Senate
1 December 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 1919

LICENSING OF IMPORTS

Ministerial Statement

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– by leave - The measures that, havebeen in process of formulation for some time for the control of imports will be embodied in regulations to be promulgated to-day. The regulations will be known as the Customs Import Licensing Regulations, and will have effect immediately on their promulgation.

The chief immediate aim of the licensing measure is to conserve resources in non-sterling exchange, and, in particular, to prevent’ the absorption of those resources in the purchase of unessential imports to the detriment of the more vital national needs. The administrative arrangements embody a system of import licences carrying several degrees of priority in the matter of shipping space and supply, and aim to serve a number of complementary purposes, the chief of which are -

  1. The collection of information concerning the relative importance of particular imports in order to enable any future restrictions to be soundly based, should conditions develop to necessitate a greater degree of selectivity in imports.
  2. To ascertain the urgency and relative claims of particular imports, and the demands those imports make on both shipping space and non-sterling exchange.
  3. To provide industries relying on imports with- opportunities to have their claims examined in advance of the time when a greater degree of import restriction may become unavoidable for any reason.
  4. To enable the possibility of obtaining requirements from alternative sources to . be explored and to facilitate the laying down of plans for the provision of suitable substitutes for goods which may no longer be obtainable.

The large-scale purchases by the British Government of our principal export products will provide supplies of sterling exchange adequate to our current needs. Sterling exchange can be used to purchase imports originating in all countries of the British Empire, with the exception of Canada, Newfoundland and Hong Kong. Sterling may also be used to purchase imports from British mandated territories, as well as from Egypt and the Sudan. All goods originating in countries of the sterling area will be exempt from the application of the licensing control, and may be imported under the same conditions as apply at the present time. In future, however, no goods may’ be imported from countries constituting the non-sterling area, including Canada, Newfoundland and Hong Kong, unless a licence to import the goods has been granted.

Goods now in transit to Australia will not be subject to restriction. It is also proposed to admit under licence, goods on order under drafts drawn under letters of credit already established in Australia.

The general scheme of administration contemplates that licences will not be issued for the importation from nonsterling countries of all those goods which have been graded as unimportant goods. A list of such goods is contained in the schedule, circulated for the information of honorable senators, referring to goods in category “ D.” Calculated on the basis of the imports from non-sterling countries during the year 1938-39, these goods were valued at £3,250.000 sterling. Total imports from non-sterling countries in the same year were valued at £46,500,000 sterling.

In the case of all other imports from non-sterling countries, it is proposed, in general, to base the measures of regulation on the value of imports during the year 1938-39. That should not be taken to mean that licences will be immediately obtainable for amounts equivalent to the importations in that year.

During the first licensing period, which will cover a period of two months ending the 31st January, 1940, licences will be granted to individual importers to the extent ofone-sixth of the value of their respective importations of the same goods during the twelve months ended 30th June, 1939. This is a general principle that will apply, and will place licensing officers at the various ports throughout the Commonwealth in a position to deal promptly and uniformly with a large proportion of the more or less regular imports.

Departures from the general principle will be unavoidable in the case of certain classes of imports as for instance -

  1. Imports of -a seasonal character.
  2. Irregular or non-recurring import transactions, as for example, imports of special machinery, new plant or equipment.
  3. Essential commodities, the demand for which may have substantially increased under the emergency of war conditions.
  4. Essential commodities subject to material price increases since 1938-39, the demand for which in terms of value exceeds the 1938-39 levels.

In the interests of sound administration it will be necessary progressively to adjust the basis on which licences are granted in order to meet these cases. Such adjustments as may be necessary may only be determined in the light of the factors affecting the particular commodity or transaction.

The measures therefore do. not involve any immediate reduction of the value of imports, except insofar as the goods named in the schedule in the hands of honorable senators are concerned. The limitation of the immediate issue of licences for other goods to one-sixth of the importations in 1938-39 will enable the Government to keep a close watch on the position, should the situation in relation to non-sterling exchange become more difficult at any time.

page 1920

QUESTION

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION OF APPRENTICES

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister state what steps, if any, the Government is taking to enable youths called up for compulsory military service, who are undergoing courses of technical instruc- - tion as apprentices, cadets or pupils, or in any other capacity, to continue by correspondence or otherwise the theoretical portions of their studies? If no immediate scheme has been prepared, will the Government bo willing to accept a plan of training recommended by a competent State educational authority?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– I can assure the honorable senator that the matter raised by him has received the consideration of the Government, but I am not in a position to furnish exact details of its proposals.

page 1921

QUESTION

BRITAIN’S PURCHASE OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

– Will the Leader of the Senate give an undertaking that Order of the Day No. 4, “ Sale of Aus- tralian commodities to the United Kingdom and other aspects of war-time marketing - Ministerial Statement - “ will be debated by the Senate prior to the Christmas adjournment?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– I shall do all that I can to see that the Senate has an opportunity to debate that matter.

page 1921

QUESTION

EUROPEAN MIGRANTS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for the Interior state whether the Government has considered the representations made to it by Dr. Steinberg for a special settlement of European migrants in the Kimberley district of Western Australia? If so, what decision, if any, has been reached?

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

– I know of no repre- - sentations made to the Government in connexion with this matter, but the general policy of the Government is opposed to the encouragement of the settlement of large numbers of foreigners in any one area. The Government has not encouraged settlement of that kind, but, when any official representations on the subject come to my notice, they will receive consideration.

page 1921

QUESTION

SETTLEMENT OF MARGINAL LANDS

Senator UPPILL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Commerce inform the Senate whether the Government has paid to the States the amount appropriated under the flour tax legislation for the settlement of marginal lands? If not, when will the money be paid?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– I presume that the honorable senator refers to the amount that will be collected from tomorrow. I point out that the first year of the flour tax collections ends to-day. I cannot give an assurance as to when or whether any of the money collected from flour tax beginning on the 2nd December, 1939, will be made available this year; but I shall look into the matter and give to the honorable senator a considered reply as soon as possible.

page 1921

QUESTION

JEWISH MIGRATION

Senator KEANE:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for the Interior indicate the attitude of his department to the subject of Jewish migration, and the action taken by the Government in regard to it?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– . Since the outbreak of war Jewish migration to this country has practically ceased, due mainly to the fact that a large number of these unfortunate refugees are inenemy countries. About the only kind of migrants coming to this country at the present time are the relatives or parents of those who have already gained admission, and who are in neutral or British countries.

page 1921

QUESTION

REVISED ESTIMATES 1939-40

Senator McBRIDE:
Assistant Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

.- I lay on the table-

Revised Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1940, and the Revised Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c… for the year ending the 30th June, 1940. and move -

That the papers be printed.

When the Prime Minister in September last brought down the budget for 1939-40, he indicated that it would be subject, to revision during the course of the financial year. Revised estimates of revenue and expenditure are now presented, and they will supersede those which were submitted with the budget.

The Government has given much consideration to the financial problem, of which all the difficulties are not yet fully known. We can, however, make plans for the future, as far as it is practicable to do so, and the Government has looked ahead with the object of formulating a financial policy which will fit into a coordinated plan and be capable of being adapted to changing circumstances.

Just as the United . Kingdom is planning on the assumption that the war will last at least three years, so mustour plans visualize a similar possibility, and this requires a much more intensified defence and economic effort than, this country was called upon to exert in the last war.

The problem is one of resources. There is need for the direction of a large proportion of our resources to war purposes and for co-ordination to avoid waste. Only the resources now available can be used both for the war effort and for civil needs, and the real burden must be borne now; it cannot be shifted to the future by ingenious financial devices.

The general financial policy of the Government aims at a balanced programme of taxation, borrowing from the public., and borrowing from the banking system. The balance between these three methods of finance must change from time to time with changing economic conditions. It is, therefore, necessary that these conditions and the trend of the economic system be kept under constant review.

In the period before the war we experienced a prolonged’ fall of export prices, and other adverse factors which made for recession in the economic situation, and we had not recovered from this recession when war was declared. There inevitably followed some dislocation of normal economic activity, which showed itself in a greater hesitation in private investment, an increase of the number of unemployed, and in other directions, but there is no reason to believe that this dislocation will be more than temporary. A number of factors is working for improvement, of which I may instance the recent sales of export products to the United Kingdom, the proceeds of which are already coming to hand, and the support given to the banking system by the Commonwealth Bank. Also, defence expenditure is having an increasingly stimulating effect on economy generally. While these factors have not yet been fully reflected in the employment of our resources, their effects will continue to become more evident in the coming months. While the temporary dislocation lasts the Government is desirous of .avoiding action likely to discourage’ private activity until resources are more fully employed and national income has been raised. Consequently the Government has decided, in distributing the cost of its war programme between taxation, public borrowing, and borrowing from the bank- ing system, to rely for the time being on borrowing with the aid of the banking system rather than on taxation.

In accordance with this decision two private loans have been arranged from the banking system, the first for £10,000,000 for Commonwealth and State works, and the second for £2,000,000 for special defence works low in the order of defence priority, but especially chosen” to relieve the unemployment position until the effects of defence expenditure become fully apparent. In the absence of increased taxation, and with the stimulating influence of increasing export income and rising defence expenditure, it i3 believed that the employment position will improve substantially and that the national income will be increased accordingly. When these changes occur the Government will review the economic position in order to determine the balance to be struck between the methods of finance 1 have mentioned.

Credit expansion is a valuable instrument of financial policy, and the Government has shown itself to be prepared to avail itself of this instrument for appropriate purposes; but it must be used with discretion. It is the intention of the Government to avoid the evils of excessive credit expansion, as was done by most belligerent countries after the last war. It is the policy of the Government to draw for war purposes upon the savings of the whole community. This will mean, unfortunately, diverting moneys which would normally be devoted to the development of the country to the prosecution of the war. An important part of our borrowing plans is the issue of savings certificates in order to afford people of small means the opportunity to play their part. Similar certificates are being issued in the United Kingdom.

The Government is confident that its general financial policy will enable it to reduce interest rates below the level now current. Already we have arranged a loan at a substantially lower rate of interest; than any floated for some years. The yield on Government securities in the market is already declining, and it is expected that the Government’s policy will ultimately result in interest rates reaching and being maintained at a satisfactory and acceptable level.

The Government has decided not to impose new taxes at the present time, except the increases aggregating about £8,000,000 which were embodied in the budget and supplementary taxation measures which have already been placed before Parliament. This does not indicate unwillingness on the part of the Government to use taxation for financing the war effort, but the vital questions are when, and to what extent, taxation should be relied upon at any given time. As economic recovery gets under way, the Government will transfer emphasis from borrowing from the banking system to borrowing from the public, and more particularly to taxation.

The amount to be found from Revenue includes £9,066,000 for expenditure which was included in our pre-war plans and £4,714,000 for war expenditure, the greater part of which is for pay and allowances of the army so that the additional charge to Revenue over the previous budget proposals is £1,768,000. An amount of £10,215,000 will bo provided from Loan Fund for General War Services, such as pay, maintenance of troops, ammunition, &c, £15,583,000 from the same source for naval construction, reserves of munitions, aeroplanes. &c, and £20,383.000 to carry on the original prewar programme of capital defence works. The amount of £2,053,000 is available in Trust Fund for Defence purposes as was the case when the budget was tabled in December last. Details of the proposed Defence expenditure will be found in the Estimates.

The war situation has affected the Estimates of Revenue, an outstanding example being the anticipated decline of customs revenue. Apart from new duties, designed to yield £150,000, to be introduced shortly, this reduction would have been £2,953,00.0. It will be readily understood that an estimate of customs revenue made in war time is highly speculative; changes in the military and naval situation abroad and changes in economic activity, par.ticularly in the United Kingdom, may falsify the most well-founded estimates.

Income tax receipts are now estimated to be £1,040,000 more than was estimated in the budget, whilst the gold excise duty imposed in December is expected to yield £900,000 iti the current year. The estimated total receipts for the year are £101.490,000. A summary and comparison between the estimated total transactions and results of the consolidated revenue fund as anticipated in the budget and under the revised estimates are given in the following figures : -

Details of the Receipts and Expenditure of 1938-39 and comparison under heads of the estimated transactions of the original and revised budgets for 1939-40 will bc found in a statement circulated among honorable senator

The loan expenditure visualized in the budget speech amounted to £23,072,000, made up as follows : -

The revised estimates of loan expenditure amount to £4S,931,000 as follows:-

Increases of defence expenditure from Loan include £10,215,000 for pay, maintenance and general up-keep, and £15,583,000 for works, naval construction, reserves of stores, arms, aeroplanes, &c.

I have placed before honorable senators a general outline of our financial plans which, of course, must be elastic because our commitments will increase. It is the duty of the Government to distribute the burden with the least disturbance to the economy, and our plans are formulated to ensure a sound economy to meet the tasks of peace. The path ahead is arduous. It would be foolish to delude ourselves into the belief that there is an easy way of bearing this burden. Substantial sacrifices will be required from every section of the community, but the people of Australia have never failed to face difficulties with courage, and I am confident that they will give earnest support to the Government in the tremendous task which lies ahead of it.

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– I second the motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1924

QUESTION

STORAGE OF WHEAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the

Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. In view of the necessity for organizing storages forwheat, will the Government order an immediate survey to be taken of all existing silos, wheat warehouses and storages, with a view to their being made available for the protection of the coming harvest?
  2. What steps, if any, are being taken towards the erection of further storage facilities, where required, throughout the wheat districts?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. Both the Government and the Australian Wheat Board realize the storage difficulties which will exist throughout the war. The Wheat Board has been in closest touch with the silo authorities and those controlling other storages in all States, and is taking all possible steps to cope with the storage problem.

page 1924

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

What are the salaries, fees, and travelling allowances paid to -

Each wheat-growing member,

The chairman, and

The secretary, of the Australian Wheat Board?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

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

  1. £500 per annum, plus fares.
  2. £750 per annum, plus fares, with travelling allowances at the rate of £2 2s. a day.
  3. £900 per annum. No rate of travelling allowance has been fixed for the secretary who, up to the present, has not travelled away from his head-quarters.

page 1924

QUESTION

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ LICENCES

Senator CAMERON:

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

  1. How many alien subjects who are not naturalized have been granted first and second preferences on their waterside workers’ licences issued under the Transport Workers Act, in each port in the Commonwealth where such licences are issued?
  2. Is it a fact that second preferences were granted to waterside workers who were issued licences in 1938? If so, how many were granted ?
Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers : - 1 and 2. This information is being obtained.

page 1924

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRIES

Senator CAMERON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many, and which, industries are subsidized, or paid a gratuity, by the Commonwealth Government?
  2. What is the value of the capital of each industry ?
  3. What is the amount of the annual subsidy or gratuity in each case and the date when first paid?
  4. What is the total amount paid to date in subsidies to industries in Australia?
  5. Why are such subsidies required?
Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

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

page 1924

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has invested a sum of £251,748 10s.6d. from profits made by the Commission ?
  2. What is the cost of a twelve-minute telephone call between Rockhampton and Longreach for private purposes?
  3. What would be’ the cost that the Broadcasting Commission would have to pay to the Postmaster-General’s Department for the use of a ground line relaying a twelve-minute news service daily?
  4. Would the cost be at a less ratio if three lots of twelve-minute news services were given daily?
  5. Will the Postmaster-General allow the National Broadcasting news service to be picked up by 4LG Longreach and retransmitted to give service to an area that is now poorly served?
Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

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

page 1925

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– On Thursday, the 23rd November, Senator Allan MacDonald asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the followingquestions, upon notice -

  1. What Commonwealth works were in progress of construction in Western ‘Australia at the outbreak of war, including their cost?
  2. What further Commonwealth works in Western Australia are contemplated, and at what cost?
  3. What war expenditure has been approved in Western Australia for the purchase of materials, &c. ?
  4. What further war expenditure in Western Australia is contemplated?

The Acting Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

page 1925

SULPHUR BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939

Motion (by Senator McBride) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Sulphur Bounty Act 1939.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
Assistant Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the bill will render it possible for manufacturers to receive the full amount of bounty payable to them each quarter instead of each financial year, thus conforming with past practice in this industry. The Tariff Board has recommended a bounty on a sliding scale based on the average imported cost for each financial year, but practical considerations not apparently brought before the board’s notice render it impossible to pay sulphur manufacturers any bounty at all until after the end of each financial year as the basis for bounty, namely, the average imported cost for that year, could not be ascertained until after the end of the year. This amendment of the principal act will be very acceptable to sulphur producers,, and will render the act similar in its operation to other bounty acts. Section 9 of the principal act provides for a reduction of bounty where profits exceed 10 per cent, per annum. In the absence of the proposed amendment in clause 4 of the bill it is impossible to determine the sales value of sulphur or sulphuric acid used by a manufacturer in the production of his own fertilizers or other commodities. Without a satisfactory means to determine an assumed sales value or price for such sulphur or sulphuric acid, the Minister could not determine the net profit earned from the manufacture and sale of sulphur or sulphuric acid which is the vital purpose of that section of the act. The industrial section was not included in new bounty legislation in 1938, as there was then some doubt as to its validity. The then Attorney-General promised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Forde) to consider the matter fully, and to insert such a section, if it- were found to be valid, and also advisable in the interest of employees in industries in receipt of Commonwealth bounties. That consideration has been given to the matter, and the Government recommends to the. Senate the present bill, which provides for-

  1. the observance by manufacturers of sulphur of standard rates of wages and conditions of employment prescribed by Commonwealth or State industrial authorities or registered under Commonwealth or State industrial agreements ;
  2. the declaration by the Commonwealth Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration, upon application by the Minister, as to fair and reasonable wages and conditions of employment, in cases or localities where no standard rates and conditions have been prescribed.

The bill also empowers the Minister to direct that, where prescribed or specially declared rates of wages and conditions of employment are not observed by manufacturers, the whole or any portion of the bounty shall not be payable.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1926

TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939

Motion (by Senator McBride) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Tractor Bounty Act 1939.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia-

Assistant Minister for Commerce) [ 11.40.] - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The industrial section was not included in new bounty legislation in 1938, as there was then some doubt as to its validity. The then Attorney-General promised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Forde) to consider the matter fully, and to insert such a section, if it were found to be valid and also advisable in the interests of employees in industries in receipt of Commonwealth bounties. Such consideration has just been given’ to the matter, and the Government recommends to the Senate the present bill, which provides for-

  1. the observance by manufacturers of tractors of standard rates of wages and conditions of employment prescribed by . Commonwealth or State industrial authorities or- registered under Commonwealth or State industrial agreements;
  2. the declaration by the Commonwealth Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration, upon application by the Minister, as to fair and reasonable wages and conditions of employment, in cases or localities where no standard rates and conditions have been prescribed.

The bill also empowers the Minister to direct that, where prescribed or specially declared rates of wages and conditions of employment are not observed by manufacturers, the whole or any portion of the bounty shall not he payable.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1927

WIRE NETTING BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939

Motion (by Senator McBride) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Wire Netting Bounty Act1939.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia -

Assistant Minister for Commerce) [11.43].- I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The industrial section was not included in new bounty legislation in 1938, as there, was then some doubt as to its validity. The then Attorney-General promised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition- in the House of Representatives (Mr. Forde) to consider the matter fully, and to insert such a section, if it were found to be valid and also advisable in the interests of employees in industries in receipt of Commonwealth bounties.’ Such consideration has just been given to the matter and the Government recommends to the Senate the present bill which provides for -

  1. the observance by manufacturers of wire netting of standard rates of wages and conditions of employment prescribed by Commonwealth or State industrial authorities or registered under Commonwealth or State industrial agreements ;
  2. the declaration by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, upon application by the Minister, as to fair and reasonable wages and conditions of employment, in cases or localities where no standard rates and conditions have been prescribed.

The bill also empowers the Minister to direct that., where prescribed or specially declared rates of wages and conditions of employment are not observed by manufacturers, the whole or any portion of the bounty shall not be payable.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1927

NEWSPRINTING PAPER BOUNTY BILL 1939.

Motion (by Senator McBride) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Newsprinting Paper Bounty Act 1938.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia-

Assistant Minister for Commerce) [11.46] . - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The industrial section was not included in new bounty legislation in 1938, as there was then some doubt about its validity. The then Attorney-General, however, promised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Forde) to consider the matter fully, and to insert such a section, if it were found to be valid and also advisable in the interests of employees in industries in receipt of Commonwealth bounties. Such consideration has just been applied to the matter, and the Government recommends to the Senate the present bill which provides for -

  1. the observance by manufacturers of newsprinting paper of standard rates of wages and conditions of employment prescribed by Commonwealth or State industrial authorities or registered under Commonwealth or State industrial agreements; .
  2. the declaration by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, upon application by the Minister, as to fair and reasonable wages and conditions of employment, in cases or localities where no standard rates and conditions have been prescribed.

The bill also empowers the Minister to direct that, where prescribed or specially declared rates of wages and conditions of employment are not observed by manufacturers, the whole or any portion of the bounty should not be payable.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 1928

TRADE AGREEMENT (BRAZIL) BILL’ 1939

Motion (by Senator McBride) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to approve an agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Brazil.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustralianAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The notes exchanged between the High Commissioner in London and the Brazilian Ambassador were signed on the 19th July, 1939. Together, they form a simple kind of most-favoured-nation agreement. No specific tariff concessions are provided for in the agreement, which simply guarantees that Australian goods imported into Brazil, and Brazilian goods imported into Australia, shall receive treatment not less favorable than that granted to goods from any other foreign country.

On the part of Australia, the agreement was designed principally to secure the most favorable conditions of entry of Australian wool into Brazil, the trade in which was showing a promising degree of expansion. Honorable senators will appreciate that the events which have taken place since the signing of the agreement may affect the export of wool to Brazil. Nevertheless, I do not consider that that fact should prevent formal approval from being given to it. Therefore, I shall deal as briefly as possible with the reasons which led to the exchange of the notes that constitute the agreement.

Brazil has a double-columned tariff providing minimum and maximum rates of duty. The lower tariff rates are applied to imports from countries which have entered into trade agreements with Brazil, under which Brazilian goods receive mostfavourednation treatment. At the present time, imports of Brazilian goods into Australia are subject to the general tariff rates of duty, and consequently Brazil applies the maximum tariff rates to Australian goods imported into that country.

The agreement now before the Senate will remove any competitive disadvantage to which Australian goods are subject in Brazil.

The Brazilian import duty on wool under the maximum tariff is 1.680 milreis per kilogramme gross weight, plus 10 per cent, of that duty, which is equivalent to approximately 3d. per lb. gross weight in Australian currency. The minimum tariff is 1.360 milreis plus 10 per cent., which is equivalent to approximately 2½d. per lb. The wool textile industry in Brazil has been expanding rapidly in recent years. It already supplies the bulk of the domestic demand for the coarser types of fabrics woven from locally spun and grown wool. For the manufacture of finer weaves of textiles, the industry has been dependent to a large extent upon imported yarns, but this trade is gradually being displaced by the increasing output of the Brazilian spinning industry, using imported raw wools of fine counts. Australian exporters have been evincing a keen interest in this development. Brazilian statistics show that imports of wool in 1938, including raw wool and wool in all stages of manufacture up to yarns, were valued at the equivalent hi Australian currency of approximately £664,000.

The value of Australian wool exports to Brazil has increased considerably since 1934-35, and as Australian wool is subject to slightly higher duties than wool from competing sources, it was expected that the removal of the differential margin would encourage a more extensive use of Australian staple. A trade has recently developed in the export, of Australian essential oils to Brazil. These goods, by the application of the minimum tariff, will receive the benefit of a reduction of duty of approximately one-fifth.

Brazil has a favorable trade balance with Australia, which is due to the fact that.it supplies a number of raw materials for Australian industry such as carnauba wax, edible nuts, cocoa beans and cocoa butter. The goods imported from Brazil are not of a kind on which tariff concessions have been granted by Australia in trade agreements negotiated with other foreign countries. The extension to Brazil of most-favoured-nation treatment will not, therefore, result in any measurable increase of imports from Brazil or any loss of revenue.

The agreement contains the usual stipulation by which preferences granted by Australia to British dominions will be maintained. On the other hand, any special advantages granted by Brazil to neighbouring countries for the purpose of facilitating frontier traffic, or the advantages or favours resulting from any customs union to which Brazil may become a party, are exempted from mostfavourednation treatment. Honorable senators will observe that the agreement us to come into operation on a date to be fixed by mutual arrangement. This provision was incorporated in order that the agreement would not become effective until after approval by Parliament. I submit the bill to this chamber with every confidence that it will meet with the approval of honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Coi.tj.ngb) adjourned.

page 1929

TRADE AGREEMENT (NEWFOUNDLAND) BILL 1939

Motion, (by Senator MoBride) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to approve an agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of Newfoundland in relation to duties of customs.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
Assistant Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will observe that under the agreement Newfoundland grants exclusive tariff preferences of 1 cent per lb. on Australian butter and 10 per cent, ad valorem on Australian canned fruits, whilst Australia accords admission under the British Preferential Tariff of Newfoundland newsprint. It is hoped that the exclusive preferences granted to Australia may have a beneficial effect on our trade with Newfoundland, which, at present, is negligible. On the other hand, the establishment of alternative sources of supply of newsprint for Australia’s requirements will undoubtedly be advantageous to Australia, which at present obtains the bulk of its supplies from Canada and the United Kingdom. It is not proposed to substitute indiscriminately Newfoundland newsprint for that manufactured in the United Kingdom; but difficulties have already been experienced ‘ by Australian newspaper interests in obtaining an assurance of future supplies from the United Kingdom. The agreement has the support of the Government of the United Kingdom, which is at present administering Newfoundland under a commission of government.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 11.58 a..m. to 12.5 p.m.

page 1929

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL 1939

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
Assistant Minister for Commerce · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

This bill is designed for the purpose of continuing the assistance by way of bounty which is given on fortified wine exported from the Commonwealth. The existing Wine Export Bounty Act, which has been in operation since the 1st March, 1.935, expires on the 28th February, 1940, and unless provision be made for the continuance of the assistance given in the past, no bounty can be paid on wine exported after that date.

The wine industry of Australia has had a chequered career, and it might be as well if, at this stage, I were briefly to outline the history of the Commonwealth Government’s part in its development.

Prior to 1924 the industry had been able to dispose of its production on the Australian market, but at that stage it became evident that unless some assistance were given, wine grape-growers who had been placed on their holdings under the repatriation schemes of the Commonwealth and State Governments after the war, would very soon be in a hazardous position owing to over-production.

The only outlet for the wine appeared to be on the overseas market, and after exhaustive inquiries it was decided, in 19.24, to assist the industry by the payment of a bounty on wine exported, the object being to enable wine-makers to sell their wine and thus be in a position to pay growers a reasonable price for their grapes.

The amount of bounty decided upon was 4s. a gallon. This did not mean that exporters actually received a bonus of 4s. on every gallon of wine exported, as the bounty included an amount of ls. 3d. which exporters paid as excise duty on spirit used in the fortification of the wine. The effective bounty was 2s. 9d. a gallon. Since 1924 the Commonwealth Government has continued to pay a bounty on wine exported, but the rate of bounty has varied considerably, as will be seen from the following table.- -

The Wine Export Bounty Act of 1934 provided for payment on a sliding scale. During the first two years the rate, paid was ls. 3d. a gallon and during the succeeding three years a reduction of Id. a gallon was provided for. The present rate of bounty is ls. a gallon. It is p ro.posed in this bill that this rate shall continue for a further period of five years.

There is little doubt that the payment of a bounty on wine exported from the Commonwealth has been of material assistance to wine grape-growers and wine-makers throughout the Commonwealth. The development of the export trade in wine has been considerable.

During the period 1924 to 1934 exports rose from 142,0S5 gallons in 1924 to 2,628,294 gallons in 1934, and during the last five years a further increase has taken place as follows: -

In June, 1939, there was approximately 18,500,000 gallons of fortified wine in bond in Australia. , The quantity of fortified wine consumed on the domestic market annually is estimated to be approximately 3,500,000 gallons, and unless the State governments are prepared to provide better and more facilities for the sale of wine in Australia there does not appear to be much prospect of increasing local consumption in the immediate future. If the bounty were discontinued, export would practically cease, and the huge quantities of wine which at present are disposed of overseas would be thrown on to the local market with disastrous results to all concerned. The Australian wine trade is experiencing very severe competition in the United Kingdom market from British wines, the sale of which has increased very rapidly during recent years. Sales of this type of wine have increased from 3,500,000 gallons in 1934 to 6,000,000 gallons in 1938.

It should also be remembered that the Governments of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria have large sums of money invested in the irrigation settlements in which wine-grape growing is a very important factor. The withdrawal of the bounty would undoubtedly result in the ruin of hundreds of returned soldier grape-growers, and the interested State Governments would suffer heavy financial losses.

The export of fortified wine from Australia has added considerably to Australian credits overseas. The value of exports during ‘ the last five years has been as follows: -

In addition the industry represents a large capital investment. It employs 732 persons in wineries, and the growers of grapes, and also provides each year seasonal occupation for a large number of grape-pickers, carters and labourers during the vintage period.

The Federal Vitieultural Council, which represents the majority of winemakers in Australia, has requested that the rate of bounty be stabilized at1s. a gallon. This is the present rate of bounty payable under the existing act, and it is proposed in this bill to continue the payment of bounty at the same rate for a period of five years from the 1st March, 1940.

From 1924 to 1930 the bounty paid on wine exported was financed solely from Consolidated Revenue, but in the latter year the burden of financing the industry was placed on the wine itself. This was achieved by increasing the excise duty on fortifying spirit by 5s. a proof gallon, making the duties payable 10s. and lis. a gallon, and providing, in the 1930 Wine Bounty Act, for the extra amount thus collected to be paid into a trust fund from which the bounty was to be paid. Provision was also made that, if the amount received from the extra excise collections was at any time insufficient to pay the bounty in full, the deficiency was to be made up from Consolidated Revenue.

The provisions of the Financial Emergency Act 1932 limited the sum that could be drawn from Consolidated Revenue in any one financial year to £96,000. The Wine Bounty Act was also amended to provide that the money available for distribution as bounty should be distributed pro rata amongst exporters.

In 1933 the rate of duty on fortifying spirit had been reduced to a flat rate of 6s. 6d. a gallon. This reduction of duty did not. in any way reduce the amount of money available to pay the bounty on wine exported, as the amount of 5s. out ofthe lower excise duty on fortifying spirit was still transferable to the trust fund under the bounty act. The rate of duty on -fortifying spirit still remains at 6s. 6d. a gallon, and this bill provides that 5s. of that amount shall be transferred to the trust fund under the proposed act.

During the last two years the money received from that portion of the excise duty on fortifying spirit transferred to the Wine Bounty Trust Fund, plus a small amount received from the excise duty on concentrated grape must, a commodity used to a limited extent in the manufacture of wine, has been more than sufficient to meet all claims for bounty at the rate of1s. a gallon. The amount received into the trust fund during last financial year was £193,196, and the amount paid as bounty was £167,872, showing a surplus of £25,324.

In this bill provision is made for a contribution from Consolidated Revenue of any amount up to £50,000 in any financial year, should the money received into the trust fund be not sufficient to meet all claims for bounty. This maximum contribution is considered to be quite adequate, as the indications are that the amount received into the trust fund from the extra’ excise collections will meet all demands that are likely to be made.

The Commonwealth Government’s wine bounty legislation has, since its inception in 1924, had two main purposes -

  1. to protect the interests of growers by the fixation of minimum prices for grapes ;
  2. to encourage the exportation of wine.

It is unnecessary for me to traverse the history arid trials associated with the fixation of grape prices. Suffice it to say that, generally speaking, such procedure has been of inestimable value to grapegrowers. It has resulted in the generality of grape-growers receiving a reasonable price for all grapes produced, despite the fact that the Commonwealth Government has no authority to fix the price of grapes used in the production of wine sold on the domestic market.

Wine-makers, generally speaking, have paid prices for grapes fixed by the Minister for Customs under the various wine bounty acts since 1927 for all grapes processed, irrespective of whether such grapes were to be used for wine to be sold on the domestic market or exported overseas.

There is, however, a feeling of instability in such an arrangement, and numerous conferences have been called with a view to co-ordinating Commonwealth and

State powers in order to achieve stability in this direction. It is understood that the Premier of South Australia has recently prepared draft legislation for submission to the Premiers of the other wineproducing States in the Commonwealth in an endeavour to achieve uniformity in this matter. It is also understood that the draft legislation is designed to control further planting of wine grapes. This control is a corollary of price fixation, when the industry affected by such price fixation is firmly established, for, if production as well as prices be not controlled, there is always a possibility of overproduction, owing to the security afforded by a controlled price.

There has always been a reluctance on the part of State governments to restrict production in any primary industry, but there is little doubt that the wine industry in Australia should be controlled in this respect, particularly if action be taken by the States to control the price of grapes used for the production of wine sold on the domestic market. The control of the price of all grapes produced in Australia would not be of benefit only to grape growers. Such action would be of immense value to wine-makers as it would, no doubt, protect the value of the present huge stocks on hand, which, in the main, have been produced from grapes paid for at the Minister’s prices fixed under past wine bounty acts.

There are not many new provisions in this bill, but I shall refer briefly to the following new features: -

  1. Provision has been made for the payment of a harvesting payment to growers within one month from the delivery of grapes to the winery.
  2. The time for payment for grapes has also been altered in the growers’ interests.

In the 1934 act definite provision was made requiring grapes purchased for bounty purposes to be paid for within a period of twelve months, and, if cash was paid by a prescribed time, a discount was allowed off the minimum price. This provision has been incorporated in this bill, but, whereas the first payment, for grapes under the 1934 act was due not later than the31st July next succeeding the date of delivery of the grapes, it is proposed in this bill to make the first payment due on the 30th June.

The harvesting payment has been fixed at £2 a ton, and it is considered that such a requirement is reasonable. Grapegrowers are put to considerable expense to provide wages for grape-pickers, carters, &c, during vintage operations, which commence in February in most districts, and, as previous legislation has not required that a payment be made for grapes prior to the 31st July, the resources of many growers who, generally speaking, are not financially strong, have been severely strained. The harvesting payment provided for in this bill should afford some relief in this direction.

I have dealt with this measure on general lines. There may be points which will require explanation when the bill is in committee, but I am sure that honorable senators representing wine-producing States will appreciate the bill, and agree that during past years the Government has done much to assist the wine industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (To whom bounty payable).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- What safeguard is exercised by the Department of Commerce to see that the recipients of this bounty are genuine exporters ?

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

– We have a list of the exporters, and we also check the exports through the Customs Department.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Rates of wages and conditions of employment).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- Has the Minister any information that would lead him to believe that the winegrowers, particularly in South Australia, have observed the provisions of this clause, which, I understand, was also contained in the last bounty act? When the bounty was last under consideration, an allegation was made that one grower had let certain cooperage work outside his own establishment, and that his employees had a grievance.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

– I have no definite information on the matter, but the department has received no complaint of the kind indicated by the honorable senator. We assume, therefore, that the growers are observing the normal wage, rates and conditions of employment that previously prevailed.

Senator Uppill:

– I can assure honorable senators that award wages and conditions are being observed in the industry. The employees are genuinely satisfied in that respect.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1933

SHIP BOUNTY 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 AustraliaAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

– In moving -

That thebill be now read a second time.

I shall traverse briefly the action which has been taken in the past with respect to shipbuilding, and the result of that action. Tariff protection on vessels up to 500 tons gross register was the method adopted as a means to encourage the construction of ships within a limited range. Vessels in excess of that tonnage were admitted free of duty. It is quite obvious that tariff protection has not succeeded in establishing the shipbuilding industry in Australia. Very few vessels within the protective duty range have been made in Australia in recent years, and a considerable time has elapsed since any commercial vessels exceeding 500 tons gross register have been built here.

The Government desires to see . the shipbuilding industry develop, and in planning that development has been obliged to. give consideration to many phases of the problem, including -

  1. the employment likely to be provided and the utilization of Australian raw materials;
  2. the re-opening of idle shipyards or the bringing into use of idle plant in shipyards at present operating ;
  3. the need tor keeping costs within reasonable limits in view of the effect that high costs of production would have on freight rates and on the ability of shipowners to purchase vessels under such conditions ;
  4. the amount of assistance which the Commonwealth Government could make available.

As I have already pointed out, tariff protection has not succeeded in placing the industry on a satisfactory footing. In this connexion, the Tariff Board, which has reported on the matter, states that a duty high enough to exclude the bulk of imported vessels would re-act against the best interests of both the shipowners and the community, and that the wisest course would be to substitute for the duty a bounty on vessels capable of economic construction in Australia. The Government’s proposals, which are based upon the recommendation of the Tariff Board, provide for -

  1. The payment of a bounty on iron or steel vessels (other than war vessels) over 100 tons but not exceeding 1,500 tons gross register.
  2. The rate of bounty to be £12 10s. a ton on vessels over 100 tons but not exceeding 750 tons. Such rate to be gradually reduced so that on vessels of 1,500 tons gross register the rate would bo £10 a ton.
  3. Bounty payments to be limited to £50,000 per annum.
  4. Machinery, boilers and auxiliaries required in the construction in Australia of vessels eligible for bounty to be admitted free of duty.
  5. The duties on vessels of the type eligible for bounty to be fixed at free British preferential tariff, and 15 per cent, general tariff.

Since the Government’s proposals were announced early in August, criticism has been levelled at the scheme on the ground that it will not provide sufficient stimulus to the industry. The Government is quite frank in admitting that the scheme will not result in the construction in our shipyards of every vessel that may be required by Australian shipowners. Such a rapid development could not be expected. The real intention of this measure is to permit of the industry being built up gradually. This view is exemplified in the decision to limit, bounty payments at the outset to vessels of up to 1,500 tons gross register. If the industry concentrates on vessels up to that tonnage, the question of the construction of still larger vessels can then be determined in the light of experience. A very important consideration at the present time is that of finance. The Government’s heavy war-time programme places a definite limit on the amount of assistance that can be granted to any individual industry. In these circumstances the provision of a sum of £50,000 per annum for ship-building is, I claim, commendable. Briefly, the position is that, the duties have not achieved the purpose for which they were imposed. The alternative approach is by bounty, and the Government’s proposals provide for assistance over a much wider tonnage range than was covered by duties. Within the limited funds at the Government’s command, the bounty proposals should give a stimulus to the ship-building industry.

Another point upon which the Government has been criticized is in respect of the proposal to admit free machinery, boilers and auxiliaries required in the construction of vessels on which bounty will be paid. Criticism is levelled on the grounds that free admission of such equipment will not result in additional employment being given in the appropriate industries’. Both the Government and the Tariff Board are fully seised of this fact in principle, but one cannot avoid the important consideration that if shipowners are to be induced to purchase vessels of local construction and freight rates are to be kept within reasonable limits, then costs must be kept as low as possible. The decision to admit this equipment free of duty cannot result in loss of employment in the boilermaking and engineering industries, because vessels required by Australian shipowners are at present purchased overseas, whereas some additional employment in the engineering industries must result from a building construction programme. 1 may mention that the United Kingdom Government admits duty free machinery and equipment for the construction of ships should shipbuilders in that country desire to avail themselves of the concession.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.41 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1934

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

2nd Australian ImperialForce: Departure Overseas - Empire Air Scheme: Details of Training.

Debate resumed from the 29th November (vide page 1672) on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the paper be printed.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This subject, which is similar to others which the Senate has discussed during the strenuous times through which we have recently been passing, should, as far as that is possible, be approached with an absence of party feeling. On a previous occasion I said that we on this side of the chamber believe in our party, its platform and its policy, just as sincerely and determinedly as honorable senators opposite believe in theirs; but there are subjects which should very definitely be discussed without any exhibition of party political feeling. I say that earnestly because on occasions there have been regrettable exhibitions of party political feeling. In fact, not many hours ago there was a display of that nature which I consider disclosed very bad taste. In dealing with subjects of national importance it may be that I shall say certain things, in order to make the position of the Opposition clear, which may not be accepted in the right spirit. It is quite possible that my remarks could readily, but untruthfully and unfairly, be misrepresented. I firmly believe that any’ political party which in a time of national emergency is not prepared, because of the fear of misrepresentation, to state definitely and unequivocally where it stands, is not worth its salt. I do not propose to display any timidity in making the position of the

Opposition clear on this subject. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition does not approve of the proposal to send a 2nd Australian Imperial Force of 20,000 men overseas to participate in the European war during the coming spring. The members of the Opposition realize the tremendous responsibility which the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is carrying at the moment. We have already shown that we do not underestimate the great strain which must necessarily fall upon the gentleman who occupies so high and responsible a position in time, of war. 1 have read the right honorable gentleman’s speech on this subject, and it appears that the decision to send this force overseas is based on what is contained in the following statement: -

What I have said will,I hope, afford the most eloquent answer to that broadcast German propaganda which keeps on hoping day by day that the British dominions are not at one with Great Britain itself. Once more,, an answer to that foolish hope will be made by Australian soldiers in Europe, by thousands of Australian airmen, and by the Australian Navy, which has, since the outbreak of war, co-operated fully with the British navy in the work of keeping the seas as clear as possible of the enemy.

That reason does not in itself justify us overlooking the danger which Australia, as an integral part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, is facing at the moment, and in no way justifies sending men beyond Australia, for military service. I ask honorable senators to visualize what may happen. Every day we have been hoping that the worst will not happen, but pious hopes will not prevent the situation from becoming worse. No one can claim to-day that the position in Europe has not worsened during the last few days, and has become decidedly worse during the last few hours. If there is one thing more than another that I should like to avoid, it is fanning the flames of pessimism or of war hysteria but in considering this subject we have to face actualities. I believe that the European situation is becoming worse. A few weeks ago we felt fairly certain that we knew who were our actual and potential enemies; but to-day no one can with any degree of certainty say what Britain is up against. If the worst should happen, how shall we fare in Australia if 20,000 men have left our shores? The men who are going are not weaklings, but have been specially selected because they possess the qualities necessary to perform the work for which they have volunteered. These 20,000 men have been very critically examined, including X-ray examination, to ensure that they are in the best possible physical condition. We know also that these men possess personal courage and a spirit of adventure; but does the Government realize that it is sending overseas shock troops which should be used for the defence of Australia? If, the worst should happen, what will be the moral effect on the people of this country when they realize that these men have embarked? By the time they have left our shores another 20,000 may be preparing to leave. What will be the morale of these 20,000 men who will be operating in a theatre of war next spring should they hear that Australian cities are being bombed? Surely they are not being sent overseas merely because German propaganda contends that there is no unity in the British Commonwealth of Nations ! That is not a reason why the man-power of Australia, should be depleted.

Senator McBride:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that, that is the only reason ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The Prime Minister said that the action of the Government was Australia’s reply to Nazi propaganda. Whatever we may do, the lying propaganda of the Nazis will continue.

Senator McBride:

– Does the honorable senator not think that the cities of Britain are liable to be bombed?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Possibly, but. Mr. Chamberlain and other authorities said that, our best part in this war would be to protect, this portion of the Empire, and to leave Britain free to look after itself. When such statements were made not, one responsible person in Australia suggested that an expeditionary force should be sent overseas. If it were possible for Australia to send 1,000,000 men overseas we could not stop the German propaganda machine which is piling up lie upon lie. The Labour party is pledged to a policy. I know that it has been said that that is a disadvantage. Some honorable senators opposite are proud of the fact that they do not come into this chamber pledged. They are not nearly so proud as we are of the fact that we come here not as individuals, but . as members of a great party - the strongest party numerically in this Parliament, especially in the House of Representatives - to express not our own personal views, but the considered policy of the working class. We represent that section of the community which has incurred tremendous expense and made terrific sacrifices during the last 50 years in order to send men to this Parliament, and to other parliaments, not to stand, fight and argue in supporting their own beliefs, but to give effect to the policy laid down by the Australian Labour party.

Senator Collett:

– Is the policy the honorable senator supports really the policy of the working class?

Senator COLLINGS:

– We are pledged to a policy. The Minister is entitled to think that we do not represent the people who sent us here. But if he does, he shows that he does not possess a logical mind. The rank and file of the Labour movement not only elect us to the Senate but also keep us here. For our place here we are entirely dependent on the votes of the working class, and we retain that support just so long as we are faithful to the policy of the Labour movement.

Senator McBride:

– What was the Labour party’s policy during the last war?

Senator COLLINGS:

– I hope that the Assistant Minister will not attempt to destroy the atmosphere that I am endeavouring, to the best of my ability, to create. He knows perfectly well that the policy to which the Labour party is pledged to-day has evolved out of our experience in the last war. Therefore, I ask the Assistant Minister not to hark back to events that occurred 25 years ago, because to-day we are living in a vastly different world. During the last quarter of a century, wonderful progress has been made, particularly in wireless broadcasting and aviation.

Senator McBride:

– And we are now engaged in another great war!

Senator COLLINGS:

– The war’ is being conducted in an entirely different maimer from the great struggle of 1914-18. Because the Labour party, of all political parties, has brought its policy up to date as the result of experience gained 25 years ago, am I being unreasonable when I ask Government supporters to bring their policy up to date, instead of sleeping in the past? They should not be political Rip Van Winkles.

Senator Collett:

– The difficulty is that we are still engaged in a war.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Surveying our history during the last quarter of a century. I am astounded at, and proud of, the fact that the men and women who laid down the policy to which we are adhering to-day, in spite of everything, were so far-seeing. Since September, 1938, the Labour party has again been reviewing its policy, and, as I stated in this chamber only a few days ago, our old policy, which has been made new by being brought up to date,has been submitted for ratification or rejection to every branch, both industrial and political, of the Labour movement in the Commonwealth. Those branches unanimously endorsed that policy without altering one syllable of the text.

Senator McBride:

– That is rather an exaggeration !

Senator COLLINGS:

– It is not; I ask the Assistant Minister to be fair. We submitted our declaration, which the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Curtin) repeated in the Sydney Town Hall only a few nights ago, to all component parts of the Labour movement. Not one branch was ignored; and the federation of those organizations was also asked to endorse or reject the policy. Each body unanimously accepted it. Whilst that fact alone is no valid reason for Government supporters to be impressed with our policy, I ask them to believe that we have every justification for adhering to it. We need not import into this debate any references to compulsion or. conscription, because the forces which we are discussing are wholly composed of volunteers. As that matter does not enter into the discussion, the only subject which is left for us to consider is the wisdom’ of the policy of sending troops abroad. The Labour party claims that it is inconsistent with the real defence requirements of Australia. If, at the conclusion of my remarks, Government supporters can show that the despatch of the expeditionary force abroad will increase the adequate defence of Australia, then my contentions must fail. The population of the Commonwealth totals approximately 7,000,000 men, women and children. From that number we must deduct the women, children, invalids and aged persons, because they cannot be called upon to defend the country. Admittedly, some women have worthily undertaken voluntary responsibilities in defence work, and I have no fault to find with them. Every credit is due to them. But the fact remains that the number of fit males who are not too old to accept the responsibility of service is not large. If the Government can convince me after that analysis that the remaining physically fit fighting men are in such numbers that we can afford to send them abroad, again my contention must be silenced.

SenatorCollett. - In Australia there are 400,000 fit men who are capable of bearing arms to defend our shores.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Some weeks ago thousands of volunteers entered militia training camps in various parts of the Commonwealth. Again, I have no occasion to refer critically to conscription or compulsion, because those men were volunteers. Since then, literally hundreds of recruits have come to us in tears because the Government found it necessary to reject them as unfit for military service. Can the Assistant Minister say whether they are included in the 400,000 men capable of bearing arms? I remind him that they all were of military age, and until they were submitted to two critical medical examinations, the Government honestly believed that they were fit to be members of the fighting forces.

Senator Collett:

– There is nothing in the honorable senator’s contention.

Senator COLLINGS:

– If the Government proposed to send only 20,000 men to. a theatre of war, again my case would be weakened. Admittedly, at the outset, only 20,000 men will be sent abroad ; but Senator Cooper, a soldier whom we honour for his participation in the struggle of 1914-18, knows that, so soon as we send 20,000 men from Australia to fight in the theatre of war next spring, we immediately assume the responsibility of supplying them with reinforcements in order to maintain their effective fighting strength. Even if the Government is right in sending this force abroad, what can be its value? If it does not answer the lying Nazi propaganda, what difference can 20,000 men from Australia make in view of the fact that tens of thousands of men are massed on the Western Front ?

Senator McBride:

– Is the Leader of the Opposition casting a reflection on the expeditionary force?

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am doing my best not to cast reflections upon anybody. Those 20,000 men, imbued with a spirit of adventure and the natural courage of a soldier, and both physically and mentally fit, are the flower of Australian manhood. Why, then, be cruel, unkind and untruthful by suggesting that I am saying anything which, by any stretch of the imagination, could be twisted to mean that I am slandering the men who have volunteered to serve abroad in the spring in a theatre of war ? It would ill become me to do so. I am over military age. If the safety of the nation depends upon the sending of those men to a theatre of war next spring, I should go down on my bended knees and offer up a prayer of gratitude to’ them . for having volunteered to fight. But because I honestly believe that the Government is depleting the manhood of Australia, to the detriment of the adequate defence of this wonderful counttry which has been so good to all of us, I should go down on my knees this afternoon, if it would do any good, and beg the men to stay with us, because we so ‘ sadly need them. If honorable senators who, like myself, are over the military age, do not believe that these men are required to defend Australia and that the women and children do not need them, send them abroad by all means, but do not attempt to shift the responsibility after they leave ! Send the reinforcements that will be necessary and leave this country naked to any potential aggressor!

Senator Dein:

– Rubbish! The Leader of the Opposition is concerned particularly with the defence of Queensland.

Senator COLLINGS:

– If the capacity of the Government to defend Australia is to be judged by the cruel and cowardly way that northern Queensland was left unprotected until a few months ago, despite the fact that for three years we urged the Government to provide adequate defences, 1 contend that Queensland furnishes another reason why we should beg the Government not to send the expeditionary force abroad, because we need the men here. The Assistant Minister interjected that I exaggerated the position.

Senator Collett:

– 1 did not make that suggestion. I think the Leader of the Opposition misunderstood me.

Senator COLLINGS:

– During the last war, 4.10,000 men enlisted in Australia, and 320,000 were accepted and sent abroad. Of that vast army, 60,000 men never returned and about as many have been inmates of military hospitals ever since. The coastline of Australia measures 12,000 miles. But the Assistant Minister claims that the despatch of 20,000 Australian troops abroad will not deplete our manhood. Although there are many vulnerable points at strategic positions, not only on the coast but also in ‘ the interior, the Assistant Minister asserts that I am wrong to suggest that the nien should be kept here.

Senator Collett:

– I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition misunderstood me.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I did not. If in this matter I were expressing my own personal opinion, some of my friends opposite might claim that I had an ulterior motive. They might say that I hate war to such an extent that I am not prepared to stand for the policy of my party, which, as every one knows, is the adequate defence of Australia. But the position is otherwise. My views on this subject are widely held. Although I was not born in Australia. I love this land. I was bom in the Mother Country, of which we all are so proud, but I have lived in Australia so long that T do not know much about the land of my birth. My father and mother were born there and reared me here, and, if I may say it, they made a pretty good job of the business - physically I am sure, and mentally I hope.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator COLLINGS:

– They taught me to hate war and to love peace. I have not obtruded my personal feelings in this debate this afternoon, but I repeat that I hate war and I love peace; also I love this country, which I consider has no equal on God’s earth. In no other do the people enjoy to a greater degree that freedom of thought and speech which we value so highly. At the moment we are, as a component part of the British Empire, engaged in a conflict with Germany whose rulers do not believe in liberty and freedom and the employment of democratic institutions to which we have for so long been accustomed. Compared with many countries, and compared also with the possibilities of the Motherland, Australia is blessed of God. It is a wonderful land in which to live. We all ought to be proud to be citizens of the Commonwealth, and we should be jealous of the privileges which we enjoy. So I say that we should consider this issue, first and last, from the standpoint of the citizens of Australia. This country, 1 repeat, is worth defending. We should be willing to go to any lengths to make sure that we retain control of it. I believe that the Government of Great Britain would approve of what I am saying this afternoon if we were able to appeal to it. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain) - I would not negotiate with that scoundrel Churchill-

Senator MCBRIDE:
UAP

– That is a friendly sentiment !

Senator COLLINGS:

– I regard Mr. Churchill as a mad dog let loose for the purpose of spreading hatred where previously none existed. If I were authorized to speak on behalf of Australia, and if I said to Mr. Chamberlain: “Do you want us to help the British Empire to the extent of our capacity out there in Europe, or do you believe that we would better be employed and would better serve the interests of the Empire by making safe the country in which we live and which is fo well worth retaining?”, I honestly believe that he would say: “ Months and months ago I told your people that one of the greatest contributions which von could make towards the security of the Empire was to make your own position safe, because when the testing time comes it is almost certain that we shall not be able to do very much in that direction “. 1 emphasize that we can make a far greater contribution to the security of the United Kingdom Government and the British Commonwealth of Nations by providing, to our maximum capacity, continuous supplies of food products and other necessaries. May I here add that the Minister for Commerce (Senator McLeay) has, 1 believe, done a wonderful work during the last few weeks in arranging for the sale of so many kinds of Australian commodities to the United Kingdom Government, and I repeat that we can make a far better C011tribution to Empire security by developing our own industries, primary and secondary, and by doing all that is humanly possible to make Australia a selfcontained nation. These are the lines along which our policy should be directed, instead of a futile demonstration, such as is contemplated, of sending overseas a force of 20,000 men.

I.f, as 1 have said, these were my own “ thoughts I could imagine that Ministers and their supporters would dismiss them with a wave of their hand. That would be unkind, but they would do it. But I have other and high authority for what I am saying. The first authority I shall quote is the late Mr. Hawker, a captain of the old Australian Imperial Force, and an acclaimed hero in war and peace, but. particularly in peace. No man ever suffered more intensely than he did, yet he was never seen without a smile on his face. He and I were Australian delegates to an Empire conference at Lapstone, New South Wales, in September of lastyear just before Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, made his famous trip to Munich. We sat side by side at that conference which comprised delegates from every part, of the British Empire, including Eire and India. Although politically we were opposed to each other, we sat together at that conference and whenever questions of Australian national importance were under review there was very little differ- once between the late Mr. Hawker and myself. This is what he said on the 28th April, 1938-

I cannot imagine any circumstance in which Australia could send overseas an enormous expedition such as was despatched during the last war. The world position is such that we cannot afford to denude Australia of defence.

Senator MCBRIDE:

– No one is suggesting that.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Very well. I come now to a statement made by Sir Henry Gullett, the Minister for External Affairs, and no friend of mine or of my party. This is what Sir Henry Gullett said on the 29th April, 1938-‘

Everybody must subscribe to the statement made yesterday by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) that one cannot possibly visualize stripping this country of its manhood, as was done in the great war. ii may be that we could send two or three divisions somewhere overseas, but they would be volunteers, and we could always be certain of getting volunteers.

The Right Honorable W. M. Hughes (Attorney-General) said, as reported in Hansard on the 5th October, 1938 -

It was problematical if any overseas expeditionary force would ever reach its destination.

Senator Brand, himself a distinguished military man, and for whom every one on both sides of the Senate has, I am sure, the greatest possible respect, said on the 7th October, 1938-

It was unnecessary for the Lender of the Labour party (Mr. Curtin) to broadcast to the world that no Australian soldier would be sent to fight overseas. The world situation to-day is quite different from what it was in 1014. There is no likelihood of the formation of another Australian Imperial Force. All our industrial, economic and service defence preparations have one objective - home defence.

In that statement, our friend, Senator Brand, is at one with the Opposition in this chamber. Mr. Archie Cameron, the present Leader of the Country party in the House of Representatives, speaking at Brisbane, on the 23rd February last, is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as having said -

Two plain facts must be boldly declared. The first is that Australia cannot again participate in a European war by sending an army, and the second is that Britain may well be so fully occupied in a European conflict that we may have to depend on our resources for an indefinite period.

Our first duty ia to defend ourselves; our second is to supply other British countries with the needs of living and waging war.

In that pronouncement Mr. Cameron stands four square with the policy of the Labour party. But I have other authorities. I know that the international situation has altered somewhat since February of this year. It has worsened and has rendered it more necessary for us to keep every fit man in this country to defend it. Every 24 hours’ that passes justifies the wisdom of the Labour party’s defence policy. Mr. V. C Thompson, a Country party representative of the House of Representatives, said on the 16th June last -

I know that thousands of people in my electorate, and thousands of others, firmly believe that a statutory obligation to serve overseas does not exist.

While I am a member of this Parliament I shall use my endeavours to sec that no alteration is made in our defence policy in that respect. The people are quite prepared to support a policy under which the manhood of this country may be compelled to serve for home defence.

Senator Dein:

– The Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to support even that policy.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I should be obliged if Senator Dein would try for a few moments to forget Senator Collings, the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. I am reading for his benefit, and for the benefit of others who share his opinion, views expressed by Mr. Thompson, a friend and colleague of Senators Cooper, Abbott and Johnston. Mr. Thompson’s remarks are to be found in Hansard of the 16th June last. Let me repeat some portion of what I have already read -

The people are quite pre purari to support a policy under which the manhood of this country may be compelled to serve for home defence, but would oppose an expeditionary force going to New Guinea, Norfolk Island, or anywhere else, where the British flag may be raised. 1 submit that in the views which I have expressed in this chamber, I am in excellent company. . Our friend, Senator Brand, on the 13th September last said this -

Honorable senators should not think for one moment that I am visualizing an expeditionary overseas force.

I have already said that the despatch of such a force, voluntarily enlisted, is a remote possibility. No government would darc denude this country of its virile manhood unless some extraordinary development warranted such action.

The honorable senator went on to say that Australia’s defence problem was different altogether from that of New Zealand or any other dominion.

I come now to some views of the Honorable G. A. Street, the present Minister for. the Army. Before quoting briefly from a speech which he delivered in the House of Representatives on the 19th September, I should like to pay a well-deserved tribute to Mr. Street for the wonderful job that he is doing as the Minister for the -Army. He is a most approachable, kindly-hearted gentleman. He has had experience on active service abroad and knows what it means. This is what he paid -

The G overn ment of the United Kingdom has itself recognized that at the present juncture, the best contribution that Australia can mak* is to defend itself.

Great Britain itself is not asking for volunteers at the moment.

Senator McBride:

– That is a qualification.

Senator Collett:

– The only authority thai; the honorable gentleman has not quoted is myself.

Senator COLLINGS:

– For that omission I apologize. We all have the greatest respect for the Minister, and we understand the onerous nature of the ministerial work that he has undertaken. He is a distinguished soldier, and has rendered great service to his country. Whether he thinks that I am right or wrong, I believe that deep down in his heart he knows that I am doing my best this afternoon to state Australia’s case as an Australian who wishes to do his best for this wonderful country. The international situation has not improved ; on the contrary, it has become definitely worse, owing to the line-up of the various nations, and the economic blockade carried out by the Allies. We have brought into almsmen* a series of neutral countries from which we previously had nothing to fear. Countries like Italy and Japan were definitely holding off. While, perhaps, they did not declare themselves on the side of Great Britain and France, they distinctly said that they were not in the scrap ; therefore, they made it clear that they were not standing with Germany.

Those who are conducting the campaign in Great Britain doubtless know what they are doing, but we should ask in what way Australia is affected by the latest .developments. To-day we do not know the real extent to which we shall be involved in defensive operations. We nave Sweden, Denmark; Belgium, Holland, Italy and Japan to consider, and now we have the terrible news that Russia has marched into Finland. Can I be blamed if, on behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Government to accept the grave responsibility of considering what will be the final effect on Australia of this new lineup of the forces opposed to the Allies. I should be afraid to let Australia lose, not 20,000, but even 1,000 of its men. If we sent 20,000 troops overseas, it would soon be necessary to despatch another 20,000 to reinforce them, and then a further division, and 60 on, until we should perhaps have to send six divisions overseas, as happened in the last war. Atn I to be chided and jeered at as insincere, am I to be branded a traitor to Australia, and recreant to my trust as a member of this Parliament, because I plead with, all earnestness that the Government should not rob the women and children of this country of those splendid fellows whom it proposes to send overseas ?

Senator Dein:

– Bob them?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator’s interjection comes with bad taste. He was of military age during the last war, and he did not line up to his responsibility. That is the first unkind thing that I have 6aid during this speech, and I regret having said it.

The policy I have enunciated this afternoon is one of real service, not mere lip service, or frothy, spurious patriotism such as we have heard from Senator Dein. I say that Australia is making a wonderful contribution to the Allied cause, and not one whit more than it ought to make. We in this Parliament are leading a charmed life in a charmed country. We have a reasonable amount of economic security. We have a job in this Parliament, which is congenial to most, if not to all, of us. We have a wonderful country which is worth defending, and we should do our best to the limit of our capacity to defend every inch of it; but with every thousand men we send from these shores we shall reduce our capacity to defend it adequately. I move as an amendment -

That all the words after “ that.” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - “this Senate is of opinion that Australia’s man-power is required for the defence and safety of the Commonwealth and is opposed to the despatch of expeditionary forces.”

In considering that amendment I ask honorable senators to forget for the moment that this chamber comprises representatives of the Government and of the Opposition. I ask them to approach the matter in the way that I have endeavoured to view it. I may not have succeeded, because once or twice I have been provoked out of the dispassionate mood in which I sought to debate the matter. I ask honorable senators to put to themselves one question, and to attempt to answer it: “Which is the better policy, first, for the adequate defence of Australia, and, secondly, for the final defence of the British Commonwealth of Nations?”

Senator COLLETT:
Assistant Minister · Western Australia · UAP

– I compliment the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) on his speech, and 1 regret that I have not had time to prepare material that would enable me to offer a reply worthy of his own effort. Since 1 have been a member of this ‘chamber. I have found that time and experience lead us to alter our judgments as we progress, and that other days, perhaps, bring other views on old questions. When I came here six years ago, I was a political youth, but I have acquired much wisdom through listening. I remember being impressed by three remarks by Senator Collings.. One of them was that he regretted that it was a part of his duty as a member of Parliament to have to preach class hatred. Another statement that I well remember is that he had an intense dislike of the Old Country and its institutions

Senator Collings:

– Oh. no! It is a wonderful country, but T do not like its Government.

Senator COLLETT:

– 1 gathered from the strength of the words used that he had some reason for saying that. The third remark that I recall is that, if ever a government in Australia contemplated taking part in a war overseas, or a war in which Europe was involved, he would lead a general strike.

Senator Collings:

– No. Does the honorable gentleman say that 1 used those words in an atmosphere such as that in which this debate is being conducted?

Senator McBride:

– Did the Leader of the Opposition say that?

Senator Collings:

– I deny that 1 said it, in the absence of proof that I did. If 1 said it, I did not do so in this atmosphere, and it was entirely unfair for the Minister to bring it up.

Senator COLLETT:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition to give me credit for mentioning this matter for a good purpose. Will he accept my statement that J am making these remarks in good faith?

Senator Collings:

– Yes.

Senator COLLETT:

– The speech of the honorable gentleman created an atmosphere worthy of the occasion, and he has attached due importance to the serious matters under discussion. I do nor. propose to cover all of the ground that he has traversed, but I wish to place, perhaps in more correct perspective, some factors that have to be reckoned with in forming an estimate of the action taken by the ‘Government at this time of great national crisis. I have referred to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not mention certain remarks made by me about twelve months ago on the subject of defence, when I expressed the opinion that it would not be necessary for Australia again to send troops overseas, except-

Senator Collings:

– The Minister is the one authority I missed.

Senator COLLETT:

– I, with the Leader of the Opposition, regret it. T did not contemplate such a condition of affairs as prevails to-day. T did not expect that all of the nations of the world would be living under the strain and tension that is experienced to-day.

Senator Collings:

– No more than I did at the time when the Minister spoke about a year ago.

Senator COLLETT:

– Exactly. I did not think that the forces which are being called to life in the world to-day would be needed to cope with the situation that now confronts us. Australia has to take ite, own measures in defence, and to see that they fit in with those of the Empire. In sending this force overseas Australia is not only conforming to what is expected of it as a part of the Empire, but is also stiffening those forces to which we look for our protection and- safety. In this way we are backing up the people of the Old Country and helping £hem to realize that the battle which they are fighting is the battle of the Empire, and that the Empire is behind them.

Senator Collings:

– Do they doubt that we are behind them ? Has the Government ever been advised that they are fearful we are not with them?

Senator COLLETT:

– I have served overseas beside men of the British Army, and I have seen the Navy and the Air Force in action; and I know the comfort which the sight of comrades from the Dominions gives to them. In lending the use of its navy and in its attempt, to organize this tremendous air force, Australia is rendering a service to the Empire. Dealing with the question of man-power, the Leader of the Opposition treated with due importance the fact that 20.000 of the best of our young men are to be sent overseas. However, in the last war, 420,000 Australians volunteered, and of that number 330,000 went overseas. The wastage of over 20 per cent, as between the number who enlisted and the number who were sent abroad was due partly to faulty medical examination in Australia; the re3t was the normal wastage resulting from death, accident and disease. Dealing with the rejection of men after enlistment, I recall that in 1917 1 saw a draft of 500 men who had just arrived from Australia. At one glance, I, myself, rejected 75 of that number, and within the next three days the medical board rejected another 75 of them. The rejections were not due altogether to’ the fact that the men were of a low type, hut mainly to faulty medical examination at this end. Figures I took out some months ago would suggest that at the present time we have in Australia about 2,000,000 male3 between the ages of 19 and 59, of whom over 9aU,000 are under the age of 35, and about 500,000 between the ages of 35 and 44. These are official statistics. When I said previously that we could count on putting 200.000 men in the field, I was underestimating the position, because we could find 500,000 men, and if hard driven as many as 800.000.

Senator Collings:

– Is that more or less than we need ?

Senator COLLETT:

– It is more than we need. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the international position is worsening. It is useless to deny that fact. The daily news from overseas makes it clear that we shall be obliged to put forward increasingly greater efforts economically, and also as regards our man-power and output of material. In that work we must proceed according to a common plan, not only in association with the other dominions, but also in respect of whatever strategy Great Britain decides upon in fighting the battles of the Empire as a whole. Senator Collings made a general statement regarding the policy of the Labour party, and, for the first time, I think, he made use of a statement which suggested to me, at any rate, that his party does revise its policy from time to time.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Of course it does.

Senator COLLETT:

– Honorable senators opposite have never previously made that admission. However, with all due respect to them I am bound to say that every revision seems to worsen their policy.

Senator Collings:

– That is the honorable senator’s opinion. We are still proud of Labour’s policy.

Senator COLLETT:

– Tt, lacks any suggestion of strategy, so far as the formulation of a scheme for the defence of Australia and the Empire is concerned. The fairest criticism of Labour’s latest policy is contained in an article which appeared recently in the press, which I shall read for the benefit of honorable senators -

Mr. Curtin told his audience at the Town Hall on Monday night that the Australian Labour movement found itself “ inevitably, unequivocally, and inflexibly “ on the side of

Britain in the war. The alliteration is impressive; the sentiment is unexceptionable, lt is only when the phrase is examined in its context, and Labour’s professions are contrasted to its proposals for action, or inaction, that doubts about the sincerity of its war policy arise. The party loyalty is not in question–

Nobody who knows the working people of Australia would level any such charge against them -

Though Mr. Lang may declaim against “ allowing our sons to be slaughtered on a European battlefield in any useless war over European domination “. most Labour men and women see clearly enough what is at stake in this struggle. Mr. Curtin himself can have no mental reservations on the subject. If he were a bold leader of the movement, instead of merely its Federal mouthpiece, his speech on Monday night might have been made a rallying call to the nation and not have appeared as a tepid, hesitant reflection of the indifferently reconciled views of the political and union chiefs. What some nf those chiefs think in private -Mr. Lang has not scrupled to say in public. Others are for a stronger line against Nazi aggression-

There was displayed at that time a lack of that unity, the value of which the Leader of the Opposition has stressed so much. I know that disunity is endemic; it flares up ‘ occasionally in the Labour party-

The compromise between their opinions was apparent in Mr. Curtin’s address, though in fact the war policy he enunciated did not differ in substance from that which Mr. Lang had insisted on proclaiming at Pyrmont a week earlier. Neither Mr. Lang nor Mr. Curtin believes that an expeditionary force, volunteer or conscript, should be sent from Australia, and both are opposed to compulsion for home defence. They differ about the nature of the war, but the contribution which they would make to its active prosecution is approximately the same.

That contribution is no more than the effective defence of Australia - a function which every threatened neutral is discharging in relation to its own protection. The Australian Labour party professes its readiness to continue to struggle for victory, but the struggling is to be done at a distance - on the side, hut not’ by the side, of Britain; behind Britain, but 12,000 miles behind. This is surely an ignoble conception of the role that Australia should play in the war. It is one thing to say that no troops shall be sent abroad while they may be needed at home; it is quite another to affirm that in no circumstances shall we share the sacrifices which Britain and France will have to make if Australia is not to become one of the prizes of defeat. “ There are no pretences about the Labour movement,” Mr. Curtin says; “it stands for the victory of its own side and its own country “. But the victory is to be won by others; Australia is simply to take the best possible care of itself.

Senator ARTHUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– That is the opinion of the hireling editor pf the Sydney Morning Herald.

Senator COLLETT:

– The article continues -

If Mr. Curtin really thinks on these safetyfirst lines, he is out of touch with national sentiment. More probably his thinking has been done for him, by men who profess to speak for the Labour movement, but who do not in truth represent the workers who enlisted in great numbers in the Australian Imperial Force and whose sons are equally ready to fight at home or abroad. Mr. Curtin forbore to mention the plans to send Australian airmen to Canada and France. Evidently his party is opposed oven to this method of contributing to the Allied - and Australian - cause. It is for the war, but not for direct participation in it.

Labour’s shadow-sparring on the subject of conscription for oversea service is beside the point. The issue has never been raised-

I repeat, that that issue has never been raised -

It was as unnecessary for Mr. Curtin to denounce conscription as to declare, as he so awkwardly did, that “ we will do nothing that might help to defeat Great Britain “. Less explicable is the party’s objection to compulsion for home service in war-time, which has been the law of the land almost since Federa-. tion. Compulsion, according to Mr. Curtin, represents a principle alien to the conception of civic duty as developed in the history of responsible government “ - which is his orotund way of saying that it is undemocratic. Democratic, republican France has not found it so., nor has the democracy of Britain. The Australian brand of democracy is not superior to theirs; the difference is merely that, while their troops hold the Maginot Line, our Labour leaders are free to prattle about the iniquity of obliging young men to train for the defence of their country. Here again they misinterpret the feelings of the Australian people. There is no real opposition to compulsory training, and there is a real desire that Australia should play its full part in the war for freedom and survival. This current of national feeling, sweeping forward, threatens to leave Labour’s spokesmen wringing their hands and muttering their incantations far in the vear.

The extract which I have just read is taken from the Sydney Morning Herald of the 22nd November. The contribution which Australia proposes to make to the defence of the Empire is worthy of this country, and deserves the support of every honorable senator opposite. I think that that support will bo forthcoming.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.- On two or three occasions since I took my seat in this chamber, I expressed the opinion that, taking into consideration world conditions, it would be unwise to despatch a force overseas in the event of a world war, for the good and sufficient reason that the international situation would be quite different from that in 1914. I conveyed the impression that until sides were picked, or until we knew definitely what countries which were then sitting on the rail would do, Australia must he careful not to be stampeded into any extensive overseas land operations. The British Government, at the outset of the war and, indeed, before hostilities commenced on the 4th September last, informed our Government that Australia’s best contribution to Empire defence was to be able to defend itself, provide its own. war equipment, and contribute as far as possible to the Empire’s munition requirements. In coming to a decision to despatch a division overseas for service where required, the nation, I venture to think, will accept the Prime Minister’s statement that he had received, a few days ago, specific and concrete assurances from the British Government that the international situation in this part _ of the world is less obscure. In the opinion of those responsible for the successful, prosecution of the war, the position has. been clarified. Their view of this unusual conflict is that propaganda fortified by action is preferable to the headlong sacrifice of millions of lives. The despatch of a voluntary Australian Imperial Force division from these shores will tend to combat the propaganda circulated amongst the German people, that the British Empire is not as united and determined as it was in 1914. For that reason, if for no other, I support the action of the Government, which should help the Empire to shorten hostilities. All this “shadow-sparring” on the western front for the past three months may be a. preliminary to a gigantic “ allin “ fight, or it may be an indication of reluctance on the part of both sides to reduce their man-power. “Who cannot say whether the enemies of to-day may be the allies of to-morrow, opposing the spread of communism. The climatic conditions in Europe to-day are not worse than those of the winter of 1916-17, the severest winter in Europe for over 30 years; yet we fought through it. The impregnability of both the Maginot and Siegfried lines has caused a stalemate. Spring next year will no doubt bring developments of vital importance.

Herr Hitler’s nerve-wracking strategy is directed at neutral countries. The Allies, particularly the British Empire, are countering that strategy by a resolute determination to rid Europe of the Nazi menace with the minimum of bloodshed. A mighty empire air fleet can have only one impression on Hitler, and in turn on neutral countries. One Australian division is to be despatched as an empire gesture on moral grounds. That gesture will serve its purpose. I trust that honorable senators opposite will view the Government’s decisions from that angle. They should not regard senators on this side of the chamber as jingoists, anxious to throw our young manhood into a furnace. On the other hand, my colleagues here must not mark the Opposition down as disloyal to the Empire. Both allegations are wrong.

This vital question of Australia’s defence and the paramount importance of the Empire’s gigantic effort to bring the world back to normal are too serious for party quibbles or scare-raising bogies.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I should not have addressed the Senate on this important subject, but for the fact that Iwish to make a strong appeal to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) to excise from the Hansard proofofhis speech this afternoon his references to the First Lord of the Admiralty, upon whose shoulders the security of the Empire largely rests. On reflection, I believe that the honorable senator will regard the language used as unworthy of him. The expressions to which he gave utterance were possibly due to some personal illfeeling towards that distinguished gentleman.

Senator Collings:

– No.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Surely the honorable senator realizes that his remarks will be used to discredit this great man throughout the civilized world. If any man is shouldering a tremendous responsibility in connexion with the de fence not only of Great Britain, but also of the whole of the Empire, it is the First Lord of the Admiralty. It illbecomes a gentleman occupying the position which Senator Collings occupies to use the language he did. I ask that honorable senator in all fairness to a man upon whom such a tremendous burden rests, and in justice to Australia, to excise from his proof the remarks to which I have referred.

Reference has been made this afternoon to domination ; but the policy which Great Britain and its allies have adopted covers a much wider field. It concerns the freedom and liberty of the peoples of every civilized nation. Honorable senators opposite should also remember that the Government which is controlling the affairs of this nation has decided to send a force overseas, but the members of that force have volunteered to serve in the interests of freedom and liberty. Australia in common with the other dominions is endeavouring to buttress in every way the efforts of those who are fighting that menace to the freedom of the civilized world. As the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) -said a few days ago, “ The Government’s primary consideration is the defence of Australia “. He then proceeded to tell the Senate that although the British Navy is actually our first line of defence, we as an integral part of the British Empire, should do our part- by sending overseas those of our valiant sons who are willing to fight for the freedom which we hold so dear. Surely the contribution which the Commonwealth Government is making should have the support of all political parties in this chamber. We are merely upholding those traditions which Britain has always upheld. We may be more radical and more liberal in our outlook than we were some years ago ; but we have to remember that in helping to defend Britain we are assisting a nation which has done more than any other to advance science, learning and culture. It is for the privileges that we possess that we are fighting to-day.I am not so much concerned with the despatch of an expeditionary force as I am with the broader outlook of Australian defence generally. In comparison with the activities displayed and , contributions made by other countries, our effort is not great. To-day, armed forces can be counted in millions. For instance, J apan has landed over 1,500,000 fighting men in another country. Surely we must see that our shores are protected, and that we have the utmost measure of security. Why is Australia not following the example of New Zealand, that valiant little country with a population of only 1,500,000, which is sending her sons overseas to strengthen the Empire?

Senator Fraser:

– New Zealand is paying its men a higher rate.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I do not care whether the war activities of this or any other British dominion are controlled by a Liberal or by a Labour government; we must consider this subject from a broader outlook. The great democracies of the world are realizing that if the Empire be defeated civilization will be doomed. The German people believe that if Britain falls it will be the end of British supremacy and Germany’s path to world domination will be clear. Regardless of our political beliefs we must stand shoulder to shoulder with Britain, not only in our own interests but also for the sake of posterity. There are no political divisions in Great Britain today. There is no cavilling, and the leaders of all parties are standing behind the British Government.

Senator Fraser:

– The British Labour party is opposed to conscription.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, conscription is not involved in this instance. Honorable senators opposite are opposed to sending overseas men who are willing to risk their lives and their all in the security of the Empire. Do we realize that our security depends on the assistance afforded to Britain? The men who have volunteered for service overseas are willing to fight for that which they know to be right. I am as keen a pacifist as any honorable senator opposite. I would have supported the League of Nations in an attempt to prevent the invasion of Abyssinia; but it is useless to recall past controversies. It was a Canadian poet, Bliss Carman, who said -

Oh little Mother England, by the sleepless northern tide, ,

Having bred so many nations, in devotion trust, and pride.

Very tenderly we turn, with willing hearts that yearn,

Still to fence you and defend you, let the sons of man ‘discern

Wherein our right and title, might and majesty reside.

By the strength of the British Empire the freedom of the world will be preserved. As Senator Brand has said, there has not yet been a major test of manpower. The test may be an economic one. Eventually starvation may be threatening the people of Britain, the people of Germany - people of practically the same race as our own. The peoples of Central Europe are already suffering the pain and misery of war. If these brave lads are willing to share the burden that is. being borne by the Motherland and its great democratic sister, France, against the powers of aggression, no dissentient voice should be raised in an endeavour to prevent the despatch of the expeditionary force. Every encouragement should be given to the men in their determination to strike a blow for freedom. I am. amazed that the Leader of the Opposition should endeavour to distort the references of the late Mr. Hawker and the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Henry Gullett). Does he suggest that if I, in my feebleness, should volunteer to fight for Great Britain, I should be prevented from doing so? Yet that is the effect of the amendment.

Senator Collings:

– We ask the Government to keep the troops here in order to defend Australia !

Senator A. J. McLACHLAN.Should they not be encouraged to fight for Great Britain, which, to a great extent, has our safety in its keeping?

Honorable senators interjecting,

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Our shores are guarded; but I should like the protective bulwarks to be even further from here. However, that is another matter with which I shall deal on a more appropriate occasion. I deprecate any opposition to the present proposal. Whilst I am not in. accord with every aspect of the Government’s defence policy, I contend that, at the moment, all parties should endeavour to pull together. If the men volunteer to serve in a theatre of war, we should be the last persons to express ourselves in such terms as the Leader of the Opposition invited us to use.

Senator Aylett:

– The force is required to defend Australia.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– If an enemy attacked Australia, he would come in such overwhelming numbers that our 400,000 able bodied men would be of little avail against him. Our primary objective is to prevent any aggressor from landing on our shores. The Empire is fighting for the preservation of civilization and freedom, which we hold so dear. We must co-operate with the Motherland to provide a fleet, not of cruisers which would be forced to run away from a pocket battleshipsuch as the Deutschland, but of powerful warships capable of overcoming any foe. The only effective means of preventing an invasion is to possess a strong navy.

Senator Fraser:

-Why has not the Government established a strong navy? It has been in- office long enough to doso?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Because some people have been opposed to co-operation between Great Britain and the Commonwealth in that regard.

Senator Fraser:

– The Labour party was responsible for the foundation of the Australian Navy.

Senator A. J. McLACHLAN.And the Labour party was responsible in. 1929 for the disorganization of the whole of our defence forces. Now; when a few thousand gallant men offer to serve in a theatre of war, the Leader of the Opposition attempts to frustrate their loyal intentions by moving an amendment to the motion that “ the paper be printed “, to the effect that the Senate is of opinion that Australia’s man-power is required for the defence and the safety of the Commonwealth and is opposed to the despatch of expeditionary forces. Presumably if the Leader of the Opposition were given his way, Great Britain would receive no assistance from Australia, although it is guarding our shores against potential invaders. If enemy forces in Europe should pierce the Maginot line and triumph, the British Navy will be the last bulwark between them and ourselves. Let us pull together in this crisis. Do not . let dissension rend our ranks. I am not in accord with everything that the Government has done with regard to defence. In some of the higher reaches, I am entirely opposed to its policy, butat such a time, when our all is at stake and our freedom hangs in the balance, surely we should not quibble at the proposal to send 20,000 men, or even 100,000 men, to the assistance of those countries that are fighting for the preservation of democracy.

Debate (onmotion by Senator Keane) adjourned.

page 1947

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McBride) agreed to -

That the Senate,at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday next at 11 a.m.

page 1947

ADJOURNMENT

Defence Relief Works - PostmasterGeneral’s Department : Employment op University Students.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn,

This morning, Senator Fraser asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice - -

  1. Of the £2,000,000 allocated to the States for urgent relief, what proportion was allocated to each State?
  2. Did the Government takeinto consideration, in the distribution, the fact that in Western Australia the proportion of defence expenditure in that Stateis small in comparison with the other States, and also the fact that Western Australia has been refuted participation in the supply of munitions and war material.

The answers were not then available but the Treasurer has since supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. The allocation of the amount . of £2,000,000 to the various States is as under -
  1. The principal object of making these moneys available was the relief of unemployment throughout the Commonwealth. Distribution of the total over the various States, was therefore determined by having regard to the following factors (inter alia), the value of the works for defence purposes and the degree of unemployment in the various States.
Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– This morning the contents of a letter from the Richmond branch of the Central Unemployment Committee were telephoned to me from Melbourne. They are to the effect that arrangements have been made by the Postmaster-General’s Department to grant preference to university students for employment during the period of the Christinas rush. In previous years the department has granted that preference to unemployed returned soldiers. A returned soldier named Holt, who has been employed in the past by the department, made the usual application for engagement this year, but was informed, it is alleged, that preference would be granted to university students over returned soldiers. Mr. Holt, I am informed, is also a member of the Militia. I should like the Assistant Minister to say whether it is the policy of the department to grant such preference to university students this year. If not, will he take steps to ensure that the previous policy of the department is adhered to?

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

. - in reply - I have not the information sought by Senator Cameron, but I undertake to bring his representations under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Harrison) and shall endeavour to furnish a reply on the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1948

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Apple and Fear Organization Act - First Annual Report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board, for period ended 30th June. 1939. together with statement by the Minister for Commerce regarding the operation of the Act.

Bankruptcy Act - Eleventh Annual Report by the Attorney-General, year ended 31st July, 1939.

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinance No. 4 of 1939 - Matrimonial Causes.

Senate adjourned at 3.55 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 December 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1939/19391201_senate_15_162/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant