Senate
4 July 1946
17th Parliament · 3rd Session
- BROADCASTING COMMITTEE
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BR O ADC AS TING BILL 1946
- BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
- HOUR OF MEETING
- PAPERS
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 2177
BROADCASTING COMMITTEE
Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES
– As Chairman, I present the thirteenth report of the Broadcasting Committee relating to the financing of the national broadcasting system.
Ordered to he printed.
page 2177
QUESTION
DELIVERY OP GOODS
Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
– On the 27th June, Senator Leckie asked, without notice, a question relating to a butcher in Hawthorn, Victoria, whose business had increased since he commenced delivering meat to householders. I informed the honorable senator that I would have inquiries made in regard .to the matter, and I now desire to advise him as follows : -
Existing government controls do not place any restriction on delivery of meat to householders. There is nothing to prevent a retail butcher selling his goods provided he collects coupons.
Restrictions on overall supplies to butchers are, however, operated by the Meat Controller, whose organization is administered by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Such restrictions have the object of limiting the total quantity of meat released to butchers to the approximate level of the coupon demand. Quotas to individual butchers may be increased by the Deputy Meat Controller where a butcher can establish that such an increase is warranted.
page 2177
QUESTION
MEAT INDUSTRY
Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -
- What alteration in prices has been made iii the meat agreement with Great Britain since its inception?
- What is the total amount received by the Australian Government over and above that paid to the producer?
- To what fund has this money been paid?
- Does the Government propose to pay it* to the producers of the meat exported; if not, why .not?
Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
-The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers: -
- The long-term purchase arrangement between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom in . regard to meat operated from the 1st October, 1944. The prices determined were to operate for the first two years of the agreement, namely, till the 30th” September, 1040. Consequently, there have been no’ alterations in meat prices under the agreement since its inception.
- Nil. As a matter of fact, the Commonwealth Government has paid to the producer and is paying at the present time for meat for export prices in- excess of those received by it from the Government of the United Kingdom under the contract. 3 and 4. See answer to Nos. 1. and 2 above.
Senator GIBSON:
VICTORIA
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice-
- Is the export of mutton and lamb restricted by the Government to exports on a contract basis between government and government or are exporters permitted to export on * their own account?
- What is the explanation for the difference of £A.l 2s. lOd. in the price per 50-lb. Iamb between the fA.l 9s. 3d. net paid to the Australian producer and the wholesale carcass price in London of £A.2 12s. Id. (ls. 0$d. per lb.) ?
- What is the average freight of lamb per lb. to London?.
Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers: -
- The Commonwealth Government is the purchaser of all meat for export from Australia and all transactions in accordance with the long-term purchase agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom .are on a government-to-goverment basis.
- Information is not available to enable an explanation to be furnished regarding the matter raised.
- The British Ministry of Food is responsible for the payment of freight on all meat exported from Australia under the agreement. The Commonwealth Government buys and sells on an f.o.b. basis. It is understood that the freight rate on lamb at the present time is approximately 2 1/2d. A. per lb”.
page 2177
QUESTION
APPLES AND PEAR’S
Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -
- Is it a fact that there is great anxiety amongst orchardists in Tasmania regarding the disposal of next year’s crop?
- In view of the reply given to Senator Herbert Hays in the Senate on the 3rd July, regarding the effect that the referendum may have on this matter, and of the fact that the result of the referendum may not be known, for many months, will the Minister state what are the Government’s intention in the matter?
- Is it not a fact that to deal effectively with the 1947 crop it is necessary for the orchardists to know at once the methods that are to be adopted for its disposal?
Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answer: - 1, 2 and 3. The Commonwealth Government has not yet decided the action to be taken in connexion with the marketing of apples and pears of the 1947 crop. There are constitutional and legal problems which have to’ ‘be determined. The whole matter is under consideration and a statement of the Government’s intentions will be made at an appropriate time.
page 2178
QUESTION
TRADE MISSIONS ABROAD
Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister . representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -
- Who are the persons representing Australia at the head of commercial, or similar missions abroad?
- In what countries are those persons located, and what is the total annual cost, under all heads, of each mission?
Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
-The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers : - 1 and 2. The commercial posts at present established abroad, the name and designation of the head of the post, and the annual cost of maintenance “are as follow: -
lt might he observed that although the foregoing list contains the names of the senior officer at each of the commercial establishments abroad, these officers, with the exception of the Australian Government Trade Commissioner in Egypt, ave under the general control of the Australian Minister or Australian High Commissioner in the country concerned. The annual cost of maintaining the abovementioned establishments is as follows:; - .
Approval has been given for further establishments as under -
page 2178
QUESTION
BUFFALO FLY
Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. upon notice -
- Is it .a fact that the buffalo fly is advancing at a rapid rate to southern areas of Australia?
- If so, what is the furthest southern area that this pest is reported to have reached?.
- Is it a fact that considerable loss has been, and is being, sustained amongst cattle depasturing in more than one State of the Commonwealth ?
- In view of the ‘imminent threat of the rapid spread of the fly to cattle areas further south, will the Minister give urgent consideration to providing facilities for the eradication of the pest on a Commonwealth basis?
- What measures, if any, have already been taken to combat the ravages of the buffalo fly ?
Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP
– The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has supplied the following answers: -
-
The spread of. the buffalo fly may be gauged by the following information which was obtained during various surveys undertaken by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research : -
- In1 926, the. first survey on this pest indicated that it had spread as far east as the Robinson River in the Northern Territory.
- By 1931, the fly had spread to Queensland and its eastward spread was limited to the region between Burketown and Normanton during the years 1932-1939.
- Owing to favorable climatic conditions, the fly spread relatively rapidly during the years 1940-1942, when it reached the eastern coast of Queensland.
- By 1945, the pest had spread as far southas the region around Rockhampton.
- According to the latest information available to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the buffaloflyhas now reached a line from Injune on the west to Roma, Miles, Dalby,Proston, Maryborough on the coast.
- The fly now occurs in Queensland, Northern Territory and the northern portion of Western Australia., and is detrimentally affecting cattle production in these areas.
- The view of the technical authoritiesin closest touch with this pest is that it will continue to spread in a southerly direction until it reaches the limit of favorable climatic conditions, which is expected to be as far south as the limit of summer rainfall in New South Wales.
Although measures have now been evolved by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research which indicate that the fly can be effectively controlled both on cattle stations as” well as on dairy farms, there are no known methods which will completely eradicate this pest.
The Council is continuing with its efforts to improve the present control measures and to discover new ways in which the pest can be dealt with.
-
Measures for the control and prevention of the spread of the pest have been investigated by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for a number of years -
- Endeavours by means of cattle-free buffer areas were investigated at the time of the first survey. Subsequently the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock has attempted, by declaring quarantine areas and restricting movement of stock, to prevent the spread of the fly. Although these measures undoubtedly delayed the spread for a fairly long period, it was not possible to completely isolate the affected areas.
- In 1929, entomologists were sent to Java where the fly occurs naturally, to study the life history and endea- . vour to discover natural parasites. Importations of insect enemies of the fly were made both from Java and Fiji, but these have not been able to control the pest.
- Investigations were conducted to adapt the American horn-fly trap, which is effective in the United States of America for the control of that pest, to suit Australian conditions. This is proving effective in - controlling buffalo fly here.
- Intensive work has been directed in developing effective toxicants for use in the spraying and dipping of cattle for the control of the fly. Recent tests with the use of D.D.T. preparations have shown that treatment of cattle either by spraying or by dipping has been quite effective in controlling the pest. Not only are the flies present at the time of the dipping, killed by the D.D.T… but sufficient of the preparation remains on the hides of the animals to affect buffalo flies for as long as fourteen days after treat- - ment. Observations on a treated herd revealed that, in practice, the animals remained virtually free of the fly for a period of at least six weeks.
- Information on the results of these tests has been conveyed to the Departments of Agriculture and to the interested producer organizations in the various States, so that the knowledge may be circulated as widely as possible to individual station owners.
page 2179
QUESTION
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
Training Courses
Senator COLLETT:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, upon notice -
- Is it a fact that an ex-serviceman who has made an application under the Reestablishment and Employment Act for vocational training cannot be accepted for such unless the industry which he seeks to enter is covered by an Arbitration Court award?
- If so, why is this restriction imposed?
Senator McKENNA:
ALP
– The Minister for Post-warReconstruction has supplied the following answer : -
It is not a fact that an ex-serviceman who has made an application for vocational training under the provisions of the Reestablishment and Employment Act cannot be accepted for such unless the industry which he seeks to enter is covered by an Arbitration Court award.
There are only three limitations on an exserviceman’s choice of skilled occupation when he applies for training. First, he must be eligible under one or other of the categories defining those who may apply for training. Second, he must be considered suitable for the training desired, taking into account his qualifications, aptitudes and health. Third, the trade he proposes to enter must be a skilled trade which offers a reasonable prospect of secure employment.
The Central Reconstruction Training Committee has ruled that a skilled trade or occupation is one which normally requires the com- ‘ pletion of a definite course of systematic training and industrial experience for the efficient performance of the operations entailed. In those trades which are covered by industrial awards or determinations, the “ margin for skill “ allotted in the award or determination must beat least £1 a week.
Where no award or determination exists, but a trade or calling is obviously skilled, a proposal to train in that occupation is submitted to the Regional Reconstruction Training Committee in the State concerned. On this committee the training authority and employers’ and employees’ organizations are represented. Regional committees are responsible for approving all selections for training and also conditions of subsidized employment where no award applies to wages.
page 2180
QUESTION
CIVIL AVIATION
Airworthiness Tests
Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -
- Is it a fact that as a result of the evidence given on the Stinson airliner crash inquiry last year, a recommendation was included in the final judgment that X-ray be used in the examination of non-ferrous parts of aeroplanes?
- If so. will the Minister state what progress, if any, has been made in the implementation of any such recommendation?
Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP
– The Acting Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers : -
- Yes.
- A senior technical officer of the Department of Civil Aviation was sent overseas to study the latest practices in airworthiness examinations. As a result of his recommendations, steps are being taken for the appointment of an officer with suitable qualifications for this specialist duty.
page 2180
QUESTION
WIVES OP EX-SERVICEMEN
Transport to Australia
Senator McLEAY:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -
- Is it a fact that the English wives of Australian servicemen, who have babies, have been refused passages on ships travelling from England via the Suez Canal?
- If so, to whom are the vacated passages being allotted?
- How many wives, children and fiancees of Australian servicemen are still in England?
- What percentage of wives, children and fiancees of Australian servicemen have already been repatriated from England?
- What percentage of wives, children and fiancees of United States of America, Canadian and New Zealand servicemen have been transferred from England by their respective Governments?
Senator CAMERON:
ALP
– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers : -
- According to cabled advice from the High Commissioner’s Office, the Commonwealth Medical Officer at Australia House recommended limitation of the number of infants to be carried at this time of the year in ships routed via Suez.
- The berths which thus became available we’re allotted to servicemen’s wives without children.
- 570 wives; 72 children; 053 fiancees; as at the 30th June, 1946.
- 83.26 per cent, wives;92.67 per cent, children; . 45 fiancees; as at the 30th June, 1946.
- This question was taken up by cable with the High Commissioner’s Office, London. The cable reply, dated 28th June, 1940, reads - “ The Ministry of Shipping cannot give information required and feel it unwise to approach separate Governments at the present time “.
page 2180
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BR O ADC AS TING BILL 1946
Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.
In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :
Clause 5 - (1.) As soon as conveniently practicable after the commencement of this Act, and thereafter at the commencement of the first session of every Parliament, a Joint Committee of six members of the Parliament, to be called the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, shall bo appointed according to the practice, of the Parliament with reference to the appointment of members to serve on Joint Select Committeesof both Houses of the Parliament. (2.) One o£ the members of the Committee shall be the President of the Senate, one member sha.ll be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, of the other four members of the Committee, two shall be members of, and appointed by, the Senate and two shall be members of, and appointed by, the House of Representatives.
House of Representatives’ amendment No. I. - Leave out “.six”, insert “nine”.
Motion (by Senator Cameron) proposed -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia
, - I am sure that honorable senators are shocked to learn that the House of Representatives lias reversed the decision of the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) in this matter.
Senator Gibson:
– The whole party’s decision.
Senator McLEAY:
– All of us gave the Minister full marks for standing up for the rights of the Senate. I believe that in constituting this important committee we should follow the procedure observed for many years with respect to the Joint House Committee and .the Library Committee by providing for equal representation of both chambers. Are we now to conclude that because the caucus dogs have barked the Minister and his colleagues in this chamber must submit like dumb driven cattle? Is there no alternative? If that is the position, I can only say that I am surprised.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– It is not a matter of dogs barking, but a matter of enacting legislation on the principle that the majority rules, a principle which I believe ibc Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and his colleagues will be prepared to observe when at the next general elections the people choose others to take their places in this chamber. The Government is now acting in conformity with the usual practice. The honorable senator omitted to say that all parties did not have equal representation on all committees. He implied that other committees were constituted on the basis of equal representation of all parties. The precedent to which the honorable senator is opposed was established many years ago by governments with which he has been associated, and is one which honorable members in the House of Representatives desire to maintain.
Senator LECKIE:
Victoria
.- We had a fairly long discussion on this matter when the bill was before us. We agreed almost unanimously that this issue affects the ‘status of the Senate, and that we should insist upon equal representation with the House of Representatives on the proposed committee. The PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) agreed with our proposal, and accepted an amendment from this side of the chamber providing for equal representation for the House of Representatives and the Senate. But now he says he is bowing’ to majority rule, and he asks us to do the same. Does that mean that because there are 75 members of the House of Representatives and only 36 senators, this chamber should give way to the House of Representatives at all times? If that is the view of the Postmaster-General, he is putting the . Senate into a cleft stick. Surely he does not imagine for a moment that all honorable senators, even all those on the Government side of the chamber, will agree, to that interpretation of majority rule. Since the beginning of federation, the two chambers of this legislature have been regarded as equal in status, with the exception, of course, that money bills may not be originated or amended in the Senate. This is not a money bill, and I believe that the Senate should stick to its original views, even to the, extent of seeking a conference of representatives of the House of Representatives and of this chamber. We should not give way meekly on this matter.
Senator Collings:
– How far would the honorable senator be prepared to go - to a double dissolution? - Senator LECKIE.- If the House of Representatives continues to deny the rights of this chamber, the Senate should go so far as to’ relegate this measure to the waste-paper basket. After all it is not a matter of national importance.
Senator Collings:
– In other words, shad ow-spa r ring.
Senator LECKIE:
– No. The Senate has agreed to the bill in principle. In my second-reading speech I expressed approval of the proposal with the reservation that I would seek some minor amendments when the bill reached the committee stage. Amongst those amendments was the one now under discussion. The” Postmaster-General accepted it, but now he has reversed his view, and in doing so has put the. Senate in a rather invidious position. I am sure that no member of the Senate believes that this chamber should be subordinate to the House of Representatives simply because the majority of members of this Parliament are in the House of Representatives. I shall insist, so far as I am able, upon the Senate having equal rights with the House of Representatives in this matter at least. If the Postmaster-General had denied us this right in the first place, it would have been a different matter, but he was overborne by the arguments advanced from this side of the chamber and by some honorable senators opposite.
Senator Herbert Hays:
– The arguments were unanswerable.
Senator LECKIE:
– Yes, and for once in his life the Postmaster-General agreed with the logic of the case advanced by the Opposition ; but now, without any apparent reason, he has turned round and said, “ I was wrong “.
Senator Amour:
– I suggest there is a very good answer.
Senator LECKIE:
– Of course. The House of Representatives wishes to dominate this legislature and to be able to say to the Senate, do this, or do that.
Senator Amour:
– The honorable senator has not got the story correctly.
Senator LECKIE:
– “Well, that is how it appears to me. The PostmasterGeneral now asks us to accept majority rule, but this proposal is carrying majority rule to absurdity. The Senate has certain rights that do not depend upon numbers. Those rights are laid down in the Constitution, and Ave should be loath indeed to surrender even a tittle of them. The Constitution lays down that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be equal in status, with the exception of the reservation in regard to money bills that I have mentioned. The Minister has surrendered meekly to the House of Representatives, against his better judgment and against the adviceof many honorable senators opposite, because I presume he desires to have the bill passed. I would prefer to prevent the passage of the bill rather than have this chamber surrender, now and for ever, any of its undoubted rights. Acceptance of the argument that the majority should rule . in this matter would permanently dispose of any claim the Senate has as a deliberative assembly in the government of the country. This is a time when a firm stand should be made against the House of Representatives. We should not give way to the establishment of a precedent in a measure which is not of great consequence to the economic life of Australia. We ought to be agreed that both branches of the legislature should have equal rights with regard to the broadcasting of parliamentary debates. We should not allow the status of this chamber to be reduced.
Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania
– I am greatly surprised, and no doubt many honorable senators opposite are equally astonished, at the attitude of the Government to this bill. The amendment of the House of Representatives affects the absolute right of this chamber to express its views through the medium of broadcasting on the same basis as members of the House of Representatives. We upheld the rights of this chamber, as embodied in the Constitution, in no uncertain way when this bill was under consideration by the Senate a few days ago. If we accept this amendment we shall agree to the House of Representatives dominating the Senate, but the Constitution states that this chamber has co-equal rights with the House of Representatives. We should not be false to principles in the Constitution which we have sworn to uphold. Are we to be at the beck and call of a committee, the majority of whose members will be members of the House of Representatives, and are we to be told by it when the proceedings in the Senate shall be broadcast? Is the committee to say that debates on bills in the House of Representatives shall be broadcast, and that when those measures reach this chamber, which is a house of review, and also the States’ House, our speeches shall not be dealt with similarly..
Senator Collings:
– No.
Senator HERBERT HAYS:
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council may shake his head as much as he likes ; but that is the true position. The members of this chamber are elected by the same people as those who elect the members of the House of Representatives, and we. should have the same rights as members of that chamber. All measures, must be passed by the Senate before they can become law. If this amendment is indicative of the estimate of the House of Representatives of the importance of the Senate, I can come to no other conclusion than that a majority of honorable members of the House of Representatives consider that the ‘Senate should be abolished. Let the consequences be what they may, honorable senators should stand firm for the rights of this chamber. We believe in the bi-cameral system. . of government. When the budget is received from ‘ the other branch of the legislature, .are honorable senators to be silent? It would be better to defer the implementation of the scheme until the parliamentary debates in both Houses could be fully broadcast.
We should not agree to an amendment which would benefit one chamber and be detrimental to the other.
Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales
– The argument of Senator Herbert Hays would have carried more weight had this been the first occasion on which it had been suggested that the House of Representatives should have a majority of members on a committee representative of both Houses. The honorable senator is a member of the Broadcasting Committee as are also Senator Nash and myself, making a total of three senators’. There are, however, six members of the House of Representatives on that committee. The Public Works Committee is similarly constituted. I have not heard any honorable Senator complain that the unequal representation of the two Houses on those committees has led to any injustice.
I believe that the real reason for the objection to the amendment of the House of Representatives is that some honorable senators opposite do not desire the proceedings of the Parliament to be broadcast at all, but instead of asking that the bill be withdrawn, -they seize on the constitution of the proposed committee to attack the. measure. I listened to the debate on this bill in the House of Representatives,” and I gathered that many speakers there desired that the whole of the proceedings of the Parliament should be broadcast. That was what the Broadcasting Committee recommended; its members did not overlook the fact that the legislature has two branches. But they were also mindful that the existing facilities for broadcasting made it impracticable to broadcast the proceedings of the two Houses simultaneously. The outcome was the inclusion in the bill of a provision for the setting up of a committee to control the broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings. Various views as to the procedure which should be adopted have been voiced. For instance, it has been suggested that in the event of a bill being introduced first in the Senate, the whole of the debate on it - the first and second reading stages, the committee stage and the third reading stage - should be broadcast, . so that listeners would know just what was said regarding the measure in this chamber. A similar procedure would be followed when the bill reached the other chamber. That procedure would, of course, be reversed in respect of a bill which was introduced in the House of Representatives. Another suggestion is that proceedings in this chamber should be broadcast from 3 p.m. till 6 p.m., and that there should be a switchover to the House of Representatives from 8 p.m. till 11 p.m. That suggestion is open to the objection that it would be possible for a member on one side to attack a member on the other side of the chamber at, say, five minutes to six, thus leaving, the person attacked without an opportunity to reply. That difficulty could be overcome by not making the switchover, thus enabling the reply of the member attacked to be broadcast.
The CHAIRMAN:
– That situation is not -covered by the amendment.
Senator AMOUR:
– That may be so, but the basis of the argument of honorable senators opposite is that the amendment of the House of Representatives destroys the whole purpose of this legislation. I should not be greatly concerned if the committee consisted of seven or nine, or even nineteen members. The number of members from each House on the committee matters’ little provided that they are enthusiastic about their work and undertake it. in the interests of the nation.
Senator GIBSON:
Victoria
.- In his reference to other committees Senator Amour did not mention the Library, House and Printing Committees, which deal with the domestic affairs of the Parliament, and on each of which there is equal representation of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It will be remembered that when the bill was before us previously I proposed that the number of members should be increased to ten. I shall move an amendment to that effect as that would provide, an opportunity for the two Houses to be equally represented. When the bill as originally drafted was amended in this chamber to give equal representation to the two House3 no . honorable senator opposed the amendment, and therefore I cannot understand why the Government ha3 backed down. , A committee of ten members would make possible the representation of each House by four members in addition to its presiding officer. If we accept the amendment of the House’ of Representatives, I foresee a committee consisting of six members of one party and three representing Opposition parties. If provision is to be made for the rebroadcasting of speeches delivered in the Parliament, as Senator Amour suggested, that would mean that every speech would have to be recorded. In that event, I should like to know who would control the re-broadcasting of those speeches, and whether it would be possible to prevent only portions of speeches from being, rebroadcast. The bill, in its present form, will give control of the broadcasts to the House of Representatives. I am sorry that the Minister has backed down. I move -
That the House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 1 be amended by leaving out the word “ nine “ and inserting in lieu thereof the word “ten “.
Senator MATTNER:
South Australia
– The Minister has told us that this bill is one of the most important that has come before the Parliament for some time. I believe that the future development of broadcasting will prove that contention to be correct. The broadcasting of parliamentary - debates is only in its infancy; therefore we should give this matter very serious consideration. I was pleased at the stand taken by the Senate, when the bil] was first discussed in this chamber, in insisting upon equal representation with” the House of Representatives on the proposed committee. I am still firmly in agreement with that attitude. I believe that in the near future we shall have to broadcast the whole of the proceedings of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. This is not feasible at present, but, having the possibility in mind, the extreme importance of the constitution of the committee must be apparent. The Senate should have equal representation upon it. This ‘ house is in a peculiar situation. It does not represent a privileged few, it represents exactly the same number of electors as does the House of Representatives. Therefore, its rights in relation to the broadcasting of debates should be equal to those of the House of Representatives. The mere fact that there are 75 members of the House of Representatives and 36 senators does not affect the electors’ rights. If we are democratic, the Senate must be given equal prominence with the House of Representatives in the broadcasting of debates
Senator ARNOLD:
Nev? South Wales
, - I am amazed at the warmth with which honorable senators opposite are debating this issue. I would agree with them if the status of the Senate were being treated lightly by the House of Representatives. However, that is not the case. The Parliament is making an experiment by proposing to broadcast its debates for the first time. The experiment may not achieve the purpose* that we have in mind of letting the electors know what their representatives in this Parliament are saying and doing. There are certain difficulties which prevent us from broadcasting the whole of the proceedings of both houses. Therefore, we have to compromise and establish some body whose task will be to decide what proceedings shall be broadcast and at what times the broadcasts shall be made. The problem then is to decide how the committee shall be composed. There are 36 senators and 75 members of the House of Representatives. We must select intelligent men who want lo make the experiment a success. We should appoint the greatest number of members of the committee from the House of Representatives, because that chamber has a bigger membership. Senator Mattner has said that the Senate is elected by the same electors as the House of Representatives. That is true. He is one of six members representing South Australia. In the House of Representatives also there are only six representatives of South Australia. However, although there are six representatives of New South Wales in the Senate, there are 2S representatives of that State in the House of Representatives. Were the Senate to be allotted the same length of time for broadcasting as the House of Representatives,. I should have four times as much opportunity to make myself heard over the air as my colleagues from New South Wales in the House of. Representatives. In order that each member of the House of Representatives should have as much time to speak during broadcasting hours as each member of the Senate, the House of Representatives must be allotted a majority of the time available for broadcasting.
Senator Gibson:
– It is not suggested that the time be divided evenly between the two chambers.
Senator ARNOLD:
– The implication of the honorable senator’s speech was that he desired equal representation of both Houses on the committee because he intended both Houses to be allotted equal broadcasting time.
Senator Gibson:
– No. I want equal status for both Houses.
Senator ARNOLD:
– If my interpretation of the honorable senator’s remarks is wrong, then I am at a loss to understand his opposition to the House of Representatives amendment. I do not agree that, if we accept the amendment, we shall surrender some of our rights and privileges. The problems associated with the experiment of broadcasting parliamentary debates are- such that the Bouse of
Representatives ought to have a preponderance of influence in the committee, which, if constituted in the form now proposed, will be able to handle the problems with which it must deal in the most equitable manner.
Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania
– I admire the courage of honorable senators , opposite in attempting to “ kill “ this measure after having learned how their voices will sound when broadcast. However, I deplore their lack of confidence in their colleagues in the House of Representatives. I have risen to correct statements made by some honorable senators opposite which made very good propaganda hut which were, in fact, a long way from the truth. Senator Herbert Hays claimed that, in this bill, we are legislating entirely for the House of Representatives and that the Senate will not be allotted any broadcasting time at all. What confidence can the honorable senator have in the House of Representatives? Does he think that, after a great deal of expeji.se has been incurred in installing broadcasting apparatus in this chamber, his colleagues will “ wipe off” the Senate? Both Senator Herbert Hays and Senator Mattner said that the Senate should be allotted as much broadcasting time as the House of Representatives. They were definite on that point in their second-reading speeches. They said that the Senate must claim an equal share of broadcasting time. It is true that the membership of the Senate is less than half of that of the House of Representatives; but, in addition, when we compare the number and duration of sittings of both Houses, it is clear that it would be impossible to divide the broadcasts equally between the two chambers. As very often happens, the House of Representatives would” be considering important legislation while the Senate was waiting for business. One need hardly point out. also that in the House of Representatives a greater ‘ proportion of members speak, and that individually they speak at greater length than honorable senators. It may be said that proceedings in the House of Representatives are more entertaining, whilst those in this chamber are more educational. The point we must bear in mind is that all parties in the
Parliament will be represented on the committee; and I have sufficient confidence in my colleagues to believe that they will not use their majority to the detriment of their colleagues in this chamber. I suggest to honorable senators opposite that should they fail to show a greater measure of co-operation with their colleagues in the House of Representatives in this matter, the people can hardly expect them to co-operate effectively with the Government in solving the major problems confronting this country. Ti, is clear that their obstruction on this occasion is designed to kill the measure, because should we now amend the House of Representatives’ amendment and members of the other chamber maintain their present stand the bill will lapse. I appeal to honorable senators opposite to accept the House of Representatives’ amendment, if only on the ground that failure to do so may mean the abandonment of the measure. One honorable senator opposite said that it would not matter much if that happened. He may be right. It may be of advantage to him not to be heard over the air. At the same time, it will be of benefit to the people to hear the speeches of other members of the Parliament broadcast. I support the House of Representatives’ amendment because I have sufficient confidence in my colleagues to know that they will do the right thing by honorable senators generally, and because I believe that the Senate as a whole is prepared to do the right thing by the other chamber.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– I cannot accept the amendment moved by Senator Gibson, because I do not agree that the bill should be held up on this issue. Since 1938, when I was privileged to take my seat in the Senate, governments supported by honorable senators opposite have had ample opportunity to apply the principle they now uphold in respect of statutory committees such as. the Public Works Committee and the Broadcasting Committee; but to my knowledge they did not attempt to provide for equal representation of both chambers on those important committees. Members of the .other House, for reasons best known to themselves, are not disposed to agree with the view expressed by honorable senators opposite; but rather than see the measure held up for that reason I support the House of Representatives’ amendment.
Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania
– Some misapprehension exists upon the point at issue in this matter. Senator Amour mentioned certain statutory committees. > Equal representation of both chambers on those committees has never arisen as an issue in the past; but in respect of other committees which have to do with the privileges of members of the Parliament, that principle has clearly been observed during the last twenty years. I mention, for instance, the House Committee, the Library Committee and the Printing’ Committee, each of which deals with matters affecting the privileges of all members of the Parliament. On each of those committees both chambers are equally represented, and I can see no objection to the Senate having equal representation with the House of Representatives upon the joint committee proposed to be set up under this measure. The issue before -us is not the allotment” of broadcasting time between the two chambers, or whether consideration of such a matter by the proposed committee will arouse acrimony. It is obvious that the House of Representatives will require much longer time on the air than the Senate. For instance, the House of Representatives is often busily consider- * ing important legislation while we are marking time waiting for business. But, as I say, that is not the point. No honorable senator would be so stupid as to demand that the Senate should have the same time on the air as the House of Representatives. But we maintain that the two chambers should have equal representation on a committee of this kind. I am surprised and shocked at the House of Representatives proposal. I support Senator Gibson’s amendment.
Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia
.- The fact that honorable senators on this side of the chamber disagree with the House of Representatives amendment does not indicate a desire on our part to hold up the bill, or to wreck it. I am astonished that the ‘ Postmaster-General (Senator’
Cameron) lias adopted a defeatist attitude in this matter. The fact that we disagree with the House of Representatives amendment would not wreck the bill. Should we refuse to accept that amendment the bill would be returned to the House of Representatives; and honorable members in their generosity might agree to accept our suggestion that both chambers be equally represented on the proposed committee. It appears to me that whenever a difference of this kind arises, it is the Senate that has to give way. 1 forecast this position . last year when the suggestion that proceedings in Parliament should be broadcast was first made. Honorable senators opposite were inclined to sneer at my contention on that occasion, but the position I forecast has now arisen. We are to be in a minority, and the only reason given by the Minister for accepting the House of Representatives’ amendment is that he desires to observe the principle that the majority should rule. In such circumstances, if proceedings in the House of Representatives are to be broadcast for six hours, the time allotted for broadcasting the proceeding in this chamber may be only three hours, or even less. However, the. vital point is that this matter affects the domestic affairs of the Senate. The Senate should have equal representation with the House of Representatives on any committee dealing with the domestic arrangements of either chamber. With respect to the broadcasts, the basic consideration is the actual listening time. Honorable members may ramble on till 2 a.m., but the fact remains that the disillusioned public will not be listening to them at that hour, but will be comfortably in bed. Therefore, inevitably there will be jockeying for positions from 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., which is the effective broadcasting time. I am’ afraid that in that regard if the Senate be not given equal representation with the. House of Representatives on this committee, this chamber will be the loser in the deal. Honorable senators opposite, apparently, rely too much upon the force of character of the President to uphold the rights of the Senate on the proposed committee. I am afraid that the President will be forced to bow to the majority view of the House of Representatives.
Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP
– I am surprised at the opposition to this . proposal. I thought that honorable senators opposite were concerned chiefly about equal representation on the committee. It is interesting to note that during the many years in which governments formed by the. parties now in opposition held office in this legislature, no effort was made to alter the representation on statutory parliamentary committees. For instance the Public Works Committee which was appointed in 1913, has by no means equal representation of the House of Representatives and the Senate.- The constitution of that committee is laid down as follows :-
Three members of the committee shall be members of and appointed by the Senate, and six. members of the committee shall be members of and appointed by the House of Representatives.
That committee was appointed 33 years ago, and since then, anti-Labour administrations have held office for a quarter of a. century-; but yet .no attempt has been made to -alter the unequal representation or to protest against it. Another statutory committee set up by the Parliament was the Public Accounts Committee, the constitution of which was laid down as follows : -
Three members of the committee shall be members of and appointed by the Senate and seven members of the committee shall be members of and appointed by the House of Representatives. ‘
If we are to be guided by precedents, then these are two upon which this- issue may be. determined.
Senator Gibson:
– What about the House Committee? -
Senator ASHLEY:
– That is a different matter. I am referring to statutory committees. I see no reason why the precedents to which I have referred should be departed from on this occasion.
Senator LECKIE:
Victoria
– I am rather amused at the attempt to draw a red herring across the trail, and also by the lack of logic in the arguments advanced by honorable senators opposite. I expected the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron)” to explain to us why, after agreeing to the principle of equal representation, he had changed his tune. The Postmaster-General himself, after listening to speeches made by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber, moved the amendment altering the constitution of the committee. Now apparently he has changed his mind. What lever was used to force the Postmaster-General to alter his view completely? If he can give sound and logical reasons for the action he is now taking, perhaps we on this side of the chamber shall be prepared to accept them, although it is quite possible that reasons that appeal to the mind of the Postmaster-General will not appeal to us. Not only the Postmaster-General but also his supporters agreed with the principle of equal representation when’ the matter was debated last week; but to-day we find Senator Aylett supporting the Postmaster-General’s changed opinion. The honorable senator apparently fears that the measure may be scrapped entirely if the Senate insists on its rights. He believes also, by some curious process of reasoning, that if the bill were scrapped it would be the fault of the Senate. Put if the House of Representatives were obdurate, and would not take a reasonable view of this matter, would it be our fault if the measure had to be abandoned? Honorable senators opposite cannot have it both ways. If we insist upon our rights and the bill is withdrawn, the fault will not lie with us but with the House of Representatives. Had the Postmaster-Gcneral insisted upon the passage of the measure in its. original form, and called upon his cohorts to support him, the present position would not have arisen. But it was the Postmaster-General himself who moved the amendment providing for equal representation. The. measure left this chamber with the blessing of all honorable senators, but because the House of Representatives insists on greater representation on the committee, the Postmaster-General has calmly agreed to let this chamber down, and has meekly brought back to us something dictated to him by the House of Representatives.
Another red herring drawn across the trail is the argument that the Senate claims equal broadcasting time with the
House of Representatives. That is completely fallacious. Not one member of the Opposition in this chamber has claimed that the Senate should have equal broadcasting time with the other chamber. All we seek is fair play, and we can well imagine the tricks that may be played if the House of Representatives has double the Senate representation, on this committee. Even at this late stage I ask the Postmaster-General to give to the Senate tie vital, cogent, reasons that caused him to change his mind. ‘
Question put -
That the amendment of Amendment No. 1 (Senator Gibson’s amendment) be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator B. Courtice.)
AYES: 11
NOES: 16
Majority . . . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
House of Representatives’ amendment No. 2. - Leave out “ four “, insert “ seven ”.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– I move - .
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment, the intention being that there shall be seven members of the joint committee, in addition to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House of Representatives’ amendment No. i. - Leave out “ two second occurring, insert “five”.
Motion (by Senator Cameron) proposed -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Senator LECKIE:
Victoria
.- This is an amendment to the vital clause of the bill, which originally provided that, in addition to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, there should be four members ci the committee, of whom two should be members of the House of Representatives and two members of the Senate. The Minister now desires that there shall be seven members, in addition to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of whom two shall be from the Senate and five from the House of Representatives. Considering that the committee “will have to adjudicate, not only on the broadcasting time allotted to both branches of the legislature, but also regarding the apportionment of the matter that is to be rebroadcast, we realize how important it is that the committee shall be unbiased. A committee composed of a preponderating proportion of members from one House, and on which there is a greatly preponderating proportion of members of one political party, should be above all party considerations; but how could it be impartial if six members of the committee were members of the House of Representatives and only three members of the Senate? Such a committee could not function fairly and equitably. This measure affects the privileges of honorable senators, but what will the people think when they discover that the committee is to be composed of twice as many members of the House of Representatives as members of the Senate, and that the number of members of one political party will be double the representation of the other parties?
Senator Collings:
– We have had a division in which the issue has been decided by a majority vote.
Senator LECKIE:
– I know that the Minister is angry over the matter; but he had to vote in the way he did. It would be assumption on my part, but I might make a good guess by saying that he agrees with almost everything I have said. He has been a stickler for upholding the rights of the Senate.
Senator Collings:
– The honorable senator is not clairvoyant.
Senator LECKIE:
– Members of the House of Representatives who are appointed to this committee will gaze earnestly into a crystal and see only members, of that chamber availing themselves of the broadcasting facilities. I know that the numbers in this chamber are against me, but the proposed committee will be regarded by the people as unfairly constituted, simply because a majority of the members in both Houses have chosen to change their minds. It is impertinent of honorable senators opposite to say that if this measure be lost it will be the fault of the Senate. We thought that the bill provided for a committee which would act fairly as between the two Houses, but the House of Repre.sentatives altered the measure. That being so, whose fault would it be if the bill were lost ? It is evident that Government supporters in this, chamber have neither the courage nor the public spirit to stand up for what they really believe, or to insist on the rights and privileges of the Senate being preserved. I shall record my vote against the Senate abdicating its rights in such a disgraceful way.
Question put -
That amendment No. 3 be agreed’ to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator B. Courtice.)
AYES: 16
NOES: 9
Majority . . . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolvedin the affirmative.
Clause 10-
At any meeting of the committee -
three members shall form a quorum;
House of Representatives’ amendment No. 4 - Leave out “three”, insert “five”.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
In view of the number of members having been increased from six to nine, it is now considered desirable to increase the quorum from three to five members.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 11 -
The committee may sit and transact business during any adjournment or recess as well as during the session, and may sit at such times and in such places, and conduct their proceedings in such manner, as they deem proper.
House of Representatives’ amendment No. 5. - After “times” insert “(including times whileeither House of the Parliament is actually sitting) “.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The clause has been amended to enable the proposed joint committee to sit while either House of the Parliament is sitting. It will be appreciated that, from time to time, questions which will require immediate consideration by the joint committee may arise. It is, therefore, desirable that its members should have the approval of the Parliament to sit while either House is actually sitting.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 13 (Delegation to SubCommittee.).
House of Representatives’ amendment No. 6 - At the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: - (4.) The sub-committee may sit and transact business during any adjournment or recess as well as during the session, and may sit at such times (including timeswhile either House of the Parliament is actually sitting) as they deem proper.”
Senator CAMERON:
Postm aster-General · Victoria · ALP
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
It is desirable that the sub-committee also should be permitted to sit while either House of the Parliament is sitting, in order that problems which arise from day to day may be settled promptly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House of Representatives’ amendment No. 7. - After clause 13insert the following new clause: - “ 13a. - (1.) The committee shall have power to determine the conditions in accordance with which a re-broadcast may be made of any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. “ (2.) No re-broadcast shall be made of any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament otherwise than in accordance with the conditions so determined.”
Senator CAMERON:
VictoriaPostmasterGeneral · ALP
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The insertion of this new sub-clause is proposed in order to enable the proposed joint committee to determine under what conditions the re-broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament may be undertaken. It is considered desirable to permit the re-broadcasting of speeches, subject to the control of the joint committee, in order that the Australian Broadcasting Commission may be in a position to re-broadcast a debate on a matter of outstanding importance. Such debate may take place when the majority of listeners are at work, and the commission may well consider that, in the public interests, it should be re-broadcast at a later hour when there would be a peak listening audience. The difference in time between the eastern States and Western Australia . may also render a rebroadcast desirable on some occasions. The new sub-clause will prohibit the rebroadcasting of any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament except in accordance with conditions determined by the joint committee.
Senator GIBSON:
Victoria
.- ‘ This important provision will impose a great responsibility on the joint committee, as that body is to be authorized, to determine what portion of a speech shall be broadcast. That involves the record- . ing of every speech that is made. I desire to know what will become of the records so made. They will have to be placed under the control of some body. Should the joint committee be biased - as it could well be under this legislation - a portion of a speech could be torn from its context, with unpredictable results. I desire to know also whether the records of the speeches are to be made available to the public through commercial broadcasting stations, or whether only the Australian Broadcasting Commission will have . the right to use them. A big responsibility will be thrown on the committee, and an even greater responsibility will be cast on the Government in arranging for the recording of all speeches and their proper preservation. .
Senator LECKIE:
Victoria
– I agree with all that Senator Gibson has said. When the’ bill was before this chamber previously there was a lot of discussion on clause 14, which provides for immunity from criminal or civil proceedings in respect of broadcasts or rebroadcasts of any speech made in the Parliament. The proposed new clause imposes certain restrictions, in that the committee will have to arrange the details of the broadcast or re-broadcast, so that in that respect the bill is better than when it left this chamber some time ago. Neverrtheless, Senator Gibson has raised a most interesting point. I should like to know whether the position as set out by him is likely to be the real procedure. Is it intended to make a record of every speech in each House, or will a decision be made beforehand as to which speeches will be worth recording? In the latter event, who will decide which speeches will be recorded? I assume that the committee will be entrusted with that, task. In other words, it will have to decide in advance that a speech to be made by, say, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator J. M. Fraser) must be recorded, whilst a speech to be made by me will not be worth recording. It is only necessary for me to point to that possibility to show the danger implicit in this provision. If, however, the whole of the proceedings are to be recorded, I should like the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) to give an estimate of the cost which would be involved. I know- that to get a speech recorded by some of the recording agencies is a costly business, and I suppose that the making of records for the purpose of rebroadcasting speeches made in the Parliament would also be expensive. As I have said, the only alternative to recording every speech is that some authority will have to decide beforehand what speeches are tobe recorded. Such a committee would be working in the dark, as it would not know in advance what any member of the Parliament intended to say. The expense will be very great. Then the committee will have to decide which speeches, or. which portions of speeches, shall be re-broadcast. Nevertheless, I realize that this amendment will improve the bill by permitting some control to be exercised over re-broadcasting. ‘ Somebody will have to decide what may be re-broadcast, and that is a step in the right direction. It is what the Opposition advocated when the bill first came before the Senate, although at the time the PostmasterGeneral opposed our suggestions with all the power at his command. I am glad to say that the . decision of the House of Representatives has made him change hismind. We may blame him for giving way to the House of Representatives in relation to the composition- of the committee, but, in this instance, we must concede that his weakness of mind and his yielding of ground is all to the good. This amendment, although not completely satisfactory to me, will make the bill a thousand times more acceptable than it was in its original form.
Senator GIBSON:
Victoria
,- The Minister has not replied to our questions. I want to know if all speeches are to be recorded.
Senator Cameron:
– I thought I had made it quite clear that the conditions under which re-broadcasts of speeches will be made will be decided by the joint committee, which will accept full responsibility. “ Senator GIBSON.- That is very unsatisfactory. Will the committee have the power to direct speeches to be recorded? If so, it will have very great power, indeed. Such power should not be left Government should at least express its opinion and lay down a policy regarding the recording of speeches. The recordings will cost a tremendous sum of money, entirely in the hands of a committee. The a nd speeches must be recorded if they are to be re-broadcast. Standard time in Western Australia is two hours behind eastern standard time, and if speeches are to be re-broadcast to that State at appropriate hours they must be recorded. The Minister should state the exact intention behind the proposed amendment.
Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia
– I am in a quandary. I am inclined to agree with the statements made by Senator Gibson. I understood in the first place’ that we were legislating for the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament, which would not involve the re-broadcasting of speeches. Broadcasts can be made while the Parliament is sitting ‘ and can be relayed at those times to the commercial stations. There should be no need to make recordings. The practice should be to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament only when the Parliament is sitting, not at other times. I realize that this bill involves an experiment and that, like all experiments, it can be dangerous. Because of this, and knowing that the Senate will have some control over the committee through the appointment of members from time to time, I am sure that we shall be able to give certain directions to the committee. I do not believe that the committee will abuse its powers, particularly in the experimental stages. However, should abuses occur, the Senate will be sufficiently alive to the situation to remedy them. Any adjustments found to be necessary can be made by it. Senators who may be appointed to the committee should take particular notice of what has been said here this afternoon in connexion with the rebroadcasting of debates. However, I contend that re-broadcasting should not be permitted. Broadcasts should be made only while Parliament is sitting.
Senator MATTNER:
South Australia
– I support what Senator O’Flaherty has said. I consider that once a speech has been broadcast from the Senate or the House of Representatives that should be the end of the matter and there should, be no rebroadcasting of the speech or any portion of it. The proposed new clause will impose a very delicate task upon, the committee. lt should be rejected so that there will be no re-broadcasting of debates.
Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales
– The proposed new clause will greatly improve the bill. When the measure was . under discussion . in the Senate reference was made to rebroadcasting and the fear was expressed that the bill would be passed in such a form as “ to permit portions of speeches’ to be re-broadcast to the disadvantage of the senators or members of the House of Representatives concerned. Senator Leckie has said that the proposal will add to the value of the bill; that is its purpose. This experiment of broadcasting is intended to make the public better informed as to the work of the National Parliament. From time to time, the Prime Minister and senior Ministers will make important statements with which the public ought to be acquainted as quickly as possible. An important statement might be made in the Senate while the broadcast was being made from the other chamber. The Prime Minister might make a speech in the House of Representatives at an hour when most of .the people of Western Australia, where the time is two hours behind eastern standard time, were at work. This might prevent 6.0 per cent, or 70 per cent, of Western Australians from hearing the broadcast. In such an event, the committee could direct recordings to be made for the purpose of rebroadcasting at a time when a majority of the Western Australian listening public would hear them. It is .claimed that difficulties would be involved in re-broadcast* ing, but there would be little difficulty in doing that. In any case, we must solve the problems as they arise. The committee should be able to overcome difficulties, and the proposed new clause will invest it with power to do so.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– The intention of the bill is to provide for the broadcasting of Parliamentary debates as decided upon “by the committee. However, if, in the judgment of the committee, speeches on an important matter should be re-broadcast, it will have power to act accordingly. This does not . necessarily mean that every speech will be recorded and that a mountain of records will he built up. Nothing of the sort! The Prime Minister may make a speech about tae referendum and a speech may be made in reply by the’ Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. The committee might decide to re-broadcast those speeches.
Senator Aylett:
– The committee will have to know in advance what a speaker intends to say. How will it know whether the speech will be worth rebroadcasting or not?
Senator CAMERON:
– If the committee decides that a speech which has been recorded is not worth rebroadcasti ng, : it will be under no obligation to have the speech re-broadcast. When nonparty statements of national importance are made, I assume that the committee will decide to have recordings made with the object of re-broadcasting them. The cost of making recordings would be trifling, because the Postal Department has all the necessary equipment. I do not believe for one moment that re-broadcasting will be carried out to any great degree.
Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP
– Senator Arnold struck a new note when he said that important statements might be made in the Senate while the broadcast was being made from the House of Representatives. Would a recording be made of such a statement for the purpose of rebroadcasting later?
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– The joint committee will accept full responsibility for any such decision. If, in the judgment of the committee, a certain speech or statement should be re-broadcast it will give directions accordingly.
Senator GIBSON:
Victoria
.- That raises another very important point. Only two members of the joint committee may be present when an important statement is made in this chamber. In that event, who will decide whether the statement warrants re-broadcasting or not? T consider that the whole of the proceedings of the Parliament or none at all should be recorded. That being so, none of them should be recorded.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 14 -
No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.
House of Representatives’ amendment No. 8. - After “ broadcasting “ insert “ or rebroadcasting “.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment is consequential upon the insertion of new clause 13a, which has just been agreed to.
Senator LECKIE:
Victoria
.- The proposed amendment looks very innocent, but clause 14, as the bill was agreed to by the Senate, was as follows : -
No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.
This amendment means that no action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting or re-broadcasting any portion of any of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. No limitation is placed upon the number of times any such portion of the proceedings may be re-broadcast. The protection is extended to anybody who makes a re-broadcast any number of times over a period of six months or twelve months. This represents a considerable extension of the scope of the protection provided for in the bill as it was first agreed to by the Senate.
Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
– Applications for permission to re-broadcast will have to be made in the ordinary way.
Senator LECKIE:
– Yes, for the original re-broadcast. When we discussed this matter previously we assumed that what would go out from the Parliament would be a broadcast of the exact proceedings in each chamber, and that that broadcast would be relayed through various stations. But we did’ not have in mind “a recording or re-broadcast of such broadcasts. The Minister said that the committee might decide that statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition prior to general elections should be re-broadcast; but he did not say that a committee, loaded in favour of the Government, might decide that only the Prime Minister’s statement was to be recorded and re-broadcast.’ Therefore, this proposal is limitless. Under this clause immunity, is provided in respect of broadcasts and re-broadcasts without limitation of time. The Parliament should hot agree to that.- By so doing it gives immunity in respect of statements which might be made in malice and cause irreparable damage to individuals, parties, or sections of the community. Previously, we were given to understand that speeches would be broadcast only when they were being made in’ either chamber, and would not be re-broadcast at all. If stations were not available to relay broadcasts to outlying areas, people residing in such areas and wishing to listen were simply out of luck until the Government fulfilled its duty to make available facilities as soon as possible to relay the broadcasts to those areas. We understood that that would be the end of any broadcast, and that .only the member whose speech was broadcast and the person making the broadcast would enjoy immunity in respect of civil, or criminal, proceedings. Now, however, that provision i3 being fundamentally altered by enabling the committee to agree to re-broadcasts and by extending immunity from civil, or criminal, proceedings to persons- making such re-broadcasts. Such rebroadcasts ma:y be repeated during periods extending over many months.
Senator Arnold:
– But the committee will lay down the. conditions under which such re-broadcasts shall be made.
Senator LECKIE:
– Will it always ensure that only one re-broadcast will be made? I cannot imagine that the committee would authorize a re-broadcast from any A class station. The only rebroadcasts to which it should agree would be from stations which were not able to pick up the original broadcast; and even in that case only one re-broadcast should be .allowed.
Senator Arnold:
– The committee can determine that point.
Senator LECKIE:
– But the committee is fallible; whereas it is the duty of the Parliament to prescribe that there shall not be more than one broadcast by any particular station, and that there should not be even one re-broadcast from an A class station.
Senator Arnold:
– No.
Senator LECKIE:
– For what reason should a re-broadcast from an A class station be desired?
Senator Arnold:
– In order that the public be better informed.
Senator LECKIE:
– The whole idea cf this proposal was to enable people, who found it convenient to do so, to listen in to proceedings in the Parliament as they occurred. Now, it is proposed that such broadcasts be recorded and rebroadcast over and over again by any A . class station. The dangers of such a provision are unlimited. It may turn our broadcasting system into a propaganda machine.. I cannot conceive of any reason why a re-broadcast should be made by an A class station. From what was said previously, I imagined that where a re-broadcast was necessary in order to serve outlying areas which are not capable of picking up A class stations only one such re-broadcast was to be permitted. Otherwise, we shall open the gates to propaganda of the worst possible type. .Should the committee be biased, the re-broadcasts will not be controlled as they should be. I know that the Minister will say that this is the responsibility of the committee, and that he washes his hands of it. This is the responsibility of the Parliament, which should not place the onus on a committee. I am not prepared to hand over to any committee such a fundamental responsibility.
Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP
– The amendment is consequential. We have already decided to permit re-broadcasts, and it is necessary to make this consequential adjustment. It is absolutely unfair of Senator Leckie, or anybody else, to assume that the committee will act unjustly. Not a scintilla of evidence exists to support the honorable senator’s statement that the committee will be biased. I ask honorable senators to accept in good faith the committee for the time being, and to apply remedies in the light of experience.
Senator Leckie:
– But we shall have no remedy.
Senator CAMERON:
– Justice is not a monopoly of honorable senators opposite. Government supporters have just as keen a sense of justice and fair play as have honorable senators opposite. As I said during the committee proceedings, I and my colleague have everything to gain and nothing to lose by giving to members of the Opposition equal opportunities with ourselves to express their views either on the public platform, throughthe medium of the printed word, or over the air. I direct Senator Leckie’s attention to paragraphs a and b of clause 4.
Senator Leckie:
– Nothing is said there about re-broadcasts.
Senator CAMERON:
– No ; but “ other stations “ are specified; andI submit that the committee will have full power to say what shall, or shall not, be re-broadcast. The Government accepts the proposed committee in good faith, and the Opposition should be prepared to do likewise, particularly as honorable senators opposite, were they in office, would expect Opposition members to accept in good faith any committee which they might appoint.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 15 -
The provisions of section ninety of the Australian Broadcasting Act 1942 shall not apply to the broadcasting of any proceedings of either House of the Parliament.
House of Representatives amendment No. 9. - After “broadcasting”, second occurring, insert “or re-broadcasting”.
Motion (by Senator Cameron) - agreed to -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Resolutions reported; report adopted.
Sitting suspended from 5.15 to8 p.m.
page 2195
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
Conference of Prime Ministers
Debate resumed from the 3rd July (vide page 2092), on motion by Senator Ashley -
That the following paper be printed: -
Conference of Prime Ministers, London, April-May, 1946 - Report to Parliament by the Right Honorable J. B. Chifley, M.P., Prime Minister of Australia, 10th June, 1946.
Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia
. - The report of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) upon his recent hurried visit to Great Britain is an important document and of great interest to all honorable senators who care to read it.
The quotations freely made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) yesterday are a good indication of the worth of the report. One regrets that the Prime Minister was not able to make a longer stay than he did; yet, the few days’ of his sojourn seem to have imbued him with a high evaluation of Great Britain’s share in the winning of the war. The Prime Minister refers to the “ heavy burden of military commitments being borne by the people of the United Kingdom who poured out blood and treasure to save the world “. I am sure we are all deeply sensible of what we all owed during the recent great conflict to our membership of the British Empire and to the close and loyal co-operation between the units of which it is composed. The Prime Minister’s report contains arguments for an even closer federation of the free nations comprising the Empire, for the extension of the federal spirit, and for that freedom in dealing with local problems that our own statesmen envisaged when they drafted the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. In regard to the future, the Prime Minister states -
The fundamental basis of the foreign policy of the British Commonwealth is enthusiastic and sustained report of the United Nations. This is in accordance with the declaration of the conference of Prime Ministers in 1944, which was fully reaffirmed on this occasion.
That quotation might remind us of the existence of the Atlantic Charter, which w asso welcome by all of us during the stress of war but which now seems to have ‘ receded far into the background of international relations. So, quite wisely in the circumstances, the main feature of the report we are now dealing with is an allround acceptance of the necessity for adequate defence and the regulation of our economic life more or less upon that basis. In view of our bitter experience, we must acknowledge- this outlook and make our plans accordingly. To indulge in retrospection for a moment, I remind honorable senators that prior to 1901 the defence policy of the Australian colonies was reoriented from time to time in accordance with changes in the . internationalsituation, brought about by the exercise of British diplomacy. In 1901, Australia acquired the status of a nation. Later, General Sir Edward Hutton came to Australia to direct our defence preparations. His work brought about, amongst other things, that reserve of Citizen Force members that supplied so many valuable leaders during the war of 1914-1S ; but it did not, under a voluntary service system, supply the requisite personnel to man our defences fully. It is well known, and generally accepted, that Australia never contemplated an offensive war. Our policy was one of defence against aggression. In the first decade of this century Europe was restless, and nations were rearming. That made us’ look to our own needs in the matter of protection, and an enlightened Labour party in those days heeded the advice given by Lord Kitchener, who said -
The conduct of. a great war depends upon the calculated ami proper combination of naval, military and diplomatic forces.
As one result of the acceptance of that advice, an obligation to serve in the defence of Australia was imposed on all adult males and readily accepted by the great bulk of them. When war broke out in 1914 the scheme that had been adopted as the result of Lord Kitchener’s report was only half developed. Unfortunately, it had been believed on the advice tendered that a war was not likely to break out until 1920. However, we emerged successfully from that war, and, in 1929, another Labour government suspended the compulsory military training clauses of the Defence Act. The year 1939 found us badly unprepared iri several respects -the result of the policy of previous governments. Shortly before the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) became Prime Minister in April, 1939, I heard him discuss our interests, responsibilities, duties and dangers in relation to the Pacific area. He advocated the formulation of a policy which would be discussable with friendly neighbours. He was not unaware of the trend of events. His later actions were in keeping with the possession of that knowledge, and a proper conception of the strategy of Empire defence. When he became Prime Minister, the right honorable gentleman revived the system of compulsory military training for homo defence. His other actions as head of a government in connexion with war-time administration, direction, and control, have been grossly misrepresented fre- quently for party-political purposes.. Here is a case in point. I am reluctant to mention this, but I believe that somereference should be made to it. On the- 17th April of this year,’ Senator Nash stated in this chamber -
From December, 1941, this country began toreal ize its tremendous danger and began togear itself to meet the threatened onslaught. When the Labour Government came intopower, Australia practically had no defence. Was not a statement made by a former Minister for the Army, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), that one division of the enemy could have taken Australia. Was it not a fact that we had no arms, aeroplanes, ships, or -munitions with which todefend ourselves?
The honorable senator further said -
The Labour Government is the only Ministry that has had the courage to put the issue of conscription to the people. When the Government which the honorable senator supported was in office it was not game enough to dowhat the present Government did, so it is inaccurate to say that the present Ministry opposed the defence of this country . . .
In 1937, when the late -Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, was contesting the Fremantle seat, I have a vivid recollection of his statement tothe electors of Fremantle, and to the people of Australia generally, that the only effective way to protect this country was by means of aerial defence.
Finally Senator Nash asked this question -
What contribution did the Opposition make to the production of war equipment in this country ?
Why did the honorable senator make those statements?-
Senator Nash:
– They are true.
Senator COLLETT:
– That is the honorable senator’s answer. These and other similar Statements are made in complete disregard or ignorance of actual occurrences, of the strategical direction of the war just concluded, of the geographical locality of aggregations of population, and of the fact that Australia has more than 12,000 miles of coast-line and a population of only 7,000,000.
Honorable senators have only to pon*der over the events of 1940 and 1941 to appreciate the critical phase that had been reached, how hard-pressed was Great Britain, and how necessary it was to send all possible aid to the Mother Country. And what did we send overseas in men and material ? Operating with other dominion forces we had a strong squadron of our Navy, four splendid divisions of the Australian Imperial Force, and a considerable number of squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force. How could we have been called defenceless with these forces at our command?
Senator Armstrong:
– What is the use of four divisions if they, are not armed?
Senator COLLETT:
– These forces were actually engaged in battle. They were being used where and when they were needed. The Prime Minister has protested against raking over the dead ashes of the past. That is all very well, but when I hear people bleating about such matters as “ the Brisbane line “ I am reminded of an experience I had in Belgium some time in 1917. Things were rather unpleasant, and the body of a horse was lying not far from our position. It had been a good horse. It had hauled guns, and carried munitions and rations; but it was dead, and every time a heavy shell burst in the vicinity the carcass was thrown into the air. Each time this occurred there was less of the horse and more of the stench. That I believe is a good analogy. A fair representation of the true position is given by one whose services to the Labour party have been so extolled. On the 18th October, 1941, following a War Cabinet meeting, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, stated -
There is, no doubt, a natural anxiety in the public mind as to the preparedness of Australia for any eventuality that the future might hold.
The war has now been in progress for over two years, during’ which, except for odd raiders in our waters, we have been immune from attack, though our sailors, soldiers and airmen have been gallantly playing their part in theatres of operations overseas. There were now ominous portents on the Pacific horizon which threatened to bring the conflict to our very doors. The arch-aggressor was making a desperate attempt to strike down the gallant Russians and to extend the conflict to the Pacific region. If Soviet Russia could be liquidated, Germany would be free to turn to South -Western Asia and Northern Africa in the coming northern winter, and probably to Britain in the spring.
If the conflict spread to the Pacific, the Australian people will take an entirely realistic view regarding the defence of their vital interests. Australia wanted peace in the Pacific. She is not a party to any policy of encircle ment, and never has been, nor would she be guilty of any act of aggression that might lead to a breach of that peace. Nevertheless, if need be, she was fully resolved to defend herself to the utmost of her capacity.
Through their membership of the Advisory War Council, most Ministers of the War Cabinet were familiar with Australia’s war effort, and, since assuming office, the Government had made a broad review of the situation with the Chiefs of Staff and the Commander in Chief, Far East. The Navy was at the highest pitch of efficiency, as demonstrated by the notable exploits of some of its ships overseas. The Home Defence Army was welltrained, and its equipment had been greatly improved. The strength of the Air Force had. been largely increased, both in respect of home defence squadrons and the training resources for the Empire Air Scheme. The equipment of .the Air Force had also been much improved. Finally, munitions production and the development of production capacity over a wide range of classes, including aircraft, was growing weekly.
In addition to our ability to defend ourselves, it was very heartening and reassuring to know of the cohesion of the democratic powers in the Pacific. It was not in the public interest to speak freely on plans’ for co-operation, but it had been the privilege and duty of the new Government since it assumed office to take several important decisions on co-operation with other powers in the Pacific which reflected an extraordinary advance on what might have been considered possible a year ago. 1 wish to reassure the Australian people that the Government is alive to all eventualities of the situation, and some time ago all necessary precautionary measures for the defence of the Commonwealth and its Territories were taken by the Services.
If any confirmation of that were needed, it could be found in an account of a speech, to which all honorable senators listened with great attention, made by a man who lived amongst us for many years. This is an extract from a speech by him, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 18th July, 1944 -
The governnent in office at the outbreak of war laid sound and solid foundations. We know the foundations of a building are not always obvious to the naked eye, but on the soundness of these foundations the strength of the edifice depends.
These foundations were well and truly laid, and under the present Government the edifice has grown from strength to strength. We now have a structure for which all the political parties should share the credit.
I believe that the man who appeals most to the public to-day is the man who, while being a loyal supporter of his party, will not go so far as to_ allow party discipline to prevent him exercising his own judgment and his own conscience.
That was the view held by Lord Gowrie, a former Governor-General of the Commonwealth, and expressed in this building on the 17th July, 1944. .
With due deference to my friend Senator 0’Flaherty, who is prone to describe a claim to experience as mere egotism, I submit that Mr. Curtin’s description of the position, as he found it at the end of 3941, should be acceptable to his party. Every one is not gifted, but in all walks of life one may find, unexpectedly, perhaps, men who have a flair for grasping the facts of vital issues. In -the recent war, Mr. Curtin was one of those too rare 2>eople who rapidly, on advice, reach sound conclusions.
He was not without support from the present Resident Minister in London, Mr. Beasley, and later from the present Prime Minister.
I believe that what Mr. Curtin said on the 18th October, 1941, is what he conceived, and was an honest statement.
I return to the Prime Minister’s report and to Lord Kitchener’s reference to the value of diplomacy. Here is where we should take stock of ourselves. Although for no apparent reason we seem to be appointing diplomatic, not commercial, representatives all over the world, we do not seem to be proceeding in negotiations abroad with that smoothness that is desirable. We are rather prone to meddle, and we have seriously offended an ally whose fleet was sacrified largely in our immediate defence. But with direct reference to the Pacific area, our dealings with the United States of America have to be conducted on a basis, and with some regard to the stirrings of 1,000,000,000 people, in our proximity, who do not understand, let alone follow, our philosophy of life. Herein is our responsibility, and it is an immediate one.
General Homer Lea, who wrote The Valor of Ignorance, about 1908, had. the right idea of Pacific strategy, and .if, to best meet its needs, we make small concessions to a stronger and materially wealthier ally, then not much objection can be raised by thoughtful people.
For ourselves at home, we must profit by our vast and costly experience. Our Council of Defence is the constituted body charged with primary policy. It. has met of late, but only once. . Yet we have had a recent visit from the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and from a senior Royal Air Force officer, both of whom have probably sown ideas capable of bearing fruit. I commend the Government upon its decision that Australia shall be represented at the conference to be held at Camberley. Generals Rowell, Berryman and Clowes are well qualified as our delegates. I take it that this conference is to be held for the purpose of formulating a plan by which, as a result of a close examination and analysis of the latest factors, and future likely developments, in warfare, our system of defence can be effectively arranged. In this we are sure to be met by the problems of supply, manufacture, man-power, and communications, in that order of importance. No doubt consideration will be given also to our relations with the sister dominions, the development of additional naval bases, and an appreciation of Singapore and the islands to our north. Ample air power is, of course, implied. Honorable senators should understand that this is a means to an end and not the end itself. To appreciate this fact one has only to study the 1944-45 campaign in western. Europe.
If we undertake these obligations, great as they are, it must be with a realization of the vital issues at stake. A primary and important measure is to secure substantial increases of our population. Having . done that there, should be no further controversy as to the liability of every person to serve in some capacity in the defence of our land. Nor will there be, if we observe the principles of a true partnership in the Empire, any limitation set upon the employment and deployment of our forces such as was imposed by the Curtin Government. The* existence of two armies - Australian, armies - with varying conditions of service, has unfortunately created’ in the community impressions that will endure with us for some time. For myself, I confess that I cannot, clearly foresee the future form of our defence forces. Mechanical developments and recent scientific discoveries have so widely extended the bounds of possibilities that, whilst strategical principles remain unchangeable it is conceivable that entire new factors regarding. men and materials will govern the conduct of future wars.
We should not underestimate the value of the Prime Minister’s visit to Great Britain and elsewhere. We realize the heavy burden he bears, and we. gather from his report that at the Conference of Prime Ministers he fairly represented our general attitude, which is one of faithful adherence to our Empire obligations and the intention to fully and squarely meet whatever is involved in so great a partnership. Our whole problem and duty were summed up fittingly in the concluding remarks of the Prime Minister-
The proposals of the United Kingdom and Australia relating to defence and security, mark a further devolution of responsibility and planning for defence from a centralized to a regional basis. They also provide for bilateral or multilateral planning according to the region and the governments concerned. They should lead to a notable advance in Empire co-operation and in British Commonwealth security.
Senator BRAND:
Victoria
.- During the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) to London a momentous decision was made by the British Cabinet when it decided to withdraw British, troops from Egypt. For more than a century that ancient country, together with the Suez Canal, has been the keystone of Empire defence. Without knowing all the facts which led to that decision we might, at first glance, have regarded it as a tragic blunder. Conflicting statements have been made as to whether or not the Dominions were consulted previously, but it is doubtful whether any protest that they might have made would have been heeded. The terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, which expires this year, had an important bearing on the subject. It is inconceivable that the British Cabinet did not previously seek the views of its Chiefs of Staffs of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force. Reports indicate that, in the light of the experience gained in the war of 1939-45, particularly the developments of the air service, they saw no great obstacle to the proposal. There is some comfort to be derived from th’e stand taken by the British Foreign Minister, Mr. Bevin, whenever Russia showed any signs of its designs for getting a footing on the Mediterranean sea-board. It may be that Alexandria is to remain a naval base, as Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, is now investigating alternative plans for the defence of the Suez Canal. Let us hope that developments in the near future will remove any cause for anxiety, because any weakening of the Empire’s prestige and strength would be a menace to the peace of the world.
In some respects South Africa and Egypt cannot be compared. When the Union Jack was run up to the masthead in the market squares of Bloemfontein and Pretoria in 1900. two Dutch Republics, namely, Transvaal and Orange Free State, joined the existing British colonies of Cape Colony and Natal. Eventually they came under the British Crown. Later, when dominion status was granted to the union, British troops were withdrawn, but Simonstown remained a naval base. ‘ In both world wars South Africa took its place with the rest of the Empire with great credit to itself. Egypt proper is not British territory; it has not been conquered, and therefore the withdrawal of British troops sooner or later was inevitable’. The questions now to be decided are whether Egypt will sell itself to the highest bidder and whether the Egyptian Student Youth National Movement will pave the way for aggression and, .later, occupation by Soviet Russia. So long as the British Empire and the United States of America stand together within the United Nations, the better the chance of keeping Russia in check. No nation must be allowed to absorb Egypt and the Suez Canal. Time alone will tell whether the British Government has taken a wise step. Much will depend upon whether the United Nations can be more effective than the defunct League of Nations.
Coming nearer home,’ I shall now refer to the defence of the Commonwealth. As was shown in the war which ended less than a year ago, Australia’s safety in the future will depend upon the same Allied co-operation that brought about the defeat of Japan. Four of our most experienced generals from that war will proceed to London ..shortly to state the case for Australia at a Pacific Defence conference. They can do so better than can any Cabinet Minister or other politician. The Government is to be commended for making that arrangement. When Australia’s contribution to Pacific defence is decided at a later conference between Britain, the United States of America and the Commonwealth, it is hoped that, in order to maintain our contribution at full strength, the government of the day, whatever its political outlook generally, will take a firm stand ‘ against any outside bodies which might, as in the past, be inclined to leave Australia’s defence to a few patriotic citizens. The war with Japan has taught us that the nation which is unprepared pays dearly in 151lood and treasure in war-time for apathy and selfishness in times of peace.
Some of the interjections made by honorable senators during the debate today lead me to relate some matters of history. For seven years I was an associate member of the Military Board, and for the last two years before I ic-tired in 1933, because I had reached the age limit, I had full membership and was quartermaster-general. During the whole of those seven years it was the practice of the Minister for Defence for the time being to send for the heads of the three services and to say to them, “Here is £7,000,000 for you to divide” or “There is £5,000,000 available. Arrange your own allotments”. Before the depression years I had to work out with my staff what amount of equipment, particularly munitions, would be required.. If we decided that, say, £4,500,000 was required, and submitted estimates to the Minister accordingly, we generally found that a blue pencil was struck through the estimate and we were” instructed to reduce it to, say, £1,500,000. It is of little avail for honorable senators of any political party to blame other parties. It may be said that non-Labour governments were responsible for deciding what the defence vote should be, but it can as truly be said that the Labour party did not object to the curtailment of defence expenditure. At least two honorable senators here tonight will remember that when I first entered this chamber I urged the then Government to increase the defence vote,, only te be asked, “ Whom are “we going to fight ? “ I repeat, therefore, that it ill becomes any honorable senators to throw bricks at any political opponent.
Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania.
– I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without making some observations on the report of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) concerning his trip abroad and his attendance at a conference of Prime Ministers in London. It is a most interesting document, and parts of it cheer me greatly. Other portions of it, however, make we wonder whether the mistakes made during the twenty years between the two world wars are not to be repeated. We talk a lot about preparation against aggression, and at the same time much is said about improved social conditions. We cannot have both, because they are mutually exclusive. If we decide to spend large sums of money in preparing for ‘ this country’s defence we cannot at the same time do what we would like to do to provide social justice for the people. The Prime Minister’s statement deals with the burden of armaments in the following terms: -
If we are to promote the social progress and better standards of life to which the United Nations are pledged, there must be a reduction of the burden of military expenditure. But this cannot be achieved, nor can the optimum conditions for economic and social welfare be created, except in an atmosphere of confidence, trust and security. Therefore, it is a challenge to all, with disastrous consequences if it is ignored or evaded, to make the United Nations an effective organization, and the principles of its Charter a predominant influence in national policies.
That makes good reading, but I am afraid that those of us who read of the birthpangs of the United Nations have grave doubts about entrusting our defence and security to such an organization. In the years between the two wars we said that the League of Nations was the cornerstone of our security and defence. We repeated our faith right up to the time when it was obvious that trouble was coming - when Hitler had militarized Germany, re-entered the Rhineland, and was prepared to go to war if his bluffing did not result in appeasement. I pray that we shall not place all our faith in the United Nations ; I hope that we have learned something from the past. It is interesting to read what the Prime Minister had to say later about the post-war security of the
British Commonwealth. The right honorable gentleman said -
The security of the British Commonwealth as a whole, or of any of its members, rests on the following factors which are blended and interrelated: -
i ) The forces placed at the disposal of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Articles 43 and 45 of the Charter, including regional arrangements under Article 52.
ii ) The forces to be maintained by each member of the British Commonwealth under arrangements for cooperation in Empire defence in accordance with the inherent right of collective self-defence under Article 51.
The forces to be maintained by each member of the British Commonwealth to provide for the inherent right of individual self-defence under Article 51.
The provision of adequate machinery for co-operation in Empire defence, without infringing” the determination and sovereign control of its policy by each member.
The Prime Minister’s statement goes on to say how that should be brought about, and he proceeded to tell us what is proposed with respect to military missions. So far as the British Commonwealth of Nations is concerned, that is the crux of the matter; we must be united and work as a team. The Prime Minister expressed his views in these words -
The trend of thought in the United Kingdom and Australia had been moving along the same lines on the question of regional responsibility for defence, and it was natural that their proposals relating to machinery for co-operation in Empire defence should broadly coincide. The proposal of the United Kingdom was that each member of the British Commonwealth should maintain service missions in London. These missions would receive their instructions from the appropriate body in their respective governments. The United Kingdom would maintain similar missions in each dominion and these missions would, in their particular case, receive their instructions from the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff after consultation as necessary with the United Kingdom ‘ Government. There would be an inter-dominion exchange of missions as required. The system would be based on the national defence organizations to be maintained in the United Kingdom and in each dominion.
Years ago, that was the aim of all men who had any knowledge of military matters. It was the hobby of some of us through the years to study with a view to perfecting ourselves in military lore so that, should the nation be attacked, we could be of service to it. The Prime Ministers, in their decision to link the whole of the forces of the Empire, each dominion being responsible for the defence of its own region, went back to the policy that was laid down in black and white by that great soldier and administrator, Lord Kitchener, of Khartoum, when he came to Australia in 1909. After surveying the position in Australia, he furnished a memorandum to the Australian Government in February, 1910. The idea underlying his plan was set out in these words -
The provision of a military force adequate to ensure local safety and public confidence at a time of attempted invasion is regarded as a paramount duty and the home defence forces of Australia, it is proposed, should be determined on lines similar to those adopted in Great Britain.
In other words, he contended that we should have sufficient forces in Australia to be able to hold an invader until such time as the British Navy could cut the communications of the aggressor. It must be remembered that, in those days, there was no air power, and sea power was paramount. Then we had in our minds . - and we made no secret of it - that the potential enemy was Japan. We introduced the system of compulsory military training of all citizens for national defence and we established theRoyal Military. College with a great flourish of trumpets, but we starved it in the most shocking manner in the years between the two world wars. We also established a cordite factory, a small arms factory and a clothing factory. We did start on the right lines. During the years following World War I., we neglected essential preparations’ for national defence in favour of otherneeds. All governments were guilty. As Senator Brand has said, Treasurers “ blue-pencilled “ defence plans. I have many fears that the bloody and dreadful lesson recently taught to us trill be forgotten as the years roll by, and that we shall be caught unprepared again. We have overthrown our enemies of today, but 20, 30 or 40 years are but a day in the life of a nation. It is absolutely certain that an aggressor will arise again to the north of Australia and that our sons, or their sons, will have to face an attacker once more. The Kitchener scheme, which was emasculated as the years passed, was absolutely democratic. We were working on the right lines, and we had a democratic army. We can have such an army again. There are four essential requirements for a democratic citizen army. The first is to have the best possible officers who, like myself and others in this chamber, have been promoted from the ranks on their merits. Secondly, there must be a democratic spirit and a system of education in the army. Thirdly, there must be an efficient means of handling suggestions and complaints. We started such a scheme at Gallipoli, where we had a suggestion box on the beach. Many valuable suggestions came from the men in the trenches. Honorable senators may have heard of the periscope rifle invented by a young .Australian and made out of pieces of wire, some mirrors from a ship, and a piece of box. This andmany other valuable inventions were developed from our system of handling suggestions. They come from men in every walk of life - miners from Western Australia, prospectors, hunters, and others. These men had a fund of knowledge, and it was used to the best advantage. The fourth requirement is good pay and good conditions.
The Prime Minister’s speech ‘ was intensely interesting, and I shall keep a copy of it for future reference. It has some very good “ meat “ ‘in it. If this Parliament can only live up to the principles embodied in that speech and carry out its spirit, the nation will be very much better off in future than it is to-day. In studying the events of the years between the two world wars, it is amazing to see how generally throughout the Empire and certain European countries governments were lulled. They dreamed and talked a lot, but let themselves gradually drift into a state of unpreparedness, in which they were caught. .Never again must we succumb to the idea that, in the work of securing peace, power -and compulsion can be replaced. That was how the League of Nations failed. When it had to deal with a recalcitrant nation, it talked but did not use power. If we repeat this mistake, we shall “get it in the neck”, because power and compulsion cannot be replaced by any economic or social magic. That is’ why I draw particular attention to the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the burden of armaments and the fact that an armament programme will not work, in with our social plans. Great social and economic progress was made between the two world Avars, but that contributed nothing to’ the preservation of peace. Germany went to war in 1914, when it was one of the richest countries in the world. Never before had it been so prosperous. It was on the high-road to gain the lion’s share of the trade and commerce of the world. It was a “have” nation, but it went to war. In 1939, when it. was allegedly a “have not” nation,, it went to war again. The preservation of peace consists in making our house secure against external attacks. Social progress, of course, consists of improving our internal organization. We have done a great deal in this direction in Australia, and we shall do a great deal- more. However, there is no relation between .the two tasks. We can perform the second task as we see fit, but we must never fall into the delusion tha-t thereby- we are providing for the defence of the nation. We must never again believe that any new form of magic can achieve what we ourselves must achieve by skill, hard work, and forethought in tackling the problem outlined by the Prime Minister. Mankind changes its nature in the course of a thousand years or so as little as does a wolf separated from its pack or a sheep separated from its flock. That has been proved throu’gh the centuries. No measure of social prosperity and justice is capable of checking the lust for power that arises in the Asiatic and white races alike. Nothing but lust for power drove Germany on to war in 1914, and the same lust forced it on again in 1939. Probably the same lust, 50, 60 pr 100 years hence, will again force that nation into a war of aggression. The same thing will happen in Japan. Today we are pinning our faith, in the main, on the United Nations. When we come down to fundamental facts, we must realize that the success of that organization depends upon three great powers - the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the
British Empire. The events of the twenty years between “World War I. and World War II. proved that, in enforcing peace, there can be no real substitute for our own will and our own power. Never again must we believe that the unpleasantness, the sacrifice and the responsibility involved in the use of our will and our power are too heavy a burden to be borne. We can bear them; and I believe” that we will. We must not shirk them. They are heavy burdens. It will be neither easy nor inexpensive to place our country into, a state of defence and readiness. I hope that in the future we shall not have a reccurrence of what occurred at the Royal Military College at Duntroon and the Royal Naval College at Jervis Bay. When we were up against it financially those were the first institutions to be affected. It is a thousand times easier and less expensive to continue such colleges than any alternative. It is more pleasant than the consequences of hesitation and appeasement, and belief in a Utopian experiment. It is practical. The Empire has had to pay in blood for its years of dreams and chatter in the past. That must never happen again. Any one who studies the paper now under consideration will be convinced that it outlines the only course for us to pursue. We cannot go to sleep again. We must maintain an efficient air force able to take the air and fight within 24 hours, and ships that can be commissioned and placed on the high seas in the same period. The men of this country must be trained to take their place in our defence, because it is wicked”, damnable and shameful to send men into action untrained, or only partially trained. A government or a country guilty of doing that is guilty of cold-blooded murder.
Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP
, - in reply - On” behalf of the Government I express appreciation of the reception given to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and Senator Collett expressed disappointment because the. stay made by the Prime Minister in London was brief. The conference was called by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and it was agreed that the discussions should mainly concern the subject of defence in the Pacific, whilst opportunity would be taken to discuss any other matter of mutual concern to members of the British Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) referred particularly to the advisability of making available bases in the Pacific to the United States of America. Perhaps I cannot do better than repeat what the Prime Minister had to say on that point -
It will be recalled that before I left Australia, Cabinet approved of a memorandum on the general basis of approach to regional security in the Pacific, including the use of bases by the United States in which the following questions of principles and procedure were laid down -
The question of bases must be related to an over-all plan.
The importance of American participation in the maintenance of security in the South-West Pacific and the granting of facilities in accordance with the principles outlined in the memorandum.
Unless the arrangement is a regional plan in accordance with Article52 of the Charter the procedure contemplated by the United States may not conform to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
Under Article 43 of the Charter members undertake to make available forces and facilities and this involves the question of use and not control, or administration of the area. The draft agreement suggested by the United States departs radically from this principle.
The principle of reciprocity isfundamental to the. granting of facilities for use.
The view of the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff could not be agreed to that there is no strong objection on military grounds to the recognition of American sovereignty over certain islands in the Pacific and that this concession should be a bargaining factor for American support in other directions.
The United Kingdom statement submitted to the conference was as follows: -
The following conclusions of the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff after consideration of the results of informal technical talks in Washington were submitted to the conference -
It is greatly to our advantage that the United States should be involved! in the defence of Commonwealth territory in the South-West Pacific and: this should be our main object.
The problem should be approached on a regional basis in the light of a general appreciation of our mutual requirements but need not necessarily entail an over-all regional agreement.
We would oppose the American claim for exclusive rights.
The American proposal for joint base rights in thePacific islands and Ascension are acceptable subject to the following: -
We should oppose the American demand that they should be entitled to assume control when they consider it necessary, and should “insist that prior agreement must be obtained in each case.
It will be difficult to refuse the Americans the right of control of those bases at which they maintain the facilities. It will therefore be necessary to decide whether we are prepared to undertake the financial liability for maintenance in order to avoid the difficulties which American control would entail in regard to our civil and civil aviation rights.
American rights to install auxiliary defences in adjacent islands should be subject to agreement in each case.
Any demand for civil aviation rights beyond the first two freedoms should he the subject of separate negotiations. iff) We should insist upon retention of our fiscal and jurisdictional rights in the islands.
That indicates the negotiations that have taken place on this matter which has been constantly raised in the Parliament, particularly with reference to the desire of the Ameri-. can Government to be granted the use of Manus Island as a base. I point out that Australia controls Manus Island under mandate. Therefore, we have not the power to make any arrangement along the lines intimated by the American Government. Honorable senators opposite also suggested that some arrangement might be made to make Canton Island and Christmas Island available to the Americans for use as bases. Those islands are British possessions, so we have no say with respect to their control. Senator Collett delved rather deeply into history when dealing with the subject of defence, and in order to support his case he quoted extensively from statements made by the late Mr. Curtin when he was Prime Minister. I recall with sadness that this is the eve of the first anniversary of Mr. Curtin’s death, a fact which rendered more undesirable the honorable senator’s action in citing our late esteemed leader in order to bolster up some political argument relating to “ the Brisbane line “.
Senator Collett:
– To refute one.
Senator ASHLEY:
– The honorable senator’s action was most unfortunate.
Senator Collett:
– It was a compliment to Mr. Curtin.
Senator ASHLEY:
– The honorable senator also dealt with various phases of our defence policy between World War I. and World War II. During that period a Labour government was in office at a time when this country experienced the worst economic depression in its history. Owing to the circumstances then prevailing that Government in its efforts to effect essential economies reduced defence expenditure. However, other governments during that period must accept responsibility for our defence policy between the two world wars. I again remind honorable senators that the only Labour government which was in office for a little over two years in that period was not in power, because the Opposition parties had a majority in this chamber. What Senator Sampson said with regard to the cordite factoriesand ammunition factories in the period between the two wars is correct. The staffs of those factories were reduced to a minimum. The staff at some factories which numbered 2,000 at the conclusion of World War I. were reduced to 100 employees. Honorable senators opposite will recall that when I was in opposition I drew attention to the fact that no provision was made to develop those factories from 1936 to 1939 when the clouds of war were looming. As the result we were caught unprepared when war broke out. Except for the comment with regard to the briefness of the Prime Minister’s stay in London, no criticism has been levelled against the Government in respect of the report in the paper now under consideration. Indeed, honorable senators opposite have received the paper with unusual favour. In doing so they have accepted it at its true value.
I agree with Senator Sampson that it is a very valuable document, and wo shall be wise to apply its lessons.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 2205
HOUR OF MEETING
Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to-
That the Senate, at. its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at11 a.m.
page 2205
PAPERS
The following papers were pre sented : -
Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of External Affairs - H. A. Stokes.
National Security Act - National Security ( Rationing ) Regulations - Orders - Nos. 129, 130.
Senate adjourned at 9.15 pm.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 July 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19460704_senate_17_187/>.