Senate
13 November 1946

18th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 116

BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Act 1942-1946, the following senators be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting : - Senator Amour, Senator Finlay and’ Senator Herbert Hays.

page 116

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Supply and Shipping to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 5th November with regard to the report of the interdepartmental committee on education. The Prime Minister announced that £20,000 per annum would be expended in the preparation and distribution of publications similar to the Current Affairs Bulletin. Can the Minister give to the Senate an assurance that the proposed publications will not contain biased political views similar to those widely circulated previously in the Current Affairs Bulletin!

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can assure the honorable senator that the pamphlets and other publications referred to by him will not contain biased political views, but that their contents will be of ‘ educational value, in accordance with the practice observed in the preparation of such literature.

page 116

DISPUTED . RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I hereby, appoint the following senators to be the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications: - Senator R. E. Clothier, Senator J. S. Collings, Senator W. G. Gibson, Senator James McLachlan, Senator R. H. Nash, Senator S. W. O’flaherty, and Senator B. Sampson.

page 116

TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to Standing Order 28a, I lay on the table my warrant nominating Senator S. K. Amour, Senator J. J. Arnold, Senator W. E. Aylett, Senator W. J. Cooper and Senator Herbert Hays a panel to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees, or when the Chairman of Committees is absent.

page 116

RELIEF FOR THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed to -

That, during the unavoidable absence of the Deputy President, the President be authorized to call upon any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees to relieve him. temporarily in the Chair, without any formal communication to the Senate.

page 116

QUESTION

OVERTIME

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of the statement in the Governor-General’s Speech that - the Government was desirous of securing greater and more continuous production in industry, will the Minister for Supply and Shipping say whether the Government is prepared to urge unionists to work overtime when necessary?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I do not think that any answer that I might give to the honorable senator’s question would satisfy him, because there is no law to compel any person in Australia to work overtime. Increased production calls for more modern methods, and the objective of the honorable senator will be attained by their greater .use in industry.

page 116

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Hospital Accommodation oh TRANSAUSTRALIAN Line - Shortage op Houses fob Employees.

Senator BEERWORTH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the lack of hospital accommodation along . the Trans- Australian railway, except that which is generously provided by the Bush Church Aid Society at Cook, is it the intention of the Government to assist the State authorities to provide adequate hospital accommodation for the people living in these outback localities?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I am not sure whether the honorable senator’s question relates to medical facilities or to the provision of housing.

Senator BEERWORTH:

– It relates to hospital accommodation.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– The Commonwealth Government acknowledges its responsibility in this matter in respect of the areas served by the Trans-Australian Railway under the powers conferred upon it by the people at the recent referendum, but it has not yet had time to develop a complete national medical scheme. Hospital accommodation is peculiarly a State function. The States have not only concurrent jurisdiction with the Commonwealth in this matter, but also a prime duty in respect of hospital accommodation. If there is a need such as is indicated by the honorable senator’s question, the Commonwealth Government will consider the matter, and should it be found that the States are unable to act without Commonwealth assistance, and that the need U real, I shall give the matter my careful

Attention.

Senator BEERWORTH:

– In view of the shortage of houses for employees of the Commonwealth railways, particularly at Port Augusta and Quorn, I ask the Minister representing the Minister . for The Interior whether the Government intends to overcome the shortage at these places, and when will the necessary fin- ance be made available?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The Minister for the Interior has informed me that it is the intention of the Government to continue housing construction at Quorn and Port Augusta, and that funds for that purpose will be provided on this year’s Estimates.

page 117

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING ACT

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understand that the Postmaster-General has now available a reply to a question which I asked last Thursday with respect to the promulgation of certain sections of the Australian Broadcasting Act.

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 7th November last, the honorable senator asked me the following question: -

During last session Parliament passed the Australian Broadcasting Bill, which contained very important amendments of our broadcasting legislation. The Royal assent has been given to that measure, but I understand that because of some hold-up it will not become operative until the beginning of next year. Will the Postmaster-General, who introduced the measure, ascertain who is responsible for delaying the promulgation of certain sections of that measure, and what is the reason for such delay?

Immediately the amending legislation was passed by the Parliament, steps were taken to promulgate the measure, and all sections came into operation on the 1st October, 1946, excepting those relating to the staff of the commission, namely, sections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 19. After consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the proclamation of the sections mentioned, which relate to the commission’s staff, -were deferred because it was clear that certain provisions of these sections would be ineffective unless appropriate regulations were issued at the same time. It was decided that these regulations should be incorporated in the general Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations which had been drafted prior to the passing of the act, and which had, in consequence, to be revised in several important respects. It was hoped that these regulations would be completed within a few weeks, and would thus enable the remainder of the Act to be proclaimed and the regulations gazetted on the 1st November. The commission, however, because of unavoidable delays, was unable to complete the final draft of the regulations in time for this to be done. I have taken up the matter with the commission, and have stressed the need for finality being reached as quickly as possible. I hope that it will be possible to promulgate the outstanding sections of the act at an early date.

page 117

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 7th November, Senator Finlay asked me, as the representative in this chamber of the Minister for Labour and National Service, whether, in view of the fact that the

Arbitration Court had declared in favour of the principle of the 40-hour week, the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator could proceed with the hearing of the claim by certain trade unions for a 40- hour week for Commonwealth railway employees.

I now advise the honorable senator that the position of the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator in relation to the hearing of the claim for a 40-hour week for Commonwealth railway employees has not been altered by the recent declaration of the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in the course of its hearing of the application for a 40-hour week. However, the best way to test this would be for the Public Service Arbitrator to request the acting Chief J udge to permit him to consider the claim.

page 118

TUBERCULOSIS

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Health and Social Services say what steps have been taken, in cooperation with the State health authorities, to implement the legislation passed by the last Commonwealth Parliament providing for payments to dependents of tuberculosis sufferers.

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– Last year, the Commonwealth made available £250,000 for the purpose mentioned by the honorable senator. We have written to the appropriate authorities in all States inviting them to take up their quota of the allocation, but, to date only two States, namely, Victoria and South Australia, have replied undertaking to accept the amounts allocated. The money is readily available to any of the States that apply for it.

page 118

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Activities - Annual Report - Pasts for Motor Vehicles

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs give any information as to the present activities of the Tariff Board? Is the board proceeding in accordance with circular 45/24 contained in its report of the 24th May, to inquire into the “ high cost of production with special reference to the particular cost elements responsible for the high Australian costs “ ?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The honorable senator will realize, no doubt, that the ramifications of the various inquiries carried out by the board are great. However, I shall ascertain what is being done in the matter mentioned by the honorable senator.

Senator COURTICE:

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Tariff Board - -Report for year 1945-4(i, together with summary of recommendations.

I also lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: - Parts for Motor Vehicles, Tractors and Cycles - Question of cancellation of Bylaws.

page 118

QUESTION

BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply and Shipping whether it is a fact that Cabinet is unable to reach a decision on the Bretton Woods Agreement until it receives advice from the Australian Labour party Executive which is to meet this month?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am sure thai the Leader of the Opposition is not serious in asking such a question. However. I assure him that a decision in regard to the Bretton Woods proposals will be made by the Government in due course, and that the Leader of the Opposition will be advised accordingly.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister has just told the Senate that the Bretton Woods Agreement will be considered by Cabinet later. Tn the event of Cabinet’s decision being such that the subject will not be brought before the Parliament, will the Government make a statement of its reasons for allowing the matter to lapse?

Senator ASHLEY:

– It is not the practice of any government to declare it.” policy in answer to questions. However. I assure the honorable senator that the Government will not take action in relation to the Bretton Woods Agreement without informing the Parliament; it will do so when the opportunity occurs.

Senator McLEAY:

– Will the Minister make available to members of the Opposition the reports made by Australian delegates to the Bretton Woods Conference so that we may be fully informed on the subject when the Government introduces abill relating to the agreement, if it ever does so?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I shall submit the honorable senator’s request to the Prime Minister with the object of having information relating to theBretton Woods Agreement placed at the disposal of honorable senators.

Senator McLEAY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is the Government in a position to indicate whether it intends to introduce during the current session of Parliament, a bill to ratify Australia’s participation in the international financial arrangement under the Bretton Woods Agreement?
  2. Will the Prime Minister indicate Australia’s position if the Government fails to ratify this agreement before the 31st December, 1946?
  3. If the Government does not intend to introduce the necessary legislation this year, will the Prime Minister indicate the Government’s reasons why it does not intend to do so?
Senator ASHLEY:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The question of Australia’s participation in theInternational Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development will be considered by Cabinet at an early date to decide whether the matter will be brought before Parliament during the present session.
  2. Up to the 31st December, 1946, Australia may join the organizations as an original mem- ber, i.e. on the terms and conditions set out in the Articles of Agreement drawn up at the Bretton Woods Conference. After that date, it would still be open to Australia to seek membership of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. After the 31st December, 1946, the fund and the bank may fix t he times and prescribe the terms on which additional members may be accepted.
  3. See answer to No. 1.

page 119

QUESTION

CLOTHES RATIONING

Senator TANGNEY:

-In view of the revision of the clothes ration scale and the proposed issue of new clothing coupons in December, will the Minister for Trade and Customs consider increasing the allotment of coupons to persons resident north of the 26th parallel of latitude and also the quantity of cotton goods made available to them - even if this be at the expense of people living in cooler climates - because of the impossibility of them taking advantage of the reduced coupon ratings for woollen goods, which are not of much use in the warm climates owing to climatic conditions and insect pests ?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I shall be pleased to give consideration to the honorable senator’s request.

page 119

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.

Gordon Brown). - It has been suggested to me that, on days when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast, questions on notice should be read by the honorable senator in whose name they appear on the notice-paper, and that then the appropriate Minister should reply. That, I think, is a good suggestion. When I call upon an honorable senator who has a question on the notice-paper, I ask that he shall read his question or questions and then the Minister will reply.

page 119

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Import Licences - Prices

Senator McLEAY:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government issued licences for the importation of motor chassis from - (a) Canada, and (b) United States of America, for the year 1947?
  2. If so, how do these licences compare with the base year quotas of 1935-36?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See No. 1. I would add that the basis on which licences will be issued is now receiving consideration.
Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen the report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 21st October, in which the secretary of the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland is reported as having said that his club believed that90 per cent. of second-hand car deals in that State were made on the black market?
  2. If so, will the Minister ask the appropriate officials to investigate the statement and furnish a report to the Senate?
  3. Is it a fact that officers of the Prices

Branch are unable to control existing regulations and to investigate black marketing?

Senator COURTICE:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.

page 120

QUESTION

FEDERAL AID ROADS

Petrol Tax

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the average annual fee payable in Western Australia for the registration of motor vehicles? 2. (a) On the 30th Junelast what was the Commonwealth tax payable a gallon on motor spirit; (b) what was the total amount of tax on motor spirit collected in Western Australia during the year 1945-46; (c) what proportion, if any, of the amount so collected is refunded to the Government of Western Australia?
  2. Under the Federal Aid Roads Act, what amount was paid to Western Australia in respect to the year 1945-46?
  3. Are local governing authorities in Western Australia entitled to any direct financial benefits in respect to payments made under Nos. 2 (c) and 3 above?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. As motor registration fees are imposed by the State Government this information is not available. 2. (a) Customs duty l1d. a gallon plus 10 per cent. primage ad valorem; excise duty 9½d. a gallon with certain exceptions. (b) £895,917. (c) Under the Federal Aid Roads and Works Agreement of 1937 the Commonwealth grants to the States in each year the equivalent of 3d. a gallon of customs duties on imported petrol and 2d. a gallon of excise duties on locally refined petrol. Of the total of these duties 192/l000ths is paid to the Western Australian Government.
  2. £638,890.
  3. The purposes for which the grant made under the Federal Aid Roads and Works Agreement may be used are set out in the agreement, but the Commonwealth exercises no control over expenditure within the State, which is a matter for the State Government to determine.

page 120

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Additional Land Line from East to West.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, because of insufficient land-line accommodation for the relay of other eastern States matter, listeners to national station6WN, Western Australia, are debarred the usual programme when parliamentary proceedings are broadcast?
  2. If so, will the Postmaster-General inform the Senate when it isintended to provide an additional land-line?
Senator CAMERON:
ALP

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

  1. In accordancewith the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1940, the proceedings of Parliament are broadcast from station6WN, Perth. During these periods, listeners to this station are unable to receive the items normally relayed from the eastern States, but entertainment and other features of the national programme are available from national stations other than6WN.
  2. So as to permit of alternative relays from the eastern States being broadcast from the other national station in Perth (6WF), the department is considering the technical possibilities of providing an additional high-quality programme transmission channel between Adelaide and Perth, but, owing to the very complex nature of the project, it cannot be stated at this stage whenthe second relay circuit will be available.

page 120

QUESTION

TALLOW

Senator GIBSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the price of tallow in Australia is fixed at £27 10s. per ton?
  2. Is it a fact that the export of tallow is refused; if so, why?
  3. Is it a fact that tallow is worth £100 per ton in Great Britain?
  4. Is ita fact that Great Britain is purchasing tallow from Argentina at the price of £100 per ton ?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The maximum price of tallow in Australia is fixed at £27 15s. per ton for prime bright, inedible, mixed tallow. The price of £27 10s. is the maximum price of good colour inedible mixed tallow.
  2. Export of inedible tallow is prohibited owing to the very short supplies available to essential users in Australia for the manufacture ofsoap for Australian consumption and for Unrra, and small quantities approved for export to Eastern countries and Pacific Islands to meet established trade demands and the necessity for conserving stocks to keep factories in operation.
  3. The present price offered to Australia by the United Kingdom for inedible tallow is approximately £100 per ton Australian currency, c. and f., United Kingdom for the grades in No. 1 above.
  4. It is understood that Great Britain has been purchasing tallow from Argentine at prices considerably in excess of £100 per ton.

page 121

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Ex-Servicemen from Southern Ireland - Eastern Europeans.

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that about 150,000 men from Southern Ireland who had served in Britain’s fighting forces during World War II. have been denied entry to Southern Ireland?
  2. If so, will the Minister consider giving a certain measure of priority to these exservicemen for entry into Australia?
Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. I have no knowledge whether these men in the numbers stated have been denied entry into Southern Ireland.
  2. Providing that these men served in the British armed services during World War II. they will be eligible for free passages to Australia when the free and assisted passage agreements made between the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments become operative. The measure of priority for passages which individual migrants will receive will be in accordance with the list of priority categories agreed upon at the recent Premier’s Conference. Broadly speaking, the highest priority will be accorded to migrants who are essential workers or can be readily employed and who have nominators in Australia prepared to accommodate them.
Senator LARGE:
through Senator Clothier

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

In view of the present clamour on the part of Eastern European peoples to settle in this country, will the Minister give the Senate an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that the proportion of migrants from that source will not be more than 25 or 30 per cent. of the total in order that our population will remain predominantly British?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

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

A basic principle of the Government’s immigration policy is that aliens shall be admitted to Australia only in such numbers and of such classes that they can be readily absorbed and that our population shall remain predominantly British. Care will be taken to ensure that that principle continues to be followed and evidence of this is provided by the agreements readied between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments for free and assisted passages to suitable British migrants from the United Kingdom.

page 121

QUESTION

MEAT PRICES

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Will the Minister indicate his attitude to the demand by Australian housewives for an inquiry into the recent rises in the price of meat?
  2. Will he indicate whether an application was made to the Prices Branch for such an increase, and, if so, by whom was the application made?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

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

  1. At the present time it is not considered necessary to establish a new authority to investigate meat prices. Alterations in ceiling prices are determined by the Prices Commissioner after thorough examination of the whole of the facts and discussion with responsible officers of the Meat Board and the Department of Commerce and Agriculture.
  2. No specific application was made for the recent increases although a request had been made by wholesale butchers for the decontrol of wholesale prices and the abandonment of wholesale ceilings. Rises and falls in meat prices are not usually based on applications from interested parties. They are determined from time to time by the Prices Commissioner on the basis of seasonal conditions and other factors which influence the supply of stock to the market. The recent increases were due principally to the following reasons: - (a) Increase in export prices; (b) increase in the price of wool which has made sheep more valuable as wool producers; (c) increased demand for stores in Victoria following the stock losses through drought in 1944 and 1945; (d) the disastrous drought now being experienced in New South Wales and Queensland.

page 121

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply.

Debate resumed from the 7th November (vide page 32), on motion by Senator Tangney -

That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: -

To His Royal Highness the GovernorGeneral -

May it Please Your Royal Highness:

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to Our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Royal Highness for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His

Royal Highness the Governor-General. I thought that in his maiden speech in this chamber, Senator Devlin, in well-chosen language, indicated a moderate approach to the important problems that lie ahead. I do not propose to speak at length, but at the outset I express the view that the Speech was the most vague, the weakest, and the most anaemic statement of policy on behalf of a government that I have ever heard. It is almost impossible to debate the Speech in detail because every paragraph of it deals with vague generalities. On this occasion, honorable senators sitting in opposition, to use a phrase once employed on a similar occasion, “ speak with dying voices politically”, but I remind the Government that we on this side who were defeated at the recent elections were elected by a majority of the voters of Australia to serve until the end of June, 1947, and therefore we propose to express our views on behalf of those who elected us with the same vigour, enthusiasm and sincerity as we have done in the past. It is interesting to examine the official figures in connexion with the voting at the elections held on the 28th September last. I propose to cite only the Senate figures. Candidates of the Australian Labour party received 2,133,273 formal votes, and Liberal and Australian Country party candidates 1,774,922 formal votes. On that result we on this side of the chamber have a right and duty to appeal to the Government to give due attention to the point of view which we put forward on behalf of the electors who voted in support of candidates of the opposition parties. At the recent poll, other votes totalled 189,032, whilst no fewer than 356,614 votes were informal. Thus, Government candidates received approximately 48 per cent, of the total votes cast, Liberal and Australian Country party candidates 40 per cent., and other candidates 4.24 per cent., whilst 8 per cent, were informal.

I appeal to the Government to give to the Parliament and the people detailed information with respect to its future defence policy. All who had practical administrative experience during the war years, when this country was attacked bv the Japanese, have this subject uppermost in their minds. It behoves the

Government to tell the people, in their own interest, what proposals it has under consideration in respect of future defence policy. We shall then be less likely to slip back into the position in which we found ourselves prior to the last war. 1 do not intend at this juncture to delve into past history on the subject. Each party in this Parliament must accept its share of responsibility for our unpreparedness when the last war broke out. However, when we read statements by national leaders published recently in the pres3, we must view with alarm the “resent unpreparedness of Great Britain, Australia. Canada and even the United States of America. The press reports this week that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, told Labour party leaders and trade union leaders in Great Britain that he regarded the present world situation as so troublesome that Britain’s armed forces at the end of the year would not be allowed to fall below 1,500,000, whereas previously it was proposed to reduce the total strength of those forces to 1,000,000. Simultaneously, he announced nationwide peace-time conscription for every nian reaching the age of eighteen year.=. One statement reads -

Recognition by the United Kingdom Government of the vital importance of national defence becomes more of an example to our own Government when it is realized that Mr Attlee’s Government took these decisions in defiance of the left-wing extremists.

We also read in to-day’s press the report of a statement by a distinguished American soldier, General Kenney, in which he draws the attention of the American people to the present unpreparedness of that country. In view of these facts, we receive no comfort from the vague generalities which appear in the Governor-General’s Speech dealing with defence policy. Of course, as all of us know, the subject-matter of that Speech was supplied by the government of the day as advisers to B!is Royal Highness.

Senator Ashley:

– That is nothing unusual.

Senator McLEAY:

– Lt was not unusual in the past for our people to be so apathetic and ostrich-like in their approach to this problem that we nearly lost this country in the last war. I sincerely hope that future governments will not be so indifferent to the nation’s interests as to take that risk again. The Government must convince the Parliament and the people that everything requiring to be done at this critical stage in respect of this important problem is being done.

I direct attention to the present widespread industrial unrest throughout Australia. After five years of Labour rule in this Parliament, and with Labour Governments in office in five of the six State Parliaments, those of us who are interested in increasing production and in the provision of adequate social security and full employment about which we hear so much talk to-day, cannot but view with alarm the position which has existed for many years. Prior to the recent elections, Ministers and supporters of the Government made this appeal, in effect, to the people and trade unionists, “ Whatever you do, do all in your power not to have a strike until after the elections. As soon as we get back, every thing will be all right”. However, no doo ner were the elections over than we had the greatest transport strike in the history of this country, with strike after strike in the coal-mining industry. For five years the Government has muddled ;ind meandered along with this problem. The Government has taken over two mines which it has run at a loss. It has appointed political friends to positions to over ride the decisions of Commonwealth and State Arbitration Courts. It has done this, so it says, with the object of maintaining peace in industry. During the last session of the last Parliament we passed a measure to ratify an agreement between the Labour Government of New South Wales and this Government dealing with the control of the coal-mining industry. However, to our amazement we read in the Gover- nor-General’3 Speech -

My Government has been in consultation with the Government of New South Wales regarding the personnel of the joint authority to be appointed in terms of the Coal Industry Act, and an announcement will be made in due course. My Government is very hopeful that the operation of the new Act will materially assist towards better production in the coal industry which is so vital to Australia’s economy and to its future progress and development.

It is four months since the Parliament passed that measure. When we were considering it, we were told by responsible Ministers that its passage was of extreme urgency. However, the joint authority has not yet been appointed. The decisions of Arbitration Courts have not been enforced. Arrangements have been made for coal-miners to work on Saturdays, for which they receive payment at the rate of time and a half ; but reports have come through that miners, because they work on Saturdays are not prepared to work on Mondays, or Tuesdays. The result is that coal production is not sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Strike after strike has taken place in the industry since the legislation mentioned was passed. If, after five years in office the Government takes four months to appoint the proposed coal authority, what ground have we to hope that it will be able to obtain adequate coal production? The result of the shortage of coal is that great hardship is being inflicted on many sections of the community, and thousands of men have been thrown out of employment.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and his Ministers are trying to do all they can to prevent inflation in this country. However, it must be obvious that nothing, will tend to bring about inflation somuch as “go-slowism” in industry’ and the tactics of extremists in the tradeunions who are preventing their members from working overtime in key industries such as those engaged in the manufacture of galvanized iron, cement and other commodities, which are so urgently required by the community. These things are creating a bottleneck. Big organizations are tooled up in preparation for the employment of thousands of men next year, but they will be compelled to work at only half capacity because of the shortage of sheet steel and other similar materials. I .am amazed that the Government is prepared to stand idly by whilst extremists decide that workers shall not be permitted to work overtime in these industries. In the building industry, too, men are being urged to “go slow” because they are unable to obtain increased wages and shorter working hours. The Government’s muddling and inaction in the face of these things is appalling and alarming.

In paragraph 32 of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech one finds a most amazing statement which, in itself,’ is ample evidence of the Government’s lack of appreciation of the urgency of resolving the questions of higher wages and shorter working hours and bringing about industrial peace. Six months ago, the Government ordered the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to hear the .application by trade unions for a 40-hour week. I cannot imagine any intelligent body of men being so lacking in good judgment as to take that action at a time of national emergency when there was an urgent need for more work and increased production. Many months ago, members of the Opposition in this chamber stressed the fact that the problems of increased wages and fewer hours of work were interlocked. We urged the Govern”ment to ask the Arbitration Court to “consider the question of wages as well as that of hours; but the Government exhibited its usual stubbornness. Now, after six months’ delay, during which an election has taken place, the Government has approached the court in a most unsatisfactory manner, with an instruction that the question of wages be considered side by side with that of hours. This means, in effect, that the unions wasted five months presenting their case to the Arbitration Court

I understand that the Government proposes to introduce legislation under its defence powers to carry out certain controls now exercised under the National Security Act. In the past, honorable senators opposite argued that the Government was unable to do anything to remove wage pegging and so permit workers to earn a remuneration adequate to provide them with a reasonable standard of living in these days of rising costs. I have no hesitation in expressing my personal opinion that, under modern conditions, £4 18s. -a week is totally inadequate to provide for a man, wife, and one child. If ever there was a time when good pay should be given for high production, it is now, when we have record high prices, ample markets for our products, and other favorable circumstances that are likely to continue for many months and perhaps years. After all this delay and trouble, this muddling

Government now proposes, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech - . . to set up as early as possible a committee, . including representatives of both parties in industry, to inquire into and report upon aspects of the basic wage. The setting up of this committee will not preclude earlier consideration by the court of any application that may bc made relating to the amount of the basic wage or the principles upon which it is determined or varied.

I invite the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) to tell the Senate what has prompted the Government to set up an independent body, the authority of which will bo limited to giving advice. If the Arbitration Court is competent, and has jurisdiction over these matters, it should carry out the inquiry. To appoint a special committee at this stage will be a waste of time. In 1920, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) appointed a similar committee consisting of representatives of employers and employees which recommended to the Government of the day that the minimum living wage for a man, wife, and three children under fourteen years of age should be £5 14s. 7d. per week.

Senator Ashley:

– The recommendation was never given effect.

Senator McLEAY:

– That is 60. and whatever this proposed committee does or says will not be heeded either, because it will have no authority. Its appointment is only a smoke-screen to cloud the issue. This is a job for the Arbitration Court alone,’ and I hope that the court will be given an opportunity to deal with it promptly. The court is experienced in taking and sifting evidence. If the Government believes that the Arbitration Court requires strengthening, then it is quite within the power of the Government to take whatever action it considers wise in that direction ; but it is ludicrous to have two bodies inquiring into this matter, one without any real authority, and, so far as I can gather, not competent to give a reasoned and unprejudiced judgment such as would be given by the Arbitration Court. On several occasions during the currency of the last Parliament, the Minister for Health and Social Services (Senator McKenna) and other Government spokesmen stated that the

Government proposed to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act; but although the Government has held office for five years, during which industrial dislocation has been greater than at any time in our history, no action has yet been taken in this direction. This matter should be speeded up.

One of the most misleading and lying statements made during the recent election campaign was that of a Cabinet Minister, who said that the reason for the Government’s refusal to pay child endowment in respect of the first child of any family was that such a concession would mean that the basic wage would be reduced by 12s. 6d. per week. I hope that in the course of this debate the Minister responsible for that utterance will explain the grounds upon which he bases his grossly misleading assertion. When the Menzies Government introduced the child endowment scheme in 1940, the basic wage was not reduced. In fact, since that time it has increased considerably. If there is one section of the wage-earners of this country that is entitled to more consideration than any other in this time of rising costs, it is married men with children; but no fewer than 1,000,000 homes are excluded from the benefit of child endowment under the present legislation. I trust that the Government will again give consideration to this matter.

In regard to the serious problem of housing, we are not making anything like the progress that should be made towards a solution. The Commonwealth has “ passed the buck “ to the States; yet in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech it is suggested that some marvellous agreement has been reached with the States to speed up the production of homes. If Ministers have been able to bring about some magical agreement, their duty is to explain the. details of it to the Senate so that we may give this important matter the consideration which it deserves. How- ever, from the reports that I have seen concerning the position in various States, it appears to be a wellknown fact that, because of the shortage of materials, the shortage of skilled labour, and the union ban on overtime, the production of houses is far below the target set by the authorities. I refer to a newspaper report of the 5th November dealing with the housing programme in South Australia. It states -

A comparison between figures in a report presented to the Premier (Mr. Playford) recently by the Director-General of Building Materials (Mr. J. W. Wainwright) and the latest information released by the Government Statistician (Mr. A. W. Bowden) discloses that while 11,251 building permits were sought in the eight months ending September 30th last, only 1,087 homes were built in South Australia during the first nine months of this year.

Those figures are alarming. The Commonwealth Government has expended thousands of pounds on the publication of booklets, which have been circulated throughout Australia, containing promises regarding house construction. I challenge Ministers to state the number of houses actually completed on behalf of the War Service Homes Commission since the end of the war. I ask them also to give figures for all house construction throughout Australia so that we can see whether the total is anywhere near the70,000 houses a year which will have to be built for the next ten years if we are to overtake the shortage. The provision of homes and hospital accommodation is of the utmost importance, but this unimaginative Government apparently has no appreciation of the urgency of the matter. Evidently it is afraid to make a supreme effort to solve the problem. Men should be working overtime to build houses and hospitals, and they should be paid good wages for doing so without having most of their overtime pay filched from them by means of high taxes. Unless the Government attacks this problem in a businesslike way and on a large scale, chaos will continue to rule throughout Australia and people will have to go without houses and hospital accommodation. I have mentioned the seriousness of this matter on many occasions in this chamber. There has been plenty of talk by Ministers, but an almost complete lack of action. There seem to be only two possible kinds of government in the Commonwealth - the slow and the very slow.

This Government is very slow.

Senator Nash:

– But very sound.

Senator McLEAY:

-Too much sound and not enough action.

The last matter to which I direct attention, namely, the policy of the Government in relation to import licensing, is of very great importance. A Division of Import Procurement was established during the war to restrict the importation of goods from other countries. I nui amazed that, although the war ended ii bout fifteen months ago, this Government permits to remain in existence an instrumentality which refuses to allow the unrestricted importation of goods oven from the United Kingdom. I consider that the action of the Government in prohibiting certain imports from the United Kingdom constitutes a violation of the Ottawa Agreement. The restriction of imports might have been justifiable during the war, but there can be no justification whatever for the continuation of such a policy now. I had an opportunity to discus’ this matter with representatives of .British trade interests when I visited London last year. These men were greatly dissatisfied because, although the Empire vas at peace, the Australian Government continued to use its war-time powers to prevent the importation of British goods which they were anxious to export, to Australia. Honorable senators will recall that the Ottawa Agreement provided that the rates of duty fixed by the Tariff Board would be the only bar to the importation of British goods into Australia, r also remind the Government that, during the war, an extra war duty was imposed on imports. The Government is ‘abusing its powers by refusing to permit the importation of goods from Great Britain. Australia has a credit balance in London of over £200,000,000, and manufacturers in Great Britain urgently need to increase their export trade. In view of these facts, the attitude of this Government in imposing quotas on imports is 3curvy. That is the only appropriate term. The Commonwealth Government has virtually gone on its hands <and knees to plead with the British Government to grant greater preference to Australian exports. Therefore, its attitude in maintaining quotas on British goods in the post-war period is short-sighted, to say the least, and indicates lack of imagination and business ability. I hope that Ministers will speedily revise this policy, because it is causing very grave injustice to the British people.

Senator Sheehan:

– Has the honorable senator noticed that Great Britain is not able to satisfy orders from overseas because of the shortage of labour?

Senator McLEAY:

– Yes. However, 1 know that twelve months ago Great. Britain had manufactured goods for which it could provide shipping space and which it was anxious to export to Australia. The Australian Division of Import Procurement would not give to firms in Australia licences to import those goods.

Senator Sheehan:

– Has the shipping position improved ?

Senator McLEAY:

– Shipping was available at that stage.

Senator Ashley:

– What were the goods ?

Senator McLEAY:

– One item wa.* cutlery. Another item was linoleum and carpets. Floor coverings are urgently needed for the houses we are building in Australia.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the honorable senator said wo were not building any houses !

Senator McLEAY:

– That is an exaggeration. We are not building as many as we should build. There is a very great shortage of linoleum and carpets in Australia, and Australian firms are unable to manufacture more than 10 per cent, of our requirements. The latest information that I have received from the Division of Import Procurement is that the importation of these goods is still restricted. This policy not only is a violation of the Ottawa. Agreement, but also is short-sighted and unbusiness-like. There will be a. serious shortage of essential floor coverings in Australia for many years.

We shall have opportunities to deal with other important matters during the debate on the Government’s financial proposals and when bills are brought before the Senate. I conclude by saying that I consider the Governor-General’s Speech to be very vague. I urge the Government to do everything possible to secure peace in industry and increase production. That is one of the. main means of preventing inflation, which will surely occur if the Government persists in following its present course. Unless we take advantage of our present good opportunities we shall not be able to create a reserve to cushion the effect of deflation, which must return to this country.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia.

– I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy President (Senator Nicholls), upon your appointment to the position of Chairman of Committees in the Senate. I shall be careful in my remarks so as not to warrant a rebuke from you. I also congratulate Ministers who have i,een re-appointed to office for the wonderful work which they have done in the past, and which has resulted in them retaining the confidence of their supporters. I hope, too, that the new members of the Ministry will discharge their duties with success.

I disagree entirely with what the Leader of tbD Opposition (Senator McLeay) has Sl 1(1 abc.t the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. He said he was amazed at its contents. I am not amazed at all. The Speech shows clearly that great progress has been made by Australia during the last three years under a Labour administration, and it indicates the Government’s proposals for the future.

Reference has also been made to the housing shortage, which presents an Australianwide problem. In that matter the record of the Government is one of which it need not be ashamed. In Western Australia, house construction is proceeding in accordance with the departmental schedule. Ex-servicemen who have received vocational training are giving yeoman serice in all of the States, and are being placed in employment of various kinds. The Government has experienced many difficulties, and I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) upon the invaluable service which he has rendered to the nation. He has proved himself to be a valiant leader, and has shown that the people of this country have nothing to fear from Labour rule.

Before the Curtin . Government came into power I drew the attention of the Senate to the necessity for the erection of a post office at Inglewood in Western Australia. At present the postal business is conducted in a small shop, and it is most inconvenient and uncomfortable for invalid and old-age pensioners to collect, their pensions >a.t those premises. On one occasion I visited the shop with a view to purchasing 10s. worth of 2-Jd. stamps, but the post-mistress could not supply them. I have always advocated the erection of a post office in that suburb. Senator Collett will recall that, prior to World War IT., estimates were prepared of the cost of a new building and a site was purchased, but the work of construction was postponed because of the outbreak of hostilities. I am glad to have been informed by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) that a post office will probably be erected at Inglewood in the near future. Elderly people, many of whom are partially crippled, should not be called upon to travel three miles by tram-car to collect their pensions. It would be most convenient to the residents to have a new post office at Inglewood, and I shall not rest content until such a building has been erected. In many parts of Western Australia telephonic services are required, but unfortunately the necessary equipment is not available at present.

Honorable senators generally will support the proposals of the Government for the standardization of railway gauges I have always advocated that reform, and I shall continue to do so until it has been accomplished. Apart from meeting our defence needs, it would facilitate the transport of materials between the various States, particularly at present when, through no fault of the Government, shipping facilities are limited. If there were railway transport on standard-gauge lines from Queensland to Western Australia, employment in the latter State would be increased. There .are serious shortages of building materials, and house construction is held up because of inadequate transport facilities. Large quantities of plywood are awaiting shipment, from Queensland to Western Australia. No shipment of ply-wood has been made to the western State from Queensland since the departure of Beltana in June or July last.

The problem of land settlement is receiving earnest consideration at the hands of the Government. 1 recall the well-known saying of Sir James Mitchell, a former Premier of Western. A ustralia, “ Go on the land, young man “. After World War J. many ex-servicemen were placed on the land, but unfortunately they had not been trained to be farmers. Ex-servicemen are now being trained for life on the land and in addition to being instructed in the production of foodstuffs, they should be taught woolclassing and lamb-marking and tailing. Great benefit would result from the provision of instructors in those subjects in all of the States.

For many years Australia has not paid sufficient attention to water conservation. The standardization of railway gauges would help to draw attention to the necessity for conserving water. Every possible encouragement should be given to those who take up life on the land. A young married man should be compensated for his outlay in clearing virgin country, and for each child of the marriage a certain reduction should be made from the cost of the property, as is done in some other countries. The present Ministry favours the granting of assistance to young farmers, who may rest assured that the Labour Government will safeguard their interests, during the long period in which it will no doubt remain in office. I draw attention to the actual value of the primary products exported from Western Australia for the year 1938-39. These figures indicate the excess production after the needs of the people of that State had been met. The figures are as follows : -

Wheat, £3.6] 0,000; oats, £89,340; bailey, £51,220; apples, £503,493; pears, £2S,G51; dried fruits, £100,000; wool, £4,000,000; fat lambs, £317,904; butter, £231,137; condensed and dried milk, £S1,877; pork, bacon and binns, £40.248: poultry and eggs, £47.100; total, £9,101,089.

Provided adequate encouragement be given to the man on the land and the necessary education be received by recruits to farming life, I have no doubt that Western Australia will be able to produce results comparable with those of any other State of the Commonwealth. The Labour party is desirous of passing legislation in the interests of the people, generally, and if has at all times tried to help young people. After World War I. I had charge of a factory in Western Australia where young exservicemen were taught a trade in two and a half years, and many of them are now occupying positions as foremen in factories throughout the Commonwealth. Excellent work is being done by the present Government in providing technical education for ex-servicemen to fit them to engage in both primary and secondary industries, and I hope that they will show their appreciation of the treatment received. I believe that in Russia the purchase cost of a farm is reduced by £50 when the first child is born to a young couple. There are further reductions of £75 for . the second child, and £100 for the third.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– 1 congratulate Senator Devlin upon the manner and matter of his speech My mind went back to 1926 when I had the honour to move the adoption of the Address-in-Reply in this chamber. It has been Raid that the speech of His Royal Highness, the Duke of Gloucester, is a colourless document, and that is, to some degree, true. It is couched in vague and general terms, having been placed in the hands of His Royal Highness by his advisers. Certain matters of great moment were, however, omitted from the speech. For example, I might mention immigration and water conservation. During two world wars we have had ersatz substitutes for a hundred and one different things, but there is’ no substitute for water. I suggest that the population which this country can carry is governed almost entirely by its water supply. The absence of any reference in the Speech to such matters as population, immigration, and water conservation is a grave omission. These matters are wrapped up with’ defence, a subject to which reference is made in the Speech only in vague and general terms. It is not so much what is said as what is left out, especially with regard to the need for preparedness, that impresses me. I read in the Speech that the Government recognizes Australia’s obligation to make a larger contribution towards the defence of the. British Commonwealth. That is a general and vague reference to a common scheme of defence in the Pacific by Britain, New Zealand and Australia. Australians should know what that vague phrase really means. Political assurances do not make a defence policy. When one ask?. “ What is Australia’s defence policy?”, echo answers, “What?”. No policy is laid down in the Speech, and it is possible that the Government has not yet considered what its policy shall lie. In 1942 this country narrowly ;] verted invasion <and occupation by the Japanese; yet to-day, even before the signing of the peace treaties, our defences have fallen away and are nothing more than plans on paper, if they are even that. In the air we have not one squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force on an operational standard, and there is not a squadron which could quickly be brought to that “standard. Air ViceMarshal Bostock in pointing this out stressed that even our Australian fighter wing in occupied Japan is using obsolescent planes. Signs of decay are evident right through our services, and as far as one can judge, there are no plans for a continuity of policy. If defence is neglected in peace-time, that neglect cannot suddenly be made good. In Australia to-day there are large numbers of men with operational experience in war, and steps should be taken to utilize their services, and so prevent the present lethargy from becoming permanent. If defence were only a matter of machines, and if we were sure that we would not need to renew our armaments for, say, ten years, I would still suggest that we should continue with training and research. As far as I can discover, no proper provision is being made for the future of the Air Force. As for the Army, all that I can discover is some reference by Mr. Forde, when Minister for the Army, to an interim army of 39,000 men. With fewer “than 50 recruits offering each week, it is clear that the Army will be below 30,000 men in three months time, notwithstanding the publication of such advertisements as I hold in my hand - “ There’s a’ specialist’s job for yon in the Army, perhaps, a trip to Japan. Modern armies are technical armies. Specialists are the order of the day. If you’re an engineer, electrician, radio expert, carpenter, &c, the Army has a place for you”.

And so it goes on. If we are to get a satisfactory response to these advertisements we must, as a beginning, ensure that the pay and conditions are good, and, more important still, that there is a future in the Army for those who join it. That is one direction in which Australia has fallen down in the past, and that is one explanation why the response to these advertisements is so pathetic. As I have said, fewer than fifty recruits in the whole of the Commonwealth are offering to join the Army each week. The Navy may get sufficient men to maintain the interim figure of 12,500 men which was announced some time ago, but we must remember that, with the possible exception of Tribal destroyers, our vessels are obsolete. Even our flagship is about 20 years old. The total strength of all the services is only a guess, and a bad guess at that, as to what is required to keep the machinery of our defence from complete decay and ineffectiveness. These totals mean nothing in the light of the phrase “ a larger contribution towards the defence of the British Commonwealth “. I suggest that a nation which cannot afford the manpower for a large permanent Navy, Army and Air Force in peace-time can do one of two things. The first choice, which is also the truly democratic one, and should therefore appeal to Australians, is that there should be universal training of young men in our citizen force. When Australia went to war in August, 1914, it was possible to produce a division and have it actually on the water on its way to Egypt in October of that year. Its men were fairly well trained; the personnel did have some skill with their weapons, and they were disciplined. That was because in 1911 universal training was instituted by the Fisher Government. Australia was much better off then than it was in 1939, when it had to improvise because it had discarded the democratic and just method of compulsory training, and had adopted the washed-out voluntary system. Failing to make that choice, we must leave military service to those who volunteer for it; and we can gamble on the result. Because we gambled in the past, many of our young men had to learn in the hard way when war came; thousands of raw militia men bad to take their elementary small arms course in the swamps and jungles of New Guinea because they had not had any training when civilians. I remember well in World War I. that, as the war progressed, draffts of young Australians came to us, and we had to give them what elementary training we could within a few hundred yards of the front line. It is a wicked thing to send the youth of a country into battle without training. But for God’s good providence and the help of the United States of America’ and other allies, many more young Australians would have paid a heavy price for our gambling. Are we going to gamble just as disastrously again? I hope not. The course is clear if we will only approach this matter in the right spirit. The Government should be as willing as is the United Kingdom Government to accept the idea of universal service should the military advisers to the Empire recommend it. It is imperative that the Commonwealth Government should provide money and materials for an interim force on sea, land, and air, which will make service attractive to the best types of young Australians. That brings me back to the conditions of service and the prospects for the future. At 45 years of age men in the Navy are “shot out on the beach “ and left to do the best they can for themselves. Security is not something of mushroom growth, and it is more than the expression of vague platitudes. Security can come only from the steady development of a sound plan. We must look ahead and decide on a policy; and there must be continuity of that policy. I well remember when the American Army joined us in 1.918 in front of the Hindenburg Line. I have seen many dreadful things, but I have never seen anything more horrible than the slaughter of the men of the 27th American Division because they were raw and untrained. Thousands of live? were thrown away because of their lack of proper training. It will happen again, unless we prevent it. To-day if we are not to perpetuate the same bloody mistake, we require not words but action. Will this Government have the wisdom and courage to take this essential and vital course? I devoutly hope so. It cannot be said that lying never pays. Hitler knew that technique - the greater the lie, the greater the profit - and that technique paid Hitler handsomely. He would have applauded one of the most successful Australian adaptations of his technique, and one of the most lasting, too, in returning profits, namely, the monstrous lie that the present. Opposition parties in this Parliament were wholly and solely responsible for the state of unpreparedness in which we were caught at the outbreak of the last war. At election after election that lie has served Labour well ;’ and it has served our side badly. Even- at the last elections there were obvious signs that that lie had by no means outlived its usefulness. Yet one has only to examine his own memory of relevant events between the two world wars to refute the falsehood. It will then be seen that this lie measures right up to Hitler’s standard in being actually the truth in reverse. The easily demonstrable fact, which not. even the hawkers of the lie would dare to refute, is that throughout the period between the two world wars Labour was not merely a passive but a most active “ no defence “ party. The active part in wrecking Australia’s dpfence establishments, and, right into the period of actual warfare, of opposing moves to restore them, were taken by Labour and by nobody else, unless the Communists can be regarded as a separate force. From the time Labour took the first action in its brief term of office in 1929-31 to abolish universal military service, it was anti.conscriptionist until war, panic and funk forced it to change its policy. Even then, by limiting the area of service to preclude compulsorily-enlisted men from helping in the rescue of Japanese-held and Japanese-tortured prisoners of war, Labour still looked at the voting angle and at that frightful price. That is Labour’s record which the most blatant hawker of the “ unpreparedness “ and “ defeatist “ lie would not attempt to disprove.

Senator Amour:

– I rise to order, ls the honorable senator in order in reading his speech?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - I was not aware that the honorable senator was reading his speech.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I am consulting copious notes. There is no substitute for military training. There is no short cut to defence preparedness. Do not let us fool ourselves into thinking that should another emergency arise we can create an army over-night. We cannot. That way lies madness and national suicide. When war actually comes upon us, we shall not have time to create an army. We must do so in peace-time, when we have time to train men and prepare. Otherwise, when war comes we shall be caught off balance. We shall become muddled, and become involved in the extravagant cost of improvising and, possibly, without having any chance, we shall be obliged to push untrained men into action. This means dreadful casualties. It is a bad “ show “ in every respect. I repeat that raining for war must be done in peace time. This foul doctrine, this vile lie, has paid regularly in votes. The Labour party knows that fact so well, that Australia now looks certain to continue its present drift into complete unpreparedness so far as the vital defence element of man-power is concerned. Since 1914, at various degrees of unpreparedness, Australia has been involved in two major wars. Realism demands that in future we must prepare constantly for whatever emergency may arise. In spite of any peace terms that, may be made, or any system of international organization that may be established compulsory military training is essential to the future security of Australia. For the past year or more good work has been done in an endeavour to build up an international organization that will, so far as it is humanly possible, prevent war. Notwithstanding any system which may be devised, this vast continent with its sparse population must always be prepared to defend itself. All future wars will be undeclared. They will break upon us without warning. Therefore, Australia at all times should have a large reserve force of trained civilians, a citizen army which is truly democratic. We must have a small leavening of professional soldiers. We cannot afford a wholly professional army. We must be able at short notice to reinforce with a trained citizen soldiery any professional army which we are capable of maintain ing. That would be more economical and effective than maintaining a large professional military establishment which would be quite beyond our means. That is the only sane and sound course for us to pursue. It has been said, and only recently the Prime Minister made some statement to this effect, that in the future war will be scientific. But all wars are as scientific as the period and the times enable them to be. Alexander and the famous Greek generals of ancient history introduced new methods of warfare in their day. We boast about tanks as a modern weapon. Hannibal employed tanks, not the tanks that we know, but armed elephants ; and these were effective until Scipio devised ways and means of defeating them. All wars are scientific. World War I. was as scientific as the world could make it. So to-day, because of technological advances, the geographical position of Australia no longer affords sufficient protection to us to enable us to prepare adequately for armed conflict after war has been declared. Therefore, military preparedness not only affords safety in the event of attack, but also is the best way to prevent attack. Every non-aggressor nation will help to promote peace by letting it be known that it is prepared to meet attack. Universal military training would give Australia greater status in the international sphere, and win greater respect for our international policies and proposals. In this country, universal military training should always be regarded as a vital defence measure. Committed as we are to the principles of democracy and the right of selfgovernment, our military forces would never he used in a war of aggression. Under our obligations to the United Nations, we might have to pool certain of our service resources. We might be asked to supply ships, or a number of air squadrons, or portion of our armed forces, in order to enforce the decisions of the United Nations. But. our forces would never be used for aggression. For several years in the immediate future the responsibility which Australia must shoulder as a member of the - United Nations will require on our part the maintenance of an efficient military force. As I have already said, it is beyond our means to maintain a wholly professional army. Therefore, we must reinforce our existing services by a trained citizen soldiery. Invariably, all great wars are followed by a period of unrest and uncertainty. That was the case after the World War I., and it is the case to-day. Australia should have a trained reserve of fighting men ready for any emergency. Unpreparedness at the outbreak of war always results in hasty, partial training which in turn - and this is the worst feature of it - means thousands of needless casualties. To train a large reserve of citizen soldiery would necessitate a considerable stock of weapons, munitions, supplies and equipment, and a programme of production of these goods should be embarked upon. In the past, the tendency always has been to permit stocks of weapons and war materials to become depleted. That occurred after the war of 1914-18. A system of universal training would give reservists an esprit de corps which cannot be developed in a civilian army hastily assembled after war has broken out. If called up for war service, reservists would be professionals because they would be trained; they would not be amateurs and that is the important point at which I am driving. When war is already upon us there is not sufficient time to give to a conscripted army the training that it should have had in basic military facts and skills. Imparting such knowledge is a long job and requires patience. Without these skills a soldier is far better to be not in the battlefield at all. Then there are also economic considerations, because preparation for war when war has already commenced, necessarily results in extravangance. Military equipment and supplies have to be produced hurriedly, thus causing general confusion and a substantial waste of money. The manufacturer of military equipment and supplies necessary for a universal military training scheme would provide employment for many people. We must consider also the personal values which are many and great. First, military training, provided it is given on the right lines, establishes healthy habits. It teaches personal health care, and this instruction is of great value in civil life. My conception of a compulsory military training scheme is that it should provide not only basic military instruction, but also, in a large percentage of cases at least, a valuable programme of vocational training. The two could be carried on together. When I speak of universal training, I do not want honorable senators to run away- with the idea, that 1 visualize many hours spent in close-order drill with precious little weapon training, and an occasional march on a Saturday afternoon. That was the old system, and although these things may have their use, to-day, they can be reduced to a minimum. Modern warfare demands that men should be trained in the use of weapons, the study of ground contours, and so on. At the same time, under a universal training scheme recruits could be receiving instruction in things which would he of the greatest value to them later on in civilian life. The training that I have in mind would afford lessons in co-operation, efficient team-work, and the assumption of responsibility. All these things go together. Discipline, too. is an asset to any individual in civilian life. There are many misconceptions and misapprehensions about the meaning of the word discipline, but I am speaking now of real discipline; in other words, a wholesome regard for duly constituted authority. None of us is very keen on discipline, and no doubt in the past, some of us have kicked over the traces, but discipline has its uses, and if there is one thing that service’ in the Army, Navy or Air Force teaches, it is prompt obedience to commands. I remind honorable senators of the old adage, “growl you may, but go you must “. To growl is a soldier’s privilege, and so long as he goes, he may growl. Voluntary military service has never been adequate, and universal peace-time training is a logical national policy. Compulsory military training in pence- time is just as democratic as is conscription in time of war. Training for war must be done in time of peace. My belief is that universal military training is of the essence of democracy because in the training camps, rich and poor live together and engage in common tasks - men from the city, men from the country, professional men and unskilled labourers all meet on the one level and work together. Such associations are valuable from a national point of view because they promote a wider understanding.

The time to decide the policy that is to be pursued in regard to military training in this country is now. Universal military training should be introduced without delay whilst we have the officers, instructors, and camp facilities available for such a scheme. To-day I believe that there is an awareness amongst the people of this country of our defence needs. It is true that the people are tired of war - after every war defence matters are usually in the doldrums for a while - but I believe that they are alive to the dangers that confront this country. In peace-time it is hard to dispel the sense of false security which blinds people to the most essential defence requirements, and I suggest that what is required is a fact-finding commission. Many people will smile at that suggestion because, in the past, there has been a tendency to throw anything but bouquets at commissions, boards and committees; but I believe that to-day there is a need for such a body, consisting of the most practical men in this country, to examine the whole problem’ of Australia’s defence in an atmosphere free from party politics. The commission could be appointed by the Government, or by the Parliament, and could include in its membership eminent judges, lawyers, professional men, scientists, educators, and perhaps a few senators and members of the House of Representatives.

Senator Amour:

– Free from party bias !

Senator SAMPSON:

– There would be a mixture. I do not suggest that there should be many senators or members of the House of Representatives on the commission but there should be some, and rightly so. Army, Navy, and Air Force advisers also should be included. The terms of reference should be on the broadest possible basis. A start should he commenced almost immediately - the sooner the better - and the commission -should continue its work until, such time as world developments, and an analysis of the lessons of World War II. enabled it to reach finality. The report of such a body would be of great assistance in solving the problems of preparedness and defence. Only in such a way can we establish a framework of a sound integrated defence system, keyed to our obligations to the United Nations and to our social, economic, and political life. Does any one of us, notwithstanding his faith in an international organization for the prevention of war - we have already had one experience of the failure of collective security - believe in his heart that we in this country with our White Australia policy, and our great unpopulated, territory, will not be challenged by the millions of Asiatics to our north, perhaps not in the immediate future, but sooner or later? My sons had to fight in this war and, although I shall not be here, I do not want my grandsons to have to fight in another war; but I should be very surprised indeed if they did not have to acquit themselves like men, twenty or thirty years hence. I suggest in all seriousness that we should take steps to put this country in the best possible posture of preparedness. It is a poor dog that will not fight for its own bone; Australians are the people who must do the fighting for Australia, possibly with the assistance of allies. When one studies, reads, and thinks about these things, one is confident that sooner or later this Commonwealth will be challenged from the north. It is nonsense to think that we can shut up in their own small islands forever, ,a virile race like the Japanese who have just been overthrown, or that the Germans will not rise again. A country cannot be occupied by the forces of another nation for all time; its people cannot be kept powerless. Therefore we must be prepared for what must inevitably come. Any system of military training provided by law in Australia should be designed on these lines : -

  1. It should be designed primarily to train men for military service under conditions of modern warfare.
  2. It should conform in its details to the requirements shown by experience in World War II.; and be influenced by future technological developments, and what is necessary to prepare men to serve effectively in the armed forces.
  3. It should be universal, and applicable to all classes alike, with a minimum of exemptions or exceptions.
  4. It should be fitted into the existing military, naval, and air force establishments.
  5. It should provide for training youths in such a manner as to cause the least possible interference with their normal education and careers.
  6. It should provide for training only, and should not require any kind of military service except in the event of a national emergency.

The main point is that the men would he trained. They would have skill and would be masters of their weapons, of whatever nature those weapons might be.

We cannot neglect out armed services if wo. as a nation, are to honour our bond. The success of the world security organization will depend on the continuing efforts and ability of its members to discharge the obligations jointly and mutually undertaken under the United Nations Charter. We must be prepared and willing to make our contribution of force to the United Nations. The alternative to a large standing army is the maintenance of a professional peace-time establishment, which could be reinforced in time of emergency by organized units drawn from the citizen army, which should be a reserve, effectively organized for the purpose in time of peace. I reiterate that the provision of a machine in readiness for war must be carried out in peace-time. We must do all of our war 1 1aining in peace-time. If we wait to do it in war-time, we shall be caught offbalance and will suffer very badly indeed. Experience has proved that the old voluntary system of military training is costly and inefficient at best. It is high time for us to discard that system completely. We have had plenty of experience of that system. World War II. was a ghastly laboratory for military science. The progress - if it can be called progress - made in the art of destruction, was amazing and beastly. We saw great developments in robot bombs and rocket bombs, in electronics, and in amphibious and” air operations that revolutionized warfare. The process is still continuing. We do not know what the future has in store for us. All such natural barriersas great expanses of ocean will be overcome. Time and distance have been annihilated. If we do have to face another war, Australia will have insufficient time to mobilize for training or for production. We shall haveto mobilize to fight immediately, because the war will be on us like a thunderclap, and it will be total war. I hope that other honorable senators read the recently-published story of the destruction caused by the atomicbomb dropped on Hiroshima. It made me shudder. We in Australia -must “maintain a constant state of preparedness for war. Weapons to-day are very complex They require experts to use them. It would be futile to start training men to use them after war had actually started. It is fallacious tobelieve, as many people do, that the human element does not count in warfare any more and that machines and appliances are of supreme importance. Aircraft will not fly by themselves and guns will not lay and fire .by themselves. The calibre of the men in control of the machines is the thing that counts, as it always has done. Men must be trained for war, because the sending of untrained nien into action would be a crime tantamount to murder. I repeat what I have said many times in this chamber, namely, that we should institute a thorough investigation of the whole problem of the defence of Australia. I was greatly disappointed that the Governor-General’s speech made no reference to water conservation or to immigration, two problems which are part and parcel of the bigger problem of the defence of this great Commonwealth.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I am very pleased to associate myself with the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply to the Speech delivered by His Royal Highness the GovernorGeneral last week. I am sure that honorable senators appreciate very much His Royal Highness’s statement that he regrets having to leave Australia. After the Seventeenth Parliament was opened, it was my privilege to second the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General’s Opening Speech. At that time, I drew attention to the fact that the first occasion on which a member of the Royal Family had opened an Australian Parliament was at the end of the Boer War, and I expressed the hope that during His Royal High.ness s term of office in Australia peace would return to the world. I am pleased that my hope has been fulfilled and that Australia, in common with other nations, is now grappling with the great problems of pence.

I join with other honorable senators in congratulating Senator Devlin, a new representative of Victoria, upon the excellent impression which he made upon us with his maiden speech. In doing so, 1 do not overlook the very fine speech that was delivered by Senator Tangney of Western Australia in submitting the motion now before the Senate. Senator Devlin is a practical farmer, and I am ure that we shall have cause to appreciate the value of his experience as a primary producer when we deal with some of the important matters that will come before the Senate. In recent years, much of the business of this Parliament has been occupied in dealing with vital problems affecting primary producers. *I regret that at present there is a possibility that the purpose of legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament to aid that great body of primary producers, the wheat-growers, ma.y be defeated ::s the result of the activities of certain politicians who presume to call themselves representatives of the wheatgrowers. The newspapers report that the legislation which I have mentioned may be rendered ineffective through the defeat of complementary legislation in the State of Victoria by the actions of the members of the Australian Country party. If these reports be true, those persons are not representing the interests of the wheatgrowers. The wheat-growers are appreciative of the legislation passed by this Parliament. They showed this by the way in which they voted at the recent elections. Whilst it is true that, in one or two instances, Labour party candidates were defeated in rural constituencies, a survey of the final results shows that an overwhelming majority of the rural population of Australia voted in favour of supporters of the Government responsible for the introduction of this legislation. I remind honorable senators that the bill was framed as the result of direct negotiations with the organizations which represent the wheat-growers. I have noted with a great deal of pleasure that those organizations have intimated to parliamentary representatives of the Australian Country party that they should not do anything which would endanger in any way the Commonwealth legislation or the complementary State legislation which was necessary to give effect to it. There is no doubt that some specious arguments were used during the election campaign in the hope of diverting the primary producers from their allegiance to the Labour party. Half truths were told. We had the spectacle of men who claimed, that they represented country interests suggesting that, the wheatgrowers should place themselves once more in the position that they were in a few years ago, when the present Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McLeay) was Minister for Commerce. On one occasion he told the wheatgrowers that the product of their industry was not worth 3s. a bushel. I also remember that when large gatherings of wheat-growers were held at Donald and Bendigo in Victoria to induce the government of the day to introduce legislation to help the farmers out of their difficulties, they were termed “ a lot of snivelling mendicants “. Honorable senators opposite and others who ask the wheatgrowers to reject the present proposals are bringing pressure to bear on the State Parliaments to reject the necessary complementary legislation. If effect were given to their counsel, the primary producers would again become mendicants seeking assistance from governments. They should accept the present scheme, and prepare against times of adversity. They would then be able to look the Government squarely in the face and say that in the times of prosperity they did something to help themselves. I believe that the great majority of the wheatgrowers favour such a policy.

Senator James McLACHLAN:

– Why is the honorable senator not prepared to support a poll of the growers on the matter?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– A vote was taken recently, and I am afraid that it was rather disastrous to one honorable senator from South Australia, Senator Mattner, who spoke of the necessity for a poll of the wheat-growers. According to correspondence which I have received from wheat-growers in South Australia, they said that Senator Mattner would get all he wanted from a poll. They rejected that honorable senator and other candidates from that State because they realize that the wheat-growing industry is rapidly becoming mechanized, and that the devastated wheat-growing countries of the world will be rehabilitated much more rapidly after World War II. than after World War I. They recognize that the period of high prices for wheat is not likely to continue for so long a period as it did after the first world war.

Senator James McLachlan:

– Is that why the Government limited the operation of the stabilization scheme to a period of five years ?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Honorable senators opposite are inconsistent in their arguments. They said that the present scheme would result in robbery of the wheat-growers, and then they contended that it should be continued for ten years. The erstwhile leader of the Australian Country party in Victoria, Mr. Dunstan, suggests that the scheme should operate for ten years. If there is to be robbery of the farmers, the scheme, according to the arguments of the Opposition, would result in continuation of the robbery for tcn years, whereas the proposals which the Government submitted to the growers permitted of a review of the position of the industry after three years.

Senator James McLachlan:

– The Government is robbing the farmers now, and it will retain their contributions to the stabilization fund at the expiration of five years.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am afraid that the honorable senator would leave the wheat-growers in such a position that in times of prosperity they would do nothing to help themselves, whilst in times of adversity they would go cap in band to the government of the day for assistance. Then they would, indeed, become “ snivelling mendicants “. The wheat-growers desire only a fair return for their labour and a guarantee of economic security. Senator James McLachlan, and those who agree with him, do not truly .represent the great body of the people, for they advocate a short-sighted policy. To-day, because the price of wheat in the world’s market, is high, they consider that nothing should be done to stabilize the industry. That is not the attitude of the primary producers throughout Australia, and I am sure that the attempts being made in the parliaments of some of the States to defeat the stabilization scheme will result, if successful, in the wheat-growers realizing the insincerity of those who pretend to be their friends. In South Australia, from which Senator James McLachlan comes, a general election will be held in the near future. That State contains a large body of wheat-growers, and I feet sure that the Premier, Mr. Playford, would be loath to countenance the defeat of this scheme. If the Government of South Australia wishes to remain in office I think it will take steps to have the necessary complementary legislation, passed by the Parliament of that State.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) described the GovernorGeneral’s Speech as a thing of shreds and patches. He said it was one of the most feeble speeches he had heard since he had been a member of this chamber. I should say that all honorable senators who heard the Speech, and those who have perused it since, will disagree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition. I regard it as a comprehensive review of almost every phase of our national life. It dealt with the important matters likely to engage the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives during the present session.

It is regrettable that notwithstanding the outcome of the recent world war, much of our time and attention must be given to the future defence of this country and the part that Australia must play as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We had hoped that, when the war terminated, the nations would be able to devote all of their attention to the many urgent problems of peace. Senator Sampson spoke with an air of great assurance, as though he were a generalissimo possessed of complete knowledge of what was likely to happen in the near future in the international sphere. He was ready to lay down plans for the defence of this country to the last detail. I venture to say that even honorable senators opposite possessing a greater knowledge of military strategy than that of the honorable senator would not be so bold as to claim that this problem is so easy of solution as the honorable senator would have us believe. In the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, the Government visualizes the difficulties lying ahead, and therefore it has asserted that Australia must co-operate in the defence of the British Commonwealth of Nations. “Who knows what particular type of armaments may be necessary in future, or whether large armies will be required ?

Senator Sampson declares that compulsory military training must be introduced, and that a vast military organization should be established immediately, yet there is a general demand for increased production. Should we take our young men out of the ranks of production and put them into the military machine? We cannot have it both ways. If the future of this country depends on increased production - and I have no misgivings on that point - careful consideration must be given to what we shall do with our young men now. This matter requires much thought. The atomic age is in its infancy. What the future has in store, I do not know and therefore I shall not attempt to lay down any hard and fast programme for the future. The Government has decided that it will be represented on the various committees which will meet from time to time to grapple with problems as they arise, by men well qualified to discuss the proposals that will come forward. Before committing ourselves to any definite plan we must take cognizance of world trends and the effect of the great discoveries and inventions that took place during the war. Senator Sampson spoke truly when he said that the war had turned the world into a great laboratory. We must await the results of the experiments that are being made and shape our course accordingly.

Sitting suspended from 5.^7 to S p.m.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, T suggested that in view of the discovery of atomic energy and its application to warfare it was problematical as to what action Australia should take in respect of future defence. Through the Governor-General’s Speech the Government indicated its intention to participate in all discussions on the defence of the British Commonwealth with the particular emphasis upon the role which Australia should play in the Pacific. With ourselves, our sister dominion of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are vitally interested in the maintenance of the peace in the Pacific. The Government has indicated that discussions will take place with the United Kingdom and the United .States of America on the future, control of certain bases. Australia is prepared to play its full part in this matter. It is unfortunate that in our day this problem should rest urgently upon us. It is regrettable that so much of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech should of necessity deal with the part which Australia, along with the other nations of the world, must play in evolving precautions against war in the future. I use the term “ precautions “ advisedly, because the current conferences of representatives of the different nations which fought as allies in the combat against the evil forces of fascism are beset with difficulties. Differences have arisen between our allies. The representatives of the peoples of these nations in their own parliaments and in international conferences must approach this great problem by first endeavouring to obtain the other fellow’s point of view. After World War I. our allies established the League of Nations. Unfortunately, that body was dubbed in some quarters as a “ retired burglars union “, the suggestion being that the members of the League of Nations had obtained all that they needed to maintain themselves in affluence, and that they were the “ haves “ whilst the “ have-nots “ were to be locked out of their councils. Bearing in mind these facts, we sincerely hope that the United Nations will proceed along different, lines. It is unfortunate that up to date little progress has been made. Jealousies arc developing among the United Nations. In these circumstances. every effort must be made at these conferences to obtain the other fellow’s point of view. Under those conditions the attitude of the Australian Government at such conferences should merit our approval. We have suggested that the exercise of the veto, which is part and parcel of the constitution of the Security Council, should be restricted. We believe that peace cannot be maintained if, at such conferences, one nation can veto the decision of the majority. Such a provision can completely nullify the work of these conferences. At least, the veto should be used only in very grave circumstances. If the exercise of the veto be limited in this way, the discussions at these conferences should go a long way towards overcoming the difficulties which have already arised. It is clear that little progress has been made towards establishing permanent peace. All of us uphold the right of small nations to work out their own destiny according to their own ideals. At the moment, unfortunately, this principle seems to be overlooked ; and one gains the impression that power politics are in play with the result that the claims of smaller nations which were conceded to them unanimously at the conclusion of the last war are not receiving the consideration to which they are entitled. However. I believe that as time goes on and the United Nations come to understand each other better, they will devise a formula which will offer some guarantee of world peace. The common people suffer most in war. Their aspirations are blighted by war. Therefore, 1 fervently hope that as the result of these deliberations a better feeling will prevail among the nations.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the Governor-General’s Speech consisted of vague generalities, and that it. was not worthy of the occasion. The honorable senator, who dealt with the problem of industrial unrest, said that because of recent industrial disturbances Australia’s economy was now at stake, and that we would not be able to develop this country as we should develop it. Whilst it is true that industrial unrest has occurred in recent weeks in the transport industry and other industries, I suggest that the honorable senator should look first for the reasons for those disturbances. I was associated for 25 years with the transport industry in Victoria. It is true that during that long period no member of the unions in that industry was called upon to lose one day’s work in support of a claim for better conditions. It is also true that no stoppage had occurred in the Victorian railways for about 43 years, and that during that period the unions by having recourse to arbitration had succeeded in improving beyond measure the conditions of railway employees in Victoria. For instance, the working hours of certain station-masters have been reduced from 108 to 88 a fortnight. I do not suggest that the recent stoppage was brought about just at the whim, or the will, of Communists, as the Leader of the Opposition alleged. I believe that the reason for that stoppage is that over a long period of years efforts have been made by those in control of the administration of the railway system in Victoria to circumvent the gains which the unions have made under arbitration awards. On every occasion we made a gain, certain officers in the administration did everything possible in order to whittle down those gains by their interpretation of awards of the Arbitration Court and industrial boards. That attitude on the part of certain officers in a bad administration engendered hostility among railway employees. We had successes; but, as I have said, we had always to fight a small coterie in the administration which was intent upon whittling down any concessions we gained through arbitration. I believe that that observation can be applied to industry generally. Nobody will suggest that men will strike just for the fun of striking. No worker desires at the end of a pay period to go home with a “ short “ pay. Every man desires to have as much money as possible in his pay envelope, but there comes a time when conditions are such that he ceases to work. It is then that the community takes notice of what is going on. So, I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to others who think as he does, that if they earnestly desire industrial peace in this country, the price of it must bo paid, and that price is justice to the workers. Recently, in this chamber, an honorable senator asked if the Government favoured forcing men to work overtime to increase production. Honorable senators who would favour such action would be better advised to consider whether men should be rewarded because of their increased productivity. Have honorable senators opposite ever suggested that when improved methods of production are devised, due either to the application of science, or the invention of new machines, the increased wealth produced by the workers should be distributed amongst them? “When, as the result of the introduction of labour-saving appliances there have been wholesale dismissals in industry, have honorable senators opposite ever expressed the view that the welfare of persons so displaced should be a charge on the nation, or that the increased wealth should be distributed amongst those remaining in industry? I have never heard such a suggestion. When the Opposition claims that the fixing of the basic wage should be left to the legal minds of men on the Arbitration Court Bench, have they ever thought that wages should not be based solely on the pounds and ounces of bread, tea, sugar meat, or any other commodity that the workers consume? After all, the workers are human beings, and surely they are entitled to be regarded as being on a higher plane than animals. The owner of horses and other beasts of burden measures out the amount of chaff or oats necessary to keep them in good physical condition so that they may work; but surely human beings are entitled to more consideration than that. So long as we continue to permit our basic wage to be determined by the number of ounces of foodstuffs, calories, vitamin?, and so on required by workers and their families, we cannot hope to bring about the improved standard of living for which we all hope, nor can we look for that new world about which we heard so much when every able-bodied man was urged to respond to the call to the colours, or to work long hours in order that the conflict would be brought, to a successful conclusion. We must have something new. If we want industrial peace, we must offer to those who create the wealth of this nation and of the world by the application of their labour to raw materials, something more than that which is handed out to them to-day. In setting up a special committee to deal with this matter the Government i? proceeding on sound lines. We must break new ground and get away from the old legalisms. If a committee is set up to go into the whole question of production, and it succeeds in introducing a new formula, it will have done something to achieve industrial peace. I have said on many occasions that it profits a worker very li tie to go home with his pay envelope containing quite a lot of bank notes and silver if that money has lost its purchasing power. We must put more food and other commodities into the basket that is taken as a measure by statisticians. We must provide a greater regimen for the workers. We must give to them a fair reward for their increased productivity.

Senator Leckie:

– Is there greater productivity in the world to-day?

Senator SHEEHAN:

-There i.greater productivity in spite of labour shortages, and the dislocation of industry as the result of the war. The individual worker to-day is producing far more than he ever did in our history. Members of the Opposition who den_> that are merely echoing sentiments that have been expressed down the ages by a certain class of the community, namely, that none of the greater wealth produced

Hi a result of increased production must find its way into tie pockets of those who carry out production; on the contrary, it must all go to the owners of the means of production. My friends of the Opposition will have to alter their attitude. The same arguments may be advanced with regard to a reduction of the working week. It may be that, at the moment, because of a shortage of labour, we could do with men working longer hours, but that is just a. passing phase. We musT take a long-range view of the matter. Unless the working week be reduced, there is no doubt that, within a short space of time, improved methods of production will cause widespread unemployment, and none of us want that to happen. Full employment is the important aim and if honorable senators opposite desire progress to be made in an orderly fashion, they must support the Government’s proposals. Unless they do that, chaos will result. It always amuses me to hear members of the Opposition denouncing the rise of communism and urging the Government to do this or that to suppress the Communists. The very attitude that they adopt on matters such as the basic wage and a shorter working week is conducive to the growth of communism. The Australian people who have made great progress in an orderly way during the past 30 or 40 years, with the development of trade unions, are proceeding along peaceful lines ; but constantly denying to the workers any improvement of conditions, the Opposition will assist to bring about the very state of affairs that they fear so much. As I have said on other occasions, unless the Labour Government can give increased benefits to the workers of this country, they will be forced to turn to communism. Therefore, if honorable senators opposite do not wish to see” any further development of communism in this country they should support all the legislation that will give to the workers a greater share of the wealth r.hey produce.

Referring to the recent elections for the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition said that Labour had won greater representation in this chamber than that to which it was entitled. I am reminded of the position that exists in some of our State parliaments. To-day, quite a number of people appear to be very anxious about the future of this chamber, because after July of next year there will be 33 Government supporters and only three Opposition members. It is not so long, of course, since exactly the reverse position obtained, and whilst there were ohe or two pious expressions of concern from members of the party then, in office, nothing was ever done. However, the party representation in this chamber after the 30th June next will come about as the result of a direct appeal to the people at, the last elections, on the basis of an adult franchise, with the principle of one vote one value operating. It is suggested that the Senate may lose its effectiveness as a house of review, but I draw attention to the state of affairs that has existed in certain State legislatures for many years. With the exception of Queensland, the bi-cameral system of government prevails throughout Australia. The upper houses are intended to be houses of review, but let us look at the franchise upon which they are elected. I have never heard it suggested that there should be a review of the constitution of the Victorian Legislative Council, to which chamber those who are opposed to the Commonwealth’s wheat legislation and other progressive measures are looking to frustrate the will of the popular lower house which is elected on adult franchise. It appears therefore that whilst honorable senators opposite are prepared to support an electoral system under which the upper house of the State of Victoria is able to deny to the people of that State and indeed, to the people of the Commonwealth, legislation that they desire, when, as the result of an election held on the principle of one vote one value, there is to be a preponderance of Government supporters in this chamber, they express grave concern. I feel that if honorable senators opposite would give reasonable consideration to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) instead of accepting the view of the Leader of the Opposition that the Governor-General’s Speech contained nothing worthwhile and held out little hope for the future, they would appreciate the fact that the Chifley Government has drawn up a programme that will meet the requirements of Australia, and will give to this country an opportunity to play an important part in world affairs. Under Labour’s administration Australia will be able to develop its industries to such a degree that the dangers feared by Senator Sampson and others will never arise. With increased production, and a growth of population, Auustralia will be able to fulfil its destiny in the Pacific area. Not only will it be able to take its place in this sphere, but also it will be able to lend assistance to the British Commonwealth of Nations as a whole in whatever role it may be cast in the future. We should not think only in terms of the armed forces that we could raise in the event of an emergency. We oan make other contributions to world security and the development of civilization. I appreciate that, owing to the present unsettled conditions throughout the world, it is necessary for us to make defensive plans, but the progressive nature of the present Government’s policy gives Australians reason to look beyond the troubled present to a long period of security and progress in the future. I commend the motion before the Senate, and believe that it will be agreed to unanimously.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

. –His Royal Highness, the GovernorGeneral, in his Speech at the opening of t he Eighteenth Parliament, said, that at m early date both he and the Duchess of Gloucester would have to depart from our shores owing to the fact that His Majesty the King would leave England early next year to visit the Dominion of South Africa. I am sure that the many thousands of Australians with whom their Royal Highnesses have come in contact during the past few years will regret their departure. We wish them Godspeed on their return home.

The assembly of this Eighteenth Parliament followed closely on the recent general elections, the result of which was that the Labour party was returned to power for another term of three years. In the House of Representatives, the Labour party has a decreased majority, but in the Senate it has an increased majority, and after the 30th June next year the Government will have 33 supporters in this chamber and the Opposition will be represented by only three senators. This result makes abundantly clear the fact that the method of electing honorable senators leaves something to be desired. The present system does not give to a very large proportion of the electors the measure of representation to which they are justly entitled. An examination of voting figures at the recentelections shows that the total number of votes cast for Labour party candidates was 2,184,432, representing 49 per cent, of the total, whilst the number cast for Liberal party and Australian Country party candidates totalled 1,913,956, representing approximately 43 per cent. of the voting population. In spite of the slight difference between the percentages, the strength of the Labour party in this chamber after the 30th June next will be eleven times- greater than that of the Opposition parties. I bring this to the notice of the Senate because I consider that it is entirely opposed to the democratic principles of Australia and because it is not in the best interests of the community. The Senate was originally designed by. the framers of the Constitution to be a States’ House to represent the interests of the different States, and that was why all States irrespective of their populations were represented by an equal number of senators. The Senate was also designed to be a house of review. During the last 46 years, it has become more a house of review than a States’ House. There can be no doubt that the Senate was able to serve the country best at a time when the difference between the numerical strength of the party in power and that of the Opposition was very small. At that time, the Senate was able to take full advantage of the combined knowledge, experience and ability of all parties. There have been rumours that, during the next three years, the size of the Commonwealth Parliament will be increased. If action should be taken to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives, it would also be necessary to increase representation in the Senate. This would be an appropriate opportunity to consider improved methods of electing senators, in order that voters might secure more satisfactory representation in this chamber. I suggest that consideration be given to a system of proportional representation’, together with other methods, such as that of electing senators to represent divisions within each State. There are various systems of proportional representation, but I consider that the method most suited to the needs of the Senate would be that which is used for the election of members of the House of Assembly in Tasmania. That system is proportional representation, with single transferable votes. This gives an opportunity for preference votes to be used. The basis of proportional representation is that the majority shall, ruN and that the minority shall be heard. 1 do not blame the Government for the position which has arisen from the latest elections. As Senator Sheehan said, a similar position occurred in reverse in L934. At that time there were 33 antiLabour senators on the Government side of the chamber and three representatives of the Labour party in opposition. The position then in relation to representation of the voters was just as bad as it will be after the 30th June next. Had proportional representation been in force, the results of Commonwealth elections would have been considerably different. In 1934, for instance, Labour party candidates for the Senate received 47 per cent, of all votes in the Commonwealth and anti-Labour candidates received the balance. Under the system in operation, the Labour party candidates gained no seats in the Senate at that election, and eighteen anti-Labour candidates were elected. Had a system of proportional representation with single transferable votes been in operation, eight Labour candidates and ten anti-Labour candidates would have been elected. Under the existing system, the Labour party was completely unsuccessful, whereas under the proportional voting system I have mentioned it would have won eight seats. In 1937, Labour received 48.6 per cent, of the votes and the non-Labour candidates 51.4 per cent.; yet 16 Labour candidates were returned and only three nonLabour senators were elected. Although the non-Labour candidates at that time received the greater proportion of the votes throughout the Commonwealth, only three were returned to the Senate, and the party which received the smaller percentage of the total votes cast had sixteen candidates elected. Under proportional representation, Labour would have secured only nine seats, instead of sixteen, and the non-Labour candidates ten. In 1919, the position was worse still-. At that period the Nationalist party’s vote in Australia was a little over ?60,000 and the Labour vote 819,S86. Although there was very little difference in the total number of votes of the opposing parties, the Nationalist party received seventeen seats and the Labour party only one. It will thus be seen that this anomalous .position has required correction for many years. 1 shall endeavour to explain briefly how the system of proportional representation operates. First, all valid votes are counted and a quota is fixed. This is obtained by dividing the total number of valid votes by the number of vacancies and adding one. Let us assume that at the last general elections senators were to have been elected according to the system of proportional representation. As three candidates were to be elected in most of the States, three plus one would have been divided into the total number of votes to -arrive at the quota for representation, and one more would have been added to the quota so that it would be impossible for four candidates to get an equal number of votes. The preference votes are counted in exactly the same way as at present. The candidate who polls the lowest number of votes goes out first, and his preferences are distributed amongst the other candidates until one receives either the quota or more than the quota. It is interesting to note that the preference votes of the elected candidate are not then distributed to their full value, but with a value in accordance with his surplus votes. That value is arrived at by multiplying the number of second preference vote,received by each candidate by the surplus votes over the quota and dividing by the total number of second preferences. This gives a value to the second preference votes which prevents one candidate from receiving the full quota by which the No. 1 candidate has been elected. I suggest that if the Government, proposes any alteration of the number of members in the House of Representatives or the Senate, it should consider the desirability of a thorough investigation of the proportional voting system. That would make the representation in the Senate more equitable than at present, and at least give some representation in this chamber of review to a large number of voters who, under the present system, get no representation at all.

In glancing through the speech delivered by the Governor-General I note, amongst other things, that the Government intends to explore the possibility of full collaboration with the Stales for the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis. I regard this as rather a belated effort to do something to stamp out that terrible disease. Undoubtedly, tuberculosis in a young country such as Australia takes a heavy toll of the population and particularly of the workers in industry. Steps necessary to be taken for the amelioration of the disease were indicated in the sixth report of the Social Security Committee, which carefully investigated the incidence of the disease in an endeavour to discover means of arresting its progress. Paragraph 87 of the report of the committee which was presented to the Parliament fin the 1st July, 1943, stated -

The present position regarding tuberculosis in Australia is a reproach to all who, possessing knowledge of the facts, have not done

I’Vi’rytliing in their power to secure substantially improved facilities and im-rensed tiiianrial provision to provide for early detection of the disease, economic security for the tuberiilous and their dependants, and modern facilities fnr treatment and. in suitable cases. n’l-uputionnl rehabilitation. Had -these adequate services been provided, tuberculosis in Viistmlia would now be n rare rather than a ri’hitivel y common disease.

Little has been clone to arrest the progress of the disease. “When the report nf the committee was presented, 30,000 cases of tuberculosis were known to exist in Australia and there were 2,500 deaths annually. These figures relate only to the known cases. There are undoubtedly many more about which we have no knowecige. Had action been taken in earlier years, more progress would have been made in checking the scourge. The financial statement issued shortly before the prorogation of the Parliament in August last shows that £300,000 was provided for the year 1945-46 for the treatment of tuberculosis, but the actual expenditure in that year was nil.

Senator Ashley:

– Because the States did not apply for the finance made available by the Commonwealth.

Senator COOPER:

– That does not absolve the Government of responsibility for action to check the ravages of the lisease. The statement appears in the Governor-General’s Speech that the Government intends to explore the possibility of fuller collaboration with the State.-. During the last twelve months nothing has been done, but I maintain that there is still an opportunity effectually r.o combat this insidious disease.

The report of the Social Security Committee, which was presented to the Parliament three years ago, contains thi> comment -

Expert medical opinion considers that the essential activities of a tuberculosis service can be broadly grouped under three nn-in headings -

1 ) Search for persons who have a tuber culosis infection sufficiently developed to warrant the use of the word “ disease either active or inactive;

Treatment of the disease in a sana torium ; and,

After-care and rehabilitation ot patients discharged from the sanatorium.

Aii economic factor arises in the treatment of tuberculosis. The patient requires many months of hospital treatment which involves separation from his family, who must be looked after while he is in hospital. The patient must be relieved of family worries. Many sufferers leave hospital too soon, with the result that they eventually have to return to hospital ir, a worse condition than previously An investigation made in New South Wales in 1934 disclosed that, the number of sufferers from tuberculosis admitted to hospital during that year was 767, and in 1939 it. was found that of those 767 patients 350 had died of tuberculosif and 329 had been re-admitted, whilst fewer than .K’O had been cured. This disease is taking a heavy toll of the community. There is, unfortunately, a shortage of suitable sanatoriums and preventoriums. In 1943 it was estimated that 2,963 beds were needed in the Commonwealth to cope with this disease. The best time to attack this disease is in its early stages, and, accordingly recommendations have been made to the Government that it should provide means of early detection. That can be done in various ways, such as skin testing by the Mantoux method; mass minature X-ray examinations of the population: the provision of chest clinics and hospitals where patients can be examined and accommodated for observation, diagnosis and treatment, and where X-ray or other diagnostic aids will readily be available; and by improving and modernizing the methods of diagnosing and treating tuberculosis as taught to students at the teaching hospitals attached to medical schools.

It is claimed that at the Papworth settlement in England no child born at the settlement has contracted tuberculosis. The spread of infection has been prevented through the care and attention given to the patients and through education.

We in Australia could well follow that example and set up similar after-care villages in this country. Many big camps which were used for war purposes could be made available for such a purpose. I strongly urge the Government to give consideration to this matter with a view to preventing the spread of this dread disease. It has been claimed by persons competent to express an opinion that if treatment similar to that which I have advocated were carried out, tuberculosis could be completely eradicated within 25 years. Australians have prided themselves on their social services, but if it could be said that action was being taken which would result in the conquest of tuberculosis in 25 years we would have an achievement

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– I congratulate Senator Tangney and Senator Devlin, the mover and the seconder respectively of the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, on the excellent speeches which they delivered.For some time we have known the ability of Senator Tangney, but it is pleasing to find in Senator Devlin’s maiden speech in this chamber evidence that the honorable senator will be an acquisition to the debating strength of the Senate. It is pleasing also to note that he is well informed on farming matters. The charge is frequently made that members of the Labor party are acquainted only with industrial matters. That, of course, is entirely wrong, but the presence in the chamber of an honorable senator with the knowledge of farming possessed by Senator Devlin will prove to be of great value.

The Eighteenth Parliament is the first Parliament to be elected after the cessation of hostilities. During the war the people of Australia, in common with the people of other belligerent countries, suffered a great deal. It is true that there is still considerable unrest in the world, and a lack of unity at the United Nations conference, but it is gratifying indeed to know that bullets are not being fired and that the people of the world are not any longer engaged in armed combat. It is better that the representatives of the nations should be engaged in disputations at conferences than that they should be at war with one another.

In 1943 a majority of the electors entrusted the destiny of this country to the Labor party, which was then led by Mr. John Curtin. As the result of that leadership and the good comradeship and loyalty which existed between him and his supporters, and because of the sound policy pursued by the government, Australia emerged successfully from the war. In the recent election a majority of the people demonstrated their continued faith in the Labour Government, under the leadership of Mr. Chifley. I regard the verdict of the people as evidence of the soundness of their judgment. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and Senator Cooper contended that the time was ripe for consideration to be given to an alteration of the method of voting for the Senate. I well remember the time when there was only one Labour senator in this chamber and 35 non-Labour senators supporting the then government, but I do not recall any great outcry against the method of electing senators at that time. Later, there were three Labour representatives in this chamber opposed te 33 non-Labour members, but again there was no great public outcry against the system which produced such results. There was no insistent clamour for an amendment of the Electoral Act. I have in mind also that Western Australia has a Legislative Council elected on a restricted franchise, with the result that in that chamber there are eight Labour members who are continually outvoted by their opponents. It seems almost impossible for the Labour party to gain control of the legislative machine in Western Australia, but there is no urgent demand by anti-Labour electors for an alteration of the electoral system which gives such results. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of proportional representation, or of any other electoral system, the people have recorded their opinions, and have shown dearly that, for the time being at least, there shall be a majority of Labour senators here. That- being the position, there seems to bp no great call for a change.

The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Speech was full of vague and indefinite generalities, and was practically a worthless document. He did not blame His Royal Highness for that; indeed he was particular to point out that the Speech had been prepared for him by his advisers. The Leader of the Opposition said that the first 51 paragraphs of the Speech contained very little, and that from the remaining paragraphs he could not glean a great deal. The honorable gentleman seems fit at all times to offer destructive criticism; rarely does he make a constructive suggestion. Despite his criticism of the Speech, I believe that it has considerable merit, and that if effect be given to the constructive policy outlined in it the people of this country will have little of which to complain. Much has been said in this debate with respect to the Government’s defence policy. Senator Sampson, who spoke for more than an hour emphasized the necessity to re-introduce universal military training. He also alleged that at the last two general election campaigns labour candidates and their supporters had circulated a lie to the detriment of Opposition candidates, the alleged lie being that governments supported by Opposition members had been responsible for Australia’s unpreparedness at the outbreak of the last war. The honorable senator said that our unpreparedness was due to the action of the Scullin Government in abolishing universal military training. On that point I should like the honorable senator to answer one question. The Scullin Government, which was in office from 1929 to 1931, was not succeeded by a Labour government until the Curtin Ministry took office in October, 1941. I want Senator Sampson and his colleagues to tell me why anti-Labour governments in the intervening ten years did not attempt to re-introduce universal military training. To that question the honorable senator can give only one answer. Those governments did nothing whatsoever to re-introduce universal military training and thus redress what, in the honorable senator’s mind, was apparently heinous on the part of the Scullin Labour Government. It is obvious, therefore, that blame for unpreparedness at the outbreak of the last war insofar as it was due to the abolition of universal military training must be shared by the anti-Labour governments which held office from 1931 to 1941. -

Despite what has been said by Senator Sampson the Government’s defence policy was clearly set out in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. That policy may be classified under three heads: First, the maintenance of forces for use in association with the United Nations for the preservation of world peace and security ; secondly, the maintenance of forces for Empire defence; and thirdly, the maintenance of forces for the defence of Australia itself. No individual member of the Parliament is competent to say offhand what will be our best method of defence in the immediate future. As the result of the last war, defence methods have undergone tremendous changes, and it is not within the competence of any individual member of the Parliament to speak dogmatically with respect to our future requirements. The Government is confronted with a very difficult problem. It is obvious that Australia is deficient in man-power. “We must remember that one-sixth of our total population was directly employed in our war effort. Of our population of 7,000,000, approximately 50 per cent, are females. Thus, we can draw our military man-power from only half our adult population. However, that source i3 further reduced when allowance is made for those who are not fit physically for war service, and also for that proportion nf the population which must necessarily be employed in the production of the requisites of war. In these circumstances we must act in the closest consultation with not only the United Kingdom but also the United States of America. The responsibility for the maintenance of peace in the Pacific rests upon Australia and the United States of America. It is not unfair to say that the best Australia could do would be in the role of a watchdog in the Pacific. The future defence policy of this country must be based primarily upon association with the British Commonwealth of Nationsand the United States of America. In view of these facts Senator Sampson barely touches the problem when he says that the only way to save Australia is to re-introduce universal military training. The problem, obviously, requires much deeper consideration. In view of all that has happened in recent years, and bearing in mind Australia’s commitments as a member of the United Nations, we must maintain a standing army consisting of the three branches of the services, the Navy, Army and Air Force. However, the composition of such an army is a. matter for decision by our military experts. I am not prepared to dismiss the problem as lightly as Senator Sampson does.

I am also pleased to note from the GovernorGeneral’s Speech that the Government’s attitude is one of unwavering support of the United Nations for the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter. As time goes on, we become more prone to forget the lessons of the last war, and to drift into a position analogous to that which existed after World War I. That war was described as a war to end war, but our victory on that occasion did not have that result. We fought the last war for our self-preservation against the evils of fascism and nazi-ism, which are anathema to democratic people. We must not forget the principles of the Atlantic Charter, or the aims and objects of the United Nations. Our objective now is to secure freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The peoples of the world must not lose sight of those four cardinal principles which are worth fighting for. We know that in all nations certain sections desire to prosper at the expense of other sections. The only way to defeat avarice of that kind is by guaranteeing economic security to the peoples of the world as a whole. By doing so we shall progress along the road to universal peace. In order to achieve that objective, we must first provide full employment and promote a higher standard of living among all peoples. The Government is endeavouring to the utmost of its capacity to give effect to those principles. Reviewing the recent economic history of Australians all of us will admit that we have made considerable progress in this direction. As a nation which now enjoys economic security we must be able to export more than we import. According to the latest figures available the value of our imports is now almost equivalent to that of our exports. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 146

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Air Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1946, No. 151.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. -

No. 32 of 1940. - Federated Public Ser vice Assistants’ Association.

No. 33 of 1940. - Federated Ironworkers’

Association of Australia.

No. 34 of 1940. - Postal Telecommunication Technicians’ Association (Australia).

Commonwealth Public Service Act -

Appointments - Department -

Labour and National Service - C. J. F.

Shaw.

Postmaster-General - R. L.O. Trainor.

Works and Housing - C. B. T. Austin,

H. W. Reilly, E. B. Scobie.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1946,

No. 153.

Customs Act - Regulations - Statutory

Rules 1946, No. 127.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descrip tions) Act - Regulations - Statutory

Rules 1946, No. 144.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for

Postal purposes -

Bundanoon, New South Wales.

Kilmore, Victoria.

Ringwood, Victoria.

Annual Report by National Health and

Medical Research Council on work done under the Act during 1945.

National Security Act -

National Security (Industrial Property)

Regulations - Orders - Inventions and designs (336).

National Security (Meat Industry Con trol ) Regulations -

Orders -

Meat (No. 30).

Stock (No. 13).

National Security (Shipping Co-ordina tion) Regulations - Order - 1946, No. 43.

Sugar Agreement Act - Fifteenth Annual

Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar

Concession Committee, for year ended 31st

August, 1940.

War Gratuity Act - Regulations - Statutory

Rules 1946. No. 154.

Wool Realization Act - Regulations -

Statutory Rules 1940, Nos. 129, 155.

Senate adjourned at 9.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 November 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19461113_senate_18_189/>.