to this matter, he would admit that the wealth census will be a sham from start to finish. The Government does not intend that the information to be obtained by means of it shall be used for the benefit of the people in a national emergency. The very opposite is intended. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Street) stated in the House of Representatives that a wealth register would not. be provided; but, when the Opposition demanded it, and he found that the fate of the Government was at stake, he said, “ If you think that you will get any good out of it, we shall put it in, but it does not matter “. In order that it shall not matter, the Minister is to be instructed that he must not divulge any information contained in the wealth register. It would be useless to waste further time on this clause, because the Government and its supporters are not prepared to satisfy either the Opposition or their masters outside as to the nature of their nefarious designs. Many Government supporters have spoken, but they have not told the committee one honest thing in reply to questions by the Opposition. They continually say what we know to be untrue, merely in order to gull the public. As soon as this measure has been guillotined through the Senate, and the Parliament is in recess, the people will be informed of the facts in regard to this legislation.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

. -I wish to clear up a point in dispute between the Opposition and Senator Wilson, who claimed, in reply to one of my colleagues, that the reason why the information contained in the property census is to be made known to the Commissioner of Taxation is to enable him to check it, and see that it is correct. If the Commissioner is to be placed in that position, he must be already in possession of all of the information proposed to be obtained under this legislation.

Senator Leckie:

– But he is not.

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Then I contend that Senator Wilson gave an inaccurate reply to my colleague.

Question put -

That the clause he agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority … . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Keeping of National Register).

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 -

The nature of the particulars required to be furnished by the persons or classes of persons of whom a census is taken under this section shall bespecified in the proclamation.

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

– I move -

That sub-clause 2 be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following subclause: “ (2.) The persons or classes of persons who are required to furnish particulars for the purpose of any census of persons or classes of persons directed to be taken under this section shall be specified in the proclamation.”

There is some doubt as to the power of the Governor-General to give directions, by proclamation, as to the classes of persons within the age limits of 18 years to 65 years, to whom the censuses shall apply, and the proposed new subclause will clarify the position.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I had expected that the Minister would give the real reason for the proposed amendment. I f the Opposition were prepared to accept statements by the Government at their Face value, this amendment, at first sight, might appear to be reasonable; but we do not trust the Government, because it has no mandate from the people for this legislation. We are naturally suspicious regarding every line of the bill, and every amendment that the Minister in charge of it may propose. Of course, the amendment under consideration appears to be designed to clear up a doubt. The nature of the particulars required to be furnished is already described in the schedules, and, therefore, sub-clause 2, as it stands, appears to be entirely means ingless. If the proposed new sub-clause were accepted, discrimination would be possible between the persons proclaimed as those from whom the information could be required. Up to the present time it has been understood that all male persons between the ages of 18 years and 65 years will be required to furnish particulars under the man-power census, whilst under the wealth census it has been understood that all persons in the possession of property over a certain value will be required to register. The amendment would make it possible for the Governor-General, by proclamation, to limit the number or classes of persons affected by either the man-power census or the property census. What is the motive behind the amendment ? Does the Government now desire to proclaim that replies will he required from only a limited number of people or from only certain classes? This appears to me to be a particularly sinister amendment, because a section of those from whom the wealth census is to be demanded could be proclaimed as outside the scope of the measure. I say definitely now, as I shall say outside this chamber when an opportunity occurs, that the Government is not sincere in regard to this bill, except insofar as it applies to the man-power census. If this amendment, or the clause itself, is to be applied, the Minister should give a definite assurance that the man-power census will include all male persons between the ages of 18 and 65 years, and that the property census will apply to all persons, the value of whose property exceeds the prescribed limit. If that assurance be not forthcoming, we shall have further evidence of how great a sham the bill is so far as the alleged wealth census is concerned.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– The proposed amendment does not appear to be in line with sub-clause 1. There is to he a census or censuses of male persons, or classes of persons who have attained the age of eighteen years and have not attained the age of 65 years, and a census of property in such States, territories or parts of the Commonwealth, and on such day or days, or within such period or periods, as the Governor-General by proclamation directs. I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by “ parts of the Commonwealth “. To which part of the Commonwealth is it intended that this legislation shall apply? Is it desired, in the interests of harmony in the House ofRepresentatives, to exclude from the census portions of the north coast districts of New South Wales, or is it intended that no census shall he taken in respect of property in Collins-street, Melbourne, or Toorak? The words “as the Governor-General by proclamation directs “ suggest a possibility of unfair differentiation.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia · UAP

– This legislation will apply,as to man-power, to every male person between the ages of 18 and 65 years, and, as to property, to every person who owns property. As to the application of the bill to the Commonwealth or parts of the Commonwealth, it may be that there will be some discrimination in respect of such a place as Alice Springs.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Suppose that at Alice Springs there resides some one like the late Sir Sidney Kidman. Would that be regarded as a just ground for discrimination?

Senator Collett:

– No one will be exempt as regards property.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The Minister said that some discrimination may be made in respect of persons living at Alice Springs or other remote places.

Senator Collett:

– Only as regards man-power, not as regards property.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The person en trusted with the issue of the proclamation may consider that it would be convenient to exclude certain persons. The instance cited by the Minister was rather unfortunate. I should like to know also how the mandated territory is to be dealt with.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator COLLETT’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put -

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

- (Senator James McLachlan). - The time allotted for con sideration of the committee stages of the bill has expired.

Question put -

That the remainder of the bill, including the remaining amendments circulated by the Government, and the title, be agreed to, and that the bill be reported with amendments.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Circulated amendments of the Government -

Clause 17 verbally amended. - After subclause (3.) insert the following new subclause : - “ (4.) Without limiting the operation of the provisions of sub-section (3.) of this section, where shares in or debentures of any company are owned by persons resident outside Australia, the secretary or other prescribed officer of the company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the owner of the shares and debentures so owned.”.

Clause 20 verbally amended.

The first schedule. - Leave out “ Fill in particulars of your own property in column (A) and particulars of property held on trust in column (B)”, insert “If return is made in respect of your own property, fill in column (A) but not column (B). If return is made in respect of property held on trust, property ofa company or property of an absentee, fill in column (B) but not column (A) “. After “ (B) - On Account of Other Persons” insert Companies or Absentees “. Leave out paragraph 5, insert the following new paragraphs:: - “ 5. Government and other Public Securities. &c. - “5a. (a) Shares in Companies

Leave out paragraph 11.

The second schedule. - Leave, out paragraph s.

Motion (by SenatorCollett) put, -

That the report be adopted.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 12

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Collett) proposed

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

. -I wish to inform the Senate and the people outside of the manner in which this bill has been advanced to the third-reading stage. We finished at clause 15 and there remained for consideration another eleven clauses, two schedules, and a number of government amendments, but we have not had an opportunity to deal with them or to offer constructive criticism on them. I do not intend to delay the proceedings any further, except to enter my emphatic protest against the tactics adopted by the Government in order to force the legislation through. The Opposition by arrangement agreed to work from eleven o’clock in the morning until eleven at night, but that has not been sufficient for the Government, which has availed itself of the guillotine and forced the measure through in this way. The same process will be in operation from now until to-morrow night, and there will be no time to consider anything.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 12

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1918

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1939

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is the usual measure submitted to Parliament for the purpose of appropriating an amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payment into a trust fund to enable invalid and old-age pensions to be paid at rates already approved by Parliament. The amount to be appropriated is £15,000,000. The total amount appropriated by Parliament to date for this purpose is £225,000,000, and the balance of the appropriation now remaining is only sufficient to meet pension payments to the 30th June, 1939. Although Parliament is being asked to appropriate £15,000,000, which isthe usual amount appropriated, the whole sum will not be withdrawn from revenue immediately. Revenue is drawn upon only for payment to the trust account as required to enable pension payments to be made as they become due. I may add that this measure has norelation whatsoever to the rates of conditions under which invalid and’ old-age pensions are paid. The sole object of the bill is to provide funds for the purpose of meeting pensions.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This is one bill to which we do not intend to offer the slightest opposition. “We arc agreeable that the Government shall have it immediately so that the invalid and old-age pensioners shall not have to wait for their pensions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1918

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1939-40

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1918

ADJOURNMENT

Employment at Newnes: Wheat Stabilization Scheme.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

– This afternoon by way of personal explanation I endeavoured to reply to a charge made by Senator Ashley that I had made a misstatement last week in regard to employment at the Newnes shale field ; but in doing so I fell foul of the Standing Orders and was compelled to discontinue my remarks. I take this opportunity to set out the facts in relation to the matter. When speaking on the Supply and Development Bill last week, I stated that nearly 600 men were employed on the Newnes field. That was the statement which Senator Ashley characterized to-day as deliberately false. This afternoon, Mr. Smith, an officer of the Supply and Development Department, officially in-; formed me that on the 24th May, over 400 men were employed on the shale-field alone, and an additional 150 men on the construction of a road from Capertee to Glen Davis, and that the number is daily increasing. Of course it is unnecessary to remind honorable senators that considerable other employment in the Newnes arearesults indirectly from the operations on the shale deposits.

In view of Senator Ashley’s accusations this afternoon, I feel it incumbent on me to correct the statements made by him. I do not charge the honorable senator with deliberate misstatement, but I suggest to him that before accusing another honorable senator of making a misstatement, he should be sure of his facts. I fully realize that Labour senators smart when informed that, in spite of Labour’s most bitter opposition to the Newnes project, in this Parliament and in the Parliament of New South Wales, and because of the sincerity and determination of this Government to assist in its development, increasing numbers of men are placed in employment at Newnes. The employment of every additional man on that field and elsewhere is a source of pleasure to me, for it means an increased degree of comfort for the worker, his wife and family. The remarkable thing is that, when additional men secure work because of the present Government’s policy and the industry and. patriotism of Mr. Davis - both are frequently misrepresented and traduced by Labour senators both inside and outside Parliament - those honorable gentlemen, instead of sharing our pleasure, writhe and squirm in a manner that leaves no doubt in my mind that while this Government remains in office, their pleasure is more spontaneous when men lose jobs. What does it matter what government, is in power, so long as men get jobs? The men at. Newnes know to whom they owe their jobs, despite the carping criticism by parliamentary representatives of the Labour movement.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

. - I had ample grounds for correcting the misstatement made by Senator Dein in regard to this matter. The honorable senator said that 600 men were employed at Newnes.

Senator Dein:

– The Hansard report of my speech records that I said that nearly 600 men were employed.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Then obviously the honorable senator has had an opportunity to correct the Hansard report of his speech, because I remember very well that he stated definitely that 600 men were employed on the Newnes shale field on the 24th May. My authority for disputing his figures is a telegram which I received on the 27th May stating that 450 men wereemployed, of whom 300 were engaged on construction and mining, and 150 on roads.

Senator Dein:

– From whom did the honorable senator receive the telegram?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I do not make statements in the Senate which I know to be incorrect. When Senator Dein stated that, 600 men were employed, I knew the figures were incorrect and 1 therefore, contradicted him. I regard it as my duty in this Parliament to prevent any honorable senator from making a misstatement of fact and getting away, with it. I am perfectly cognizant of the position at Newnes, because I have visited that area. I am sure that Senator Dein has never seen the field. When he rose a few minutes ago and made an electioneering speech in preparation for his demise next year, he said that it was very gratifying to him to know that so many men were employed. We all are pleased to know that men are securing employment, but does the honorable senator derive any pleasure from the fact that the number of persons employed at Newnes has been reduced recently from 600 to 450, and that 150 of those employed are relief workers sent down in batches from Sydney every fortnight? These are the young men, to whom I referred to-day - ill-nourished and physically illequipped to undertake hard manual labour. They are granted only two weeks’ employment in every eight and have to exist for eight weeks on less than £9. Is that what the honorable senator regards as a degree of comfort? If that be so, I hope that the young men of Australia will seize the opportunity that will shortly be presented to them to return a Labour government which will give to them what they justly deserve.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
I am aware that the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay · Western Australia [10.45].

has been engaged on an important conference to-day, and for that reason has not been in continuous attendance in this chamber. I wish now to bring to his notice a statement which appeared in the metropolitan newspapers yesterday relating to the intentions of the Government with respect to the proposed scheme for the stabilization of wheat prices. This widely-circulated press report, which I hope is a canard from Canberra, contained the following statement : -

The plan most likely to be adopted is to fix the price at 3s. 4d: a bushel. This would involve the provision of an additional subsidy of nearly £3,500,000 a year while wheat remains at the present level, in addition to the present bounty fund of £3,000,000 a year, which is provided by the federal flour tax.

The only practicable means of raising the necessary money appears to be by a loan, for which it would probably be proposed the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the wheat-producing States should be jointly responsible.

I shall be glad if the Leader of the Senate will indicate the intentions of the Government with regard to the stabilization of wheat prices, and particularly, whether the wheat-growing States will be expected to bear one-half of the cost of the scheme. I pause for a moment, but as the Minister does not reply, I fear the worst, especially as I looked in vain in the newspapers to-day for a correction of the statement to which I have directed attention. This morning I put a question to the Acting Leader of the Senate (Senator Foll). and was informed that the subject was under consideration. This enlightening statement put me in full possession of a fact which I knew weeks ago.

I feel sure that the Minister for Commerce, personally, would not be a party to any scheme under which the wheatgrowing States would be expected to bear one-half of the cost. I tell the Government plainly that, as far as “Western Australia is concerned - and I think the same would apply to South Australia - it w.ould be quite impossible for that State to bear ‘ one-half of the cost of any wheatstabilization scheme. Such action, if taken by the Government - I have no reason, other than the statement which appeared in the newspapers, to think that the Government would take such a step - would place on the weaker States a burden out’ of all proportion to tha.t imposed on wheat-growing States like Victoria and New South “Wales, which have so many important secondary industries to draw upon. Western Australia and South Australia depend very largely for their prosperity and the employment of their people on good crops and good prices for their production. The wheatstabilization scheme is intended to ensure regular returns to growers who have suffered so much in recent years from drought, low prices, and other troubles. It would be ridiculous to ask the Governments of those States to share the cost of a, scheme which, we contend, is solely the responsibility of the Commonwealth.

Senator Clothier:

– Why. not ask: the Government to ear-mark some s>f its proposed expenditure on defence, for the assistance of the wheat industry?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– When I read this outrageous proposal- in the newspapers, my mind went back - to the time when the Scullin Government urged the people ito grow more wheat, and brought in a bill to provide for a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel.

Senator Keane:

– Which the honorable senator and his friends defeated in .this chamber.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That scheme provided that any loss resulting from the guaranteed price should be borne in proportion to production by the wheat-growing States concerned. Sir James Mitchell, the Premier of Western Australia at that time, declared - and ‘ his : remarks apply with equal force to-day - that, owing to its depleted Treasury, Western Australia neither could if it wished, nor would’ if it could, contribute the large sum that would have been ‘necessary to provide the guaranteed price suggested by the Commonwealth Government. That was one reason why I and other honorable senators i of my party opposed that measure. I hope that history, which has an unfortunate habit of repeating itself, . will not do so on this occasion . I trust that the conference, over :which the Minister for . Commerce presided to-day, did not consider a scheme under which Western Australia and South Australia would be expected to provide one-half of the money necessary for what is wholly a Commonwealth responsibility. I hope, also, that the conference evolved a scheme that will ensure to the wheatgrowers of Australia a fair price for their production.

I should not have spoken at this length if, by interjection, the Leader of the Senate had given me an assurance that the newspaper report of. this scheme for loading the State governments with half the cost of the stabilization of wheat, prices was a canard. In the circumstances it is desirable that. I should tell the Senate why there is urgent need for the adoption of a wellconsidered and complete federal scheme for the assistance of wheat-growers upon whom, as I have said, the prosperity of the smaller States solargely depends. The necessity for a sound policy for the stabilization of the wheat industry is engaging the attention of all sections of the people in Western Australia. -I have received a letter on this subject signed by a committee representative of the financial, industrial, commercial and manufacturing interests of Western Australia, and addressed to the Prime Minister on the8th June. This letter urges the adoption of a completely federal scheme, and contains no suggestion that the Statu Treasury should be liable for any portion of the costs, because it is held that this is a purely Commonwealth responsibility. The letter reads -

The president of the Perth Chamber of Commerce conveneda meeting of the industrial, financial, commercial and manufacturing interests of Western Australia to consider the best means of assisting wheat producers, and to make representations to the Commonwealth Government concerning the wheat industry.

It was decided, in view of the urgent necessity of bringing about a greater stability of the wheat industry and its importance to the State generally, that the following committee be appointed: -

Mr. A. E.N. Simpson Associated Banks

Mr. D. Mackellar Marine Underwriters

Mr. R. Goyne Miller Chartered Accountants

Mr. E. Dennis Machinery Merchants

Mr. R. C. Dickson Motor Companies

Mr. V. B. Mursell Fertilizer Companies

Mr. W. Padbury Flour Millowners

Mr. E. F. Fethers Wheat Merchants

Mr. C. W. Harper Jute Merchants

Mr. R. Allingham Oil Companies

Mr. J. W. Vivian Retail Traders

Mr. M. Miller Wholesale Traders

That committee is representative of every section of the commercial community, and its views are entitled to respect.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If it ensures adequate protection for the wheat-growers of Australia I am sure that all sections of the people will be prepared to bear any further taxes that may be necessary. But the newspaper report to which I take exception, and which I hope the Government will repudiate, because I believe that it misrepresents the attitude of the Ministry, states that one-half of the cost is pro posed to be placed on State Treasuries. The letter proceeds -

This committee has given consideration to various plans for the stabilization of the wheat industry and has decided to support the request -for assistance to the industry made by wheat-growers of the Commonwealth to the Federal Government.

The Committee considers it is in the interests of all sections of the community, that this . industry, the temporary victim of policies of self-sufficiency of importing countries and subsidised production of exporting countries, should receive adequate price assistance.

It is feared that if this help, as to both period and amount, is not forthcoming, other exporting countries, more determined to support their farmers in the world wheat war, will secure more than their share of the International markets, leaving the Commonwealth more than her share of abandoned farm lands and of ruined farmers to be absorbed in other industries.

It would appear that during the period of possible re-adjustment in the industry it will prove less expensive to the community to keep farmers on their farms by some reasonable price assistance than to maintain them by any other means.

Unless financial help is given, the inevitable contraction of the industry would not only be a serious matter for the whole Commonwealth, but would mean disaster to the western States, which are lacking in important secondary industries and whose prosperity so largely depends upon the production of wheat and its sale at a profitable price.

The Committee, therefore, urges the Commonwealth Government -

To find a means by which the present flour tax scheme may be immediately augmented to provide an adequate bonus for the 1938-39 crap.

The meagre amount of 51/4d. a bushel which the wheat-growers are likely to receive this year from the flour tax should be augmented, so far as the last harvest is concerned, by money raised from some other source. I hope that this suggestion will allay Senator Keane’s anxiety. The committee which has addressed this letter to the Prime Minister is not suggesting an increase of the flour tax. The letter continues -

  1. To adopt an equitable long term plan for stabilising the industry.
  2. To provide funds to the States to enable governments to carry out a policy of transferring farmers from marginal areas and for converting existing farms in such areas into stock-raising holdings by linking up and the provision of fencing and water supplies.

Tha,t letter was signed by the whole of the members of the committee. The Commonwealth Government cannot overlook the importance of the sources from which the request comes. It is an application for Commonwealth assistance, and great’ alarm will have been caused throughout the wheat-growing States by the suggestion in the columns of leading metropolitan newspapers that this Government would ask the wheat-growing States to carry half of the burden of the assistance that the growers desire. I shall be pleased to know from the Government that it has no such intention. Personally, I believe that this is press misrepresentation of the same nature as that which the Country party, and its leader, in particular, have had to suffer grieviously during the last few weeks.

I now draw the attention of the Minister to a letter which I received to-day from the Wheat and Woolgrowers Union of Western Australia, dated the 12th June on the subject of the stabilization of the price of wheat. The letter is addressed to me, and reads as follows : -

Dear sir,

In view of the present activities amongst all sections of the community you will, of course, be acquainted with the fact that Western Australia at all its public meetings, at which both business men and workers were represented carried the following motions: -

This meeting of farmers demands a stabilized price of 4s. a bushel at sidings to include ‘ the 1939-40 harvest. /

By speeches in this chamber and by letters addressed to members of the Ministry, T have consistently supported motions passed at mass meetings of farmers throughout Western Australia during, the last parliamentary recess, for a stabilized price of 4s. a bushel at sidings for the next harvest. The letter continues -

  1. Unless the Federal Government stabilizes wheat prices so as to give growers a profitable return, that is, 4s. per bushel at sidings, we have no alternative but to organize a Commonwealthwide “ No-cropping “ drive for the year 1940-41.

I have already drawn the attention of the Senate to the serious effect that such a drive would have on the finances of the States, and on employment throughout Australia, if these people, unfortunately, were compelled to. undertake such a campaign. I trust, that the activities of the present

Government with regard to the stabilization of the price of wheat will, by the, provision of a fair price to the grower on a permanent basis, hit this threatened “No-cropping” drive on the head. I know that the Minister for Commerce is anxious to do right by the wheat-growers and that’ the Government shares his desire; but press statements of the nature previously mentioned, unless contradicted, cause the utmost anxiety among wheat-growers and those dependent on them. The letter proceeds -

I have received information from Sydney that the Farmers and Settlers Association have carried an alternative plan to the WilsonUppill proposals on the following lines: -

That the farmers should be guaranteed a price of 4s. per bushel for 6,000 bushels.

This alternative plan was carried by the executive of the Farmers and Settlers Association. Of course, the details in connexion with this plan are not available at the present time, but there should be no difficulty in working this out on a satisfactory basis. A limita-tion to 0,000 bushels at the price will, undoubtedly, be favorably received by the majority of growers, who are small farmers, while the- large speculative grower of big areasof wheat, though not benefiting to the same extent will receive considerable advantage by the implementation of such a plan in comparison with existing conditions. I would, therefore, be very grateful if you would use all thu activity you possibly can yourself, and also’ get the assistance of your confreres to back up this proposal.

The scheme was inaugurated by Mr. H. S. Robertson, a member of the Farmers and Settlers Association executive, and will receive the unanimous support of my union.

Please accept my thanks in anticipation of your activity in this matter.

Your faithfully,

Herbert Powell,

President

That letter comes from an important organization of wheat-growers in the western State. I support the proposal, and commend it to the earnest consideration of the Minister.

I know that, the Government has other schemes, as well as this one, under review, and I urge the Go;vernment to adopt whichever scheme it. considers will give the greatest measure of, justice to the whole of the. wheat-growers of Australia; but, whichever scheme is accepted, I repeat that it must be an entirely federal one, not dependent upon depleted State Treasuries for any financial assistance. If the Government should be misled - and I do not think that it will be - into asking the poor State Treasuries to carry half of the financial burden of assisting the industry in these troublous times, I can only say that such action would be incomprehensible to me, and at variance with all that I know of the public, utterances of the Minister for Commerce and the Prime Minister on this subject. Passing the burden on to the States, which action the newspapers say is likely to be taken, would be regarded by the wheat-growers of Australia as a Commonwealth evasion of the whole problem of permanent assistance to the industry.

Senator SHEEHAN (Victoria) [11.8 j. - I direct attention to a matter mentioned by Senator Wilson on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on the 8th June last. He then drew attention to the fact that a deputation of Labour senators and members of the House of Representatives had waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) requesting that . a wheat stabilization scheme be adopted. He congratulated Labour senators upon their interest in this important subject, and added “ belated though it is”. I remind him, and honorable senators generally, that the interest of Labour senators and of the Labour party in the wheatgrowers is not so belated as he would lead the Senate to believe. He further implied that the subject matter of the deputation was a flattering imitation of the Wilson-Uppill scheme, and bc continued -

On the 15th August last. Senator Uppill and I put forward a plan for the stabilization of the Industry. On the 20th 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 view of the statement by Senator E. B. Johnston a few moments ago, Senator Wilson will understand that the Labour party was interested in the wheatgrowers many years ago.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Certainly before he entered this chamber. The deputation was introduced by the Leader of tire Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Curtin), and comprised Messrs. Clark, A. Green, McHugh, Pollard and Scully, all of whom are members of the House of Representatives, and Senators Ashley, Cunningham, Clothier, Fraser and myself. The deputation requested the Prime’ Minister to devise a plan in co-operation with the States, to establish a wheat pool in order to guarantee to the farmer an assured price for five years. In this connexion, it was recommended that the price should be 3s. 6d. a bushel, plus freight at an average of 4£d., a total of 3s. 10£d. It was urged that, in order to protect consumers, millers should be obliged to pay a set price for flour - regardless of any increase or decrease of the world wheat price - thus ensuring that the public would obtain bread at a reasonable figure. The plan, as recommended, also contemplated that, should there be an increase of the price of wheat above 3s. 10½d., half of the increase should be set aside to enable the pool to repay advances made to it, or to build up a reserve fund, and the other half should be paid to growers. For “example, should the world wheat price reach 4s. a bushel, there would be fd. to the growers - making 3s. Hid. - and fd. would be retained by the pool for the purposes mentioned.

The deputation urged that the scheme as a whole should be financed by the Commonwealth Bank, and guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government. It would be desirable to peg production, and each State would be guaranteed the price a bushel on a production yield to be decided. Should any State increase its production, then the guaranteed price would diminish according to the quantity by which that State exceeded its quota.

The deputation placed before the Prime Minister the fact that, not only were low prices a disability, but also high interest rates would have to be dealt with. Interest arrears were an important factor in the growth of the farmers’ debt structure. There should be national control of interest rates.

Briefly, the plan placed before the Prime Minister envisaged : - (1) Fixation of interest rates; (2) fixation of a wheat price within Australia.

Our representations have gone further than that. In February, 1930, the Scullin Government called a conference of wheat-growers at Canberra, which was attended by State Ministers and representatives of all political parties. As the late Mr. P. G. Stewart, who was then the Country party member for Wimmera, said -

It was the most representative gathering of wheat-growers ever assembled in Australia.

The conference adopted proposals which were included in the Wheat Marketing Bill 1930. The object was to regulate the export and interstate trade in wheat and flour through a board to be controlled by wheat producers and known as the Australian Wheat Board. This bill, which was introduced on the 8th April, 1930, also provided a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel, plus 8d. a bushel for rail freight, and other expenses. The Commonwealth Bank agreed to find the money, subject to the Commonwealth Government’s guarantee. The bill passed through the House of Representatives, but was defeated in the Senate by three votes. Senators Johnston and Carroll, Country party members, voted against the measure. Yet Senator Johnston now claims that he has always been in favour of paying 4s. a bushel.

Many misleading statements have been made as to whether the Government had the assurance of the Commonwealth Bank Board that the bank would finance the scheme. On the 25th March, 1930, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) informed the House -

Sir Robert Gibson assured me, as Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, of the willingness of the board to. co-operate with the Government in arranging a practical’ scheme for financing the pool.

The then Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Parker Moloney) made available to members on the 4th June, 1931, official papers which revealed that on the 1st April, 1930, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board wrote to the Prime Minister and submitted a memorandum which showed : -

  1. That the Commonwealth Bank offered to advance 4s. a bushel for fair average quality wheat of the 1930-31 season delivered at the railway station, plus transport charges, &c, the latter not to exceed an average of 8d. a bushel free on board.
  2. That the trading banks join with the Commonwealth Bank in connexion with the finance on terms to be arranged between them and the Commonwealth Bank.
  3. That, in the event of the trading banks not joining in as proposed, the Government would issue treasury-bills.
  4. That the realization of the wheat should be a continuous operation, and a certain proportion should be disposed of every month in accordance with a table submitted by the bank.
  5. That the Commonwealth Government would reimburse the Commonwealth Bank any loss accruing through the operation of the pool.

The Government made provision for the issue of these treasury-bills in clause S of the bill. In addition, the bill contained a proviso that, in the event of any loss accruing in connexion with the operation of the pool, half of such loss would be borne by the Commonwealth, and the balance by the State or States Concerned.

The papers also disclosed that the Minister for Markets forwarded to Sir Robert Gibson an advance draft copy of the Wheat Marketing Bill, which the Government decided to introduce upon receipt from the Commonwealth Bank Board of an intimation that the board could arrange the necessary finance for the payment of the 4s. a bushel.

The Governor of the bank replied on the 9th April, 1930, intimating that the bill seemed quite satisfactory from the bank’s point of view. At the same time, he suggested certain alterations to the schedule, in order that it might coincide with the conditions relating to finance set forth in the bank’s memorandum. Those conditions were adjusted accordingly in the bill which the Government introduced.

Another conference was called in November, 1930, in response to urgent representations from members of Parliament and organizations of wheat-growers. A Wheat Advances Bill which was passed in December, 1930, provided for a. guaranteed price of 3s. a bushel for wheat of f.ni.q., less handling charges. Tie money was to be found by the Commonwealth Bank upon a government guarantee. The bank authorities subsequently informed the Government that it could not constitution-ally advance money within the terms of that legislation. Its legal advisers had informed the bank that appropriation for that purpose would be unconstitutional. That information is contained in Hansard of the 12th March, 1931, page 264. Immediately upon receipt of the reply from the Commonwealth Bank, the Scullin Government arranged with the bank for art increase of its advances on- wheat from 2s. to 2s. 4d. a bushel f.o.b. That advance was made available to the voluntary pool of all unsold wheat on its hands.

In February, 1931, the Government decided to raise a loan of £6,000,000 in order to assist the wheat industry by means .of an export bounty of 6d. a bushel, and to provide loans to the State governments for the help of farmers in necessitous circumstances. The Loan Council and the representatives of the States agreed to the proposals on the 7 th February, 1931. At its next meeting on the 26th February, the Loan Council expressed the view that an approach to the loan market at that time was inadvisable.

In March, 1931, the Government introduced a bill providing for a fiduciary notes issue, under which it proposed to raise the sum .of £6,000,000, of which £3,500,000 was for a wheat bounty at the rate of 6d. a bushel on three-fourths of thetotal quantity of wheat of the 1930-31 season sold or delivered for sale, and £2,500,000 was to be allocated as a loan to the States for the assistance of necessitous wheat-growers. This bill was rejected by the Senate- On the 21st October, 1931, the Wheat Bounty Bill was introduced, and an advance of £3,296,000 by way of a bounty of 4-Jd. a bushel, was paid to the growers.

It will be seen that the policy of the Labour party has always been to assist the wheat-growers, and I hope in future, that Senator Johnston will remain: silent, on this subject. Senators Wilson and Uppill should now know where the Labour party stands in regard to the wheat-growers of Australia. .

Senator McLEAY (South AustraliaMinister for Commerce) [11.25J. - in reply- - I shall deal first with the remarks of . Senator Sheehan.-. I point out that had the Senate passed the- bill providing for a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel for wheat, plus 8d. charges, the. cost to the Commonwealth Government, on to-day’s prices, would .-represent 18f -million pounds for an average crop of 160,000,000 bushels. It is not unfair to say that many of the promises made in- those days could never have been fulfilled. Had the price of wheat been fixed at 4s. -8d. a., bushel at ports, the country could not have met the cost. I suggest to those honor-able senators who wish to make- political capital out of the needs of the wheat-growers, that had that bill passed the Senate, Mr. Scullin would have had to reduce the oldage pensions more than he was forced to do.

No one has fought more consistently on behalf of the wheat-growers of Australia than has Senator Johnston. I assure him, and the Senate generally, that the Government is .very much alive to the seriousness of the problem that confronts’ not only the wheat-growers, but also many other persons engaged in rural industries in Australia. On the day following the swearing-in of- the present Ministry, the first problem that it tackled was associated with wheat. Since then Senator McBride and I have considered at least 50 proposals. We.aTe still giving the matter serious consideration.- Perhaps the greatest problem associated with , the industry is the fact that while costs are almost at a record peak, prices are lower than ever before. In addition, restrictions on wheat importation have been imposed by overseas countries. -This subject was discussed only to-day at a meeting of the Australian’ Agricultural Council. The Government -realizes the importance of the wheat industry and the’ seriousness of the problem .confronting it. It knows that when the country’s rural industries are affected, .the workers in the metropolitan districts suffer also. The Government has not yet come to adecision on this subject, and it will not do so until after it confers with the Premiers of the six States on Wednesdaynext. At the moment, I am - not in a position to say what scheme will be adopted, or what price will he fixed. I hope that next week the Premiers will come to a decision which will be acceptable to the people of Australia. In considering this problem, honorable senators should realize the serious financial strain imposed by the- Government’s defence programme, which will cost £78,000,000 in the next three years. The several points raised will receive further consideration by the Assistant Minister for Commerce and myself before a decision is reached.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1926

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Northern Australia Survey Act - Report oi the Committee appointed to direct and control the Aerial, Geological and Geophysical Survey of Northern Australia, for the period ended 31st December, 1038.

Advances to Settlers Act - Statement of cases in which the Minister has varied, under the provisions of Clause 19a of the Advances to Settlers Regulations, the term and conditions df repayments of advances made for the purchase of wire and wire netting:

Senate adjourned at 11.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 June 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1939/19390615_senate_15_160/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant