Senate
7 December 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 19th Parliament
  3. 1950

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3863

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– On Wednesday last Senator Morrow asked me a question concerning the replacement of the small picking-up shed provided for the waterside workers at Burnie in Tasmania. I then informed the honorable senator that I would obtain the desired information for him. I am now advised by the Minister for Labour and National Service as follows : -

The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board and the Burnie Marine Board have agreed “on the location for the new pick-up centre to be erected at Burnie and the site of the building, but it has not yet been possible to call tenders for the erection of the building because the Department of Works and Housing has ‘been unable, for various reasons, to complete the preparation of plans and specifications.. The

S reparation of the necessary plans and speciications is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the very great demands made on the Department of Works and. Housing for all types of urgent construction; and it Is hoped that the stage will soon be reached where it will be possible for tenders to be called.

page 3863

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Interior by

Baying that I represent the State of

Tasmania which is noted for its moderation, its toleration, and its reasonable and civilized drinking laws. Is the Minister _ aware that in a report on the condition of hotels and hotel bars in Canberra ‘ the Commonwealth Medical Officer for the Australian Capital Territory, Dr. Moore, stated that it is a common spectacle to observe between 250 and 300 persons seeking to be served in -hotel bars .between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. daily? Is the Minister also aware that in June, 1940, tho population of Canberra was 1.1,200, and that by the end of June, 1950, it had men to 19,600, and that, in addition, 170,000 tourists visit Canberra annually? Will the Minister consider the need for adequately catering for these people, and when issuing permits for extensions to hotels insist on the provision of more homely and civilized accommodation along the lines of the British workman’s “ pub “, in which the people will be able to obtain a drink in a friendly atmosphere instead of having to fight for it as is the case at present?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the PostmasterGeneral, who is at present administering such matters, and endeavour to obtain a reply as soon as possible. If the Parliament is in recess when the reply comes to hand, I shall arrange for it to be posted to the honorable senator. Although the Minister is aware of the necessity for the provision of additional hotel accommodation in Canberra, the provision of housing has No. 1 priority.

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Will the Minister consider the allocation of a site in Canberra and the ultimate erection of a building thereon, in which women’s organizations of the Commonwealth may have federal office accommodation and a hall for annual conferences?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

It has been contemplated that a number of public organizations on a Commonwealth-wide basis would wish to have office and conference accommodation at the National Capital. Prior

U< the war there were negotiations with certain organizations that were interested to obtain sites and erect buildings for such purposes, both for their own needs and for the use of other bodies having, similar requirements. The war conditions caused those projects to be dropped, and the difficult building position since the war has doubtless been responsible for their not being brought forward again. There was never any suggestion that the Commonwealth itself should erect buildings for this purpose, but the Minister will be glad to arrange for his officers to confer with any organization or organizations interested in providing a building or buildings for the purposes indicated.

page 3864

SECURITY SERVICES

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– On the 28th November, Senator Benn asked me whether an endeavour would be made to have retrenched peace officers placed in suitable employment in other branches of the Public Service. I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator that, acting on a report of the Advisory Committee on Public Service Organization, it was decided that peace officer guards should not be used merely for the purpose of guarding property, except in special circumstances. As a result of the application of this policy, the services of a number of peace officers will be discontinued. The number in Brisbane is approximately 50. The numbers, in other States have not been finally determined, but the probability is that the approximate numbers will be: New South Wales, 40; Victoria, 50; South Australia, 30; Western Australia, fifteen.

Where necessary, caretakers and /or gatekeepers have been employed in replacement of peace officers. The figures for Brisbane illustrate the staff economy which results from this process; only thirteen caretakers and gatekeepers are necessary in replacement of 49 peace officers. There may be some additional risk of loss of property in the new system, but the cost of this, in the opinion of the Government, would be considerably less than the cost of maintaining peace officer guards. Where additional- caretakers or gatekeepers have been installed, such positions have been offered to the surplus peace officers. They are also eligible to register with the Public Service Board for temporary employment. This is a matter which is under the control of the Board, and it is not possible for the

Government to say what avenues of employment, within the Public Service, may be open to them.

page 3865

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 29th November, Senator O’Byrne asked me whether, in view of the circumstances that he outlined, the Postmaster-General would expedite the installation of the proposed automatic telephone exchange at Launceston. I have been informed by the Postmaster-General that sketch plans and estimates have now been completed for a new automatic telephone exchange building at Launceston, which is estimated to cost approximately £500,000. Because of the magnitude of the proposal it will be necessary for it to be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and action is in hand to have the project placed before the committee. Pending the erection of this building a measure of relief will be provided by removal of part of the mail activities from the Post Office to other premises. Alterations to the Post Office building are being carried out to permit expansion of telephone facilities and relieve the present congestion. The honorable senator may be assured that the completion of the relief measures and the provision of the new automatic exchange will be effected as early as practicable.

page 3865

QUESTION

BURDEKIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of the great importance to Queensland and Australia of the Burdekin hydro-electric flood mitigation and irrigation scheme, will the Minister representing the Prime Minister make a clear statement before the Parliament goes into recess about the Government’s intentions regarding the scheme ? Will he say whether the Government is co-operating with the Queensland Government in this matter in accordance with its election promises?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– It seems to me that the honorable senator has been misinformed. At no time did the present Government parties offer to co-operate in the promotion of the precise scheme formulated by the Hanlon Government in Queensland. That scheme was reported upon by Commonwealth experts, who declared it to be unsound. The Government intends to proceed with a scheme whereby the utmost benefit will accrue to the people of northern Queensland from the use of the water of the Burdekin River. Investigations are still being made, and full details of the scheme are not yet available.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Ministry of National Development has issued a. publication entitled Major Development Projects in Australia, in which the following paragraph appears: -

The Burdekin Hydro-Electric, Flood Mitigation and Irrigation Scheme, which is now under consideration, included in addition to the proposed irrigation project a hydro-electric station of 80,000 kw. capacity. The estimated cost of the whole scheme is about £30,000,000.

Has the Government considered that proposal, and does it intend to honour its preelection promise?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The honorable senator still seems to be under a misapprehension. As I said before, the precise scheme formulated by the Hanlon Government was declared by Commonwealth experts to be unsound. Under the direction of the Minister for National Development, a scheme is being investigated for making full use of water conservation and power generation in the Burdekin Valley, but the investigation has not yet been concluded. The cooperation of the Queensland Government will be sought in putting the scheme into effect. I cannot say when the project will be begun, but it is receiving the close attention of the Government.

page 3865

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 2Sth November, Senator O’Byrne asked whether it was proposed to offer the Australian Aluminium Production Commission’s plant at Bell Bay, near Launceston, for sale to private interests.

The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The answer to the first part of the question is “ No “. The remaining parts of the question are irrelevant and are, therefore, not answered.

page 3866

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport inform the Senate why, in view of the scarcity of dollars, the Commonwealth decided to purchase for the transAustralia railway diesel-electric locomotives from the United States of America, although the Tasmanian Transport Commission has obtained such locomotives from a British firm?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The American diesel-electric locomotives were selected by the Commonwealth on the advice of its technical officers. The honorable senator will appreciate that the long run from Port Pirie to Kalgoorlie is much more difficult than is the average run in Tasmania. Although the British locomotives, which are of a lower horsepower, may be quite suitable for use in Tasmania, the advice that we received, after a close examination, was that American locomotives would be most suitable for our purpose. We decided, therefore, to purchase the best.

page 3866

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 28th November, Senator Henty asked the following question : -

Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral direct the attention of the postal authorities at Canberra to the fact that there is a township of Perth in Tasmania ! Will he ask the postal authorities at Canberra to refrain from sending letters clearly addressed to Perth, Tasmania, via Western Australia, where, I understand, there is another township of the name of Perth ?

This matter was taken up with the Postmaster-General, who has stated that the postal sorting staff at Canberra is aware that there is a township named Perth in Tasmania, and that surface correspondence for that centre should be included in the direct mail to Launceston. Air mail from Canberra to Perth, in Tasmania, is routed via Melbourne. The staffs in the mail rooms at Launceston and Melbourne have been instructed to give particular attention to mail matter addressed to Perth, Tasmania, and it is hoped that there will be no grounds for complaint in the future.

page 3866

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Last week, I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs whether Lc would make available to the Senate a list of the nations whose forces were in actual combat in Korea. Will the Minister give an undertaking that an answer will be given to that question before the Senate rises?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am sorry that I have not been able to obtain the information that the honorable senator seeks, but I assure him that he will have a reply before the Senate adjourns.

Senator MORROW:

– In view of the useless slaughter now going on in Korea, will the Minister for Trade and Customs urge the Prime Minister to instruct the Australian delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations to urge the withdrawal of United Nations forces from Korea so that the Korean people may settle their own dispute?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Apparently any blood that is shed in the defence of an ideal is, in the opinion of the honorable senator, shed uselessly. Fortunately, there are still people who are prepared to die for freedom, and as long as there are such people, I hope that they will include members of the British race.

page 3866

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. Have the following roads been approved as strategic roads, namely: - (a) from Perth to Adelaide; and (6) from Perth to the Kimberleys via Meekatharra and Nullagine?
  2. If not, will the Minister give early consideration, pursuant to section 10 of the Commonwealth Aid (Roads Act . 1950, to the approval of these roads as strategic roads and, in view of their general bad condition, take prompt action in regard to construction and future maintenance ?
Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The section of ‘the Eyre Highway between Penong, South Australia, and Norseman, Western Australia, has been approved as a strategic road/ and maintenance works have been carried out on that section under the Commonwealth Aid and Works Act. Portions of the Perth to the Kimberley route have been approved as strategic road. They are from Meekatharra to Marble Bar, from the Fitzroy Crossing to Derby, and the branch road to the Wyndham aerodrome. Nullagine is situated on the Meekatharra to Marble Bar section. Funds have been made available for work on those sections under the Commonwealth Aid Boads and Works Act.

page 3867

QUESTION

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

Will the Minister cause a thorough investigation to be made by the Division of Industrial Development into the possibilities of establishing more secondary industries in the littoral area of Queensland between Rockhampton and Cairns for the purpose of providing employment for sugar workers and meat workers between the months of January and June of each year, or during such slack periods of employment as may be suffered by them, and cause a report to be furnished in the Senate showing the result of the investigation?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

I am well aware of the problem of alternative employment facing workers in the area referred to during part of the year. The Division of Industrial Development of the Ministry of National Development for Borne time now has been working in close consultation with the State Secondary Industries Division reviewing the possibilities of development along the lines contemplated by the honorable senator. Those studies will be pursued energetically and every opportunity will be taken of encouraging new development in this area.

page 3867

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator ARMSTRONG:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that British Centurion tanks are being made available to the Australian Army?
  2. Is ita fact that these tanks are already obsolete?
  3. If this is the best tank available from overseas sources, will the Minister take up with the Minister for Supply the question of construction in Australia of a tank embodying fire-power, speed and armour equal to the world’s best?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: - l.Yes.

  1. No.
  2. My departmentis continually in close collaboration with the Department of Supply, as well as with experts in other parts of the world, concerning tank design and all other matters connected with weapons and equipment for the Australian Army.

page 3867

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 3) 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th December (vide page 3762), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The Opposition supports this measure, which relates only to a very minor matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 3867

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th December (vide page 3762), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– This bill relates to the excise duty upon matches, and is really complementary to the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3) 1950, which relates to the tariff duty imposed upon imported matches. It is proposed that the excise duty upon matches shall be reduced in order to avoid an increase of the cost of matches to consumers. Price fixing authorities have decided that the price of a gross of boxes of matches shall be increased by, I think, 9d. I do not know how many matches there are in a gross of boxes.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Over 8,000.

Senator COURTICE:

– It would be impossible, even if it were desirable, to pass the increase on to individual consumers, because our currency does not make provision for the division of 9d. by 144. The decision to reduce the excise duty was a wise one, and the Opposition approves of it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 3868

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th December (vide page 3722), on motion by Senator Spicer-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator KENDALL (Queensland) Jil.3’0].- This is probably the most important measure that has been discussed in this chamber since I came into the Parliament. I was astonished at the strange course taken by Senator McKenna yesterday, although it followed closely along the lines of the tactics adopted by the Opposition in the House of Representatives when the bill was before that chamber. The honorable senator commenced his speech by saying that this bill is entirely national in its objectives, but almost immediately after having made that statement he attempted to give it a political flavour by foreshadowing his intention to submit a motion designed to refer the subjectmatter of the bill to a select committee, and in that way delay its consideration for three or four months. In an attempt to justify that course he devoted the greater part of his speech to matters which were completely outside the ambit of the bill. Whether that was a tactical political move designed to confuse the people generally and honorable senators on this side of the chamber, or whether the honorable senator did not read the bill properly, I do not know. The principal objective of this bill is to compel young men in the 18 to 26 years age group to undergo national service training for a period of six months. Senator McKenna obviously overlooked clause 28, which clearly states that a person is not liable to render service under the legislation beyond the limits of Australia unless he has volunteered as prescribed for service beyond those limits. It is difficult to believe that a man of his undoubted attainments could have misunderstood the bill or that he would have neglected to read it properly. If the

Opposition resorts to the political subterfuge of referring the subject-matter of the bill to a select committee for examination and report it will let down the voters who elected its members to represent them in this Parliament. Senator McKenna and his political colleagues agree, I am sure, that this bill is essentially a good bill. That being so, we should place it on the statute-book without delay and make any amendments that might appear to be necessary at a later date. Senator McKenna has said that war is not inevitable, and that the prospects of the outbreak of a third world war are not immediate. I recall that Mr. Churchill made a similar statement only a little while ago. The fact that war is not inevitable is no reason why we should not strengthen our defences to meet the eventuality of war. The stronger we make ourselves, the more able shall we be to support the aims and objectives of the United Nations, and the more will the possibility of war be pushed into the background. Senator McKenna, who has been the only speaker from the opposite side of the chamber, stated that it has taken the Government ten months to introduce this measure. He asked, in consequence, what would it matter if the measure was delayed for another three months while its provisions were considered fully by a committee. I reject the assertion that the Government has wasted ten months, because during that period all of the points that ware mentioned by Senator McKenna have been investigated. The decisions that the bill implements were made only after the Government had sought advice from the chiefs of the armed services and from high civilian sources. Inquiries were made also about the operations of compulsory national service schemes in other countries. It is of interest to recall that the United Kingdom, during the regime of a socialist Labour Government, saw fit in January, 1949, to introduce compulsory military training, not for six months, but for eighteen months. In September, 1949, the period of training” was increased by six months, making two years in all. Therefore, the contention that the Government has wasted ten months in connexion with this matter is not justified.

Some time ago I advocated the establishment of various committees, including a defence committee. Some honorable senators opposite are probably wondering why I now oppose the proposed reference of this bill to a committee for investigation. I am not opposing reference to a committee as such, but because the work has been already done since this Government took office. Perhaps the Minister will inform the Senate, when he is replying, whether the Government would favour establishing a permanent all-party defence committee composed of honorable senators.

I consider that improvements could be effected in connexion with certain minor provisions of the bill. For example, clause 29 exempts conscientious objectors from liability to serve. I consider that if such persons are to be exempted from actual belligerent warfare, they should be required to serve in mine-sweepers in the Navy, air-observer corp3 in the Air Force, or in the Army Medical Corps or some other non-combatant unit of the Army. They should not be allowed to slide out from under because of the provisions of that clause.

Clause 46 (3.) makes provision in relation to contracts of apprenticeship. Instead of apprentices losing six months, and thereby being required to serve under apprenticeship articles for five years and six months, instead of five years, I consider that during their six months’ training they should be attached to units where their trade training could be utilized, and that such training period should be counted as apprenticeship service. For instance, cadet surveyors could be attached to the Army Survey Corps and electricians’ apprentices could be attached to the relevant artificer arm of the Navy.

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– They do not come within the ambit of the bill. As I have said before, the vital provisions of the bill are good, and I consider that the debate should be directed to a ‘consideration only of whether the bill i3 or is not necessary. I challenge honorable senators opposite to say that it is not necessary. If it is necessary, why should its passage be delayed for three months or perhaps longer? Do honorable senators opposite sincerely believe that this bill is no good, or do they consider that it requires so many amendments that in its final form it would be no good? Alternatively, are they approaching the subject solely on political lines, pending a decision and direction to them by an outside body?

The principal provision of the bill is that men between 18 and 26 years of age shall be called up for six months’ training, during which period they will be taught the arts of war. As I have pointed out in my reference to clause 2S, the matter of service abroad does not come into the picture. Senator McKenna was quite wrong when he assumed, or endeavoured to make it appear that he assumed, that such men were required for overseas service in general and service in Korea in particular. I consider that those statements were made not only to confuse the issue, but also to make parents believe that their children would be sent overseas for service at the conclusion of their six months’ training. Surely honorable senators opposite agree that the international position to-day is similar in many respects to the position that obtained in 1939. The vital difference, of course, was that in 1939 no body similar to the United Nations was striving to maintain peace. I should like to recall to the minds of honorable senators some of the happenings during World War II. It will be remembered that by 1940 we had four divisions overseas but when the Japanese forces moved south with alarming rapidity in 1942, the 6th and 7th Divisions and subsequently the 9th Division, together with 452 Fighter Squadron were recalled to Australia. I am aware that these divisions were to have gone to Burma where they were urgently needed and their withdrawal completely upset Allied strategy.

Senator Nash:

– What would have happened to Australia if that had not taken place?

Senator KENDALL:

– I am not questioning the decision that was made by the Australian Government at that time. Nothing was further from my mind. Logically, no other decision could have been made. With the Japanese invasion very close at hand - in fact, much closer than the average Australian even now realizes - that was the only sensible decision to make. As Senator Nash was a member of the Senate at that time, he should understand the position.

Senator Nash:

– What is your complaint ?

Senator McCallum:

– Cannot Senator Nash ever keep quiet?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Cannot Senator McCallum ever keep quiet? There is no reason for the honorable senator to make such outbursts.

Senator KENDALL:

– If our civilian population had undergone military training it might not have been necessary for the Government to withdraw our troops from the allied strategy, and the horrors of the Burma-road might have been avoided. Honorable senators who have a full knowledge of what happened on the Burma-road will, I am sure, agree that a saving in that connexion alone would have justified, compulsory military training beforehand.

Conscription, as such, will be of absolutely no value in the next war. It has been stated frequently in the past that Great Britain loses every battle but the last. I suggest that in the next war the first battle may well be the last, because the type of warfare that we are approaching differs vastly from the types of warfare that were employed during both world wars. For us to wait until after war is declared before training men for the armed services would be to commit national suicide. It has been stated that the proposed national service scheme will waste six months of a boy’s life. I should like honorable senators to think back to when they were between 18 and 22 years of age and consider what a period of six months would have meant to them at that stage. I suggest that months are precious only to the older men. Senator McKenna has overlooked entirely one factor concerning young men of 18, 19 and 20 years of age, whom he described as nearchildren. I remind the Senate that it was the near-children of the Royal Air Force who fought the Battle of Britain, while many of the older ex-servicemen in this chamber will remember the near-children who towed them ashore at Gallipoli in World War I. I consider that men are mature when they reach eighteen yearsof age. It has also been stated that compulsory training teaches a boy that war is natural. I suggest to honorable senators that throughout our lives we engage in war of some sort. It is natural to fight; in the absence of fight, life would not be worth living. I am not referring to actual fighting in warfare, but to the fight to live. History records that we have gone from one war to another. The fact that we are relying very largely on the United Nations to prevent further wars is itself a reason why this bill should be passed. Unless the United Nations is backed up by its various members with something more than talk it can do. nothing. That has been shown plainly by the war in Korea. If the United Nations had had a strong and permanent force at its disposal the present conflict might never have started. Australia, as one of the members of the United Nations, must keep itself strong. In any case, I do not believe that six months of discipline and good, healthy training will do our boys any harm, even if there is never any fighting to do. In fact such training can only do them good. In the average family to-day, discipline is rather slack. Because of the views I hold, I have been termed a warmonger by those who hold different opinions. Therefore, it is only fair to myself and to my argument to say that I served for nearly four years in the firsworld war, and for six full years in the second world war. I know something of what I am talking about. I believe that my arguments are sound, just as I believe this bill is sound in its essentials. Exservicemen among the Opposition must surely agree with me that we should try to prevent the horror and degradation and suffering that accompany war. One way to prevent that is to be militarily prepared. No ex-serviceman, however little service he saw, can have forgotten his war experiences. On this question, it is not a matter of what party we belong to; it is a matter of remembering. It is our duty to do what we can to prevent war from breaking out.

During the week-end, most newspapers carried two items of news on their front pages. On the one side, were headlines about the cricket test match in Brisbane ; -on the other side, under banner headlines of the same size, waa the news from Korea. I could not help thinking that that summed uv> the position for us here in Australia. On the one side there was the cricket which, in a sense, stands for much of what we hold good in life - sportsmanship, good fellowship, crowds, peace and friendly competition between countries of the British Commonwealth. On the other side there was the exact opposite - Korea, and all its implications.

I appeal to members of the Opposition not to put this bill in cold storage for another three or four months. Let us put its fundamental provisions into operation without delay, and then let us appoint a committee to investigate matters. We do not want another generation of young men to go through what previous generations experienced by going into battle half trained. As Senator Gorton pointed out, many of our boys who lost their lives in the last war might not have died if they had been properly trained. Let us forget politics and parties. I appeal to honorable senators opposite to use their influence to have this bill passed. Surely peace of conscience should mean more to them than the approval of some outside party executive. 1 cannot do better, in concluding my speech, than to quote Byron’3 famous couplet -

A thousand years scarce serves to form a state;

An hour may lay it in the dust.

This may be that hour for Australia.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– Senator Kendall said that compulsory military, training was in force in other countries. That is true, and much could be said about its undesirable features. Conscription was first introduced in Europe by Napoleon in 1798 and I see no essential difference between conscription and compulsory military training. They are both expedients adopted for military purposes, and are similar in their effects. Senator Kendall referred to compulsory military training in Britain. On the 15th January this year, Lord Moynihan, chairman of the Liberal party executive, said that as long as

Great Britain had conscription it would never have a proper defence system, or be able to take part in European defence. He urged the formation of a streamlined and highly efficient regular army instead. Lord Moynihan, himself an officer in the Territorial army, added that with conscription there was no likelihood’ of reducing the present appalling expenditure of £800,000,000 on defence. I refer to that statement in order to show that there is no unanimity on this question in any country.

The Labour party does not state uncompromisingly that Australia should not take part in any war. In my opinion, a war of defence in the strictest sense can be justified, but wars of aggression cannot be justified. When a war, begun allegedly in defence, is allowed to become a war of offence or aggression, then the power vested in those in charge has been abused. We are concerned with such abuse of power. Without referring to any other country, let us see what has happened in Australia in the past. The late Senator E. D. Millen, and ex-Senator Sir George Pearce, during the two and a half years between the 1st January, 1912, and the 30th June, 1914, were responsible for instituting 27,749 prosecutions against youths on charges of evading military service. In many cases, fines were imposed, but in no fewer than 5,732 cases youths were imprisoned in fortresses or in civil prisons. That indicates quite clearly that the powers were grossly abused. For the three months ended -the 30th September, 1914, there were 234 detentions. In the following three months, there were 258, and in the next three months 869. The total number of detentions in fortresses and prisons - including sentences of solitary confinement for mere boys - was 7,093. That was in this country. It shows conclusively that the system of management was one to which strong objection should be taken. An examination of records reveals that, in many instances, military officers took it upon themselves to usurp the authority of parents. In fact, they were given thaauthority by the Government. Parents were practically ignored. There is nothing to indicate that the system of administration now proposed will be any different from what it has been in the past. We are justified in speaking from experience; we are justified in drawing attention to past injustices; and we are justified in pointing out that there is room for considerable improvement. We want to know precisely what is intended. If we did not adopt that stand, we should bo remiss in our duties and obligations to those whom we represent.

My principal objection to compulsory military training under the conditions that obtained in this country up to 1915 is that it can lead ultimately as it has done in other countries, to military control of the civil populations. So-called democratic rights go by the board.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Is that happening in Great Britain at present?

Senator CAMERON:

– I have already quoted one authority. I could quote others had I time to do so. I invite the honorable senator to read about the enforcement of compulsory military training, not only in Great Britain to-day, but also in the United States of America and in other countries. She will find that in most instances, power delegated to military authorities has been abused. A similar tendency is developing in this country. Parents know that and are reluctant to acquiesce in the Government’s compulsory military training scheme. Ex-servicemen, too, know what is happening. They have in mind, for example, the extent to which their purchasing power has been reduced whilst this Government has stood idly by. Compulsory military training can easily lead to political dictatorship similar to that which existed in Germany, Italy, Japan and other countries before World War II.

Senator Wedgwood:

– The honorable senator does not agree with the British Cabinet’s view on compulsory military training?

Senator CAMERON:

– I do not question the sincerity of the British Government any more than I question the honorable senator’s sincerity, but I do question the manner in which the system is being administered in Great Britain. Very strong objection has been taken by influential persons to the manner in which the British scheme is being administered, and to the injustices to which conscripts are being subjected in that country.

Conscripts may he divided into two categories - those who are willingly conscripted and those who are unwillingly conscripted. However, they are all conscripts, although some may be called volunteers. If they are prepared to sacrifice their lives, the least we can do is to treat them in the best way possible, but that is not intended. In the debate on this measure in this chamber and in thu House of Representatives, no Government supporter has suggested that wealth, too, should be conscripted. Wars will continue to be capitalized as they have been in the past. Universal training will be capitalized as it has been in the past. What about the principle of equality of sacrifice? The moneyed classes have never made sacrifices in war-time. Speaking from memory, Great Britain has been involved in more than 50 wars since 1S00. but I cannot recall any occasion on which wealth was not accumulated by some individuals as a result of the wars. The fortune of the Rothschilds was founded after the battle of Waterloo as a result of war profits. These thoughts are permeating the minds of young men and women to-day, and that is why they are disposed to be critical of the Government’s proposal. Why should our young manhood be called upon to make thi; supreme sacrifice while other more fortunately placed individuals are to be permitted to capitalize the sacrifices of our fighting men? There is an obligation upon all of us to do our best for th, members of our armed forces, but wshall not be doing our best if we continue to permit wars to be capitalized. We all know that, even in Australia, profits amounting to many millions of pounds have been amassed as the result of wars. We are paying millions of pounds in interest to investors in war loans. If this country is, in fact, in great danger, why should there not be equality in sacrifice, not just in theory but also in practice? Why not cancel our war debts? In cases of hardship pensions could be paid. Thus, the Commonwealth could be relieved of its obligations to pay out many millions of pounds annually, and that money could he diverted to reproductive work.

Senator Wedgwood:

– In other words, the honorable senator would repudiate contracts.

Senator CAMERON:

– This Government intends to repudiate contracts with young men. Do I understand the honorable senator to mean that if contracts with our fighting men are repudiated, that is justified?

Senator Wedgwood:

– Nonsense !

Senator CAMERON:

– That is the implication contained in the honorable senator’s question. I point out that war debts may have to be cancelled, because if the present position in Korea develops into another global or world war, this country will not be able to continue to pay away millions of pounds to people who serve no useful purpose in society. When the honorable senator speaks of repudiation, she might also speak of increasing taxes on the higher incomes, striking a capital levy, or interfering with the authority of those people who dictate under what conditions wars shall be financed. All those matters could be said to be repudiation of a kind. During the last war, it was found necessary to take very drastic action against people whose sole thought was to see how much profit they could make out of the war and the sacrifices involved in that war.

A great deal of thought is concentrated on the conscription of life for war purposes, but not one word is spoken about the conscription of wealth for war purposes. If it is proper to conscript men and women and if it is their duty to serve in a war of defence, then it is also proper that the wherewithal to maintain them should be provided by those in a position to do so, especially by those who are serving no useful purpose.

Senator Robertson:

– That doctrine would not be very popular with the topranking socialists who are the capitalists in England to-day!

Senator CAMERON:

– I am not suggesting that it would be. No radical reform that has been instituted in the world has been popular at the beginning. Most reforms go through three stages. First, there is uncompromising opposition, as the honorable senator has suggested; secondly, there is critical toleration ; and finally, there is complete and unanimous approval. In this country, when it was first suggested that workers in the State of Victoria should have the right to vote for members of Parliament, the suggestion was npt popular with the top-ranking people at that time, and it was resisted by armed force. Ultimately, the justice of it was seen, and finally a virtue was made of necessity. That is why we have the right to vote in this country. I am not concerned with whether a suggested reform would be popular with the people who call themselves top-ranking socialists, non-socialists or Communists. All that I am concerned with is to combat arguments which indicate, to say the least, that although it is insisted that life shall be conscripted, not one word shall be spoken in favour of conscription of wealth. The sacrifices of millions of young men are capitalized by allowing war-time contractors, financiers and other persons to accumulate vast wealth as the result of wars. According to official figures, there were approximately 6,000,000 unemployed in the United States of America-

Senator Kendall:

– I rise to a point of order. With deference to you, Mr. Deputy President, I suggest that honorable senators on this side of the chamber would like to hear the views of the Opposition on the bill before the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Is anything interfering with honorable senators hearing those views ?

Senator Kendall:

– I suggest that Senator Cameron has not discussed the bill at all.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order! There is no point of order involved. As long as Senator Cameron connects his remarks with the bill, he is in order.

Senator CAMERON:

– I have already stated that this bill provides, in effect, for the conscription of human life.

Senator Hannaford:

– It does nothing of the kind.

Senator CAMERON:

– That is a matter of interpretation. I point out to the honorable senator that the youths whom it is proposed to conscript have never had a vote, nor have they given this Government any mandate. The Government has acted entirely without mandate.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– That is untrue.

Senator CAMERON:

– Youths under 21, whom it is proposed to conscript, have never had the opportunity to exercise a vote on this matter. If the position develops as it seems likely to develop, it is possible that they will never enjoy that privilege. Yet this Government sets itself up as an authority to say what those youths should do with their lives. I wonder what honorable senators opposite would do if the boot were on the other foot and if the youths of Australia had authority to say what honorable senators should do with their lives. I can imagine the resistance there would he to such a position.

Senator Mattner:

– The Government does not receive authority from them to collect taxes when they are under 21 years of age.

Senator CAMERON:

– If the Government requires the services of a young man, either in industry or in the fighting forces, that young man, within limitations, should have the right to say “Yes” or “ No “.

Senator Mattner:

– Would the honorable senator apply that rule to the collection of taxes?

Senator CAMERON:

– I would. I have never had any trouble in that connexion. The Department of Aircraft Production was a conspicuous success, and as the Minister in charge of that department, and also as Postmaster-General, I operated on the principle of conference and agreement. When disputes arose, I called in the people who maintained that they were not being fairly treated, and as the result of agreements reached, that department was able to carry on successfully. I am attempting to point out to honorable senators that this bill proposes to conscript youths who have not been consulted, and whom it is not proposed to consult.

Senator SPICER:

– Does the honorable senator contend that children should be consulted before they are compelled to go to school?

Senator CAMERON:

– That is a different matter altogether. I remind the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that children who do not go to school are not put in gaol and placed in solitary confinement. Yet that action was taken in Australia, and involved, in some instances, boys of twelve years of age. That is the difference between compulsory education and compulsory military training. The homes of parents are not invaded, and schoolboys are not arrested, because they do not attend school. The procedure in that connexion is carried out in the ordinary way. “ Senator Wood. - What does the honorable senator think about the taxation of people under 21 years of age?

Senator CAMERON:

– My answer to the honorable senator’s question is that I would give to all persons who have reached the age of eighteen years the right to vote. The moment that the Government requires the services of those young people in a useful capacity, it is under an obligation to consult them. It has no right, either divine or moral, to exercise absolute authority, not only over the boys and girls, but also over their parents.

Senator Wood:

– What about boys under eighteen years of age who are taxed ? Would the honorable senator also give them the right to vote?

Senator CAMERON:

– It would depend on the circumstances. If I required the services of a number of persons, I should consult them. That is the proper approach to any question.

Senator Robertson:

– Is not defence the prerogative of the Government ?

Senator CAMERON:

– The Government is, so to speak, the management. It operates subject to certain powers. What I am objecting to is that it is proposed to give this Government powers similar to those that were abused previously. In the light of that experience, the Opposition is justified in taking up its present stand upon this matter. How do we know that, under this measure, this

Government will not do things as bad or even worse than those that were done previously ? If that happened, we should find, as several critics in England have said of the British scheme, that the scheme was defeating itself. Honorable senators opposite say that this is merely a matter of passing a bill and allowing the Government to get on with the job, but there is a great deal more involved in it than that.

Senator Gorton:

– Who are the critics to whom the honorable senator has referred ?

Senator CAMERON:

– If the honorable senator was not listening when I mentioned them, the responsibility is his, not mine.

We all desire world peace, but, in my judgment, there can be no world peace without universal disarmament. All preparations for war constitute a challenge. Preparations for war having been made, the only question is when and where the war will begin. Senator Kendall said that, in his judgment, war was natural. If it be natural that is no reason why there should be no objection to it. The human race has evolved to the stage when we say that wars of aggression should be outlawed, but, by implication, Senator Kendall justifies wars of aggression because he says that war is natural. Quite a number of people have said that war is a biological necessity. These smart phrases are used in the belief that they have their origin in the results of scientific research, but that is not so. In mv opinion, the only stand that we can take is to justify wars of defence, in the strictest sense of the term. Practically every nation to-day is preparing for war. That being so, war will come, and if it does come, we may all be destroyed by hydrogen bombs or atomic bombs.-

Very few people are adopting a critical attitude in relation to this matter. The majority are prepared to accept what certain people say ex cathedra. The Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Mr. McLeay) has said that members of this chamber are not competent to express an opinion on these matters, but I say that we are just as competent to express an opinion as is any other member of the Parliament. We are expressing our opinion now ; in the light of our experience and knowledge we are here to discuss among ourselves what it is best to do.

The Opposition proposes that the measure shall be referred to a select committee. I believe that that would be the proper course to adopt, especially in view of the way in which a similar power was previously abused in this country. Personally, I am not prepared to accept at their own valuations those who speak on behalf of the Government. I have had far too much experience to do that. We are prepared to confer upon this matter. We are prepared to listen to whatever suggestions may be made by the Government, and we want the Government to reciprocate by listening to the suggestions that we make.

Senator Spicer:

– The Opposition is not prepared to make up its mind upon this bill.

Senator CAMERON:

– We have made up our minds about it so far. I shall not allow the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to make up my mind for me, and I know that he will not allow me to make up his mind for him.

Senator Mattner:

– Has the Opposition made up its mind about whether this country is to be defended or not? That is the question.

Senator CAMERON:

– Everything depends upon conditions. We are not prepared to accept the bill in its present form because the conditions have not been fully explained to us. The AttorneyGeneral delivered a lengthy secondreading speech upon this measure, but 75 per cent, of the speech was what writers describe -as padding. An editor could have reduced the speech by about 75 per cent, without weakening it in any way. Those who try to cultivate the very useful habit of close and critical reading want to know exactly what was meant by the speech.

I conclude upon the note that we want world peace and that we must do everything possible to achieve it. The human race has made remarkable progress in controlling the forces of nature, but it has still a long way to go in connexion with the control of social forces. We shall not be able to control social forces effectively enough to abolish war until a more scientific approach has been made to the problem than has yet been made by this Government.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– This is a bill for an act to provide for national service in the defence forces and for other purposes. The principal proposal is that young men in this country of eighteen years of age shall be required to undergo, over a period of five years, 176 days’ military training. My criticism of the bill is that it does not go far enough. I believe that, in view of lie development of modern weapons and methods of warfare, it is essential that our young men shall be trained for at least six months. Otherwise, they will not be fit to take the field against the trained troops of other nations. I say without equivocation that a nation which sends its young men, untrained or partially trained, into the field to fight trained armies equipped with modern weapons, is guilty of coldblooded murder. We saw what happened in Korea recently when troops of an army of occupation were sent to fight there. The worst fighting troops in the world are those of armies of occupation. Their duties are parade ground duties ; they are not trained for warfare and are soft. The troops that were sent to Korea from the army of occupation in Japan learned to fight properly as the result of bitter experience and at the cost, not only of tremendous quantities of equipment, but also of many lives. The Opposition party, which includes in its membership a number of men who served in the armed forces in two world wars, in proposing for political purposes to delay the passage of this legislation is guilty of one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy of which I have ever heard. It is an absolute disgrace to the great Australian Labour party that its parliamentary representatives should even dare to consider taking such a step. Senator Cameron was guilty of the uttermost foolishness when he said that the only way in which we can obtain world peace is by disarming. How could we achieve world peace by disarming? Is the hawk any less cruel because it sees that the quail is inoffensive ? Not at all ; that is the sole reason why he attacks it. Does the honorable senator imagine that if the British Commonwealth countries and the United States of America disarmed, Russia would for one second hesitate to attack us if it suited its purposes so to do? The leaders of the countries of Western Europe are greatly worried to-day” because they have not at their disposal forces which are capable of standing up to the great armies which Russia can put into the field. In an earlier debate, I said that Russia had 184 divisions at war strength. I greatly understated the position. That country now has 5,000,000 men under arms and vast additional forces in its satellite States. In eastern Germany it has three armies, each fully equipped and supplied with tanks, guns and aeroplanes. Like the Zulu who sends an untried warrior ahead and stabs him if he does not fight, Russia will send troops of its satellite States ahead of the Russian forces, and if they fail to conquer the enemy they will be dealt with by the Russians as ruthlessly as the Russians have dealt with their own people.

This bill does not go far enough. What the Government proposes to do in twelve months should be done in three months. The only criticism I offer of this bill is that it represents too little, too late. I have been informed that the Chiefs of Staff advised the Government that it was not practicable to bring this scheme into operation at an earlier date than is now proposed. If that is so, I should have dismissed the chiefs of staff and replaced them by men who could do a better job. The Opposition has adopted an unreal attitude to this proposal. Not long ago, after the Munich agreement had been signed, when the Menzies Government increased the budgetary provision for defence from £11,000,000 to £14,000,000, the late John Curtin said that it was endeavouring to create a war complex to bolster its own position, and that there was then no possibility of an immediate outbreak of war. A similar story has been told to us to-day. Senator McKenna has asked whether there is real danger of war. Can he not see the danger that faces us? If, instead, he had asked whether there was real hope of escaping a third world war, his question would have been much closer to reality. When the late John Curtin criticized the defence preparations of the Menzies Government the present honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) - a stalwart of the Labour party - said that he would not spend one penny on defence while a single woman or child in Australia was unable to obtain sufficient milk. If the Russians came to this country our women and children would not get much milk, and certainly none of the milk of human kindness. If they were allowed to live, they would be the slaves of a brutal and tyrannous race. Another stalwart of the Labour movement, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), said that he would not send one man from Australia to defend New Guinea. He said, in effect, “ Let the gold-miners who have exploited the New Guinea natives and the planters who have exploited the wealth of that country, fight for its protection “. Would any honorable senator dare to say to-day that if we had allowed Japanese settlers to remain in New Guinea permanently, Australia could have escaped invasion? New Guinea is as vital as is Newcastle to the defence of this country. If the Indonesians bluff the Dutch and seek to take over Dutch New Guinea we must be in a position to say to them, “ You must be prepared to fight for it”. Only the nationals of friendly powers should be permitted to settle in New Guinea. The Indonesians once having established themselves there would demand within twelve months that that part of New Guinea which is administered by Australia be also handed over to them. New Guinea in the hands of the Indonesians would be a stepping stone for the great masses of the eastern peoples who some day will fasten their eyes on Australia and demand the right to populate our great empty spaces.

Senator Morrow:

– The United States of America is supporting the claims of the Indonesians against the Dutch.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I am not particularly concerned about what the Americans may do. Our neck, and not theirs, is in the noose. This year the Government proposes to spend £133,000,000 for defence purposes. A great deal of the money will be used for the stock-piling of defence requirements. Too little is to be spent on the training of men for the fighting services.

Senator Ashley:

– Why does not the honorable senator say so in his party room?

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I have never hesitated to speak my mind in the party room any more than I have hesitated to say what should be said to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) .

Senator Ashley:

– Apparently the honorable senator is lining up with “ Joe “ Gullett !

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– If I did so I should be in the company of a man in whose face our enemies are not keen to look. We must be prepared to meet any eventuality. The writing on the wall is plain for any one to read. The conditions that exist to-day are vastly different from the conditions that existed twelve months ago. Then, we know that Russia was a danger .to the peace of the world, but since then Russia has pushed the peoples of other nations into a step which has endangered our safety. Out of. the plentitude of money which every one of us possesses today we must be prepared to pay for our protection. If we are able to discharge our obligation by the making of a monetary payment we should count ourselves extremely lucky. We may well expect to have to pay for our safety in blood and tears. If the women of this country support a political party which is prepared to risk their honour and the lives of their sons and daughters, they deserve whatever fate befalls them. They should insist that the young men of this country shall be trained to defend it at the least cost in munitions and supplies and, particularly, in lives. Australia has never thought of invading the territory of any other country. We hope to be allowed to remain in possession of this country, bat we shall be allowed to do so only if we develop it and are militarily strong enough to defend it. A vigorous migration policy is a vital part of our defence policy. I give the former Minister for Immigration, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), great credit for having done his utmost to obtain a steady flow of immigrants of a type suitable for our needs. The present Government is continuing and expanding the policy which he initiated. If we do not succeed in attracting an additional 20,000,000 people to this country within the next ten years, we shall probably have to fight the greatest fight of our history for the right to continue to possess this country. In these circumstances, how can any Opposition senator object to the passage of this bill?

When on the defeat of the former Menzies Government the mantle of government fell on the shoulders of the Labour party it was fortunate enough to inherit from the outgoing government vast munition factories, including the Bendigo munitions factory which is the only establishment in. the southern hemisphere and, indeed, in any country outside Europe and America capable of re-lining 8-in. naval guns. When the Curtin Government came into office the Bendigo munitions factory had been practically completed at a cost of £1,250,000. That Government inherited machine tools of inestimable value which had been procured by the present Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride). A few months before Mr. Curtin and his supporters had talked about guilty men. They themselves were the guilty men. If they had succeeded in getting their way, it would not have been possible to send the Australian Imperial Force into North Africa, we should not have been able to make 4.7-in. guns, 4-in. naval guns and munitions of all kinds, nor would we have been able to supply not only our own troops, but also the troops of Britain and the United States of America, with millions of pounds’ worth of war materiel. It is true that in return we obtained from America a great deal of valuable machine tools and equipment. The point I make is that we were able to make that arrangement solely because the Menzies Government, although it did not go as far as it might have gone in the light of after events, had the foresight to expand our industrial potential and to gear it to war production.

Senator Mattner:

– Do not forget the Sydney graving dock.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– After the loss of the floating dock at Singapore early in the war with the Japanese that dock, which was originally estimated to cost £4,000,000 but finally cost £12,000,000, was the only dock in the southern hemisphere capable of handling a warship. Its construction was well under way when the Curtin Government came into office. All the Curtin Government did was to continue and complete the projects which had already been put in hand by the Menzies GovernmentLet us place this bill on the statute-book so that, should war eventuate, we shall be in a position to defend ourselves.

Sitting suspended from 12.1t5 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– During his speech, Senator McKenna asked, “ Is Russia preparing for war ? “ Could any man of common sense think otherwise? Russia has called up and placed under arms 15,000,000 men. It has from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 slave labourers working in its great industries. Many of them are employed in great national arms factories. The huge Skoda munitions factory in Czechoslovakia has been further extended. Furthermore, Russia has threatened the only man in Europe to resist Russian demands. I refer to Marshall Tito. There are at present about six or seven armoured divisions on the Russian borders, where there are frequent incidents. According to press reports, Yugoslavian border guards are being shot from ambush almost daily. Yet the honorable senator asks whether we believe that Russia is preparing for war ! That country is already prepared for war, and v* should make no mistake about its intentions. . As soon as Russia decides to strike, its millions’ of troops will overrun the countries of Europe and smash the British people out of existence, unless the democracies make adequate preparation for defence while there is still time. The’ ultimate’ objective of Russia is world domination.

Senator McKenna has stated that there is no great industrial Asian power. That is not correct. The industrial organizations of China, whilst not so big as those in the United States of America, Great Britain and Germany, are nevertheless quite efficient. The honorable senator said that it was only natural that the Asian peoples should be opposed to the white races, who had gone to their lands and exploited them. The fact is that the people who have exploited the Chinese are the Chinese war lords, the Chinese merchant princes, and the Chinese bankers. We know that the white people, particularly the British, constructed great ports and established tremendous trade in China and Manchuria. They have employed and fed millions of Chinese. It is true that the primary object of the white people who went to China was to make profit. However that is a natural ambition. Other than the inmates of mental asylums at Kew and other places, I have yet to learn of anybody who works for nothing. The white people have done a tremendous amount of good in China. -Japan developed huge industries throughout Korea and Manchuria, and also established atomic research laboratories. Any honorable senator who says that a great potentiality for war does not exist in Asian countries is not facing facts. I -do not consider that honorable senators opposite are facing facts. On the 17th July, 1941, the then honorable member for Capricornia, Mr. Forde, when speaking at Rockhampton after the Prime Minister of the day (Mr. Menzies) had -stated that war with Japan was likely and that it would be a grave danger, stated -

The plain fact was that the Menzies and Fadden Governments did not believe there would be a war with Japan; they were completely blind to the position in the Pacific.

As reported in Hansard, volume 168, at page 91, the present right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), on the 21st August, 1941, stated -

I have said publicly, and I now repeat, that during the period between Saturday the 8th August, and the 12th August, the possibility -of war with Japan on account of Thailand was exaggerated . . . My colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr.’ Forde) baa referred to the make-believe, and the buildup .. . Before this House and the country, I say that, whoever was responsible, that was an untrue build-up ; it was an exaggeration which did damage to Australia.

I shall now refer to events in Australia upon the receipt of the news that Japan had entered the war. Mr. Curtin was elected to office in October, 1941, and the Japanese entered the war on the 8th December, 1941. Once more the Australian Labour party is taking an unreal view of this matter, but I hope that it will not suffer as bitterly as before. We are faced with a very real risk. I have had a fair amount of experience in war, as have other honorable senators also. Irrespective of physical fitness and courage, men must be trained.

The night before the Lone Pine action in World War I., the squadron that I commanded, which was 89 strong, received 40 reinforcements. In the action next day I was wounded. I was taken away for treatment, and when I returned to my unit I found that only nine of the 40 reinforcements remained. However, 79 of the 89 original members of the unit were still safe. The reason was that the original members of the unit had been properly trained, whereas the reinforcements were untrained and had to learn, by bitter experience and loss of life and limb, how to fight the enemy. Australia was able to raise the First Australian Imperial Force within a reasonable time only because of the compulsory military training scheme that had been in ‘ existence. The officers and noncommissioned officers were men who had attended military schools. Although they had not learned a great deal about the use of weapons, they knew more than did men who had never been in camp. At the outbreak of World War II. we had five infantry divisions and two cavalry divisions in Australia. Because compulsory military training had been abolished, the personnel were not well trained. But they were patriotic men, who believed that it was their duty to serve, and defend their country. Those men were immeasurably better than the men who subsequently enlisted in the Second Australian Imperial Force, who were green though gallant. The nucleus of both the First and Second Australian Imperial Forces was drawn from men who had served in Militia units.

I had the honour to command the 2nd Cavalry Division, about 80 per cent, of the personnel of which volunteered for the Second Australian Imperial Force. That division provided the initial training for many of the officers who subsequently distinguished themselves in action. I remember particularly Brigadier Hammer, who led the 1st Battalion through the mine-field at El Alamein, turned to the right and went down onto the beach. The Commander-in-Chief subsequently stated that if the 1st Battalian had not held on, the action would have failed. Brigadier Hammer’s training in the Militia fitted him for that onerous task. Furthermore, many of the men who served under him had been in action for nearly twelve months and were hardened troops.

I am convinced that at least 90 per cent, of the honorable senators opposite love Australia as much as do supporters of the Liberal party. I earnestly appeal to them to make their own decision in this matter, and not to allow themselves to be dictated to by an outside group. I appeal to them to stand to their guns and be men. I appeal to them, on behalf of the people of Australia, not to allow an outside junta to dictate to them. Australia is possibly in as great a danger to-day as it has ever been in its history. We have not the right to waste even one minute, much less a period of up to six months. After giving this matter due consideration, I believe that we should be behaving in a most cowardly and traitorous manner if we delayed any longer.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) and Senator George Rankin. I do not approach a consideration of this subject in a vindictive spirit, but I remind honorable senators that we are on the eve of a date which all honorable senators and the people of Australia and the United States of America have cause to remember. By the calendar, to-day is Pearl Harbour Day, the ninth anniversary of what Mr. Churchill has called “ That date which will live in infamy”. But because of the international date line, it was the 8th December, 1941, in Australian reckoning, not the 7th December, when Japan began the war in the Pacific by the bombing of Pearl Harbour. I have before me a newspaper clipping which reads - . . At 5.45 in the morning on December 8, Mr. Curtin, then Prime Minister, was sleeping in the Victoria Palace, Little Collins-street. At 5.46, bis press Secretary, Mr. Don Rodgers, was shaking the sleeping Prime Minister and yelling: “It’s on, Sir; The Japs are bombingPearl Harbour “.

History shows that from that date onwards the Australian Labour party has devoted the whole of its energies and brains towards the success of Australia. It led the country in the successful preparation for war, as it would do on any future occasion. The Australian Labour party pulled this country through to a magnificent victory, in company with our allies in the Pacific. Senator George Rankin made a plea to the Opposition to stand to its guns. I remind the honorable senator that there is more sincerity and loyalty in the Australian Labour party than exists in any other political party in this country. On the December day to which I have referred, death and destruction were hurled from the skies on to Pearl Harbour, and the blood and guts of innocent women and children flowed the streets of Hawaii. Up to that time the defence policy of the United States of America had been based on the false premise that military preparedness constituted only of industrial strength, as characterized by huge manufacturing organizations such as Bethlehem Steel Company, and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. And why did that happen? The Americans were caught with their pants down. This Government has introduced a military training scheme, but it will not meet the requirements of the country. Indeed, it is wholly inadequate.

Senator Spicer:

– What does the honorable senator suggest?

Senator MURRAY:

– I shall put forward my suggestions presently, and they will not be based on humbug or on the opinions of the “ Old Guard “. They will be based on recent experience and upon a reasonable anticipation of future events. This National Service Bill was introduced by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), not the Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride) or by any of the service Ministers. Why should a measure providing for a programme of national defence preparation be introduced by the Minister for Labour and National Service, rather than by the Minister for Defence, or the Minister for the Army? The reason is that the scheme will be operated by a bureaucracy, through the Department of National Service. The bill provides for the calling up of youths for training, and then sets forth seven different ways for getting them out of the forces. For instance, training may be deferred in the case of students, or waived entirely in the case of conscientious objectors or those working in the coal-mines and certain other industries. Perhaps the measure will be used as an excuse to force youths into the mines if they are not willing to serve in the forces. I have no doubt that the international situation is grave, and calls for the adoption of grave measures, but under this bill it is proposed to create a creampuff army. The only way to get a really effective army is to make the training rough and tough. Men should be trained in jungle schools of the kind that were established in Australia during the last war, and there should be no deferments and no exemptions. It should be a matter of one in, all in.

It is evident from the Government’s proposals that the final arbiter to decide who shall serve in the forces will not be the defence chiefs, who know what is needed, but the Minister for National Service and his officials. As on a previous occasion, means will be provided for privileged persons to get their sons out of the forces. In times of grave national crisis, it is customary for political parties in this and other countries to co-operate to meet the danger, but every time the Labour party has offered to co-operate with the Government, its offer has been rejected. The Government has not even invoked the assistance of those of its own supporters with experience and technical ability. What use is the Government making of ex- Air Vice-Marshal Bostock in this time of crisis? He and the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr.

Drakeford), the former Minister for Air, are both members of the House of Representatives. Another member is Colonel Anderson, V.C. Why have those men not been called upon for advice? The Government should avail itself of the experience of those who served in the last war, instead of relying on the advice of those whose knowledge of warfare is confined to the Boer War or to the campaign of Boadicea. Last night, in the House of Representatives, the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) used these words -

The young men, despite the protestations of the Government as to the urgency of the situation, and with some cause, believe that the Government is not in absolute earnest in regard to maintaining a decent standard of defence in this country.

We members of this Government are responsible for the carrying out of the defence policy, and we must realize that members of the Citizen Military Forces, particularly the officers, make sacrifices to make this scheme effective. They give up two or three nights a week and their weekends.

You are asking them to sacrifice their employment and their families and put up with a lot of inconvenience.

What is the reward ? They are paid, but they have to pay taxes. In many cases the general level of earnings is raised and it puts them in a higher tax group and they are actually the loser.

Let the Government say straight out that it will make this pay tax free.

This Government should run the country and not the Department of the Treasury.

That is the opinion of a man who was a front-line soldier in the last war, and there is certainly something in what he said about the remuneration of officers of the forces. There has been a good deal of talk about the payment of incentive money in industry, and higher rates are paid for overtime. Officers in the citizen forces are working overtime when they devote their evenings and week-ends to the training of recruits, and their remuneration is inadequate. As I have said, the Government’s scheme is inadequate. When all exemptions and deferments have been made, in Canberra, for instance, only about 18 youths will be liable for training.

Senator Spicer:

– How many men does the honorable senator think should go into training each year?

Senator MURRAY:

– This is the Government’s plan, and we are very critical of it. I congratulate the honorable member for Henty upon the stand he took. The passage which I have been quoting concludes with these words -

With one exception, there is not one member of Cabinet who has a first hand experience of the requirements of modern warfare, and there is not one who might be called upon to defend this country if another war should break out. Many members of the Defence Council are in the same category.

The Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride) acknowledged the force of those remarks by saying that there was probably no other man in the Parliament so well qualified to speak on such ‘matters as the honorable member for Henty. Let honorable senators opposite work that out for themselves, and they will understand why we are critical of the Government’s proposals.

The Opposition, in its desire to cooperate with the Government, proposes that a select committee should be set up, to inquire into matters pertaining to the defence of the country. The proposal was contemptuously dismissed by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), who referred to “ military geniuses “ among the Opposition. Without pretending to be a military genius, I think I can claim to be a fair average Australian. As a representative of the people, I have tried to serve my country. The people are paying me, and they expect something for their money, but the Government will not accept the co-operation of qualified members of the Opposition. The Ministers prefer to sneer about military geniuses. It is the old story of muddle by the boys of the “Old Guard”, who think they have done everything when they wave a flag. What is needed is a military approach to our problem, not a political one. The Government should call in the Chief of the General Staff, and the service heads to give us a heart-to-heart talk about what is happening. We should have the benefit of the advice of the Director of Military Intelligence. That would be better than having to listen to a six-page statement setting forth one way of getting into the army and seven different ways of getting out of it. It is an old saying that politicians make wars, and soldiers fight them. A grave responsibility rests upon us, and some members of the Parliament do not seem to be aware of it. The mistakes we make will be paid for tenfold by others. As I have suggested, there should be a proper military appreciation of the situation, which should also be considered in its geographical and economic aspects. We most make up for shortages of man-power by the quality of our forces, the quality of our weapons, and the quality of our scientific aids.

After a fine speech delivered in the House of Representatives last night by the honorable member for Henty, there has been a rush to do something about the matter. The Minister for Defence said that a drive would be commenced to recruit 20,000 men for the Citizen Military Forces. But how are the men to be used? In what arms will they serve i All of us have a natural aversion to war, but it is necessary to look to the future. In my opinion, we in Australia, which is a country of great distances, should concentrate on the establishment of an airborne division. Already we have in our civil aircraf t the nucleus of a troopcarrying service. During the regime of the Labour Government, there was quietly established in Australia one of the finest air services in the world. It is really a shadow air force. We have the machines that could be used to transport men to places where they may be needed. We should also have a properly trained and equipped paratroop brigade. The organization should be capable of delivering the right number of men and the right quantity of material to the right place at the right time. Our forces should be highly trained and, above all, they should be mobile. The attack, if it comes, will almost certainly be at some point where it is least expected. The Labour Government commenced a five-year plan for the expansion of our armed forces at a cost of £50,000,000 a year. It established and developed naval air units for sea reconnaissance. That is of particular importance in these days when our potential enemies are equipped with long-range submarines fitted with the Snorkel breathing device which enables them to remain submerged for long periods. Such submarines are almost certainly equipped to discharge weapons with atomic warheads that could spread death and destruction over a wide area. The Labour Government realized that the day of the big capital ship is finished in sea warfare, and it concentrated largely upon air defence. The aircraft carrier Melbourne is expected to be delivered to Australia next year. In a future war, the role of Australia will be defensive, not offensive. We must concentrate on equipping ourselves to intercept and destroy an enemy. This country could be invaded by sea or by air. I believe therefore that a great service could be rendered to our defence preparedness by re-establishing the coastwatching groups which did such splendid work throughout the south-western Pacific area when the Japanese came into World War II. Those groups remained behind on various islands that were overrun or by-passed by the southward advance of the J apanese. They were able to observe the military movements of the enemy, and to pass on vital information to the allied intelligence authorities. When the Japanese advance had reached its southernmost limit allied observers on Bougainville, the Shortland Islands, the Solomon Islands, and elsewhere, collected vital information on the strength and disposition of the enemy forces, and our subsequent success in the Pacific theatre was due in no small measure to their valuable work. No greater tribute could be paid to those men than that offered by Admiral Halsey when he said that they had made victory possible at Guadalcanal. I believe that more money should be expended on the establishment of intelligence networks in the islands to our north.

My purpose in speaking in this debate is not merely to condemn and criticize the Government proposal, but also to offer some constructive suggestions. I understand that 90 per cent. of the air crews in Trans-Australia Airlines are on the Royal Australian Air Force reserve. I should like to see all airline operators in this country providing facilities for the training of aircrews, and also providing opportunities for their flying personnel to do refresher and conversion courses with the Royal Australian Air Force, particularly in view of the fact that the Air Force is now being equipped with jet machines.

A prerequisite to any defence plan for this country is an assessment of who our enemies are likely to be, whence they will come, how they will come, and when they will come. It is not the duty of Government members of this chamber alone to decide who the potential aggressors are, and I submit that our defence problems cannot be solved merely by calling up a few thousand youths. Our duty, I believe, is to make the fullest possible investigation of the strength of our defences. Surely the Government has not produced this measure as the work of its foremost intellects. It is an addled, abject plan, introduced solely to give effect to an election promise. It is a spineless and gutless measure, which can do little to strengthen the defences of Australia and its territories.

Motion (by Senator Gorton) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 30

Majority 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- This bill does not deal with the form of training that is to be given to the men who are to be called up for military service. It does not stipulate that the recruits shall be drafted into this or that type of unit. It merely provides the machinery by which young men in a certain age group may be called up to be trained in some form of military art. Most of the criticisms that have been levelled at the measure by Opposition speakers have been based on the assumption that the measure will be administered in a particular manner. I repeat that the bill is concerned solely with the establishment of the principle of compulsory military training, and that, I suggest, is the only issue before the Senate. We have to decide whether we should pass the measure and thus enable the Government to call men up for military training, or whether we should reject it, and so prevent the introduction of compulsory military training. Our vote will decide that issue, and nothing else. None of the other matters that have been raised in the course of this debate are relevant to this legislation. That, I suggest, disposes of most of the criticism of the kind that Senator Murray has offered. His remarks may or may not have been justified, but the fact remains that the matters to which he referred are not now before the Senate.

Differing opinions have been expressed by members of the Opposition about the principle of compulsory military training. I should like it to be perfectly clear that this bill will not impose on any Australian an obligation to defend this country in time of war, that is not already imposed on him. The bill will merely impose on Australians the obligation to bc trained in time of peace, so that should war occur, our defences shall be adequate, and unnecessary sacrifices will be avoided. The principle of compulsory military training was attacked by Senator Cameron who took us back to the days of the Napoleonic wars and told us a heart-rending story about boys of twelve being sentenced to solitary confinement and lashed to gun carriages, and all the other outworn practices of a bygone age. The honorable senator sought to show that there was something inherently evil in training young men to discharge an obligation that is already imposed upon them. In reply to SenatorCameron’s other remarks, all that I haveto say is that, should war come to thiscountry, I believe, and I am sure that most Australians believe, that civil labour and all the means of production in this country - I take it that is what Senator Cameron meant when he referred to “ capital “ - will be conscripted for national defence. But we already havethe civilian labour force. We already have the means of production. Those things can be taken over at a stroke of the pen the moment war breaks out; but there is no reserve of trained men and such a reserve cannot be established merely by a stroke of the pen the moment war breaks out. By taking steps to establish that reserve now, we shall not be limiting in any way the conscription of all the resources of this country in the event of another war. I do not and will not believe that the attitude expressed by the honorable senator is the attitude of the majority of the members of the Opposition in this chamber or of the Opposition generally. I know that the honorable senator would be the first to scream for protection from the youngmen of this country if enemy armed forces came here. In spite of that, he is prepared to send them forth to battle, inorder to provide him with protection, and is not prepared to give them an opportunity to learn how to defend themselves-

A criticism of a different kind emanated from Senator McKenna yesterday when he stated that he did not attack the principle of compulsory training in peace-time for defence during time of war. The honorable senator mentioned a number of points designed to show that it would be better not to give effect to that principle now and .to spend more time in a consideration of questions which, in his opinion, are allied to the central question. The honorable senator stated .that a disequilibrium might be created in industry in this country if too many young men were put into the armed forces. As I have already pointed out, this bill in no way states the number of people who will be put into the armed forces, so that no disequilibrium could be created. It could only be created by administrative action. Unless the honorable senator believes that no one should be taken from industry and given military training, I suggest that the fear of future disequilibrium is not sufficient ground for voting against the Government’s proposals. He also stated that the only nation from which danger can come to this country is Russia. With that I think that all honorable senators will wholeheartedly agree. Whatever country is used by Russia, whether it is a European satellite or a far-eastern satellite, there can be no question that the core of the danger to us lies in the Kremlin itself. Senator McKenna would have us believe that Russia is not prepared for war, and that it has not the industry to back up an army because that industry was destroyed, first by the Russians themselves, and later by the advancing Germans during the last world war. Yet, as we look round the world to-day we can see a million Chinese accompanied by a few North Koreans streaming into Korea. They have been armed and equipped from somewhere. Senator McKenna has told us that the central Asian countries have no industries. In Europe itself, the eastern German police force consists of hundreds of thousands of members and is armed with tanks, aeroplanes and artillery. We are also asked to believe that that country has no industries. The countries that stand on the borders of Turkey and Yugoslavia create a constant threat to European peace. Their armies could not be maintained if there were not industries of sufficient size to maintain them. I do not believe that the honorable senator * himself seriously believes that industries are not available with which to back those armed forces and that they are not in fact backing those forces now.

That there is a shortage of labour in Russia I am prepared to believe. I also believe that there is an abysmally low standard of living in Russia. But is it hot obvious that that low standard of living and the shortage of labour are due to the fact that all of Russia’s resources are aimed at preparing for war and that all its young and able-bodied men are drafted into the forces for the purpose of being ready, at any time, to wage war? Because of the kind of regime under which the Russian people groan to-day, it is useless to protest against that low standard of living and the drafting of the young men out of industry and into military camps. Instead of being an argument illustrating the fact that Russia cannot prepare for war, I suggest that it shows quite plainly that Russia at the present time is indeed preparing for war. Surely we do not intend to leave to the Security Council of the United Nations Organization a decision as to what the western nations should do? Our archenemy, Russia, has a seat and the power of veto on that Security Council, and it could, if it wished, prevent us from doing anything until it was too late. Should we surrender all sovereignty for that purpose and deliver ourselves into the hands of the enemy in that way? I suggest that the honorable senator’s argument does not stand up for a moment.

At the present time the Allied forces in the north of Korea are trading space for time. With every hour of time that is gained they throw in a bonus in the form of mangled Allied soldiers, in order to gain time in which to prepare against an attack that is only one manifestation of the onslaughts of the enemy mentioned by Senator McKenna. Bearing that in mind, should we not think very carefully before we defer a plan to commence the training of some of the men of this country? Whether or not we think that what is being done is adequate, the fact cannot be denied that this bill is intended to institute the principle of compulsory military training during peace-time, in order that the people of this country may honour their obligations. The sooner the plan is put into operation the better. Only after that is done will there be time to argue whether sufficient men are being called up or whether the scheme is being administered in the proper way. Remembering that trading of space for time, I ask the members of the Opposition to search their souls before they vote to delay a measure of this importance. As I stated last night, in these modern days a threat can develop into an act more quickly than over before in the history of the world. If such a time should come, our fine points of parliamentary procedure will be of little use against a “ tommy “ gun.

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– Never before in this chamber have I heard of a plan concerning an important matter - and I agree that this is a very important bill - being received and dealt with in such an airy manner.’ The claim of the members of the Government and their supporters that they have a mandate from the people for the institution of this plan is not justified by the results obtained since the last general election. The recruiting campaign has certainly not confirmed that contention. Apparently, the men and women who were over military age voted for the supporters of the Government at that election, because the recruiting campaign that has cost the people of this country tens of thousands of pounds, has resulted in only 2,000 recruits being enlisted.

Much has been said about that mandate, and perhaps it would be as well to consider it. The Government parties certainly received 51 per cent, of the votes polled, but the members of the Opposition received 49 per cent, of those votes. I suggest, with all sincerity, that the 49 per cent, of voters who supported the Opposition are entitled to some consideration in relation to a plan for the defence of this country. As the political parties are so evenly divided on voting results, it is advisable for the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies)’ to remove the blinkers from some of the senior members of the Cabinet. The first one from whom they should be removed is the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who stated yesterday that the committee proposed by members of the Australian Labour party to be set up to inquire into defence matters did not contain the name of one person qualified to give an opinion.

That statement was a reflection on the ex-servicemen on this side of the chamber, who, I remind the Minister, have just as much capacity as have those on the other side. When the Opposition put forward the suggestion that a committee with a majority of ex-service members, who suffered in serving this country, should be formed to consider defence matters, it was told that those members were unworthy of the task and that they were anti-British. In the face of that, the Government seeks the cooperation of the Opposition in relation to defence! I inform the members of the Government that when they present a plan that is worthy of Australia they will receive the support of every member of the Opposition.

It ill becomes any member of this chamber to try and bolster up a case by resorting to the graveyard, as the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport did yesterday. The Minister used the name of a man whose memory is revered’ by every person in this country because of the services that he rendered to Australia. I refer to Mr. John Curtin. I regret that two members of the Government should have seen fit to mention Mr. Curtin’s name in an endeavour to bolster up this plan by a reference to something that was said in 1938 or earlier.

I do not think that the results achieved at the last general election justify this Government in changing the voluntary system of enlistment for one of compulsion. From 1932 to 1941 conservative governments were in office in this country. Who will claim that the danger to Australia to-day is greater than it was in the latter part of 1941, when the late John Curtin was called upon to form a government and to assume responsibility for the defence of this country? I have listened to the “ sob stories “ told by honorable senators on the other side of the chamber, in furtherance of a programme that has been in operation during the past three or four months. That programme requires honorable senators opposite to rise in this chamber and to slobber about fear and the dreadful happenings that may occur. Senator George Rankin did SC. .?7«d he was followed by Senator Gorton. I suggest that their idea is to instil into the minds of the people fear of the members of the Opposition. No conservative government - and I include the previous Menzies Government and also the previous Fadden Government - had the courage to introduce military conscription when the danger that beset this country was greater than it is to-day. It remained for a Labour government to superimpose military conscription upon the voluntary system that prevailed in this country at that time. That was necessary because of the reluctance of the Menzies and Fadden Governments to interfere with commercial and business interests in this country. The slogan of those governments, right up till 1941, when the Japanese were marching towards Australia, was, “ Business as usual “. At the end of the war, tho Labour party abolished conscription in this country. I remind the Senate that during the war it introduced a system of civil conscription, which the MenziesFadden Government had failed to do. In 1941, a government led by Mr. Menzies failed to discharge its responsibility to the country in respect of defence, as this Government is failing to-day. After the war, a Labour government commenced to implement a defence programme under which it was estimated that £250,000,000 would be expended over a period of five years. That figure was subsequently increased to £295,000,000, yet some honorable senators opposite have criticized that Government for having expended only £3,000,000 upon defence.

What is the use of indulging in recrimination about what happened in the past? Let us look to the future. Let us see whether we can reconcile the differences that exist between us upon this matter, which is so important to Australia. The Labour party has suggested that a committee should be established to consider the problem and is willing for the Government to nominate a majority of the members of that committee. The gulf that divides us is not very wide, and possibly it would be narrowed if the proposed committee were established. At any rate, the establishment of the committee would be a step in the right direction.

Conditions is this country to-day are not favorable to a recruiting campaign, as Senator George Rankin and other honorable senators will admit. The fact that there are many vacant positions carrying high rates of remuneration militates against the success of a recruiting campaign, as also does the fact that it is not long since this country emerged from an exhausting war. Despite the fact that the Government has expended tens of thousands of pounds upon the publication of a spate of advertisements in newspapers throughout Australia, not many recruits have been enlisted into the forces. The expenditure upon publicity has been at the rate of £120 for each recruit obtained. They are very dear recruits. I suggest that that money could have been used to better advantage. The recruiting campaign failed because it was conducted listlessly, and without inspiration or leadership. The Government now realizes that its advertising campaign, by which it tried to instil fear into the minds of the people, has failed dismally. The youth of this country, instead of responding to the advertisements has - T think with some wisdom - ignored them. The Government has increased the rates of pay and improved the conditions of Australian servicemen, but it has nullified that action by deciding that any man who enlists voluntarily in the services must agree to fight anywhere in the world. That is another reason why the recruits that the Government requires have not been obtained.

Our responsibilities are not limited to the defence of Australia. We have obligations as a member of the United Nations. I maintain that all member countries of the United Nations should be given an indication of what they may be called upon to do by that organization in connexion with the provision of men, munitions or finance, but no such indication has been given to this country. I do not say that that is the fault of this Government. It may be argued that it would be impossible for the United Nations to give that indication because it has no means of knowing whether it will have to call upon any country to perform a major or minor task. Neverthelesss, I say that all members of the United Nations should be given some indication of their responsibilities to the organization in order that they may be enabled to plan for the discharge of those responsibilities and also for their internal development.

Senator Murray said, quite correctly, that under this bill there would be one way of getting into the Army and nine ways of getting out of it. Is the exemption of workers in rural industries designed to pacify the Australian Country party? It has been rumoured that that is the Australian Country party’s price for its approval of the plan.

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · LP

– That is a figment of the imagination. It is a fabrication.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Surely Senator Guy does not deny that the Government proposes that workers in rural industries shall be exempted.

Senator Guy:

– I deny the truth of the rumour to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) referred.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Provision has been made for the exemption of workers in the coal-mining industry. I consider that to be a reflection upon the loyalty and patriotism of Australian coal-miners. Honorable senators opposite may laugh, but during the last war more coal-miners than banana-growers enlisted. Those exemptions are wrong. It is proper to provide that students shall not be required te undergo training until they have completed their studies, but there should not be general exemptions such as those that apply to rural industries and the coalmining industry.

If the Government’s plan were a genuine one, it would receive the full support of the Labour party. The plan envisages the conscription of 13,500 youths into the three services. It is proposed that, for the Royal Australian Navy, 500 youths will be called up in two groups of 250, the first group to commence training in March, 1951; for the Royal Australian Air Force, 3,000 youths in four groups of 750, the first group to commence training in April, 1951; and for the Army, 10,000 youths in three groups, the first group to commence training in May, 1951. Does the Government propose to send these 13,500 recruits to Korea? Is it urgent to conscript them in order that that may be done? Why the indecent haste? One would think from what has been said about this sham plan that, if implemented, it would be the salvation of the defence of this country and would also enable us to discharge our obligations to the United Nations.

I suggest to the Government that it should agree to nominate some of its supporters as members of the proposed committee. Let us examine the position. Let us review our production resources and, if necessary, establish an order of priorities. Let the committee examine the proposed exemptions. It is wrong for the Government to say arbitrarily that, in order to satisfy the Australian Country party, it will exempt men from rural areas and, in order that the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport may get a little more coal, it will exempt workers in the coal-mining industry. What a paltry plan!

Senator Guy:

– Coal is necessary.

Senator ASHLEY:

– It is a wonder that Senator Guy has not suggested to the Government that it should exempt workers in the Tasmanian potato industry.

The fundamental differences between the Government and the Labour party in regard to the defence of Australia are small. The Government would be well advised to co-operate with the Opposition on the proposed committee. It could, if it so desired, have a majority of members of the committee. Nothing but good could come from the work of the committee, which could be done expeditiously and would interfere with the Government’s plan only to a slight degree, if at all. I am certain that, in view of the criticisms that were voiced last night in the House of Representatives by a member of the Government parties, the Government will give further consideration to this plan. Having been subjected to the humiliation of one of its officers condemning its plan, doubtless it will amend the plan or consider it further, and the Opposition will be glad to assist in that review. I earnestly suggest that full consideration be given by the Government to the Opposition’s proposal that a select committee be established to consider this matter.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– Never has Australia faced a situation similar to that which it faces to-day. I believe that all Australians realize that we must do something to put our defences in order. This mild bill is designed to set the necessary machinery in motion. No man who is called up for military training under this measure will be liable to be sent overseas. Opposition senators have deliberately misconstrued the provisions of the bill. Their contention that the young men who will be called up under its provisions will be sent overseas to support the forces of the United Nations is a deliberate untruth.

Senator Ashley:

– I did not make a statement of that kind.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! On two occasions recently Senator Mattner has used the words “ deliberate untruth “ in describing statements made by Opposition senators. He has now said that an honorable senator on my left has stated that young men who will be called up for training under the provisions of this bill will be sent overseas. During the periods in which I have occupied the chair while this debate has been in progress I have listened to the debate carefully and I have not heard such a statement made by an honorable senator on my left. Senator Mattner has characterized the statement, if in fact such a statement was made, as a deliberate untruth. It is unparliamentary for an honorable senator to use an expression of that description, which is equivalent to saying that an honorable senator is lying. If an honorable senator is lying, then in plain English, he is a liar, and it is unparliamentary for an honorable senator to characterize another honorable senator as a liar. On two occasions already I have directed Senator Mattner to withdraw that expression. I again ask him to withdraw it.

Senator MATTNER:

– I withdraw it, but I should like to say that on another occasion I was not even permitted to address the Chair as “ Mr. President “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must not speak in that manner. I ask him to withdraw that remark without reservation.

Senator MATTNER:

– I withdraw it, Mr. President. What I said was-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will continue his speech.

Senator MATTNER:

– To refresh the memory of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley), who has said that our Australian boys will be sent to Korea to support the forces of the United Nations-

Senator Ashley:

– I did not say that they will be sent to Korea. I merely asked the question whether the forces to be raised under the provisions of this bill will be sent to Korea. My question was not answered.

Senator MATTNER:

– Clause 28 provides that a person is not liable under this legislation to render service beyond the limits of Australia unless he has volunteered as prescribed for service beyond those limits. Opposition senators have endeavoured to cloud the issue by making it appear that those who are called up for training under the national service scheme will be sent overseas whether or not they volunteer for overseas service. This bill does not relate to the calling up of men for overseas service. I admit that I have become a little heated over this matter Mr. President, and I shall endeavour not to tread on your corns. When on an earlier occasion I addressed the Chair as “Mr. President”, I thought that I had a perfect right to do so.

The PRESIDENT:
Senator MATTNER:

– I shall not pursue that subject further.

Senator Fraser:

Senator Fraser interjecting,

Senator MATTNER:

– I may be from the land, but that is no reason why I should be ordered to sit down as though I were a dog.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the honorable senator referring to me ?

Senator MATTNER:

– No, Mr. President, I was referring to an honorable senator who has just interjected. We have been informed that all interjections are disorderly. At all events, interjections from this side of the chamber are invariably disorderly.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator was, I think, referring to me, Mr. President. I merely sought to give him a little guidance.

Senator MATTNER:

– I do not need t. The defence of Australia is a subject of the utmost importance to all political parties. I shall not rake over the ashes of the past and ask which political party was responsible for this or that decision in relation to the defence of thi? country. All political parties have acted as they thought best according to their lights. Never before has Australia been, confronted with a more dangerous and delicate situation than that which now confronts it.

I was astonished to hear the Leader of the Opposition contend that this Government had received a mandate for the introduction of this bill from only 51 per cent, of the voters at the last general election. Does he imply that the remaining 49 per cent, of the voters were pacifists? If so, I disagree with him entirely. The people generally are just as concerned with the welfare and the protection of this country as we are. Having regard to the international situation, any government which was bold enough to introduce a measure to conscript men for service both inside and outside Australia would, I am sure, receive the approbation of every section of the community. Squeals of protest might be made, but the people would accept the decision because at heart all of them are patriots. The international situation has changed so rapidly, particularly in the last ten years, that the outlook of the average Australian on world affairs is no longer that of an isolationist.

In opposing this measure and in seeking to delay its passage, Opposition senators do not truly interpret the views of the great mass of their supporters. We should first place this bill on the statutebook, and then appoint a select committee to inquire into and report on the matters mentioned in the motion proposed by Senator McKenna. If we did that we should have something to put our teeth into. When, 50 or 100 years hence, the history of this country is read by our descendants, I hope that they will read than on this seventh day of December, 1950, senators in this Parliament sank their political differences in order to placeon the statute-book a measure which would enable this country to be defended, against those who might covet it.- This is not the time for political squabbles.. Let us face the grave threat that confronts us, and settle our differences calmly and quietly. We have not much time tr> make preparations. What has to be donemust be done within the next six months. Let us make an immediate start by placing this bill on the statute-book without delay. Later, the select committee can meet behind closed doors to thrash out the problems which it has to consider.

Senator McKenna referred to the numbers of men who will be trained under this scheme. If we eliminate the administrative staffs, the batmen, the cooks, and those employed on necessary fatigueduties, the number of combatant troopswill not be very great. I look on military training as a furtherance of a boy’s education. I trust that the military authorities will obtain the services of men and women of character and ability to train these lads, most of whom will be at an ageat which they can be greatly influenced by good or bad example. I have served in the ranks, and I have been through thcmill. I am not an angel, but I wish to goodness some of our military instructors had a little more decency than they possess. The idea that a man in theforces should be a little uncouth should be discouraged.

What I have to say now will probably raise a storm of protest. Lads or eighteen years of age will be drafted into military camps, many of which areclose to migrant centres, and accordingly, every effort should be made to see thatthey are placed under proper supervision. I do not favour the establishment of wet canteens in military camps. I am concerned not so much about themen in the ranks as about the officers. I have served in the forces, and I know that soldiers are usually tough and, perhaps, a little rough. Most of us who like to drink beer know that much of” what goes on in officers’ messes is not. in the best interests of the- youth of” Australia.

It would not harm the Labour party to support the bill. To support it would be to place a feather in its cap. We shall count ourselves fortunate if, before many months have passed, we have not to face something more serious than this measure. I shall not question whether in recent years Russian foreign policy has been right or wrong. I merely say that Russia is now the greatest imperialist country the world has ever known. Since 1939, as the result of acts of aggression, it has extended its frontiers from Siberia through its satellite states down to the equator. It is now consolidating its control over Communist China. As honorable senators know, Russia has taken over and expanded the greatest armament works in the world. I refer to the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia. When we consider for a moment the feverish haste with which Russia is preparing for war, the defence preparations of this country are totally inadequate. I am convinced that in the very near future Australians will have to forgo many of the comforts that they now enjoy. Irrespective of what government might be in power when the emergency arises, it may become necessary, if men are called up for the armed forces, to extend the hours of work in industry. If men are to be called up for service on a 24-hours-a-day basis the civil population must be prepared to play its part by keeping up supplies to the armed forces. It may become necessary for us to discard many of the frills of life in the interests of defence.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Why not conscript wealth?

Senator MATTNER:

– This bill does not provide for the conscription of men to serve overseas. Of course, we must remember that Australia will be the prize in the event of global war developing, and it would be preferable to fight on shores other than our own. Of what value is a man’s wealth if he is conscripted for service in a theatre of war? During the last war Labour imposed man-power restrictions in this country and raised taxation to 18s. 6d. in the £1. Surely that was conscription of wealth. I do not for a moment think that any honorable senator opposite who was called upon to pay tax of 18s. 6d. in the £1 regrets that the imposition of such a high rate of taxation was necessary. I know that in such circumstances Senator Hendrickson would be amongst the last people to complain about having to pay tax at the rate of 18s. 6d. in the £1. I earnestly appeal to all honorable senators to vote for the passage of this bill, in order that there might be set in motion the first stage of the provision of adequate defence of this country.

Motion (by Senator Critchley) put -

That the debate he now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 24

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the resumption of the debate be an Order of the Day for a later hour of the day.

I can only express my sorrow that it has become necessary for me to move such a motion. Apparently the Opposition has made up its mind not to face up to a decision upon this very important subject.

I suggest that there has not been a more important measure introduced into this chamber during the present sessional period, not excluding the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, The tragedy is that the responsible Opposition in this chamber is not able to express its opinion on this measure, because, presumably, the political party that honorable senators opposite support has become immersed in rules, regulations, conferences and resolutions. Apparently it is unable to do so until it has received a direction by some person or body outside the Parliament. Unfortunately, it appears that the Opposition is not prepared even to allow this debate to go to its second reading, because it is afraid that an outside body will pass adverse judgment upon what it has done.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is only a sham fight.

Senator SPICER:

– There is no sham fight about this matter. Even Senator McKenna indicated by his speech that he recognized that we might have to face a very real enemy in the course of four or five years, and therefore that it was desirable to get on with this kind of measure. There is no point in what he said in regard to the matter, if that is not so. I suggest that it is a great tragedy for the Australian people that a great political party-

Senator Wood:

– Not great.

Senator SPICER:

– The Australian Labour party was a great political party, but-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I presume that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) is speaking to the motion that the debate be adjourned to a later hour this day.

Senator SPICER:

– I am, Mr. President. I am emphasizing that because of the urgency of this measure, the debate should be resumed at a later hour this day. Having regard to the circumstances that I have outlined, it is regrettable that the debate should be interrupted. However, the Government has no alternative. It is as well for the people of Australia to realize that the delay in this matter is attributable to honorable senators opposite, who claim to represent nearly 50 per cent. of the electors, being unable to express their judgment on a matter of great public importance when it is introduced into this chamber.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

.- I move-

That the words “ a later hour of the day “ he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words - “ the first day of sitting of the Senate in 1951 “.

The reason for the proposed amendment of the Attorney-General’s (Senator Spicer) motion should be completely obvious to the Senate. There is a notice of motion standing in my name on the notice-paper, and without referring to that matter prematurely, I point out that the Opposition desires that this measure should be referred to an all-party committee for investigation. As I made clear yesterday, it would be the duty of the committee to establish the facts in relation to the defence needs of this country, and to submit a recommendation to the Senate. The Attorney-General talked of a tragedy in relation to this bill. There is a tragedy, and it is this: If Australia is to-day in jeopardy, or if it is likely to be in jeopardy in the near future, it is a tragedy that a government which is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the defence of Australia should produce nothing better than the paltry measure now before us. I am supported in that comment by an important office-bearer in the parties which support the Government. I am sure that many of the supporters of the Government would join with him in saying that, having regard to the present situation, this bill represents no real contribution to the defence of Australia.

I regret that the Attorney-General saw fit to confine his comments to abuse of the Australian Labour party, of which the Parliamentary Labour party is but a small fraction. We who represent the Labour movement in this Parliament are here at the will of the vast number of members and supporters of that party. The Parliamentary Labour party is merely one of the means of expressing the voice of that great movement, which functions in different ways. Does any Government supporter who believes that Australia is in jeopardy also believe that this legislation, if put into operation, could make any effective contribution to the defences of Australia? If the machinery is ready to put into operation in March or May of next year this small contribution to Australia’s defences, a slight delay that might enable unanimity to be reached among major political parties, would be of great advantage to the country. I can only hope that the Government will have a change of heart over the proposal to appoint a select committee. Nothing would please the Opposition more than if the Government were to agree to be represented on such a committee. There can be no danger in a short delay-. It is not for the Opposition to say when the Parliament will meet in the new year. The length of the delay involved in the proposed amendment is within the control not of the Opposition, but of the Government. If the amendment be accepted by the Senate, there is nothing to prevent the Government from calling the Parliament together on the 1st January, 1951, so far as the .terms of the amendment are concerned.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– The Senate is facing a grave situation, and the circumstances are such as to impel me to say what I think. I hope I shall say it in moderate terms, but none the less effectively. We have had arguments and disagreements in this chamber on many occasions, but it is very sad that we should have an argument and disagreement about the defence of our country. Prom time immemorial, th« principal responsibility of all governments has been the defence of their people. This Government has developed a defence plan in accordance with the advice of the chiefs of staffs of the services. It is common knowledge that the Cabinet, on many occasions, had the chiefs of staffs before it for consultation. The proposals contained in this bill are based upon the defence plan prepared in consultation with the chiefs of staff. I deprecate in the strongest terms the statement of Senator McKenna when he decried the proposals contained in the bill. They emanated from our military advisers, and we are putting them forward as we are bound to do, with a full sense of responsibility, and with a full knowledge of what they provide for immediately, and of what they may -develop into. It is a shocking thing that the Government should be in the position that the only defence measures which it can take are those that can be put into effect without approaching the National Parliament. If I were a member of the Opposition to-day, I should not be able to lie in my bed and sleep. This must surely go down as one of the most shameful episodes in the Commonwealth Parliament, and it arises out of the fact that, to put the matter on its highest level, the Opposition has, by a political accident, a majority in the Senate. My good senseprevents me from describing on the lowest level the means whereby the Opposition gained control of this chamber. The fact that the Labour Opposition, which owes its power to a set of adventitious circumstances, should use its position to hold up the defence proposals of the Government at a time like this will, I believe, result in the Labour party for ever losing the confidence of the Australian people.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I resent the tone used by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner). The Opposition has proposed a method whereby it may be possible to reach agreement in the Senate on this measure. As Senator McKenna pointed out, the Labour party represents 49 per cent, of the electors, whilst the antiLabour parties represent 51. Thus, we represent almost as many people as do the Government parties. The Minister used a specious argument when he said that it was a matter of regret that there should be argument or disagreement over the country’s defence policy. I remind the Government that, some years ago, it was the task of a Labour government to follow a government supported by the same interests as support the present Government. The country was at war, and when we came into office we found that the defences were not adequate to meet the situation. That statement hurts the Government supporters, but it is true. We have been told that the international situation is critical, and the Government has now presented us with certain defence proposals. Our responsibility tn thu people is as great as that of the Government, and we want to know more about those defence proposals. In particular, we want an adequate defence plan, not these hopeless proposals which are quite unsuitable to meet the situation if the danger confronting Australia is as great as the Government says it is. Certainly we cannot meet such a situation by training a mere handful of youths. The Government should take drastic defence measures. Instead of listening to our arguments and our advice, Ministers declare that we are merely trying to delay the measure. The Senate should appoint a number of standing committees, including one on defence. Such a committee should examine service chiefs in order to learn what is necessary for the defence of the country. Then, when defence proposals come before the Parliament, members of all parties will be informed of our needs. We are seeking to obtain information now, but Ministers have informed us that we are merely trying to delay the passage of the bill, and that we should not argue against the Government’s proposals.

Senator Spicer:

– We do not say that. We merely say that Opposition senators should vote against the measure if they do not want it.

Senator ARNOLD:

– In other words, the Attorney-General rejects all proposals for co-operation, and challenges the Opposition to vote against the bill. The Government has presented the measure and if we do not like it, we can throw it out. Another Minister asked for the cooperation of the Opposition in working out defence plans. Which Minister are we to believe - the Attorney-General who says, “ Throw out the bill if you do not like it”, or the other Minister who asks for co-operation ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– Shades of Lucius Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned! Here we have the spectacle of an Opposition fiddling while not Australia only, but the whole world, is threatened with a conflagration. The Labour Opposition is fiddling while twelve persons, who have not been elected to the Parliament, and who are not answerable to the people or removable by the people, make up their minds about the Government’s defence proposals.

Senator Nash:

– Get off that track.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I know that honorable senators opposite are sensitive on this point. Many people who used to admire the once great Australian Labour party will be disappointed to see this further evidence of its disintegration, and its lack of a real Australian outlook. The suggestion for the appointment of an all-party committee lacks sincerity and integrity.

Senator Ashley:

– What right has the Minister to say that?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It is quite obvious from speeches that have been made by honorable senators opposite in favour of the postponement of consideration of this bill. It is common knowledge that the bill is being postponed until the Opposition can get instructions from its masters. If Government supporters were to serve on the proposed committee, at least they would be free agents, but that could not be said of any Labour representative. What rot it is therefore, to suggest that an all-party committee should be appointed in an endeavour to secure unanimity on the proposals contained in this measure ! It is quite obvious that Opposition representatives could not agree with representatives -of this side of the chamber without the approval of the federal executive of the Australian Labour party, no member of which is a member of this Parliament. How different the present Labour party is from the Labour party which first introduced universal military service in this country! How can honorable senators opposite justify their claim that they are sincere when they will not even co-operate in the Government’s voluntary recruiting campaign? The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) extended an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) to assist the Government in that campaign, but the Leader of the Opposition refused the request. If further evidence be required of my claim that the Opposition’s attitude to this measure is sheer humbug, it is to be found in the fact that the proposals contained in this measure were made public property as far back as July of this year. The

Labour party has had five months in which to consider its attitude to this bill. I say, therefore, that the proposal that the measure be referred to a select committee with a view to securing unanimity, or to considering all the implications of the proposal, lacks sincerity and integrity.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I should not have participated in this debate had it not been for the all too familiar speeches that have been made by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and his supporters. Their ignorance is exceeded only by their viciousness. So ignorant, in fact, is the Minister for Trade and Customs that he spoke of twelve men standing behind the Labour party. He should know perfectly well that that is not correct. I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal party can never hope to be a great political party until it has the support of a great movement as the Australian Labour party has. I should not like to appear in this Parliament merely as a member of a political group; yet that is what members of the Liberal party are. No political organization can hope for greatness unless it has grown from a popular movement as the Australian Labour party has. Nobody really believes the protestations of honorable senators opposite that they have no outside masters. Are we to believe that the millions of pounds that they expend at elections are received by Divine Providence as manna from heaven? Clearly, if disintegration is occurring in any political party, it is occurring in the ranks of Government supporters. Recently, the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. McLeay), a brother of the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), and perhaps speaking with the voice of the Minister himself, attacked the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) in the House of Representatives. Only yesterday, a member of the Liberal party, the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), bitterly attacked the very measure that is now under discussion in this chamber. We hear also that, during the last few months, Cabinet meetings have been the most stormy since the early 1900’s; yet we are told that the Australian Labour party is disintegrating !

Senator Hannaford:

– The honorable senator is jumping to conclusions.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I am not jumping to conclusions. It is well known that Government back-benchers already hate the sight of this bill. The disintegration of the Government parties is proceeding rapidly. A frequent criticism of the Opposition in this chamber is that it will not accept any legislation sponsored by this Government. I remind the Senate that the Opposition is in process of accepting a budget which is one of the greatest confidence tricks ever perpetrated on the people of Australia. The budget may be the first milestone of the second “Ming” dynasty, but it is the first of the very few, because no selfrespecting Opposition could possibly allow the people of Australia to he the victims of another confidence trick of that kind. That would be asking too much. Honorable senators opposite, in spite of their attempts to gain cheap publicity out of the present situation, know quite well the motives that are prompting the Opposition’s attitude to this measure.

Senator Nash:

– The bill is a sham.

Senator WILLESEE:

– As my colleague from Western Australia says, it is a sham. The Government knows that without the whole-hearted support of the Labour movement, it cannot make a success of any defence scheme. For several months, honorable senators opposite have been proclaiming the virtues of their defence plan from the hustings, but they have failed completely to arouse public enthusiasm for it. For the first time in our history, a defence scheme has failed. The Government should be very thankful to know that when it does eventually introduce a worthy plan, it will have the great trade union movement of Australia behind it.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I place on record my protest against the amendment that has been moved by Senator McKenna. It is ludicrous to suggest that ‘the Senate should meet again on the 1st or 3nd

January to hear a report from the military geniuses who, it is suggested, will pit their views against the advice that the Government has already received from military experts in the United Kingdom, United States of America and in this country. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to make cheap gibes at the Government because of the criticism of this measure that has been voiced by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) ; I remind the Opposition that the honorable member expressed his views in the Parliament where, as a member of the Liberal party, he has every right to speak his mind. He is not answerable to a political caucus, as honorable senators opposite are. Every member of the Liberal party is free to. offer suggestions to Ministers. The Labour party wants the Government to be advised, not by military experts, but by political advisers.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has stressed the urgency of the present situation. Honorable senators opposite who speak of this proposal as just a sham obviously do not appreciate the demands that will be placed upon our defence authorities and establishments by the necessity to provide for the training of 30,000 new recruits each year, in addition to obligations already undertaken. Tt is quite obvious that the tempo of our defence preparations will increase as time goes by. The present situation is urgent and real. Honorable senators opposite need not accept my word for that. The Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Attlee, regards the situation as so grave that he has made a special trip to the United States of America. Any one who cannot see danger in the present international crisis is beyond redemption. Does the Opposition not consider that a compulsory military training scheme providing for the training of 30,000 new recruits each year is a worthy beginning in view of Australia’s other commitments? As I said yesterday, the Labour party to-day is acting as it did twelve years ago. I do not want to be personal about this matter, but I repeat that a grave error of judgment is being made by Labour leaders who have the authority and the responsibility to make decisions.

To refer this measure to a committee as the Opposition now proposes, is merely a subterfuge to delay the bill until the twelve masters of the Labour party have had a chance to dictate their policy.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I object strongly to the amendment that Senator McKenna has moved. The Opposition is deliberately attempting to retard the defence of this country. How honorable senators opposite can hold their heads up while they continue to protest their belief in the voluntary training system, is more than I can understand. They had an opportunity quite recently to assist the Government to raise defence forces by the voluntary enlistment system, but they said,’ quite openly, that they would not co-operate with the Government; yet they continue to trot out the old story about having saved Australia in World War II. They claim that when they assumed office in 1941 Australia’s defences were negligible. That view was not shared by a really great Labour man, John Curtin, who said in the House of Representatives on the 28th May, 1941 -

I claim that the war has been prosecuted to the maximum of Australia’s capacity, and I doubt if any great improvements could have been made upon what has been done by the Government working in collaboration with the Opposition. I refuse to engage in reflections which suggest inadequacies that could be overcome by political device, although I agree that improvements could be effected by certain admistrative changes. I say frankly that I have been in association with Ministers who have given their maximum service to the problems confronting Australia. The Advisory War Council and the Government have grappled with problems in a way which I believe has been as satisfactory as was possible in the circumstances. During the absence of the Prime Minister abroad the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden ) , who served as Acting Prime Minister, set a standard of service to Australia and of association with Parliament which I greatly admire.

On the 8th November, 1941, Mr. Curtin said -

The Navy was at the highest pitch of efficiency, as demonstrated by the notable exploits of some of its ships overseas. The Home Defence Army was well trained and its equipment had been greatly improved. The strength of the Air Force had been largely increased, both in respect of home defence squadrons and the training resources for the Empire Air Scheme. The equipment of the Air Force had also been much improved. Finally munitions production andthe development of production capacity over a wide range of classes, including aircraft, was growing weekly.

I cannot understand why Opposition senators do not get sick of telling stupid lies in the face of those statements by their one time leader, and the only big man that the Labour movement ever had. Why do honorable senators opposite not endeavour to emulate John Curtin, and put their country first? The Opposition should permit the introduction of compulsory military training instead of resorting to this miserable subterfuge.

Question put -

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 24

Majority . . .. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment (by Senator McKenna) agreed to -

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 3897

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

.- I move-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice of Motion No. 1, General Business, being moved, and debate thereon proceeding, notwithstanding that the moving of the motion and debate thereon may anticipate the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the National Service Bill 1950.

I submit that motion because of the provisions of Standing Order 125. I realize that under that standing order the anticipation by motion of any order of the day is prohibited, and while the terms of the motion that is about to be considered are not linked directly with the bill referred to, nevertheless the motion is directed to the proposals contained in that bill and to the broad principles underlying those proposals. The motion, from my viewpoint, is relatively formal, so that there may be no irregularity in the motion I propose presently to move.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Senator McKenna has followed a somewhat extraordinary procedure. It would have been perfectly easy for the Opposition to move for the appointment of a select committee to deal with this subject after the second reading of the National Service Bill had been dealt with, and that is the procedure that is contemplated under the Standing Orders in relation to a matter of this kind. But for reasons which are perfectly manifest to every honorable senator on this side of the chamber, and which must also be manifest to every honorable senator opposite, the Opposition was not even ready to permit the bill to go through the second-reading stage and to express a view one way or the other on the principle of the measure. Because that is so, we are now asked to agree to a motion which recognizes that the motion originally announced by Senator McKenna is inconsistent with the Standing Orders. Consequently, the Standing Orders must be swept away in order that the Australian Labour party may be saved from the obligation to pass judgment on a measure which is before the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– in reply-The only comment I make is that if the Government is concerned to uphold the principle in the National Service Bill and seeks the support of the Australian Labour party in doing so, then the complete rejection of the bill would negative the purpose expressed by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer). It would be easy enough for the Opposition to reject the measure out of hand. I suggest to the Attorney-General that if he considers that there is virtue in the Government’s proposal - and I deny that he can claim it as far as the content of the National Service Bill is concerned - he should applaud the possibility that he may yet receive the co-operation of the Australian Labour party in the matter.

Question put-

That the motion(vide page 3897) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 24

Majority . . . .7

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators voting in the affirmative, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3898

NATIONAL SERVICE IN THE DEFENCE FORCE

Select Committee

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– I move -

  1. That a select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the Government’s proposals for compulsory national service in the defence forces.
  2. That such committee consist of Senators O’Byrne, Murray, Harris, Amour, Arnold, Sandford, and the mover.
  3. That such committee be authorized to examine all the relevant defence, man-power and economic needs and capacities of Australia.
  4. That such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place.
  5. That such committee be authorized to function notwithstanding the adjournment or prorogation of the Parliament.
  6. That such committee . report to the Senate not later than the second Thursday after the first meeting of the Senate in 1951.

I have already stated the Opposition’s reasons for seeking the establishment of this committee, and I do not propose to repeat them now. They are well known to every member of the Senate. Itis proposed that the committee shall consist of seven honorable senators, all of whom are members of the Opposition. I regret that it has been necessary to frame the motion in that way. I repeat what I have already said in this chamber - that the Opposition would welcome a Government amendment designed to appoint members of the Government parties to the committee. I am prepared to go as far as to say that we should accept an amendment designed to appoint a majority of Government supporters to the committee. Those who claim that the Opposition lacks bona fides in the matter of this committee ought to be reassured by that statement.

The motion proposes that the committee should be authorized to function notwithstanding the adjournment or prorogation of the Parliament. We do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to adjourn the Parliament or prorogue it. By design, this motion is not tied up intimately with a bill; in fact, there is no reference in it to a bill which relates to the matters which it is proposed that the committee shall consider. The motion is designed to- enable the committee to function during either an adjournment or a recess. We shall be very interested to learn the Government’s intentions in this connexion, but I point out that, if the motion be passed, a prorogation of the Parliament would not prevent the effective functioning of the committee. The Standing Orders provide that standing committees of the Parliament may function during a recess. My interpretation of “ recess “ is the time between the prorogation of the Parliament at the end of one session and the re-assembly of the Parliament at the beginning of the next session. In the motion, we have covered the position that the session may be only adjourned and also the position that the Parliament may be prorogued. I point out to the Senate that there is ample precedent for the functioning of a committee of this kind during either an adjournment or a recess.

The concluding paragraph of the motion is -

That such committee report to the Senate not later than the second Thursday after the first meeting of the Senate in 1951.

The reason why it is not proposed that the committee shall report upon the first day on which the Senate re-assembles in the new year is that experience has shown that it is necessary to have a final meeting of a select committee in Canberra in order to settle the report and tie up loose ends, including the checking of proofs of evidence, perhaps even the taking of evidence, and the making of arrangements with the Government Printer.

We have had a very good example recently of a select committee of the Senate in action. Incidentally, that committee consisted solely of Labour senators. I have no hesitation in saying that all honorable senators, irrespective of whether they agree with the conclusions reached by that committee, will find that it made a good contribution to thought upon the subject with which it dealt. I think that I can claim at least that for it. I remind the Senate that that committee considered a specialized subject - a proposed alteration of the Constitution - which involved legal and electoral questions. There were no experts in either of those fields among the members of thecommittee, but the committee had at itsdisposal some of the greatest experts in Australia upon the matters that were referred to it.

There has been some unworthy criticism of the honorable senators whom it is proposed to appoint to this committee. Grave reflections were cast upon, them. I doubt if any honorable senator who has been nominated as a member of this committee will claim that he is an expert upon defence matters, but it is not necessary that he should be an expert. It is necessary only that he should be intelligent, interested and able to sift the evidence that will be presented to the committee. In the final analysis, the function of honorable senators in this chamber is to weigh the pros and cons of every matter that comes before them and, having had both sides presented to them, to reach a conclusion. That is exactly what this committee will do if it is established.

Senator Wood:

– The Opposition docs not practise what it preaches. It accepts direction from the twelve members of the federal executive of the Australian Labour party.

Senator McKENNA:

– The interjection by Senator Wood was not only disorderly, as you know, Mr. President, but also irrelevant and not in accordance with ‘ fact. The controlling body of the Labour movement is the triennial federal conference of delegates from all States, who are elected by the rank-and-file members of the party in the States. There are more than twelve delegates to that conference. The repeated statement by honorable senators opposite that there are twelve men outside the Parliament who dictate the policy of the Labour movement reveals a complete ignorance of the organization of the movement.

Senator Spicer:

– When is the next triennial conference to be held?

Senator McKENNA:

– I believe it will be held next year. I do not propose to say anything further in support of the motion at this stage.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I do not propose to speak at length upon the motion, but I cannot allow this occasion to pass without placing on record my opposition to the establishment of this committee. I do not want to say anything of a personal nature against the honorable senators who are named in the motion, but I say that if Senator McKenna regards them as being political geniuses, I regard them as military duds. The Government has received advice from General Rowe, Air-Marshal Jones, and Admiral Collins. For my part, I prefer to accept their advice rather than that of the proposed committee. .

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I shall do so, because the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) overstepped the mark in the personal criticisms that he made of the honorable senators who it is Suggested should be appointed to this committee. I have watched the Minister fairly closely. If ever a man were mentally muscle-bound, it is he.’ He has been a member of the Parliament for long periods, and, therefore, should give a lead to new members of this chamber in decorum, but his conduct, not only as a senator but also as a Minister, leaves much to be desired. As I have said, he is mentally muscle-bound. His only exercise is jumping to conclusions.

The Government, through the blustering and blundering of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender), led this country into the crisis in which it is at present involved. Having forced the country into that situation it asked the Opposition to agree to the passage of a measure designed to provide it with the means of embarking upon war overseas. We were called upon to make a very serious decision. The Senate would be recreant to the trust reposed in it by the people if it. agreed to the Government’s proposals without consulting the people. The establishment of the proposed committee would give us time for careful thought and for the gathering of information. The motion is timely and warranted. I resent the personal attack that was made by the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport upon the honorable senators whom it is proposed to appoint to the committee, hut in making the attack he was running true to form.

The majority of the members of the proposed committee will be ex-servicemen. They did not evade their responsibilities in a time of war as the Minister did. I have been honoured by being nominated as a member of the committee. I am certain that the committee will, if it be established, present to the Senate a report that will throw much light upon the matters that it considers. Members of the Government parties are not satisfied with the measure that the Government has introduced, and there is discontent throughout their ranks. They would be pleased if further consideration were given to the measure before it was either accepted or rejected by the Parliament. I am sure that this proposal will meet with the approval of not only the Senate but also the people of Australia.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I have listened to the debate .this afternoon with great interest. The impression which I have gained is that there is not a great deal of enthusiasm, or even simulated enthusiasm, among Opposition senators about this proposal. Probably it has been received with a great deal more enthusiasm by another political party - the Communist party. Comrade Healy and all the other comrades are undoubtedly urging the members of the Opposition on, saying, “ Go on, boys; keep up the delay; form your bogus select committee and let it present its ridiculous report. We are all for it “.

Senator Ward:

– The honorable senator should not waste the time of the Senate in this way.

Senator VINCENT:

– I shall not waste the time of the Senate. I propose to make but a few short observations on the Opposition’s proposal to appoint a select committee to investigate certain matters relating to a bill which the Senate has had before it to-day. No one outside this chamber, not even a schoolboy, would contend that this proposal has merit. All school-boys know that it is the function of the Government to determine matters of defence policy. If the Government wished to appoint a select committee to inquire into this matter, if would have done so. In fact, it has already done so, as honorable senators of the Opposition well know. No select committee consisting of Opposition senators should seek to usurp the function of the Government to make decisions in respect of defence matters. At best such a committee could obtain information which is already in the possession of the Government. The Government has more ready access to essential information on which to base its defence policy than any select committee consisting of Opposition senators could possibly have. Can Opposition senators imagine this committee summoning the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal George Jones, to appear before it and give it top secret information concerning the defences of this or any other country? This proposal is utterly ludicrous. None of the chiefs of staff would be prepared to give to the committee the information which it would need in order to arrive at rational conclusions. Assuming that a select committee could obtain information relative to the industrial and defence potential of Australia and that it concluded its deliberations next March - or perhaps next June or July - and a week later Russia attacked India, would not that hostile act alter the whole pattern of the defence programme of this country? In order to keep itself up to date such a committee would have to sit almost continuously.

Senator Ward:

– The committee could do a better job than this Government has done.

Senator VINCENT:

– The Opposition was not elected to govern: it would be better employed in restricting itself to the functions of an Opposition. The logical outcome of the activities of this proposed select committee is obvious to every one. I oppose the motion.

Question put -

That the motion(vide page 3898) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority . . … . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3901

EGG EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th December (vide page 3762), on motion by Senator McLeay-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– As the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), has indicated in his second-reading speech, this bill is designed to overcome a difficulty in the composition of the Egg Export Control Board. As it has no other purpose it is endorsed by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3901

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill he now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to increase the pensions and benefits payable under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to members of the permanent defence forces. At the same time the opportunity is being taken to make certain minor amendments to the act. These amendments extend the provisions of the act to further classes of members of the defence forces, and also cater for some changes in conditions of service which have occurred since the act came into operation.

When the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill was introduced into the Senate in May, 1948, it received the unqualified support of members of the present Government, who then occupied the Opposition benches, and the government of the day was commended for bringing forward “ a very welcome piece of legislation “. The improvements to the scheme which are embodied in the bill will, I am confident, meet with the approval, of all honorable senators.

Members of the defence forces are, in the main, retired at comparatively early ages. In the Air Force, retirement of officers commences at the age of 41, in the Navy, at the age of 45, and in the Army, at the age of 47. Ratings in the Navy and other ranks in the Army and Air Force become pensionable after completing twenty years’ service from the age of 20.

In view of these comparatively early retiring ages, pensions are based on the substantive rank held by the member at the date of his retirement, and they contain a very substantial government subsidy as compensation for early retirement. Members are, however, during their service, covered for death or invalidity to the extent of the number of units for which they contribute. The Government decided recently to increase the value of the first eight units from £32 10s. to £39. This bill makes provision for the increased payment to members now serving, and also grants corresponding increases to those who have retired and who are in receipt of pension under the act. The full increase will be payable to those who are entitled to invalidity pensions where ‘the disability is 60 per cent, or over, and to. those who retire after serving to age 60. Widow* of ex-contributors to the DefenceForces Retirement Benefits Fund will also receive a pro rata increase of their’ pensions. For members retired and pensioned on reaching retiring age for rank before age 60, a proportionate increase, according to age of retirement,, will be made. The increases embodied in this bill are of a temporary nature only, pending the quinquennial examination of the fund, which is to be made in 1952, and are in line with the increases approved for application to ex-members of the Public Service who were contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund.

Increases are also proposed for certain lump sum benefits provided under the act. Members who do not serve long enough to qualify for pension, but who satisfy certain conditions of service, receive n refund of their contributions plus a gratuity. This gratuity consists of a fixed sum of £20 or £30 for each year of service, depending on length of service, or one and a half times the amount of contributions made, whichever is the greater. It is proposed that, in the case of members who serve for twelve or more years, the present subsidy of one and a half times the contributions shall be increased to twice the amount of contributions for contributions up to 18s. per fortnight, and for contributions made after the completion of twelve years’ service, and after the date of commencement of this bill.

The increases to which I have just referred comprise -the main purpose of this bill. In addition, it is proposed to introduce a scheme of retirement benefits for nurses who are appointed on a career basis to the Army and the Air Force nursing services. The provisions will be similar to those provided for career officers under the act. Retirement pensions will be payable at age 55, and will bear the same general relation to the pensions of male officers who retire a! that age as the pay of nurses bears to the pay of those officers. Invalidity benefits will be provided on the same scale as for male officers. In view of the fact that the scale of contributions increases with age, it is proposed thai nurses who are now serving and who have attained the age of thirty years shall be allowed to elect whether or not they shall become contributors.

A further matter dealt with in the bill is the scale on which members shall contribute. Generally speaking, members contribute for the number of units appropriate to their daily pay, and if their daily pay is increased they are at present required to take out extra units without receiving any added retirement benefit. Honorable senators will recollect than the Government recently approved substantia] increases in the pay of the forces. These increases would normally require members to take out two, three and in some instances four extra units, the cost of which would be considerable. Having in mind the fact that all pensions are to be increased in the manner to which I referred in the earlier part of my speech, it has been decided that the most satisfactory solution of the problem is to relieve members of the necessity to make extra contributions because of the pay increases. The scale of contributions will therefore be pegged at the rates appropriate to the pay scales in force prior to the recent increases. This will mean that members will be in receipt of increased pay but will not be required to make increased contributions to the fund. As a corollary to this, pensions will remain at the present scale, plus the increases to which I referred earlier.

The remaining provisions of the bill relate to points which have arisen since the act came into operation and also, in some instances, refer to minor anomalies which have come to light during the administration of the act.

These amendments follow recommendations made by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board, a body on which each of the three services is represented. In conclusion I would like to mention, once again, that this is a bill to improve the retirement benefits for members of the defence forces. In view of the importance of defence at this time I am sure that the bill will have the support of all honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 3903

APPROPRIATION BILL 1950-51

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

, - I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

This measure provides for the appropriation of revenue for the ordinary services of the various departments. It provides for an appropriation of £19,398,000 for the services of the year 1950-51, to which should be added the amounts already granted under Supply Act No. 4 of 1950 and Supply Act No. 19 of 1950, of £77,000,000 and £61,189,000 respectively, making the total amount £329,5S7,000.’ This is the estimated expenditure from annual appropriations for ordinary services for the year 1950-51, as set out in detail in the second schedule to the bill. The expenditure proposals of the Government have already been dealt with in the budget debate, and it is not proposed to deal now with the various items in detail. Any explanations that may be desired by honorable senators will be furnished at the committee stage.

Debate (on motion by Senator Ashley) adjourned.

page 3903

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1950-51

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The provision made in the 1950-51 Estimates for Expenditure on Capital Works and Services is £68,705,000 from annual votes, and an additional £530,000 from special appropriations. This measure, which should be read in conjunction with the Supply (Works and Services) Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) 1950, provides the necessary Parliamentary appropriation for the expenditure under annual votes, which may be summarized as follows : -

Details of the proposed expenditure will be found on pages 227 to 242 of the printed Estimates, and in the schedule to the present bill. The Government has adopted a policy of comprehensive longrange planning for capital works and services covering periods from three to five years. This procedure enables essential advance ordering of materials to be undertaken and, in addition, it ensures that any available labour force can be readily absorbed.

Cabinet committees have been set up to review and approve of all new works, particular attention being given to the priority to be allocated to each project. Accordingly, works included in the bill now before the Senate are those which, in the view of the Cabinet committee concerned, are of an especially urgent and essential nature, and should therefore be undertaken with the least possible delay.

The bill makes provision for an estimated expenditure of £9,270,000 for capital works required to implement the Government’s migration plan. The construction of reception, training and holding centres to accommodate migrants, as well as hostels for migrant workers, has been allotted a high priority by the Government.

The Estimates include an amount of £6,000,000 to cover expenditure this financial year on the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric power scheme.

Expected expenditure by the Department of Supply includes £2,900,000 for shipbuilding.

The amount of £5,880,000 for the Department of Civil Aviation includes £3,110,000 for the acquisition and con struction of aerodromes, as well as £2,393,000 for the purchase of modern electrical and other equipment.

Provision is made under the Department of Health for the payment of £1,064,000 to the States under the provisions of the Tuberculosis Act 1948 in reimbursement of expenditure on capital facilities in the campaign against tuberculosis.

The Postal Department’s rehabilitation programme is now in its fourth year, and it is estimated that £21,250,000 will be required to meet commitments during 1950-51 whilst a further amount of £5,000,000 will be paid to the stores trust account for the purchase of stores and equipment, a large portion of which is obtained overseas.

Expected expenditure of £5,088,000 by the Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport includes £3,000,000 for capital expenditure by the Joint Coal Board in accordance with plans to increase coal production.

The continued development of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory is estimated to cost £1,006,000 and £3,751,000, respectively, in this financial year, mainly for the construction of cottages and hostels with the associated engineering works.

Works and equipment for the defence services are provided for this year in the main Estimates, whilst expenditure in connexion with war service homes is being met from loan fund.

Debate (on motion by Senator Ashley) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.35 to 8 p.m.

page 3904

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator NASH:

– I present the second report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 3904

APPROPRIATION BILL 1950-51

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3903).

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– This measure provides for an appropriation of revenue for the ordinary services of the various Commonwealth departments.

The total appropriation sought is £191,398,000. That is, of course, in addition to the amounts already granted under Supply Act No. 4 of 1950, and Supply Act No. 19 of 1950. The Opposition offers no objection to this measure, and any criticism that honorable senators on this side of the chamber have to make of its provisions will be offered when the bill is in committee.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I bring to the notice of the Government conditions existing at certain immigrant holding centres. The provision made for displaced persons in immigration camps and hostels appears to be quite satisfactory, but British immigrants apparently do not have the same good fortune. In South Australia particularly, old wool sheds are being used to accommodate British immigrants. This accommodation is far inferior to that provided for displaced persons at such centres as Woodside and Ethelton. I am speaking now specifically of South Australia, because I know what the position is there. I have made an inspection of the Rosewater Camp, near Port Adelaide, and I have seen families housed in poky buildings. Apparently, the first occupants of the Rosewater camp were stationed for some time at Bathurst before being transferred to South Australia. No allowances were paid to them from the time that they left Bathurst until they reached South Australia. As many of them arrived from Great Britain with little money in their pockets, some provision should have been made for the payment of allowances after they left Bathurst. That misfortune was accentuated, of course, when they found that they had to live in miserable buildings, some of which were converted wool sheds in which the odour of the greasy wool is still strong. The conveniences provided leave much to be desired, and are certainly not as adequate as those provided for displaced persons. For some considerable time no special provision was made for children at Rosewater, and even now the facilities for babies are almost non-existent. It is true that conditions have improved slightly, and that the Department of Immigration has done its best in the circumstances, but conditions’ are still a long way below what can be regarded as a reasonable standard. Had proper care been exercised originally, this problem would never have arisen, and needless dissatisfaction among the immigrants would have been avoided. I ask the Government to take immediate action to improve the living conditions of British immigrants * upon their arrival in this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second schedule.

Proposed votes - Parliament, £451,000; Prime Minister’s Department, £1,599,000 , Department of External Affairs, £1,315,000 ; Department of the Treasury, £7,590,000; Attorney-General’s Department, £760,000; and Department of the Interior, £2,307,000- agreed to.

Department of Works and Housing.

Proposed vote, £1,231,000.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I draw the attention of the committee to the unnecessarily complicated procedure that is adopted by the Department of Works and Housing in effecting minor repairs to Commonwealth buildings, particularly in country areas. When a post office, for instance, in a country town requires painting or some minor repair work, an official request for that work to be carried out is made by local officials. Eventually, an officer of the Department of Works and Housing arrives in the district and inspects the job. He makes his report, and after a further interval has elapsed tenders are called for the work. The successful tenderer may be living in a distant city, and further delay is involved before the work is actually carried out. Surely some more expeditious system could be devised. Even in the short time that I have been a member of this Parliament, many instances of undue delay in effecting minor repairs have been brought to my notice. The present cumbersome procedure must be costly, and I see no reason why provision could not be made for minor repair and maintenance work to be carried out by local tradesmen, provided, of course, that the work can be done within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. When one considers the salaries that are paid to public servants to-day, and all the administrative procedure involved in the present method of carrying out repair work, it is clear that unnecessary expense is being incurred. I ask the Minister to have regard to my submissions in order that the procedure may be shortened and the work of repairs made cheaper.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Provision was contained in the votes last year for the expenditure of £5,150 for national development of which £2,1S1 was expended. This year provision is made for the expenditure of £33,000. Can the Minister indicate what that additional expenditure is intended to cover ?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I shall first answer the question asked by Senator Ashley. The reason that the expenditure was so small is that the Department of National Development came into existence only early this year, I think in March. The answer to Senator Vincent’s inquiry, which is a more difficult question, is that the department must face the situation of striking what might be called a happy balance. The Department of Works and Housing is the constructing authority for all the Commonwealth departments. It must strike a balance to ensure that government works are properly carried out and that government funds are properly safeguarded. At the same time it is decentralizing its authority so that work may be done expeditiously. Within recent months the department has decentralized to a greater extent than previously, giving further autonomy to local departments to expend amounts up to a certain limit. That has simplified its accounting procedure so that there is not a mass of information passing from department to department. As a result of tb at simplification the department hopes that the service that it renders to other departments will be more efficient. However, I shall draw the attention of the Minister for Works and Housing to the view expressed by the honorable senator.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Civil Aviation, £6,946,000; Department of Trade and Customs, £2,000,000- agreed to.

Department ov Health.

Proposed vote, £656,000.

Senator ASHLEY:
r Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– Referring to Division 76, I invite the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year provision was made for the expenditure of £208,000 for general expenses. The actual expenditure was £208,153. This year provision is made for an expenditure of £285,000. Can the Minister explain why the additional money is required?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Salaries and allowances are expected to exceed last year’s expenditure by £46,854. That amount of £161,000 covers salaries and allowances payable to permanent officers engaged on administrative duties in connexion with public health, medical research, hospital benefits and so on. The increase over expenditure for 1949-50 is due to the filling of vacant positions, the creation of new positions, cost of living adjustments, and arbitration determinations.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The Minister has stated that Division 76, section A covers salaries of officers administering a national health scheme. At the present time there is really no scheme in operation. The matter is most unsatisfactory, and I wish to know what expenditure has been incurred, what staff has been made available, and what arrangements have been made to put such a scheme into operation, so that it may be made clear to this chamber that the scheme will be proceeded with. At the present time there is a most expensive attempt to do something which will result merely in a breakdown of the original scheme suggested by Senator McKenna -

Senator Vincent:

– That scheme broke down a long while ago.

Senator COOKE:

– It was broken down by the supporters of the Government. Under that scheme a formulary was compiled in accordance with the British Pharmacopoeia, and it is now found that only a very small proportion of the formulary is being used. There has been an absolute waste of public moneys in relation to this scheme that is operating only in part and not genuinely. I have in my hand letters from persons who are qualified to criticize this matter, and they show that as long as a person is suffering from some disease that is considered likely to endanger health and cause death, the formulary can be used for the supply of certain proprietary lines of drugs. One letter concerns a child who was suffering from epilepsy. If a doctor is prepared to prescribe an expensive proprietary drug, the country will pay for it, but I know - and I have evidence from chemists to prove it - that that child did not respond to such treatment and was in fact allergic to the proprietary drug. She has been satisfactorily treated on a much cheaper prescription which is not covered by the formulary. In relation to proprietary lines, it is also found that for persons suffering from cardiac trouble there is a proprietary line drug named “cardophyllin” which is used in conjunction with phenobarbital and is standard treatment. The tablets may be purchased separately. If the formulary permits cardophyllin to be supplied free, it may he prescribed, but phenobarbital cannot be prescribed. Even though a tablet which contains the correct proportions of both of those drugs for the use of persons suffering from cardiac complaints is manufactured the formulary docs not list that tablet. Chemists could make up much cheaper drugs, which would be just as effective, but they are prevented from doing so because the Government has not made any provision for the free supply of cheaper, and sometimes more effective, methods of treatment.

I ask the Minister whether any provision is made in these Estimates for the institution of a medical scheme for pensioners. Age pensioners are still not accommodated under any free medicine scheme. An age pensioner is still obliged to go to the out-patients’ department of a. public hospital, as he always has been and to wait there for many hours of the day. I ask the Minister to give some explanation of the matters that I have raised.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

– The honorable senator has made quite a lengthy speech concerning the Estimates, but he has not confined himself to any particular amount in the Estimates.

Senator Cooke:

– If the Minister is in doubt, I inform that it refers to section A of Division No. 76, which deals with salaries and allowances.

Senator COOPER:

– Section A deals with salaries and allowances, in accordance with the schedule. There is no provision in Schedule A for age pensioners and invalid pensioners. However, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a scheme of medical and health benefits for age and invalid pensioners, plus a general medical health scheme. Some provision must be mad.e for the setting up of a department to administer those schemes. Provision has been made in the Estimates for an increase of £46,S54. That is the provisional estimate to implement the schemes that have been announced by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) and which will be introduced at an early date or as soon as the degree of preparedness of the schemes permits. That amount has been made available on this year’s Estimates for the general health schemes.

Senator Cooke:

– I should like the Minister to consult with his departmental officers and to ascertain why they have proposed an additional amount of £41,000 for the payment of salaries of permanent officers, and for an increase of nearly £29,000 in the salaries of temporary and casual officers. On what basis and for what period of the year is that additional expenditure estimated? I hope those figures are not like the rest of the budget - merely plucked from the air. I consider that the Minister should be able to give the Senate an indication of how many months of the year that money is estimated to cover in relation to the two schemes to which I have drawn attention.

Senator COOPER:

– That is a general estimate of the expenses of the Department of Health. One scheme cannot be selected and an estimate provided for that scheme. This amount is additional to those given to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley). If Senator Cooke requires those to be stated, I shall do so.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Commerce and Agriculture.

Proposed vote, £1,055,000.

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND · CP

– I should like the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to tell me what work is being done by the Division of Agricultural Economics and the Division of Agricultural Production that is not also being done by comparable State departments. Under the Constitution, power in respect of agriculture is specifically reserved to the States. In recent years, there has been a tendency for the Commonwealth to invade State domains. What is the justification for the establishment of the two divisions of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture to which I have referred? It would appear at first sight that they could only duplicate work that is being performed efficiently by State departments.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The Bureau of Agricultural Economics is conducting special investigations to ascertain costs of production in rural industries. The policy of this Government is to ensure that primary producers will receive for their products returns that will give them reasonable margins over costs of production. Every effort is made to prevent over-lapping between the Commonwealth and the States in connexion with agriculture. The Australian Agricultural Council, which consists of State and Federal Ministers responsible for agriculture, meets at least once a year. The States desire that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics shall continue its work.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Social Services.

Proposed vote, £1,400,000.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The proposed vote in respect of salaries and allowances for the central administration is £56,000, which is £13,000 more than the sum voted in 1949-50 for that purpose. It is difficult to see how that increase can be reconciled with the Government’s policy of reducing expenditure. I should like to know the explanation of the increase, especially as expenditure upon this item in 1949-50 was less than the amount voted. Does the Government intend that the department shall be enlarged in order to administer the expanded social services that have been promised and to assist in administering the national health scheme ?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– It is difficult to be specific about the trend of salaries. As honorable senators know, the work of the Department of Social Services is increasing. This year, responsibility for the payment of endowment in respect of the first child in every family has been superimposed upon its other activities. Salaries throughout the Public Service were increased recently, and, in addition, it has been necessary to make provision for the payment of a substantial retirement allowance to the Deputy Director-General, who will retire this year.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– I ask the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) to consider the institution of a system under which age or invalid pensioners who are inmates of mental asylums could be paid a portion of their pensions. Section 48 of the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947 provides that where an age or invalid pensioner becomes an inmate of a hospital for the insane, the payment of his pension shall be immediately suspended, and when the pensioner is discharged from the hospital, that the pension shall again become payable in respect of the period of suspension, but not in respect of a longer period than four weeks. Section 50 of the act provides that if a person who is an inmate of a benevolent asylum becomes an age or invalid pensioner, or if an age or invalid pensioner becomes an inmate of such an asylum, he shall, while he remains an inmate of the asylum, be paid a sum of 13s. a week from his pension, and that the balance of the pension shall be made available to the asylum for his maintenance.

If a service pensioner becomes an inmate of a mental hospital, he, or his relatives, or the Master in Lunacy on his behalf, receives 15s. a week from the pension.

It will be seen that in connexion with pension payments there is differential treatment for age and invalid pensioners in hospitals for the insane, age and invalid pensioners in benevolent asylums, and service pensioners in mental hospitals. I suggest that consideration be given to an alteration of this position. Under the provisions of the Mental Institution Benefits Act 1948, which was sponsored by a Labour government, patients of a mental institution are not subject to a means test and are not required to pay fees. That provision is of great benefit to patients and their relatives, but it does not permit of any financial allowance being paid to patients.

Let me take the Claremont Mental Hospital in Western Australia as an example. I have been reliably informed by a body known as the Claremont Mental Hospital Welfare Association that the hospital has been receiving payments from relatives or from patients’ estates in approximately 250 cases. The hospital has 1,350 patients. Therefore, it has been receiving payments from approximately 20 per cent, of the patients. The remaining SO per cent, of the inmates are completely dependent upon institutional life. They have no chance whatever of obtaining any amenities. They eat nothing but institutional food and wear only institutional clothing. They are unable to purchase any personal requirements or delicacies. It will be admitted that their outlook is not at all rosy. Their environment gives them no chance of being rehabilitated to fit them for normal life. The great majority of this 80 per cent, of the patients have no visitors. They have little opportunity, if any, to engage in hobbies or other methods of occupying their idle time. It may be argued that, even if payments of part of the age or invalid pension were made available to them, they would he unable to handle the money, but many of them are borderline cases. The line between sanity and insanity is a thin one. Many hundreds of inmates of mental institutions are not actually insane.

I request the Government to give consideration to amending section 48 of the Social Services Consolidation Act to make it consistent with section 50 of the act or with the provisions relating to the payments made to service pensioners who are inmates of mental hospitals. If my suggestion is not considered to be practicable, I request that consideration should be given to amending the section to provide that, at the discretion of the Master in Lunacy, payments may be made to these patients. I suggest that it would be reasonable to make a nominal payment of, say, 7s. 6d. a week. I point out that many patients and their relatvies have paid social services contributions and, therefore, are entitled to some consideration.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social .Services · New South Wales · LP

– The matter raised by the honorable senator has received consideration by this Government and previous governments. I understand that it has been raised for fi number of years at conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers. The name of the Claremont Mental Hospital is very familiar to me, because, on behalf of that hospital, representations have been made to me by every Western Australian senator, and, I think, by the majority of the members of the House of Representatives who represent Western Australian electorates. Successive governments rejected the proposal. The Commonwealth declined to accept responsibility for the care of the mentally ill on the ground that it lies within the province of the States. When the Commonwealth is asked to make payments to patients in mental hospitals, in effect, it is asked to write on the statute-book a new social service. I have no details at hand, but my recollection is that if the Commonwealth accepted responsibility on the lines suggested it would be involved in an expenditure of approximately £2,250,000 per annum.

Senator Willesee:

– At what rate of pension f

Senator SPOONER:

– The computation was made at the old rate of pension. The cost would be higher now because of the increase of the pension rate. Honorable senators must realize that many of these unfortunate people are not able to handle money. Their mental condition is such that it would be inadvisable to allow them to do so. It must also be remembered that special Commonwealth legislation has been passed granting assistance to the States to help them to provide free treatment for mental patients. The Commonwealth grants to the States a total of £480,000 per annum for that purpose. I assure the honorable senator that the Government reached its decision not to pay portion of the pension to mental patients only after the most careful consideration. I was given the task of placing the views of the Commonwealth on this matter before the State Premiers at the last conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– The vote for salaries and allowances under division No. 87 - State Establishments - is £609,500, compared with the vote of £397,100 for 1949-50. The votes for temporary and casual employees and for extra duty pay have also been increased by £102,700 and £2,000 respectively. Are these increased votes due to increases of the number of employees or to increased wages paid to existing employees? When the Labour Government was in office it was frequently twitted by members of the then Opposition for retaining the services of a large number of temporary and casual employees. The number of these employees appears to be increasing rather than diminishing. Will the Minister explain how these additional estimates are accounted for?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I can only give to the honorable senator the same explanation as I gave to Senator Cooke. The Department of Social Services is being expanded rapidly as the result of increased activities. Two costofliving increases granted to the staff which date back to 1949 will also be paid in 1950-51. The increased votes are attributable to normal salary increases of the staff, increases of the number of staff made necessary as the result of the extension of child endowment to the first child, and to a reclassification of the duties and responsibilities of officers in the department. Retrospective salary increases dating back to 1949 will be reflected in this year’s charges. In accordance with departmental policy we are endeavouring to place the unemployment and sickness benefit section in a separate compartment so that quicker service may be rendered to the public. A new sickness and unemployment office has recently been opened in Sydney. The cost of these changes is reflected in the estimates for 1950-51.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The Minister’s explanation was not very convincing. The Minister hassaid that some portion of the increased estimates for his department is due to the necessity to provide for retirement allowances of highly paid officers. I assume that that relates to the amount of £2,065, shown under Division 87. I regret that the Minister has not replied to my question relating to the increase of the staff of the department. The Estimates show an increase by 271 over the number employed in 1949-50. Provision of £1,070 has been made for officers on the unattached list pending suitable vacancies and £9,915 for proposed new staff. Are the officers on the unattached list working in another department or in the Department of Social Services?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

.- Only one officer is on the unattached list. She has very high qualifications for social services work, and has been retained on the strength of the department for the time being and is engaged on special work in the social services section. It is hoped that an opening will be found for her in the rehabilitation section, which has only comparatively recently been transferred to the department after having operated for many years under the former Department of Post-war Reconstruction. The efficiency of a department and the services which it renders to thi* people cannot be measured by the number of officers employed in it. I admit that I am astonished to learn that the staff is to be increased by 271 officers. I understand that the total number of officers employed in the rehabilitation section does not exceed 400. The estimated total number of additional officers required to handle the new child endowment payment is approximately 190. In the early stages of the payment of this additional social service it is necessary to employ a substantially greater number than will be the case in normal years because of the necessity to compile registers of new children who are eligible for the “payment of the benefit. The department has been re-organized internally and as a result of its examination by the Public Service Board a substantial number of senior positions will soon be advertised and filled by the method decided upon by the board.

Senator Cooke:

– Will the new staff be covered by the provision of £9,915 to which I have referred?

Senator SPOONER:

– Considerably more than one-half of that amount will be required to pay the salaries of appointees to the rehabilitation section.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– I should like the Minister to furnish some information relating to reciprocity in social services between Australia and the United Kingdom. As the Minister is aware, complete reciprocal pensions arrangements were made by the

Labour Government with the Government of New Zealand to the great advantage of the nationals of both countries. For the purposes of pension qualification, residence in one country is regarded as residence in the other. When I last heard of the matter negotiations were in progress between the authorities in the United Kingdom and the Australian Government to achieve a similar result. The Minister will agree that in view of the large number of migrants coming to Australia, particularly from the United Kingdom, it is now more important than ever that a basis of reciprocity between the two countries should be established. Have the negotiations progressed, and if so, what stage has been reached, and what is the probability of an agreement being made in the near future ? I concede at once the difficulty in the matter, and I realize that owing to the two systems having different financial bases, it is not so easy a matter to accomplish as was the reciprocity agreement with New Zealand. I should be grateful if the Minister would supply the “Senate with some information on this subject.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– Some months ago two United Kingdom officers came to Australia. While they were here there was a series of conferences between officers of my department, Treasury officers, and the two United Kingdom officers that I have mentioned, and it appeared that there might be agreement. As Senator McKenna knows, it is a very complicated matter to reconcile the benefits applicable in the United Kingdom with those in Australia. In correspondence between the departments, after the two United Kingdom officers had left Australia, another field of difficulty was encountered, which was subsequently overcome. I understand that there is a probability of agreement being reached, to the satisfaction of both countries. However, a further conference will first be necessary. I agree with Senator McKenna that in view of the fact that our population is increasing rapidly as a result of the immigration programme, it is most desirable that the position should be clarified as soon as possible. In the forthcoming recess of the Parliament I shall endeavour to clarify it.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The proposed vote for new staff in State establishments is £154,580, and the proposed vote for officers on the unattached list pending suitable vacancies is £9,915. Therefore the provision for new staff additional to the increased staff of 271 for 1950-51 compared with 1949-50, is £164,495. I should be pleased if the Minister would furnish me with additional information in this connexion.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I have before me a schedule which sets out in detail the basis of the proposed vote of £154,5S0. Provision has been made for 144 new positions in connexion with rehabilitation activities. Details for a permanent organization have been submitted to the Public Service Board.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to- an aspect of the subject that was raised by Senator Nash. A’t this stage I do. not wish to deal with anomalies that exist in connexion with the inmates of mental homes and curative homes. However, I should like the Minister to inform me whether, in the circumstances that were outlined by the honorable senator, the Government considers that a portion of the age pension should be paid to the inmates. If so, only administrative difficulties would need to be overcome. However, the matter of reimbursement payments to the States would have to be considered if the States decided to make payments to the inmates of 5s. or 7s. 6d. a week. If the Government favours the payment of portion of the age pension to pensioners in these homes, will the Minister undertake to appoint a committee to inquire into this matter and recommend a basis for payment? If the Government considers that these people are not deserving of consideration, I realize that the matter must rest until there is a change of government, or until the present Government can be convinced of the necessity for such payments.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– It is not easy to give a concise answer to all of the matters that the honorable senator has raised. He has asked whether the Government believes that certain people should receive pensions. I do not consider that that is a fair approach to the subject, because these unfortunate people have to be looked after by somebody. It is a matter of deciding whether that is the responsibility of the Commonwealth or the States. I do not consider that it would be correct to say that the provision of all social services, including hospitalization and education, should be the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Many of the States are supplementing Commonwealth social services by paying widows pensions and allowances for children. There is also involved the overriding consideration of Commonwealth grants to the States. If it were decided that these people should receive pensions, no administrative difficulty would be involved. The point at issue is whether this is a matter that the Commonwealth should finance or whether the responsibility rests on the States. I understand that this matter has been placed on the agenda of successive conferences of

Commonwealth and State Ministers during the last six or seven years. The attitude of the Commonwealth has been to leave the matter in the hands of the States. .

Senator Katz:

– Did not the previous Government agree to pay to the States the expenditure involved in the upkeep of the individuals in those institutions?

Senator SPOONER:

– As I have mentioned before, last year the Commonwealth provided £480,000 for that purpose.

Senator Katz:

-Have all States made application to participate in that fund ?

Senator SPOONER:

– Yes.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Supply.

Proposed vote, £439,000.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The proposed vote for transport and storage services is £250,000, compared with an expenditure of £977,105 in 1949-50. I should like the Minister to explain why the proposed vote for this financial year is much lower than the expenditure during the last financial year Certain charges have been transferred to other departments, and that action has diminished progressively such expenditure by the Department of Supply. Earlier this year a committee was established to investigate the heavy transport work performed by the Department of Supply. I do not know what recommendations were submitted by the committee. However, as the members of the committee were representatives of master carriers engaged in heavy transport, who would gain an advantage if the Department of Supply ceased to carry out heavy transport work for other departments, I consider that they would recommend that the heavy transport activities of the department should be severely curtailed. Will the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) furnish the Senate with additional information in connexion with the proposed vote?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Provision has been made to cover the cost of storage services provided by the Department of

Supply for departments other than trading departments, where such relate to the activities of the Department of Supply. No provision has been made for transport services in 1950-51. The provision in 1949-50 was £450,000. From the 1st July, 1950, expenditure on transport will be recoverable from the respective departments. In 1949-50 the expenditure in connexion with the provision of transport services was £873,599, and for storage services, £103,506, making a total of £977,105. The increased provision for storage services has been necessitated partly by increased demands by the Department of Immigration, and partly by increased costs.

Senator Armstrong:

– A committee was appointed to investigate the heavy transport section. Has it presented its report, and is the report available?

Senator COOPER:

– I do not know, what the report contains, but I shall investigate the matter.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- Recently, I asked in this chamber whether “ Centurion “ tanks were being supplied to the Australian forces. I suggested that they were obsolete, and that the Government might investigate proposals for developing in this country a tank with fire-power, armour and speed equal to the world’s best. Even if the department is not prepared to embark upon the actual manufacture of such a tank in quantity, I suggest that the preliminary investigation work should be done, and preparations completed for manufacture. When the first “ Centurion “ tank was brought here, I read a newspaper report that it was the finest medium, all-purpose tank in the world, that it weighed 48 tons, mounted a gun that fired a 20-lb. shell, and was capable of standing up to anything of its own weight in the world. The report added that possibly the “Joseph Stalin” tank, manufactured in Russia, could knock out the “ Centurion “ tank in a toe-to-toe battle. That report disguises the fact that the “ Centurion “ tank is not equal to the sort of tanks that it might have to meet in battle. “ Centurion “ tanks were sold in large numbers to the Indian Army in 1945. Even at the end of the war, they were no more than a match for the German “ Tiger “ tank, and were not equal to the “ Joseph Stalin “ tank. British tanks have never been equal to the enemy tanks against which they have been pitted. That was the experience in the Middle East, and in Europe also, during the last war. The largest Russian tank carries a 122 m.m. gun, which is the equivalent of a 4.8-in. gun. In Korea, the Russian tanks, which were not the best that the Russians have been producing, outgunned and out-fought the American tanks. I suggest that there should be an investigation in Australia into the most suitable kind of tank to manufacture here. Britain is lagging behind in the manufacture of tanks, and the United States of America is not much better off. None of the Allied countries is producing a tank equal to the best Russian tank.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Senator Armstrong, who was a Minister in the Labour Government during the war, will realize that some of the projects being developed by the Defence Department are in the experimental stages, and may not be discussed here. With funds provided under the heading of Defence Research and Development, and under the heading of Manufacture of War Material, the department is constructing munitions factories, clothing factories, an aeronautical research station, &c. I shall bring to the notice of the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) the points raised by Senator Armstrong.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- I refer to Division 160. - “ Manufacture of War Material - Machinery and Plant “. I notice that the word is spelt “material”. Can the Minister say whether that spelling is intentional, or is an error? Previously, and only after a good deal of consideration, the spelling materiel was adopted, because of its wider application. In that form, it covered even the building of merchant ships.

Senator O’sullivan:

– We are proprogressing; “a” is ahead of “e”.

Senator COOPER:

– I think the word is spelt as it was meant to be spelt.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department or Fuel, Shipping and Transport.

Proposed vote, £539,000.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– Some time ago, I asked a question in the Senate about strategic roads in Western Australia, and the Minister concerned was good enough to furnish me with a reply. The question referred to the roads from Perth to Adelaide, and from Perth to the Kimberleys. During the war, because of the shortcomings of the railway system, our transport services from the east to the west of the continent were at one stage in a critical condition. In Western Australia, and to a lesser degree throughout the whole of the Commonwealth, the railways have never recovered from the effects of the war, There is still a shortage of rolling stock, and the permanent ways were not properly maintained. If war should break out again within the next two or three years, and Western Australia were used as a military base, the transport situation would be even worse than it was during the last war. I do not think that we can overlook the possibility of another war, nor the possibility of Western Australia being used as a base, because it is the nearest part of Australia to Asia. I do not suggest that we may be on the eve of another world war, but even if the situation does not develop so far as that, it may still be necessary to use Western Australia as a base for operations in Asia. In reply to my question on this subject, I was informed that only part of the road from Perth to Adelaide was recognized bv the Commonwealth as a strategic road.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Nicholls:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! The honorable senator may not make a second-reading speech at this stage.

Senator VINCENT:

– I was merely supplying information in justification of my request that the roads from Perth to Adelaide and from Perth to the Kimberleys should be declared strategic roads.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The points raised by Senator Vincent are important, but it has to be recognized that a considerable’ amount of money would have to be expended to maintain the roads mentioned by him. However, in view of all thecircumstances, I promise that I shall give the matter special consideration, and see whether those roads can be classified as strategic roads. That applies also tocertain highways in the northern part of Queensland. Recently, I travelled over the road from Alice Springs toDarwin, a distance of 1,029 miles, and. was gratified to note that the road has been maintained in perfect condition the whole of the way. I recognize the need for keeping that and similar roads in a good state of repair in caseof emergency.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Provision is made for the expenditure of £34,000 on lighthouses,, buoys and beacons, and of £60,000 on lighthouse steamers. I should like toknow whether those figures cover the cost” of providing such services around thecoast of New Guinea. There appears tobe no corresponding item in the estimates for external territories.

Senator McLeay:

– I understand from my technical advisers that that amount is11.Ot included. It is a separate item.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of External Territories, £97,000; Department of Immigration, £713,000; and Department of Labour and National Service,. £1,537,000- agreed to.

Department of National Development-

Proposed vote, £800,000.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

. - Provision is made in thisvote for a grant of £40,000 for assistance to the mining industry. Can the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) indicate the nature of that assistance, and’ the States in which it is to be provided?’

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

.. - This provision is to meet expenditureincurred by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in granting assistance to themining industry. The sum of £235,000* was provided in the 1949-50 estimate for the Department of Supply to which thebureau was attached for approximately nine months of that financial year.

During the latter three months of the year, the bureau was attached to the Department of National Development. The expenditure by both departments is shown in the following table : -

It will be noted that only £40,000has teen provided for the current financial year. That is because the expected expenditure will be on exploratory drilling only. Assistance to marginal gold mines has ceased because of the alteration of the exchange rates, and the consequent increase of the price of gold to more than £15 an ounce. Drilling will be carried out mainly in the search for ore-bodies, the metallic contents of which are of strategic importance. Drilling has been conducted on the copper-gold field of Brock’s Creek, and that will be followed by the testing of portions of the Tennant Creek goldfield and the Bum Jungle field in the Northern Territory.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- Under miscellaneous administrative expenditure, the sum of £6,000 is provided as a “ grant towards town planning, St. Mary’s, New South Wales “. I should like some explanation of that item. Is this money to be expended on the preparation of a town plan, or in the implementation of a town plan? Also, where is St. Mary’s?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– St. Mary’s is about 15 miles outside Sydney on the road to the Blue Mountains. During the war, it was a big munitions centre under the control of the Australian Government. When the war ended, the Government was left with huge factories built of galvanized iron which represented a substantial Commonwealth investment. Many of them have been leased to private enterprise, and several highly successful manufacturing undertakings have been established in them.

Senator Ashley:

– A majority of the buildings have been taken over by private enterprise.

Senator SPOONER:

– That is so. St. Mary’s is now a very important manufacturing centre. The development of the township was quite beyond the resources of the local authorities, which asked the Australian Government to provide a town plan including provision for parks, children’s playgrounds, roads, and other facilities. This vote is for the preparation of that plan.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- Is the provision of that assistance for the planning of St. Mary’s an indication that the Australian Government is prepared to assist in the provision of plans for other towns or cities in the Commonwealth ?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Perhaps I can help the Minister by pointing out that large numbers of temporary cottages were erected at St. Mary’s for employees in the munitions works. For that reason, the town had to be replanned. Before the war it was only a village with a population of between 600 or 700. To-day, St. Mary’s has a large population and is continuing to expand with the opening up of new factories by private enterprise.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Proposed vote, £2,290,000.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Under the heading of “ Investigations “ the sum of £92,600 is provided for building research. Can the Minister give me any indication of the type of research that will be carried out with this money ? Is an investigation being made into suitable types of houses for various parts of the Commonwealth with different climatic conditions? I should like to know, too, whether any investigation is being made of improved methods of house construction, with a view to simplifying the management of homes. I have been interested to read recently in American publications, articles on research work that is being done in that country with the object of alleviating household fatigue, which most people, including medical men, agree causes much illness and distress in the community. Is any such research being done here?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I think that I can give an affirmative reply to both of the honorable senator’s questions, although it would be difficult to substantiate such a reply by reading the departmental note that I have received on this item. I refer the honorable senator to an interesting publication issued regularly by the Department of Works and Housing, which describes the work that is being done by its research officers and by the department in general. The departmental note on the item referred to by the honorable senator points out that the Building Research Section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization carries out long-term research into buildings and related engineering, whereas the Department of Works and Housing is responsible primarily for short-term and developmental work in the same field. I think that the type of research referred to by the honorable senator would more appropriately come within the province of the Department of Works and Housing, than in that of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Defence. £404,000; Department of the Navy, £22,820,000; Department of the Army, £34,896,000; Department of Air, £23,623,000 ; and Department of Supply, £61,640,000 - agreed to.

Miscellaneous Services.

Proposed vote, £64,982,000.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– The vote for the Department of Health under “Miscellaneous Services “ includes the sum of £72,500 for the Commonwealth Council for National

Fitness. I raise my voice again iia protest against the inadequacy of thisgrant. I do not blame this Government any more than I blame previous governments for this inadequacy. Year’ after year I have drawn the attention of successive Ministers for Health ‘to the need to provide more money for this splendidwork. The proposed vote this year isexactly the same as that originally set down eight or nine years agoalthough, in the meantime, the national fitness movement has grown to considerable proportions throughout the Commonwealth. It now embraces a large number of voluntary organizations, all of which are doing magnificent work. The need for fitness among our young people has never been greater than it is to-day. Our population is expanding rapidly, and the Government is making plans formilitary training of youths. We havevoted large sums of money this week for defence purposes, including military training, yet the allocation for national fitness is being permitted to remain at its original inadequate figure. I do not wish to delay the Senate, but I should like an opportunity at a later date to debate this matter at some length and to endeavour to impress on honorable senators the value of the services that the people engaged in national fitness work areperforming. I know that it is not possiblefor anything to be done in the immediate future, as the Estimates have been prepared, but I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to give sympathetic consideration to the organization to which I have referred in order to see that its activities are given greater prominence. I ask the Minister and his officers to endeavour to engender new life into that organization by providing it with additional finance with which to carry on its work.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I have some personal knowledge of the use” to which this money is put, and I am certain that what the honorable senator has stated is correct. There are many organizations in this country that are interested in physical fitness, and most of them are short of funds. I shall have much pleasure in bringing to the notice of the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) the representations that have been made by the honorable senator.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I draw the notice of the Minister for Repatriation to Item No. 5, “ Cattle tick control in New South Wales and Queensland “ under Division No. 179. Provision was made last year for the expenditure of £260,000, and £253,325 was actually expended. The present estimate is for an expenditure of £53,000. Is the Minister in a position to explain the reason for that expected reduction of expenditure?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The estimated expenditure of £53,000 this year represents the amount payable to New South Wales on the basis of one-quarter of the expenditure by that State on tick control during that period. The expenditure during 1949-50 included a special grant of £200,000.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Refunds of Revenue, £12,000,000; Advance to the Treasurer, £16,000,000; War 1914-18 Services, £2,021,000 ; Business UndertakingsCommonwealth Railways, £2,106,000; PostmasterGeneral’s Department, £46,037,000 - agreed to.

Broadcasting Services.

Proposed vote, £3,403,000.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

.- Item 5 (c) of Division 235, Australian Broadcasting Commission, provides for an estimated expenditure on news service of an amount of £220,000. I appreciate that it is too late to make any alteration of these Estimates, but I urge that consideration be given to my contention that this news service is a duplication of news services that are provided in a much cheaper manner by other organizations. I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to watch that item very closely this year in order to see whether a news service cannot be provided that will be of equal value and of much less cost.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The request made by the honorable senator will be brought to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony).

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania.

.- Item8 of the same section refers to the ABC Weekly, and provides for an estimated expenditure of £57,300. That publication has come in for a considerable amount of criticism during past years. I point out that journals of equal value are published by private enterprise, and I should like the Minister to give consideration to that item.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I shall refer that matter also to the PostmasterGeneral.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Territories of the Commonwealth - Northern Territory, £1,590,000 ; Australian Capital Territory, £1,216,500; Papua and New Guinea, £4,740,000; Norfolk Island, £4,500- agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3917

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1950-51

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3904).

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– This bill provides for appropriations for the ordinary works and services of the various departments, and the Opposition does not oppose it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS Bill 1950.

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3903).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This , bill will bring allowances, pensions and benefits payable to members of the defence forces into line with increases already granted to other sections of the community. As the amendments have been recommended by a body that is representative of all the armed forces, honorable senators on this side of the chamber offer no opposition to the measure. I am pleased to see that a complete examination of the fund is to be made in 1952 and that the subsidy payable to the fund is to be increased. The clause which relieves members of the forces who receive increased pay of the necessity to subscribe for extra units will remove an anomaly that has arisen. I should like to refer also to increases of salaries through cost of living adjustments bringing many people into a higher tax range, which deprives them of the benefit of the increases. I hope that the Government, having made these adjustments for members of the forces in relation to their retirement allowance payments, will review the position in other branches of the public service. The original Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill was long overdue when it was introduced into the Parliament by a Labour Government in 1948. I am pleased that these further improvements of the retirement benefits of members of the defence forces are to be made, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question resolved. in the affirmative.

Bil] read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3918

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1950-51

Order of the Day No. 5 - Estimates and budget papers 1950-51 - Resumption of debate - discharged.

Sitting suspended from 10.%. to 10.S0 p.m.

page 3918

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

Th.it the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3918

LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the borrowing of a sum of up to 100,000,000 dollars from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in accordance with the loan agreement concluded with the bank on the 22nd August last. I shall explain why the Government has negotiated this loan agreement, what are its conditions and objectives, and how transactions under it will be carried out. The Government decided to raise a dollar loan to remove one of the greatest obstacles standing in the path of industrial expansion and of the general development of Australia. That obstacle was the shortage of certain types of capital equipment and plant which are indispensable to the furtherance of development in this country, and which can be obtained only in the United States of America and Canada. We were not getting these items in sufficient quantities because of the shortage of dollars in Australia and all ether countries of the sterling area. The Government therefore explored the possibilities of borrowing dollars to alleviate the position, and when it found that a loan on reasonable terms was available, it had no hesitation in recommending its acceptance to the Loan Council. For the programme of immigration and development upon which Australia has embarked, vast and increasing supplies of capital equipment will be necessary. We are producing much of this equipment ourselves and we will produce much more when our full resources are brought into play and industrial output is brought up to its proper level. At the same time there is a great deal of plant and equipment we cannot or do not produce here, and which we must get from other countries. In any case we do well under present conditions to buy abroad for developmental purposes, because in so doing we supplement our own resources, make possible a further expansion of our cwn local output, and help to reduce inflationary pressures. The policy of the Government, therefore, is to encourage the importation of essential goods which are in short supply in’ Australia.

With industrial recovery in countries overseas, especially in the United Kingdom and in Western Europe, the supply position has greatly improved. With higher export earnings and the inflow of private capital, more overseas funds have been available to us and we have been able to draw fully on these additional easy currency supplies. However, because of the world-wide shortage of dollars that has prevailed since the war, our access to North American supplies has remained severely restricted.

As honorable senators know, Australia does not normally earn enough dollars to cover its dollar expenditure, and in most years we have to draw on the sterling area dollar pool for the balance. As a counterpart to this arrangement, we have followed a common policy with the other members of the sterling area in economizing on dollar expenditure. Following the crisis in July, 1947, when the United Kingdom attempted to restore full convertibility of sterling with the dollar, and again in the middle of 1949, when there was a sudden and severe drain on the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area, restrictions on dollar imports were made progressively more severe until only the absolute minimum of essential supplies was being obtained from dollar sources. This situation meant, as I have said, that requirements in Australia for types of equipment and plant which have, the utmost importance for industrial progress and security here were not being adequately met, and it was that crucial fact which led the Government to seek a dollar loan. During the past year there has been a heartening improvement in the dollar position of the sterling area. This is shown in the figures for the sterling area reserves of gold and dollars. Whereas these reserves had fallen by

September, 1949, to the dangerously low level of 1,340,000,000 dollars, they had risen by the end of September this year to 2,756,000,000 dollars. That is to say, they had doubled in the course of twelve months.

It appears that a number of influences have contributed to this result. Before devaluation of sterling in terms of the dollar in September of last year, there had been a speculative movement of funds away from sterling which had helped to deplete the gold and dollar reserves. Devaluation checked this movement, and in subsequent months it appears to have been reversed to someextent. Moreover, devaluation improved very considerably the competitive position of sterling area goods, especially in those non-dollar countries with which prior to devaluation, gold and dollar settlements had had to be made from time to time, these settlements acting as a drain on the central gold and dollareserves. Furthermore, the falling off in the demand by the United States for sterling area goods in the early part of 1949 has been reversed with the revival of United States business activity which has since taken place. This revival has been strengthened by the expansion of the United States defence programme, which includes the stock-piling of key raw materials. There has also been a spectacular rise in. the prices of dollar-earning commodities produced by the sterling area, including rubber, tin and wool. On the other hand, we cannot afford to lose sight of certain important facts. One is that the improvement in the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area has been due in no small part to the further rigorous economies put into effect by sterling area countries after the Commonwealth Conference of Finance Ministers in July, 1949. As a result of these restrictions and the stimulus given by the devaluation of sterling to dollar-saving measures, sterling area imports from the dollar area in the first six months of 1950 were running at an annual rate about 900,000,000 dollars less than that of 1948. Also, the United Kingdom has continued so far to receive European Recovery Programme aid from the United States.

During the twelve months to the 30th September this year, the amount of aid so received was 804,000,000 dollars.

In the first nine months of 1950, the gold and dollar reserves rose by 1,068,000,000 dollars. If there had been no European Recovery Programme aid in that period, and if dollar imports had been at the 194S level, there would have been a fall in the reserves instead of a rise. For the immediate future, the dollar outlook remains uncertain. Some of the favorable influences seem likely, not only to continue, but also to gather momentum. The high level of business activity in the United States is being maintained, and expansion of the defence programme will undoubtedly add further to the demand for overseas supplies.

Australia’s own position in relation to the dollar area, together with that of other raw-material producing countries in the sterling area, looks promising. The recent unprecedented rises in commodity prices, the high level of activity in the United States’, and the prospect of large purchases by the United States authorities for their military requirements, and for stockpiling, suggest that Australia’s dollar earnings may rise sharply. There is as yet, however, no means of measuring the strength of these favorable forces, and some of them depend on policies which are still in formative stages. Moreover, there are other uncertainties in the outlook which need to be taken into account. The future of the European Recovery Programme aid to the United Kingdom on which so much of the recent improvement has depended, is obscure. The prices of dollar goods required by sterling area countries are rising, which means a greater dollar outlay to get the same quantity of goods. Moreover, American purchases of sterling area products for stockpiling cannot be expected to continue indefinitely.

Perhaps the greatest uncertainty is that the effects of defence preparations in Western European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, have only just begun to make themselves felt. Expanded defence programmes will inevitably shift resources away from export, and affect adversely, not only the dollarearning capacity of these countries, but also that flow of goods to other countries which has recently proved such an important factor in reducing the non-dollar world’s dependence on North American commodities. Already there are indications that Australian importers are experiencing greater difficulties in obtaining essential supplies from the United Kingdom and other European countries. Defence commitments and stockpiling activities in all sterling area countries will probably entail additional dollar expenditure at high prices. Although the United States military aid programme will undoubtedly assist in this direction, as far as the United Kingdom’s additional dollar costs are concerned, the application of this assistance is still under discussion.

In any event, it is important to consider when, and at what level, the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area could be regarded as high enough to justify relaxation of controls on dollar imports.

That these reserves should reach an adequate level is important, not only to Australia and the other members of the sterling area, but also to the trade of the world as a whole. They should be at least high enough to meet a temporary drain without the necessity arising for drastic action such as had to be taken in 1947 and again in 1949, because action of this kind has serious disruptive effects, both on the volume of international trade, and on the internal economies of the countries affected. As they now stand, and despite the improvement of recent months, the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area, in relation to the total dollar trade of the sterling area, are only between one-third and onehalf the normal level of pre-war times when world trading conditions were much more stable than they are to-day.

The whole subject was reviewed at the British Commonwealth Economic and Trade Conference in London in September last, where Australia was represented by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen). There was agreement at that meeting that, for the present, it would be necessary for all sterling area countries to maintain economy in dollar expenditure and to continue measures to earn dollars in order to rebuild the gold and dollar reserves to an adequate level.

The position is, of course, being kept under close and continuous examination, and immediately the current and prospective, level of sterling area dollar earnings and reserves justify it, appropriate relaxations in the severity of dollar import restrictions will be made. But as yet it cannot be said that any new factors have emerged since last September to alter substantially the situation disclosed at the Economic and Trade Conference. It is interesting to note that a recent American survey of the world dollar problem, conducted at the request of the President of the United States, and presented on the 10th November, came to the conclusion that “ although the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area had reached 2.8 billion dollars in September, 1950, this was not a satisfactory level”.

When, therefore, the Government some months ago, decided to borrow dollars, it was evident that there could be no general relaxation of controls on dollar imports, and although the dollar position has continued to improve since then, and although there are grounds for expecting that this improvement will go some way further, it would be unwise to expect that,- in the immediate future at any rate, there can be any all-round easing of restrictions on dollar expenditures from current earnings. “1 “ I it- Government determined from the outset that any dollars raised by way of loan should be spent only on items of an indispensable kind which could not be obtained elsewhere than in North America. A careful study was made of our likely requirements for developmental plant and equipment during the next few years and of the possible availability of such plant and equipment from the, United Kingdom and other nondollar sources. This list of requirements was, at the Prime Minister’s request, examined by the United Kingdom authorities in London. They confirmed that, given the rate of development desired by the Australian Government, it would in general be impracticable for Australia to obtain the listed goods from United Kingdom production, or from any other easy currency sources. It was recognized that, if we were to get the goods in time to meet our needs, there was no alternative to buying them from dollar sources.

The order of requirements of essential dollar plant and equipment indicated by the Government’s survey amounted to approximately 50,000,000 dollars a year over the next five years. For obvious reasons, however, the estimates for later years were less reliable than for the immediate future. Moreover^ the question of the method of financing in later years might require reconsideration in the light of developments in the general sterling area and dollar situation. It was therefore decided to approach the International Bank for an immediate loan of 100,000,000 dollars to meet requirements over the next two years.

Negotiations were opened personally by the Prime Minister in Washington with the President of the International Bank. It was found that the bank had a very ready appreciation of the Australian problems, and of the special urgency of our developmental needs. Its whole attitude was sympathetic, enlightened, and far-sighted. Perhaps we may say it is fitting that an international institution linked to the United Nations, and established specially for developing the economic resources of the world, should assist our immigration programme which, besides helping to develop Australia, is contributing materially towards easing the population problems of Western Europe.

The bank agreed in principle that a loan of 100,000,000 dollars should he provided immediately, to be available for plant and equipment required for Australia’s general developmental needs, subject to the satisfactory working out of the details of a loan agreement. In addition, the bank expressed its willingness in principle to participate in financing Australia’s development over the next five years. After’ three weeks of intensive but cordial negotiations between Australian officials and officials of the bank, a loan agreement was signed in Washington by the Australian Ambassador and the president of the bank on the 22nd August. Before the agreement was signed all State Premiers were consulted in their capacity as members of the Loan Council and their telegraphic approval to the raising of the loan by the Commonwealth was obtained. This approval was formally confirmed at the sixty-fourth meeting of the Loan Council held in Canberra on the 6th and 7th September.

The texts of the Loan Agreement and the Loan. Regulations are reproduced in the First and Second Schedules to the bill, and I shall refer only to the main terms of the agreement here. The loan of 100,000,000 dollars is for a 25-year period. The amount may be drawn in United States dollars or the equivalent in other currencies. The purpose of this latter provision is to enable purchases to be made of Canadian as well as American goods. Interest at 4J per cent, is payable half-yearly ou the amount of the loan withdrawn and outstanding from time to time. This interest charge includes the 1 per cent, commission required by the articles of agreement of the International Bank for the purpose of building up the reserves of the bank, in which, of course, Australia is a shareholder. If the level of the bank’s reserves warrants it, at the end of ten years from the commencement of the bank’s operations - 25th June, 1946 - this commission charge may be reduced with respect to the outstanding portions of loans already made as well as on future loans.

A commitment charge of three-quarters of 1 per cent, is payable half-yearly on the amount of loan standing undrawn from time to time. This charge is to accrue from the effective date of the loan until the respective dates on which amounts are withdrawn, that is to say, up to the times at which we actually make drawings against the loan and from which interest at the agreed rate becomes payable on the amount of such drawings. On previous International Bank loans, the commitment charge has been fixed at lb per cent. The reduction of this charge to three-quarters of 1 per cent, was decided upon by the bank only in August last, and Australia is the first country to benefit from the reduction.

Repayments of principal do not begin until after a deferment period of five years, the first principal repayment falling due on the 1st September, 1955. Payments of interest and principal will then be made half-yearly in accordance with an amortization schedule on a fixed annuity basis. The final payment will fall due on the 1st September, 1975. Once the full amount of the loan has been withdrawn by us, interest payments during the deferment period will amount to 4,250,000 dollars or £A.1,897,000 a year. From 1955 onwards, annual payments of interest and principal combined will amount to 7,356,000 dollars or £A.3,280,000.

Honorable senators will notice that Article IV. of the Loan Agreement sets out certain covenants. These covenants are standard provisions of International Bank loans. The first of them is known as the consultation clause. This provides for a general exchange of information and views from time to time between the Australian Government and the bank on matters relevant to the carrying out of the Loan Agreement. In particular, it provides that if any further substantial external borrowing is contemplated by public authorities in Australia, the Commonwealth Government will provide an opportunity for an exchange of views with the bank on the matter. Those provisions do not, of course, limit in any way the right of the appropriate governmental or semi-governmental agencies in Australia to come to their own decisions regarding any further overseas borrowing that may be proposed. The consultation clause is simply designed to ensure that the International Bank will have an opportunity to communicate any views it may wish to express concerning the possible effects of any such borrowing proposals on the carrying out of the Loan Agreement.

The second covenant is known as tho negative pledge clause. This clause records the mutual intention of the Commonwealth and the bank that no other external debt shall enjoy any priority over the present loan by way of a lien on public assets. The Commonwealth undertakes that, if any lien should be created on any assets of its own, or of its agencies to secure an external debt. such lien will equally and rateably secure the payment of principal and interest and other charges on the present loan. The Commonwealth also undertakes that, within the limits of its constitutional powers, it will make the foregoing undertaking effective with respect to liens on assets of the States and territories and their agencies. Honorable senators will, of course, be aware that the Commonwealth Government, which is in practice the sole borrowing authority on behalf of itself and the State governments, does not as a matter of policy give a charge over public assets as security for a loan.

The third covenant provides that principal and interest and other charges on the loan are to be paid tax-free, and without restriction on the part of the Commonwealth, the States and territories or any of their agencies. That does not prevent the taxation of payments on bonds issued in connexion with the loan where such bonds are beneficially owned by Commonwealth residents. The practical effect of this taxation clause is to put the International Bank loan on the same footing for taxation purposes as Australian dollar loans raised on the open market in New York.

The purpose of all three covenants is, of course, to protect the interest of the Governments which are members of the International Bank and which would ultimately have to bear any losses that the bank might incur as a result of its lending operations. Australia, as a member of the bank, has an interest in the insertion of standard clauses of this kind in all loan agreements concluded by the bank. The terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement as a whole compare favorably with those of previous International Bank loans to other countries for comparable periods. Beyond all doubt, it is well within our capacity to meet the interest and repayment charges on this loan. I may point out here that, during recent years, there has been a remarkable reduction of the real burden of our external debt. In 1949-50 our interest payments abroad amounted to only 3 per cent. of our export proceeds as against 41 per cent. in 1930-31 and 23 per cent. in 1938-39. On this loan, the amount we will have to provide abroad will be, at a maximum, 7,356,000 dollars or £A.3,280,000 a year, and this will not only provide for interest but will also repay the loan by September, 1975. Against this relatively small annual commitment we will have the use of a great quantity of productive plant and equipment of the most vital kinds and this will undoubtedly contribute in a major way to the upbuilding of our production strength in both primary and secondary industry.

The dollar loan will undoubtedly very materially assist Australia. Let me describe briefly the imports which are to be financed under the loan. The broad categories are -

Tractors and other agricultural equipment.

Industrial crawler tractors and earthmoving equipment.

Locomotives and rail cars, including component parts therefor, and ancillary railway equipment.

Mining machinery and equipment.

Plant for development of productive capacity inthe following industries : -

Textile.

Paper-making and paperworking, including printing.

Steel.

Engineering.

Building materials.

Glass making and working, in cluding ceramics.

Chemical and pharmaceutical.

Food processing.

Boot and shoe.

Taking those categories briefly in turn. I refer first to tractors and other agricultural equipment. This equipment will be of great importance in increasing the production of basic foodstuffs to meet the growing needs of our own expanding population and of our traditional export markets. Our requirements of wheeled tractors are now being largely met by local production and by imports from easy currency sources. There are, however, certain types of high clearance and special duty tractors of the wheeled type which can be obtained only from the United States. Imports of wheeled tractors under the loan will be limited in the main to those specialized types. The loan will. however, make possible substantial additional imports of crawler tractors required, for clearing undeveloped land. Wheeled tractors are not suitable for heavier clearing work and the additional, crawler tractors needed for the development of new agricultural areas are at present available only from the United States. War service land settlement schemes and other rural development projects have, up to the present, been seriously handicapped by the lack of sufficient tractors of this type. Other types of agricultural equipment which we are not producing ourselves and can buy only in America, will also be imported under the loan.

The second category is industrial crawler tractors and earth-moving equipment. Honorable senators have heard a great deal of the need, for increased imports of heavy and medium crawler tractors for use by both public authorities and private industry on essential developmental projects. This is a field in which American manufacturers have specialized, and although other countries, including the United Kingdom, are embarking on the manufacture of the higher-powered class of crawler tractor, the United States will for some time to come be virtually the only source of supply. The increased flow of imports of crawler tractors under the loan will make possible a general speeding up of public works- programmes - road building, water conservation schemes, hydro-electric projects and the like. It will also be particularly valuable in timber getting and other branches of private industry.

The third category takes in locomotives, railway rolling-stock and various kinds of ancillary equipment and parts required by our railway systems throughout the Commonwealth. Since 1938-39, freight traffic on the Australian railway systems has increased by some 50 per cent, and passenger traffic by some 40 per cent. Little replacement of rolling-stock was possible during the war years and afterwards. Even ordinary maintenance has presented the greatest difficulties because of manpower and material shortages. Every effort has been made, and must continue to be made, to put our railways on a sounder footing by increasing local production of rolling-stock and by supplementing what we can make ourselves by imports from the United Kingdom and: easy currency European sources of supply. Some types of equipment are, however,, available only from the United States and, in. other instances, the United States, is the only country that can offer deliveries quickly . enough to meet our needs. It fs vital to our security, as well as to our economic development, that thecarrying capacity of our- railways should be rapidly increased:

The fourth category - mining machinery and equipment - is also of vital importance. Coal is the fundamental element in Australia’s industrial economy, and machinery required to step up coal production will be given high priority among the imports to- be financed underthe loan. Machinery for other branches of the mining industry will also be eligible for inclusion under the loan where themachinery is of a type which cannot be obtained from non-dollar sources.

The fifth category covers plant for thedevelopment of productive capacity in major- manufacturing industries in Australia. The severe restrictions imposed’ on the importation of plant and equipment from North America in recent yearshave retarded technological development’ in many branches of Australian secondaryindustry. The availability of loan fundswill not, of course, mean that Australian industrialists will be given licences toimport whatever they may want in theway of new plant and machinery from dollar sources. They will still be required to produce evidence that the plant and’ machinery are needed for developmental purposes and that they cannot be obtained from non-dollar sources. The loan will, however, permit a substantial increase of the- rate of imports of specialized plant and equipment from the United States and Canada.. It would be difficult to assessin money terms the benefits that will accrue from such imports ,in the way of increased output and reduced costs in thefield of Australian manufacturing as a. whole. The Commonwealth Government is not itself a large user of capital plant and equipment for development purposes. State governmental and semigovernmental agencies are more directly concerned; but the great bulk of the goodsto be imported under the loan will be used by private firms or individuals for the purpose of expanding the output of Australian primary and secondary industries.

I should now like to say something about the method by which the proceeds of the loan -will be made available.

All the goods to be financed under the loan will be imported and distributed to users through the normal channels. There will be no departure from ordinary trade practices. The importer having secured a licence to import goods under the loan will be able to order them from the supplier and to pay for them through his own bank in exactly the same way as the holder of an ordinary dollar import licence does. The Government has no intention to set up any new system of Government procurement. All that is needed to meet the objectives of the loan is a procedure which will supply the Australian banking system with the dollars necessary to enable payment to be arranged for the additional goods for which licences are granted to importers. It has been decided that the best and simplest way of achieving this end within the framework of the loan agreement is for the Australian banking system itself to provide, in the first instance, the dollars to cover payments falling due on goods imported under the loan programme. The Australian banks will do this in the ordinary course of business in the same way as they have been providing dollars against dollar import licences in the past. Schedules of dollar payments for goods imported against loan licences will then be submitted to the International Bank from time to time by the Commonwealth Government through the Australian Consul-General in New York. These schedules, with appropriate supporting documentation, will form the basis for periodical drawings by the Commonwealth against the loan. This procedure will enable the drawings to be related directly to the actual dollar cost of eligible goods which have been paid for by Australian importers through the normal banking channels.

As each drawing against the loan is made the Consul-General will arrange for the remittance of the funds to the credit of the Commonwealth in Australia with the Commonwealth Bank’s head office in Sydney. In effect, this remittance will amount to the transfer of the dollars by the Government to the Commonwealth Bank in exchange for a credit, in Australia, of an equivalent amount in Australian currency. Thus the dollar holdings of the Commonwealth Bank, which will initially have been depleted by the payments made for loan goods, will be periodically replenished. As I have said, the Commonwealth Government will he receiving Australian currency in its bank account in Australia. The Government is not bound under the loan agreement to use these Australian currency amounts in any particular way. However, it was not the Government’s intention, in approaching the International Bank, to obtain finance for Australian currency expenditures. Accordingly, the present bill provides that the Australian currency amounts shall be paid into the National Debt Sinking Fund and that the National Debt Commission shall be obliged to meet repayments of principal to the International Bank when they become due. In effect, therefore, the loan provides its own sinking fund. It is necessary to exempt this loan from parts of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act. Otherwise, the Australian Government would be obliged to pay normal sinking fund contributions in addition to the Australian currency amounts paid into the sinking fund.

The bill provides that interest payments and other charges shall be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As the loan was arranged to increase the availability of dollar exchange for imports of goods essential for national development purposes, it is proper that the interest charges should be borne by the community as a whole. Progress of operations under the loan is being kept under regular review by a Dollar Loan Advisory Panel. The panel consists of representatives of the Commonwealth departments primarily interested. Its chairman is the secretary of the Department of National Development. Reports are submitted by the panel from time to time to the Cabinet Committee on Overseas Commercial Relations in order to keep Ministers informed and to obtain any policy directions that may be required.

The issue of licences for goods under the loan has already commenced and is being expedited because of the importance of getting Australian orders for key items of equipment included in the production schedules of American manufacturers as quickly as possible. With the gathering momentum of defence programmes the demands on North American production are growing daily and the supply situation is rapidly tightening. Up to the 17th November this year loan licences to a total value of £A.11,200,000 or 25,000,000 dollars had been authorized, and importers, to whom licences have been granted, have been advised to place firm orders for the goods without delay. As I have mentioned earlier, the International Bank is willing, in principle, to participate during the next five years in the financing of the Australian development programme. The president of the bank ha3 offered, if the Government so desires, to send officials of the bank to Australia to gain a closer knowledge of our developmental programmes and to consider with us to what extent bank participation may, in all the circumstances, be necessary and justified. The Government welcomes this offer and, although no definite date has been fixed, it is expected that a visit by officials of the bank will be arranged early next year.

In the meantime, our immediate needs for key types of dollar plant and equipment will be covered by the 100,000,000 dollars loan which is the subject of this bill. Although, as I have said, the fact that we are obtaining additional imports of essential plant and equipment under the loan does not mean that there can be any relaxation of economy in general dollar expenditure, it does mean that one of the worst obstructions to industrial expansion in this country is being removed and the path cleared for progress of a vital and permanent character. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania) [11.12 1 . - As the Opposition does not intend to oppose this measure, which is good in some parts and bad in others, I shall not take up much of the time of the Senate in dealing with it. The Opposition appreciates the fact that the Minister, in the course qf his second-reading speech, paid two tributes to the activities of the Chifley Government, in relation to dollars. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) clearly acknowledged that the stringent restrictions that were imposed upon dollar expenditure in 1947 and 1949 were necessary, not only in the interests of British Empire countries but also in the interests of ‘ all countries associated with the sterling area. The Opposition notes - with gratification that the Minister acknowledged that what was done then was necessary and, further, had a very useful effect upon a decidedly awkward dollar situation. The Opposition is pleased that the Minister drew attention to the fact that our burden of indebtedness overseas was reduced under Labour administrations. The Labour party is notoriously opposed to overseas borrowing as a general principle. It takes great pride in the fact that the recent war was financed with moneys raised in this country and that those borrowings involved, not commitments abroad but only commitments in respect of interest and sinking fund repayments within the four walls of our own economy.

I cannot allow this occasion to pass without paying tribute to the Dollar Allocations Committee, to which reference was made by the Minister. That committee was established when really serious difficulties were being encountered in relation to dollars. I know of the extraordinary amount of competent thought that the members of that committee brought to bear upon the problem. I confess that I was lost in admiration of their untiring attention to the most intricate problems. I was amazed at their great understanding of the needs of our economy and the manner in which they were able to present those needs and draw comparisons showing the relative importance to our economy of each need.

I recall that in the worst days of 1947 the members of a sub-committee of the Chifley Cabinet met the dollar allocation committee in Sydney. The committee presented to them, amongst other things, a statement of miscellaneous items, totalling 17,000,000 dollars, that had to be imported from dollar areas, and stated that that was the irreducible minimum. The stringency of the dollar situation at that time was such that the cabinet sub-committee had, on the spot, to reduce the “ irreducible “ minimum from 17,000,000 dollars to 3,000,000 dollars and eliminate 14,000,000 dollars worth of consumer goods that were essential to the industries of this country. I mention that incident in passing in order to show the stress under which the Chifley Government laboured in the matter of dollar allocations. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to that committee. I have no doubt that it is rendering to this Government the excellent service that it rendered to the Chifley Government. In those days, the committee and the Government were concerned with the allocation of dollars for both capital and consumer goods. It is good to hear from the Minister that the dollar position in the sterling area has improved substantially. It is a matter for regret that strict controls have still to be enforced, but the Opposition agrees that they are necessary.

The Opposition hopes that, as the result of the negotiation of this loan, there will not be an undue increase ofdollar expenditure upon non-essential consumer goods. I am thinking of an item of information that was passed on to me, hut for which I do not vouch, to the effect that in recent months the dollar allocation in respect of newsprint has been increased by 1,500,000 dollars a year. I should like to know whether that is so. If it is, I ask the Minister to state why that was done and to inform the Senate what applications for permission to import consumer goods from dollar areas were rejected during the same period.

I turn now to the terms of the agreement itself. I point out at once that the agreement was dated and signed on behalf of Australia on the 22nd August, 1950. It is wrong that the Government has taken three months to present the agreement to the Parliament. Only a page and a half of the bill contains any element of drafting. The remainder of the document now before the Senate consists of the loan agreement itself, which had only to be printed, and the loan regulations that are incorporated in all loan agreements made with the International Bank. It is bad administratively that an agreement of this importance, which was signed on the 22nd August, should only now be before this chamber for ratification.

Dealing with the question of ratification, I say at once that it is unthinkable that this loan should be rejected now, no matter what objections may be raised to it. Australia, through its representatives, was committed to it as long ago as the 22nd August. In addition, as the Minister indicated in his secondreading speech, by the 17th November approximately one-quarter of the amount of the loan had been allocated for specific purposes, and doubtless further substantial allocations have been made since then. No matter what criticisms of the loan the Opposition has to offer, it must, in the interests of the good name of Australia, ratify an agreement that has already been signed.

It is clear from a perusal of section 1.05 of the agreement that the rate of interest payable is 4^ per cent, per annum on the principal amount of the loan withdrawn and outstanding from time to time. It has been said repeatedly in public statements that the rate of interest payable on the loan is 3£ per cent, and that there is a commission of 1 per cent. Many people in Australia have gained an impression that some thing in the nature of a procuration fee of 1 per cent, is charged once and is then finished with, and that the rate of interest on the loan instantly falls to 3^ per cent. That, plainly, is not so. The section to which I have just referred reads -

The borrower shall pay interest at the rate of four and one-quarter per cent. ( 4£ per cent. ) per annum on the principal amount of loan so withdrawn and outstanding from time to time.

It is true that, under the terms of the charter of the bank and of its agreement with its member countries, at the end of a ten-year period from 1946 some rebate or allowance may be made in respect of 1 per cent, of the loan. That is by no means’ certain and at the moment Australia must face the fact that it has borrowed this money at 4J per cent, per annum throughout the whole of the 25- year term of the loan. On behalf of the Opposition I say at once that, having regard to the financial status of Australia and its position in the world, the rate of interest is altogether too high.

Australia’s financial solvency is beyond question. This loan will involve us in an annual interest payment of 4,250,000 dollars. Whatever may be the good features of this legislation, undoubtedly year by year it will impose on our economy, which is already strained to find dollars,, a substantial additional dollar burden. That burden will be appreciably increased five years hence by the addition of another very substantial sum for repayment of the principal. The details are set out in the amortization schedule. The repayments rise from 1,’553,000 dollars in” March, 1955, to 3,602,000 dollars in September, 1975. The Opposition faces the fact, as the Government must do, that this loan will impose immediate heavier strains on our dollar resources. Helpful as it may be to obtain capital equipment which is not procurable elsewhere than in North America, unless we are able to increase our dollar earnings as the result of the utilization of that capital equipment we may add to our complexities in the dollar market. The projects to which the proceeds of the loan are to be applied are all relatively long-term projects which will not be immediately reproductive. I venture to say that most of them are not in the category of dollar earners. When I consider the rate of interest to be charged and remember, too, that we must pay f per cent, per annum on so much of the loan not withdrawn from time to time, I realize that a really substantial dollar burden will be imposed on this country as the result of this agreement.

Senator Nash:

– It is not a bargain.

Senator McKENNA:

– I should not regard it as a good bargain. There are many features of the loan that do not appeal to the Opposition. In addition to too high a rate of interest, other features of the agreement constitute, to some degree, an affront to the dignity of this country. After all, 100,000,000 dollars is not a very large amount of money. In Australian currency it is less than £50,000,000. Having regard to the fact that in this year of grace we are to provide almost £800,000,000 for budgetary purposes, 100,000,000 dollars is not an amount of very great significance. If Australia’s position had been properly put to the bank by our representatives this loan agreement would not have been cluttered up with a provision that requires us to disclose the specific goods- to be purchased with the proceeds of the loan. We should not have to agree to a provision that the goods so purchased must be imported into Australia and not be used to Australia’s advantage abroad. That restrictive provision does not appeal to the Opposition, nor does the Opposition favour the covenant set out in Article IV., which requires this country when borrowing only a relatively insignificant amount of money to furnish full information with respect to financial and economic conditions in its territories and to disclose full information regarding our international balance of payments position. Article IV. also contains the following covenant : -

The borrower shall afford to the bank all reasonable opportunity to inspect any and all goods paid for out of the proceeds of the loan and any relevant records and documents, and shall furnish to the bank all such information as the bank shall reasonably request relating to the end-use of such goods.

That covenant savours of the terms laid down by a very rigorous money lender who wants to pursue his money down to its last possible application. After all, in the financial markets of the world, there is no better risk than Australia. I do not think that it is proper that the Australian Government should have to undertake to place before the bank full details of its financial arrangements with State governments and municipalities and to allow the representatives of the bank to express their views on them. That provision was not inserted in Article IV. merely for the purpose of enabling the representatives of the bank to express their views. Their comments will undoubtedly be expressed with a view to their acceptance. That savours of dominance on the part of the lender of a relatively insignificant amount and may affect the use to which the proceeds of the loan are applied. The Opposition agrees that the acquisition of plant and equipment not elsewhere available will assist our economy. If we can import a machine that will do the work of ten existing machines the use of the new machine will in effect add nine men to the labour force of this country. To thai degree the proposed utilization of the proceeds of the loan has the approval of the Opposition. We do not at all like the suggestion that the representatives of the bank may visit this country and survey our proposals on the spot with a view to the granting of further loans. The Opposition would resent any such survey by the representatives of an outside body even if it were proposing to lend us the relatively insignificant amount of 250,000,000 dollars. In that view the Opposition will, I am sure, be backed by the whole of the people of Australia. Tn these circumstances we urge the Government to be very careful about the terms of any invitations that are extended to the representatives of the bank.

Sitting suspended from 11 SO p.m. to 12,15 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 8 December 1950

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3929

STATES GRANTS (ADMINISTRATION OE CONTROLS REIMBURSEMENT) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the continuance during 1950-51 of the reimbursement of the States, on the same conditions as those applied in previous years, for the costs incurred by them in administering controls over prices and rents. The states assumed responsibility for administering controls over prices, rents and land sales in August and September, 1948. The previous Government then enacted legislation to provide that the Commonwealth would reimburse the States for the costs incurred in administering these controls during the remainder of the financial year 1943-49. That Government re-enacted the legislation during the following year to cover the position up to the 30th June, 1950. All States have abandoned land sales controls, but controls over prices and rents are being maintained. The present Government has agreed, on request from the States, that they should be reimbursed for the costs incurred in administering the remaining controls. This bill, therefore, provides for an extension of the period of reimbursement to the end of June, 1951.

In order to relieve the States of the necessity to finance expenditure pending reimbursement from the Commonwealth, it is again provided that advances may be made from time to time. The advances will be conditional upon submission of audited statements of expenditure, which will form the basis of final adjustments with the States at the close of the year. During the period of approximately nine months in the financial year 1948-49, when the States first assumed responsibility for the administration of the controls, reimbursement grants amounted to £597,410. During 1949-50 similar grants totalled £706,392. The States have prepared estimates which indicate that an amount of £660,000 will be required during the current financial year. The decrease in the rate of expenditure is mainly attributable to the abandonment of land sales controls. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The Opposition considers that, at an early date, the people of this country should be given an opportunity by referendum to decide whether the control of prices should revert to the Commonwealth. Although the Opposition is opposed to the principle of the control of prices by the States, it does not oppose the passage of this machinery measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3929

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Secondreading.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend section 19 of the Life Insurance Act 1945. Under the provisions of that act a company is not permitted to carry on any class of life insurance business unless it has first been registered by the Insurance Commissioner. Although, as yet, registration has not been refused to any, company, section 19 of the act empowers the Insurance Commission, with the approval of the Treasurer, to refuse to register a company which was not carrying on life insurance business in Australia when the act came into force on the 20th June, 1946. The section does not, however, specify the grounds on which registration may be refused, and, in the opinion of the Government, it is desirable that, for the guidance of the Insurance Commissioner, it should do so. Accordingly, this short amending bill has been prepared.

The bill enumerates five grounds on which the commissioner may, with the approval of the Treasurer, refuse to register anew company. All the grounds for refusal, in conformity with the general intentions of the act, relate to the better protection of the insuring public. In particular, a company must satisfy the commissioner that the companyis likely to be able to meet its obligations, that its name does not resemble too closely that of another life insurance company, and that the association of insurance business with other forms of business which the company proposes to conduct, is not contrary to the public interest. Subject to the five grounds enumerated . in the bill, registration of a company will be granted by the commissioner. In order to avoid complications with the Statute Law Revision Act, which will come into force on the 31st December, 1950, the date of commencement of this act is to be the 1st January, 1951. I commend the bill for the favorable consideration of the Senate.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- The Opposition does not object to the bill, but I should like to know whether, under the measure, registration can be refused to an existing company.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - The effect of existing legislation is that all companies which are in existence at a particular time were automatically entitled to registration. All such companies were, in fact, registered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3930

STATES GRANTS (IMPORTED HOUSES) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks the authority of the Parliament for the payment to the governments of the States of an average sum of £300 for houses they import into Australia up to a maximum of 30,000 houses. The grant is to be subject to certain conditions which I will describe later; it is limited to the amount needed to reduce the average cost, erected, of the imported bouses to that of comparable Australian houses.

The previous Government, in October, 1949, offered to assist States in the importation of houses by the payment of overseas freight and duty not exceeding £300 on each house up to 10,000 houses they import. This Government extended that offer in two respects; first, so that it was no longer limited to freight and duty; and, secondly, where previously no more than £300 could be paid on any one house, the limit was now an overall average of £300 a house. If the full £300 is not needed on one house or batch of houses in order to bridge the gap between the cost of the imported house and its Australian counterpart, the part not needed mav be used to bridge the gap in some other house or batch of houses, where the excess cost of the imported house is greater than £300.

The Government, earlier this year, sent overseas a delegation representative of the States and the Commonwealth which was successful in meeting a large number of British and European housing prefabricators, and seeing their organizations. They were able not only to obtain valuable first-hand knowledge of the potentialities and the standing of these prefabricators, hut also to -learn the many things that it was necessary to know on the part of the Australian authorities seeking houses from abroad. This overseas mission issued a comprehensive report which stated, amongst other things, that Australia could reasonably expect to be able to obtain from overseas 20,000 houses by the end of 1951, and 40,000 a year thereafter.

What effect has the Commonwealth initiative had ? When the Commonwealth made its first offer a year ago, the only Australian State in which a tangible interest in importation of houses had been shown was Victoria, where houses had been ordered from abroad by the Victorian Railways Department, and the State Electricity Commission. As a result of the first Commonwealth offer, orders were placed by two States. And now, in these last two months, we have seen a dramatic quickening in the tempo of the States’ importation programme, springing directly, I believe, from the Government’s more generous offer, and from the work of the overseas prefabricated housing mission.

Let me review progress very briefly. Orders for imported houses actually placed by States pursuant to the Commonwealth offer, or in an advanced stage of negotiation, now cover more than 13,000 houses with an option for 6,000 more if initial contracts are satisfactorily performed; that is 19,000 houses in all. The countries of supply are -

Preliminary negotiations are proceeding for a further 5,000 houses. These are hi addition to 2,150 houses for the Victorian Railways Department, and the State Electricity Commission. I referred earlier to certain conditions that the bill imposed. They are two : First, the houses must be approved by the Commonwealth. This will mean, in practice, that the Commonwealth experimental building station must be satisfied about their structural sufficiency, durability, and workmanship. Secondly, subsidized houses are primarily to be placed in areas producing coal or steel or where activities essential for national development are carried on ; they shall be allotted first to workers in these essential activities; and, subject to satisfying these primary requirements, they are to be allotted on the basis of need agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States. These houses will be used to attract workers to those vital basic industries on which the whole economy depends - coal, steel, transport, power and water conservation. In war-time, the State sees that the labour needs of these vital industries come first. But in a democracy that is not formally in a state of war men are not told where they must work; they can only be persuaded. An offer of a house is very persuasive in a house-hungry world. Imported houses, being prefabricated, can readily be carried to where they are most needed. The overseas firms and the workers to erect them, because they as yet have no roots in Australia, are often readier than the Australian to go anywhere. So these imported houses lend themselves to being the “ shock troops “ of

Australian housing; they can have value beyond their numbers in building muscle into our Australian economy.

Honorable senators will note that the assistance is available for houses imported by a State or a housing authority of a State. It is intended that this should include not only the housing commission of each State, but also such public utilities as the State shall nominate. The definition of “ housing authority “ is wide enough to cover them. They are included first because they carry out precisely the vital activities I have already spoken of as being basic to the whole economy. Secondly, they have resources including serviced sites, technical skill in engineering or architecture and administrative facilities in addition to those of the housing commissions, and those resources can be tapped to aid the importation programme.

It might be helpful now if I anticipated some questions which may arise in the minds of honorable senators. First, why do we need to import houses at alls Why cannot we build our own ? We must bring houses from abroad because we need many more houses than we can at present build ourselves, and we need them now. Time is of the essence of the contract. Australia has undertaken an immigration programme which, in proportion to its population, is greater than any thing ever achieved by any other country, including even America. The end of the last world war found Australia short of its needs by perhaps 150,000 houses, quite aside from replacement of old and unfit houses. Our house-building industry was disorganized and wasted by the years of war. Now five years after, by great effort and the eschewing of other less necessary forms of building, we are approaching a completion rate of 60,000 houses a year. Though this is 20,000 houses more than the 1939 rate, it still falls short, probably by 30,000 houses a year, of the numbers needed solely as the result of marriages and immigration. The building industry is suffering, as we all well know, from shortages of materials due primarily to the lack of coal. Even if we had enough materials, we should still need many more building workers. Those are growing pains that Australia can and will outgrow. The new Australians who now help to swell the demand for houses will, in due course, help us outgrow our housing problems; but that is to-morrow. What of to-day? We must not turn back the clock in immigration. A greatly increased population in the long or perhaps not so very long run, is the very condition of our continued existence as a nation. If we turn away immigrants now, the chance may not come to us again; yet housing is the sine qua non of our immigration programme. We must have these houses now. Houses from abroad come complete with all scarce fittings and with workmen to erect them. They are thus a cleaaddition, and perhaps the only clear and immediate addition that we can make to our present flow of houses.

I come now to the Commonwealth’s participation in housing programmes. First, it has ordered for its own purposes 2,582 houses from overseas, of which nearly 2,000 should be delivered by June and the balance by the 31st December, 1951. Of £7,000,000 provided in the Estimates for this financial year for the housing of its own employees, including service personnel, £4,000,000 is estimated to be needed for imported houses and £3,000,000 for Australian-built houses. For war service homes, the current provision is £25,000,000, including £10,000,000, loans for new construction. In the current year, the , provision for Commonwealth advances under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is £26,000,000. With £11,000,000 for immigrant hostels and national service scheme accommodation, together with the subsidies on prefabricated houses imported this year, this adds up to a total Commonwealth commitment of £70,000,000. In all, therefore, the Commonwealth this financial year will build or finance some 22,000 houses, including houses to be imported by the Commonwealth itself or qualifying for financial assistance under this bill. In addition, some 20,000 immigrant hostel beds will be provided from the £11,000,000 to which I have just referred. Allowing four persons to a house, this will be the equivalent of a further 5,000 houses. In total, therefore, on the same basis of four persons to a house, the Commonwealth will this financial year build or finance accommodation for well over 100,000 persons.

Not only has the Government been alive to the advantages of imported houses, but it has also encouraged the importation of other buildings, including prefabricated factories, schools, .hospitals and the like. The value of those buildings amounts to approximately £4,000,000. It has encouraged large-scale importation of building materials and fittings that are in short supply locally. To this end it has waived or reduced, as far as is consistent with existing trade agreements, the customs, duty on imported building materials. In February, 1950, the Australian Government agreed in principle that, where Australian production of -building materials was clearly inadequate to meet the present demand, protective tariff duties served no useful purpose, but rather led to an inflation of building costs and a discouragement of imports required now for vital industrial purposes. Therefore, the Government continued and extended the policy of granting free entry or entry at lower rates of duty. As an indication of what this means, the latest available figures show that the annual value of imported building materials is more than £30,000,000 a year. The annual figures of imports of materials for building and construction are -

The Commonwealth has encouraged overseas building and construction firms, mostly in Britain, to move their organizations, plant and workers to Australia and establish them here. In March last, the customs duty was reduced on plant and equipment brought to Australia by any firm establishing itself in the building construction industry or in estate development. This concession, which does not apply except in special circumstances to motor vehicles, permits the duty-free admission of plant and equipment of United Kingdom origin, provided that it has been in the possession and use of the firm for at least six months before shipment and is to be retained in the firm’s possession and use for at least twelve months after importation. Duty concessions granted in respect to plant and equipment not of United Kingdom origin are to be consistent with the Ottawa Agreement. That is, no lower rate than 12 per cent, ad valorem will be applied unless the concurrence of the United Kingdom is first obtained. Those concessions will operate until the 31st March, 1951. At present, the Government is in touch with the United Kingdom Board of Trade seeking its concurrence for the extension of the operation of duty concessions on imported houses and building materials of other than United Kingdom origin.

The Government has given the utmost aid that it can to the building industry by the selection of migrants with suitable skills and their placement where they are most needed to break the bottlenecks in our production of essential building materials and to aid in site preparation and on-site construction. Migrant labour has been provided for brick making, steel making, forestry, mining, and transport. Amongst arrivals in 1949 and 1950 were some 8,000 building tradesmen. It is expected that 10,000 building tradesmen will arrive in Australia in 1951.

How many imported houses can we get? As I said earlier, the delegation that went overseas reported that 20,000 houses should be available from abroad by the end of 1951, and 40,000 a year thereafter. That estimate, of course, is subject to the march of world events. The world-wide re-armament programme already threatens our supplies, affording another reason, if we need it, to act now. Serviced sites may prove a difficulty but we may be able to get help from overseas in road and site work. Indeed we are already getting such help. If we are to make the most of the houses available we may have no option but to accept less for the present by way of services than in other circumstances we might be willing to accept.

What will the houses be like? All the houses that are being imported by housing authorities are built to the State housing commission’s own plans and specifications, and will be designed for Australian conditions. They will have to be accepted by the Commonwealth experimental building station as to structural soundness, durability and workmanship. They will be as comfortable and at least as well equipped as are

Australian houses constructed of similar materials being built by ‘State housing authorities. Sample houses seen recently in South Australia, to which later houses in the contract must conform, are of good standard and the whole appearance both externally and internally is pleasing. An Australian contractor who was erecting one of those prototypes spoke highly of the workmanship and timber. The imported house will, in general, be difficult to distinguish from an Australian one.

The contract prices accepted by States for construction and erection of the imported houses range from approximately £1,700 to. £2,250 for a twobedroom house, and somewhat dearer for the larger houses. The South Australian Housing Trust has indicated that the sale price of its houses, each of three bedrooms and covering an average area of 960 square feet, after crediting the Commonwealth subsidy, will be from £1,925 to £1,950 complete, including all land, fences, administration, &c. The prices vary fairly widely, and that is caused, in part, by the varying sizes and different materials of the houses, as well as the country of supply.

For an adequate flow of imported houses, we have to draw upon several countries, including not only those where, because of favorable cost factors, prices ure lower, but also other where the costs will be higher. That is why this bill proposes to average the assistance given. A greater sum than £300 a house would be needed to induce the flow from the dearer-cost countries, but if the Commonwealth were to raise the subsidy to the figure needed for them, it would be an invitation to all tenderers to raise their prices and the States would have little motive in self-interest to resist. Averaging, whilst still limiting the Commonwealth responsibility to a maximum of £300 a house and giving in total no more than is needed to reduce the imported houses to local cost, yet permits assistance, where needed, of more than £300 a unit, but leaves the incentive for every State to keep each contract as low as: possible. As prices now appear, the average cost of imported houses will be £300 above the cost of comparable local houses, but if more than £300 above, not so greatly in excess as to make the Commonwealth offer ineffective. An amount of £300, as far as we can see now, will be sufficient but not more than sufficient, to stimulate the ordering of the houses Australia needs.

It is difficult to say just when the Commonwealth will be called upon to pay the sums provided. An amount of £1,500,000 has been placed on the Estimates for the current financial year and should prove adequate. The payment in 1951-52, it is estimated, may be £4,000,000, leaving £3,500,000 for 1952-53. It may be asked why the Parliament should be asked now to provide for commitments two to three years hence. The answer is that the orders in respect of which those payments will be made will need to be given in the immediate future. From the stand-point of the Australian economy as a whole, the importation of prefabricated houses is anti-inflationary, and,’ in addition, represents a great saving in man-power and materials, in comparison with locally built houses. Probably more than 70 per cent, of the erected cost of a prefabricated house represents the cost of the imported components. Importations of prefabricated houses reduce the pressure on the Australian building industry and on the industries producing building materials and components.

Australia must have more houses in the years immediately ahead. A gap will remain between the houses that we can build, and those we need. That gap can be bridged at least in part by the importation from overseas of complete houses, and, so far as i9 possible, their erection by workers from overseas. We are taking every possible action to ensure that they will be well built, durable, comfortable and well equipped. They will be used in a special way to aid our vital industries. The Commonwealth is importing houses for its own needs and this bill is designed to stimulate their use in the much wider field which, under the Constitution, belongs to the States. 1 believe it is well designed for the purpose, and I commend it to honorable senators as a milestone in our national development.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLoader of the Opposition

– Doubtless the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), like members of the Opposition, would have been relieved had bis second-reading speech contained less verbiage. Some parts of it were difficult to understand. This bill has the approval of the Opposition. It i3 an extension of the scheme for the importation of prefabricated houses which was introduced by the Chifley Labour Government. I remind the Senate that that Administration not only initiated the scheme but also remitted customs duties on the imported houses in order to make them as cheap as possible. I am thoroughly in agreement with the provision that the houses must be accepted by the Commonwealth experimental building station as to structural soundness, durability and workmanship. Such a condition is essential. The system of priorities for essentia] services is sound. Australia has adopted a vigorous migration policy. It is expected that approximately 200,000 migrants will come here annually. Such an increase of population may be expected to accentuate the present housing shortage. On the basis of figures given by the Minister of four persons to a house, the inflow of migrants will mean that 50,000 houses will be required annually for the newcomers alone. The problem is somewhat difficult, but this bill, because of the Commonwealth contribution, will greatly assist the States in their endeavours to overcome their housing problems.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I am sorry that this bill should have been introduced at so late an hour, because it is a very important one. While I congratulate the Government on its attempt to solve the housing problem in Australia by a grant to the State governments of £300 on each prefabricated home imported, I think that there are several other matters that should also be considered. When we think of mass construction of houses we also think of a community consisting of houses of a monotonous type. Although certain statements were made during the second-reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) to the effect that consideration has been given to the design and construction of prefabricated houses, I point out to the Minister that the various parts of Australia require different treatment. Houses of a uniform style should not be erected. I trust that consideration will be given to the tropical climate of the northern parts of Australia when the design of those houses is being considered. In the southern areas of Australia the people close every window and door in order to keep cool, whereas in the north every window and door is opened.

Senator Grant:

– That is more than they do in Canberra!

Senator WOOD:

– That illustrates the difference in our climates. It is essential that special consideration should be given to tropical conditions where the design of prefabricated houses is concerned. Special architectural knowledge is required. In the warmer districts of Australia sufficient overhang should be allowed in order to do away with glare. I have given considerable thought to housing, and I can assure honorable senators that glare can be more detrimental to the occupant of a home than heat itself. I am sure that Senator Tate, who is an architect by profession, will agree with that statement.

I suggest that when this large number of houses is imported, the Government should ensure that they will be erected in attractive surroundings. In perusing the report of the Department of Works and Housing, which was made during the term of the previous Government, some splendid suggestions will be found in the way of lay-out of communities. Nothing affects the life of people so much as does the monotony of their surroundings. It should be possible to provide attractive surroundings, and the use of landscape gardening is suggested in the areas where those homes will be erected. I appreciate that at this early hour of the morning housing is not a subject that greatly appeals to honorable senators, but the aspect to which I have just referred has not been given sufficient consideration in the past. It must be recognized that environment plays an important part in our lives, and it is essential that our environment should be as attractive as possible.

It is gratifying to learn that when the allocation of these prefabricated homes is made a certain number will be erected in the coal and steel proceeding areas of the country. I am sure that honorable senators who know the coal areas will agree that an improved standard of housing may play an important part in the outlook of the people who live there. Colour is also important in our lives. People who work with black coal day in and day out are affected by its monotony. I suggest that in the erection of these homes there is opportunity for the government to provide a suitable range of colourings. I venture to suggest that if the surroundings of this Senate chamber were brighter they would have a beneficial effect on honorable senators. An important consideration in housing is the saving of energy used in housework. Instead of putting frills outside the house for purposes of show, the money spent on them should be expended inside for the comfort of the occupants and for the installation of labour-saving devices.

It is unfortunate that there should be a sorry side to the importation of these houses. This country, which suffered in no material way from the effects of the war, 13 obliged to import houses from war-torn and war-weary countries overseas. With the exception of one, all of those countries were in the front line and were severely bombed. The necessity to import houses indicates that Australia has lacked drive in its efforts to meet its own housing needs. The two redeeming features of the plan are that it will speedily provide Australians with houses and that it will bring more building tradesmen to this country. Although there are vast quantities of timber in Australia, much has been wasted because of lack of vision on the part of past State governments. We have sufficient cement and concrete with which to build houses, yet it is necessary to import building materials from other countries. Recently, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Mr. Gair, made a statement to the effect that bricks were in such short supply in that State that the Government would have to establish its own brickworks. If that statement is correct, it is obvious that successive State governments have not done all that they should have done. Such statements are often insincere.

At a place called Pindi Pindi in Queensland a brickworks has been closed ever since man-power call-ups and enlistments during World War II. caused it to stop production. The establishment has been -on the market since 1947 and six prospective purchasers have negotiated for it, but it has not yet been sold. The reason for that is that, under the bureaucratic system of controlling prices in Queensland, the potential buyers have been refused permission to charge prices for bricks that would enable them to make a profit. The result is that a source of building materials for houses has been left untapped throughout the most critical years of the accommodation shortage. Furthermore, local builders are obliged to import bricks from Brisbane at a cost that exceeds by £5 a thousand the charge that the prospective purchasers of the brickworks sought to have authorized by the prices authorities. The establishment is now to be sold piecemeal as the result of the action of the State authorities, although, prior to World War II., it produced the best fire bricks in Queensland as well as excellent face bricks and common bricks. The prospective buyers were refused permission to charge fair prices for bricks solely because an individual who is employed in the prices office at Brisbane has an interest in brickworks in that city. That sort of thing is seriously impeding the house construction programme. Obstruction of that kind at a time when people are sorely in need of homes is criminal. It may not appear to be serious to those of us who have homes but, of course, very few people realize the value of anything that is worthwhile until they are deprived of it. Our homeless citizens are in a different position from that of honorable senators, and they deserve our sympathy and help. We need houses that are attractive in appearance and economical from the point of view of the housewife so that the growing generation will have the benefit of a pleasant environment and will develop a well-adjusted outlook on life. The State governments are not pulling their weight in the national effort to increase the rate of house construction. Bureaucratic interference of the kind that I have mentioned is tragic.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3937

SERVICES TRUST FUNDS BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 in order to overcome certain administrative difficulties which have arisen since the legislation came into force. Most honorable senators will recollect that the main provision of the principal act was to establish a trust to administer war-time canteen profits and other assets which accumulated during World War II. for the benefit of members of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force who served in that war. The third annual report of the trustees will be available to honorable senators shortly, so that it is not necessary for me to enter into details of what the trust has done since it was established. I merely remind them that the responsibilities of the trustees are considerable, since they are handling a fund that amounts to approximately £5,200,000, and their task is to administer it in the best interests of exservicemen and their dependants. Under the provisions of the act, £2,500,000 has been earmarked for the education of children, and a comprehensive educational plan is well under way. The remainder of the fund is set aside for the relief of distress among ex-servicemen and their families.

The principal act prescribed that it should deal with funds which accrued in the war that commenced on the 3rd September, 1939. However, as under international law the war which commenced on that date has not officially terminated, the act is legally applicable to canteen profits which have accrued and which are accruing since the cessation of hostilities. This, of course, was not intended, and one of the proposed amendments is that the terminal date of the war for the purpose of the act shall be the 30th June, 1947. That is the date which has been prescribed by the GovernorGeneral as the date for the Services Canteens Trust to commence and it also became the last date of eligibility of exservicemen for benefits under the act. That means that those who enlisted after that date are not eligible for benefits from this fund. The 30th June, 1947, is also the date from which all persons subject to military law who were serving in the Commonwealth and its territories ceased to be “ on active service “. Another administrative difficulty which the present bill is designed to remove concerns the canteens that are administered in Japan by the Australian Canteens Service for the benefit of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. The agreement with the member countries was that the profits of the canteens should be distributed for the benefit of the components of the force in the United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and Australia. Legal opinion indicates that the provisions of the principal act do not permit of this distribution. Accordingly, the present bill excludes the canteens that are administered in Japan on behalf of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force and enables such profits to be distributed as directed by the Military Board, subject to the approval of the Minister.

As honorable senators know, the trustees of this fund give their services in an honorary capacity, and provision was made in section 11 of the principal act for the payment to them of out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred in the exercise of their powers or functions under the act. This has been interpreted literally to mean that the trustees cannot be paid a fixed travelling allowance in the same way as are other persons who render services to the Commonwealth but must furnish details of every particular item of expense that they incur so as to obtain reimbursement. This, of course, was not intended, and so the bill provides for the amendment of the principal act to enable a scale of travelling allowances to be fixed by the Minister. As the bill is a machinery measure only and will not alter in any way the spirit and intention of the principal act, I commend it to the Senate for a speedy passage.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Opposition endorses the bill. It is very pleasing to know that the profits of war-time service canteens are being devoted to such worthy objects as the education of children and the relief of distress amongst ex-servicemen and their families. It is also pleasing to know that the trustees, who have given a great deal of time and effort to the administration of the fund, will not be placed at any financial disadvantage as the result of their unselfish devotion to the task that they have undertaken. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3938

BRACHINA TO LEIGH CREEK NORTH COALFIELD RAILWAY BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill benow read a second time.

The Minister for Transport in the Chifley Government, Mr. Ward, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, entered into an agreement with the South Australian Government for the conversion to 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge of the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway between Port Augusta and Alice Springs. This bill is designed to authorize the commencement of work upon the portion of the railway between Brachina and Leigh Creek North coal-field, and to appropriate the money necessary, to enable the work to be done. The measure was supported by the Opposition in the House of Representatives.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition does not oppose this bill, which is designed to implement, in part, the plan that was initiated by a Labour government for the standardization of railway gauges in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3938

PORT AUGUSTA TO ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY (ALTERATION OF ROUTE) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Commonwealth has been advised by its technical experts that, between Stirling North, which is just outside Port Augusta, and Brachina the proposed 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge Port Augusta to Alice Springs railway should follow what is known as the western route, in order to avoid going through the Flinders Ranges. The cost of widening the gauge of the existing portion of the railway between Stirling North and Brachina would be considerable. If the advice of the Commonwealth’s experts were adopted, a great saving in railway operating costs would be effected. Traffic on the portions of the Port Augusta to Alice Springs railway to which this bill and the Brachina to Leigh . Creek North Coalfield Railway Bill relate has increased considerably since the lines were constructed. The Premier of South Australia has inquired whether, when the new power-houses are completed at Port Augusta, the railway will be able to carry 2,000,000 tons of coal a year from the Leigh Creek coal-fields to the power-houses. The South Australian Government has agreed that the question of the route to be followed by this portion of the railway shall be submitted to a royal commission and that the finding of the commission shall be binding upon both South Australia and the Commonwealth. The object of this bill is to establish the royal commission.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– The Opposition raises no objection to this measure. There is a difference of opinion between the Commonwealth and South Australia regarding whether the part of the Port Augusta to Alice Springs railway between Stirling North and Brachina should follow the route recommended by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner or that recommended by the South Australian Railways Commissioner. The establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the matter is the only sane and practical way of resolving that difference of opinion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No.1a) 1950.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure is the first of three bills which deal with the wool industry that I am about to submit to the Senate, and

I trust that the remarks that I shall make on it will be taken as being explanatory of the other two bills. The purposes of the three measures are to grant exemptions from the contributory charge on wool. The purpose of the first and second measures is to validate the administrative exemption that the Commissioner of Taxation has been granting on skin wools, at the request of the Government, since the date on which the levy of 7¼ per cent. became operative. The third measure provides for regulations to be made to grant total or partial exemption from contributory charge or to make refunds of contributory charge on wool. I commendthe bill to honorable senators.

SenatorMcKENNA (Tasmania) [1.28 a.m.]. - The bill proposes to give legislative effect to certain provisions that have been found administratively desirable by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. Those measures are conditional upon the levying of the contributory charge of7¼ per cent. that was provided for in legislation recently introduced by the Government. Whether that levy will remain as a permanent feature of our economy, will depend largely upon the response of the wool-growers to the contributory charge scheme. At the moment, the indications are that they are not too responsive, because they are feeling rather sharply the touch of the Government on their hip-pocket nerve, which is estimated to cost them approximately £103,000,000. Of course, it may well happenthat the scheme will never come to fruition, and that a good deal of the money already collected will have to be refunded. The Opposition realizes that the three measures merely incorporate administrative provisions that have been shown to be desirable, and, therefore, we raise no objection to passage of the measures.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 2a) 1950.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’SULLIVAN read a first time.

Second Beading.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is the second of the bills to which I referred in the second-reading speech that I delivered a few minutes ago on the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill (No. Ia), and I shall not repeat what I said then.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests’ or debate.

page 3940

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time. .

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is the third and last of the three measures to which I referred in the remarks that I made a few minutes agc on the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill (No. 1a). It provides the machinery to make regulations for exemption from the contributory charge on wool. I shall not repeat the remarks that I made when I explained the purpose of this measure earlier.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3940

STATES GRANTS (MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has been introduced for the purpose of enabling the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the States in connexion with the provision by the States of milk for school children. The Government proposes that all children under thirteen years of age who attend public or private primary schools, including kindergartens, creches and nursery schools, shall be supplied each school day with a quantity of milk not exceeding half a pint, preferably one-third of a pint, when practicable. It is intended that the scheme shall be administered by the States on behalf of the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth shall reimburse the States for the costs incurred. An arrangement will be entered into with each State.

The total number of children under thirteen years of age who would be eligible to participate in the scheme is approximately 900,000. It is estimated that initially about 65 per cent, of these children can be supplied. This percentage will be progressively increased from time to time. In some States milk will be supplied for the full school year whilst in other States the hotter months may be at first excluded due to the milk supply position, rearrangement of classes at the beginning of the school year, &c. The scheme will be entirely voluntary and in times of milk shortages distribution may have to be curtailed or temporarily suspended if other satisfactory arrangements cannot be made.

The cost of the scheme for a full year embracing most areas is estimated at £1,500,000, based on present milk prices, but it is not anticipated that that cost will be reached for several years. This measure should appeal to all honorable senators who are interested in national health, and I therefore commend it to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– The Minister has given a very brief explanation of the bill. I can understand his reasons for being brief at this hour of the morning. This is purely a machinery measure which of itself will not provide a half-pint of milk to a single child in Australia. Unfortunately it is like many other measures that have been talked about a great deal by the health administration of this Government. This proposal was first announced as long ago as January of this year when the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) triumphantly stated that it constituted the first stage of the Government’s new national health scheme. He must have known from the outset that the success of the scheme was completely dependent on the State administrations bat for month after month he neglected to consult the State Ministers of Health about the scheme and when he did meet them he was unprepared for the problems which they presented to him. Moreover,’ they met him in a spirit of hostility. When, following his talks with them, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held in September, the representatives of the States rejected the proposal out of hand. The Minister then learned fully of the difficulties which confronted the States not only in providing capital equipment to implement the scheme but also in providing for the distribution of the milk, and the cleansing and storage of drinking utensils, and the like. This bill does no more than enable the Commonwealth to make money available to the States to cover the purchase of milk and to reimburse the States for expenses incurred in distribution and other incidental matters. In short the Government might merely have sought legislative authority to reimburse the States for all expenditure incurred by them in connexion with the scheme. The Government now realizes that there are far more problems connected with the distribution of milk than it had contemplated. I invite the Minister in charge of the bill to say whether during the last twelve months, one pint of milk has been distributed to one child on behalf of the Commonwealth. This is but another example of talk but lack of performance on the part of the health administration.

Clause 5 provides that the Minister may make arrangements for the supply of milk by the Commonwealth to school children attending schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. No difficulties arose relative to the supply of milk to school children in either of those territories which are both under Commonwealth control. I invite the Minister to inf orm the Senate whether a half-pint of milk was supplied by the Commonwealth to a school child in either of those territories. From the viewpoint of the Opposition this measure represents no more than the first gesture of the Minister for Health to introduce into the Senate a bill to give effect to one phase of the Government’s much vaunted health scheme. It is on a par with the promises of the right honorable gentleman that medical and pharmaceutical benefits would be made available in extenso to the pensioners of Australia. That scheme> was scheduled to commence on the 1st November, but so far all that the pensioners have seen of it is a regulation that was promulgated by the Minister which authorized the Director-General of Health to make arrangements for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. That was merely a political gesture to indicate to the people that the Government had the matter in hand. The day on which the Government can claim that it has fulfilled that promise still seems to be as far off as ever. This bill does not achieve a single purpose beyond vesting the Commonwealth with legislative authority to provide money for the States if the States can be persuaded to undertake the scheme on behalf of the Commonwealth. I do not criticize the scheme. It should have beneficial results. Having regard to the fact that calcium, which is one of the constituent elements of milk, is vastly important in the building of teeth and bone in children, one cannot do otherwise than approve of the general principle that underlies this bill.

I deplore the fact that although the previous Administration had reached an agreement with the dentists of Australia to provide dental care for school children the present Government has not made any attempt to hold a single conference with the dentists with the object of giving effect to the agreement. The way was completely smoothed for the institution of that vastly important scheme. Despite the value of schemes of this kind, it would have been infinitely preferable if the Government had taken up the negotiations with the dentists at the point at which the last Government had left them, and if it had begun to produce the numerous trained personnel that are required in order to ensure that the teeth of the children shall be preserved. The general condition of the teeth of children and adults is a disgrace to the nation. That is due to the insufficient numbers of dentists that are available and also to lack of hygiene. Under those- conditions the health of children particularly has been damaged. Thus, whilst the Opposition will not record a vote in opposition to this measure, and whilst it does, in fact, approve of the principle that underlies the scheme, at the same time, it sees in it no more than a mere gesture by the Government, through the Minister for Health, to enable the Government to say that it has at least achieved something. I invite the Minister in charge of the bill, to tell the Senate when he is replying to the debate whether the Government has provided free of charge even half a pint of milk to any child since it assumed office.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I whole-heartedly support this measure.

Senator Robertson:

– Hear, hear !

Senator HENTY:

– I deplore the fact, that Senator McKenna, like the Premier of Tasmania, has done a great deal of harm to the scheme by damning it with faint praise. I fail to see any reason why all political parties should not support it. That observation applies particularly to Tasmania, because a survey that was conducted in that State in 1944 revealed that a great proportion of adults and children were suffering from malnutrition and dental decay. At this late hour I do not propose to weary honorable senators by citing the statistics with respect to that matter. Although the scheme presents certain difficulties, Tasmania is in a better position to implement it than Senator McKenna, or the Premier of Tasmania, is prepared to admit. The area schools in Tasmania will providefocal points for implementing the schemeand the sooner the Tasmanian Government makes up its mind to co-operate with the Australian Government for that purpose the better it will be for the peopleof that State. I support the measureand again express my disappointment that the Opposition has not accepted it whole-heartedly.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Senator Henty madeseveral interesting remarks, but what he said was at variance with the facts. Nevertheless, Senator Robertson greeted his remarks by calling out “ Hear, hear ! “ I recall that only a little while ago Senator Robertson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health why it was not possible to supply powdered milk to children in Western Australia. It is well known that the Government of that State, independently of the AustralianGovernment, endeavoured to institute a scheme of this kind, and that that scheme failed dismally because it was not possible to provide adequate supplies of milk for the purpose. Indeed, the Premier of Western Australia has informed the Australian Government that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement this scheme in that State. This measure is in keeping with many other pieces of legislation that the Government has introduced. It was impossible under normal conditions to provide adequate supplies of whole milk, and there is little, if any, skimmed and powdered milk to supplement the supply. At present whole milk is bringing abnormally high prices and is in short supply. The Government will not have achieved anything by introducing this measure.

Recently, I attended a meeting of the fruit-growers’ section of the Farmers Union in Western Australia. Senator Piesse told those present at that meeting that farmers in that State could not produce sufficient milk for purposes of a scheme of this kind. Consequently the meeting approved of a suggestion that the Government should be requested to institute a scheme for the supply of fresh fruit instead of milk to school children. Fresh fruit would remedy a lack in the general diet of school children. lt is most disheartening to hear a senator from Tasmania recommend a scheme that will be impracticable, if not impossible, and to hear a. senator from Western Australia express her approval of a scheme which the government of that State previously endeavoured to operate with but meagre success. This measure is in line with many other bills that the Government has introduced to achieve something that sounds meritorious but the implementation of which would be impossible. It is unfortunate that in the dying hours of the current sessional period the Government should introduce legislation for the purpose of implementing a scheme of a kind that the Government of at least one State has found to be impracticable. It would be better to give more attention to schemes to provide adequately for the dental and physical health of the community.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– Despite its faults, I still love the bill. I am sorry that Senator Cooke should have condemned this scheme in complete ignorance of what has been done in this sphere in Western Australia. I admit that in certain localities in that State it would be difficult to provide milk in adequate supplies for children, but I inform the honorable senator, who appears to be in ignorance of events in the State that he represents, that a scheme for the provision of free milk has been in operation there since 1924. I also inform him that a Labour government in that State promised that it would subsidize on a £l-for-fl basis a free milk scheme that a team of voluntary workers offered to implement and operate. I was the secretary of that body of voluntary workers, and I still retain that position. Labour did not honour its obligation in this connexion. That voluntary scheme has been working very well in Western Australia, and was responsible for raising over £1,000 a year for the children for many years. About two years ago the State Liberal Government of the day approved of the granting of £500 annually to the Free Milk and Nutritional Council, to enable its good work to be continued. I congratulate the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) for tackling this problem at the source. I was astounded to hear

Senator McKenna assert that it was a pity that the money proposed to be expended on this scheme could not be applied instead in the provision of dental treatment. I point out that it is far better to make free milk available to children in order to develop their bones and teeth, than to have to provide dental treatment for them in later life. It is far better to provide the children with milk in the schools than in their homes, where it could be watered clown by the mothers in order to make it go further.

If the hour were not so late, and the homes of honorable senators were not so attractive, I could regale the Senate for hours with the history of free milk schemes. Some honorable senators are probably thinking, “ God forbid “ ; but at a more appropriate time I shall address the Senate again on this matter. Years ugo, the distribution of free milk in schools was the order of the day in other countries. I have been assured that a free milk scheme that was introduced fourteen years ago in New Zealand is still operating successfully in both islands. I have personally witnessed the operation of that scheme, as well as the operation of similar schemes in other parts of the world. One of the effects of the free milk scheme in New Zealand has been to bring about contentment in the dairying industry of that country. It has often been said that the farmers are never satisfied. I am reminded of an occasion when a teacher was giving a lesson to school children about floods. She said, “ There was a time when there was a terrible flood all over this earth. It rained 40 days and 40 nights “. A little boy in the front of the class asked, “ Please, miss, was the cockeys pleased then ? “ I am convinced that the dairy cockeys in New Zealand are pleased, and that the free milk scheme in the dominion has been responsible for improving the health of the children considerably. I compliment the Minister for Health for introducing this scheme. If the mothers of this country were entrusted with the distribution of free milk to children in our schools, I am sure that distribution difficulties would be soon overcome. I commend the bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

.- As Senator McKenna has stated, this bill is an earnest of the Commonwealth’s desire to provide free milk for the school children of this country. The basic trouble is that beyond the metropolitan areas, particularly in Queensland and “Western Australia, the distribution of free milk will be utterly impossible.

Senator Robertson:

– Rubbish !

Senator WILLESEE:

– I could name a dozen towns in Western Australia, including Carnarvon, where milk is not being distributed to the residents.

Senator Robertson:

– If the honorable senator will inform me of the names of towns in Western Australia where milk is not being distributed, I shall see that the residents of those towns get it.

Senator WILLESEE:

– An aspect of the proposed scheme that will have to be watched very carefully is the fact that some children are allergic to milk. I know an entire family that is allergic to milk.

Senator O’sullivan:

– It would not take the honorable senator very long to tell us all that he knows.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Once again the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) is displaying his ignorance. The fact is that once again a mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), who has been referred to as the doleful doctor, has conceived the scheme that we are now considering. A scheme to provide dental treatment for the people in the outback districts of this country would have been more advantageous. In spite of what Senator Robertson has said, I emphasize that the regular distribution of milk in the outback parts of Western Australia is a sheer impossibility. Even the permanent residents of those districts cannot obtain regular supplies of milk. For that reason, the children living in densely populated districts will derive far more benefit from the proposed scheme than will the children in the outback areas. I would congratulate the Government for introducing this measure if the distribution of free milk to school children is intended to be an integral part of a national health scheme. A scheme to provide dental treatment in outback areas would be about 500 times more valuable to the children in those areas than the proposed free milk scheme. Certain people in Western Australia are trying to obtain cheap limelight and to ride into politics on the backs of the people supporting this scheme.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– in reply - Senator McKenna asked whether the Commonwealth had provided even one pint of milk free to school children in any part of Australia. I point out that this bill provides for Commonwealth grants to the States to enable the provision of milk free to school children. Surely the honorable senator realizes that until this measure has been passed the Commonwealth has no authority to provide milk free. Senator Cooke and Senator Willesee have condemned the bill outright because they consider that distribution difficulties will prevent its implementation. The Government has approached this matter more optimistically. It believes that the provision of milk free to the school children of this country will result in a great improvement in their health. In Great Britain the standard of health of mothers and children has been considerably higher since milk has been supplied to them free. The scheme operating in Great Britain proved to be of considerable value to the mothers and children during the period of shortage of food in that country. Obviously, there will be initial difficulties. The Government does not expect that it will be able to arrange a complete distribution at the outset. The Premiers of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have agreed to co-operate with the Commonwealth in arranging distribution. The Premier of South Australia has offered to co-operate with the Commonwealth in the matter of distribution on a 50-50 basis. If the supply of milk is inadequate to permit of its distribution to all school children, the Government will consider making fruit juices and powdered milk available. The proposed scheme will greatly benefit the children of the community. Instead of extending their co-operation, some honorable senators opposite have put a damp blanket on this measure and have said that its implementation is impossible, but honorable senators on this side of the chamber say that it is not impossible and that the Government is going to put it into effect.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ school “ includes a nursery school, kindergarten or crèche;

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That, in the definition of “ school “, the words “ or crèche “ he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ crèche or aboriginal mission “.

The object of this amendment is to make provision for the children in the aboriginal missions to be provided for under this milk scheme.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– One can see that there must be real virtue in milk in view of the fact that its mention should produce so much loquacity in this chamber at such an early hour of the morning. The Labour party favours this measure entirely and has offered no objection to the principle underlying the bill, which is that milk shall be provided for school children. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that all the school children had received in the last twelve months from the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) was a supply of words. If I have misinterpreted his remarks, I give him the opportunity to correct me. I understood him to say that no milk has been supplied at the instance of the Commonwealth to any children in Australia up to the present time.

Senator Cooper:

– That is the case, so far as I am aware. I am not the Minister for Health.

Senator McKENNA:

– Will the Minister take the trouble to ascertain whether that is the case? Officers from the Department of Health are present in the chamber and I do not want to leave the matter in doubt.

Senator Cooper:

– If there is no legal authority for the supply of milk I presume that none has been supplied.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then I accept the position that no milk has been supplied at the instance of this Government.

Senator Cooper:

– I presume that none has been supplied. The honorable senator would not try to put his words into my mouth. I put my own words into my own mouth.

Senator McKENNA:

– I repeat the question, and shall press the Minister for an answer. If he claims that any milk has been supplied to any children in Australia will he now say so?

Senator Cooper:

– I presume that the Commonwealth has no authority to supply milk to children. No children can be supplied with milk without the legal authority that this bill gives.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3945

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the value of each of the first eight units of contributory superannuation pension by 20 per cent. from £32 10s. to £39, thereby raising such existing and future pensions by a maximum of £52 per annum to retired officers and £26 per annum to their widows. Legislation for this purpose was forecast in the Treasurer’s budget speech. It had been decided that the next periodical review of the superannuation scheme would not be made until 1952, but a special interim survey was considered desirable in view of the steep increase in the cost of living during the last three years since 1947, when the scheme was last examined. Consideration of the rate of pension was prompted also by the decision of the Victorian Government to amend the State superannuation scheme to provide broadly for an increase of 20 per cent, in superannuation pensions from the 1st July, 1950. Before that amendment, the Victorian scheme was comparable with the present Commonwealth scheme. The Commonwealth superannuation scheme is compulsory and former employees of our Public Service and of Commonwealth authorities now find that the real value of this form of compulsory saving is considerably less than they had anticipated during the period of their contributions. This rise in the cost of living is believed to be causing severe hardship to many superannuated officers, particularly those whose life-time savings have rendered them ineligible for social services benefits. The responsibility of the Commonwealth as an employer suggests that the cost of the further increase of benefits now proposed should be borne by the Commonwealth and shall not be met by additional contributions from present and future employees.

The 20 per cent, increase has been limited to the first, eight units of pension on the ground that the present salary of an adult male officer on the lowest grading in the Public Service carries entitlement to contribute for that number of units. The overall effect will be to increase the Commonwealth’s contribution -to pension from 60 per cent, to 66.7 per cent, for the first eight units. After the. first eight units, the proportion contributed by the Commonwealth becomes progressively less until it reaches 62.3 per cent, in the case of the pensioner entitled to the maximum of 26 units.

Most officers already superannuated have pensions up to eight units. The” majority of adult male officers now serving contribute for eight units or more. Therefore, the increase of pension benefits provided for in the bill will be comparatively of greater benefit to present pensioners than to contributors not yet super- annuated. These increases offer a reasonable compromise between, on the one hand, alleviation of the position of present pensioners and, on the other, the lack of justification for a flat 20 per cent, increase of the superannuation entitlement of the higher salaried officers still serving.

A similar increase proportionate to the increase for the first eight units of pension will be made in respect of contributors to the Provident Account. Contributors to the Provident Account are those who, for medical or other reasons, are ineligible to contribute for pension. On retirement, they now receive a lump sum equal to two and a half times the amount of their contributions, plus 3 per cent, per annum compound interest thereon.

The increases which have been provided in the Victorian superannuation scheme have created an anomalous position in relation to officers who may be transferred from the Victorian to the Commonwealth Public Service since the amendment of the State act in June last. As the 20 per cent, increase in Victoria was not restricted to the first eight units, an officer so transferred could receive a pension of £39 per annum in respect of all units up to the maximum of 26. In addition, he would receive a 20 per cent, increase on each unit of £39 up to eight units when the present proposed amendment became law. The bill therefore includes a provision which will ensure that officers transferred from a State Public Service shall not be entitled to any greater benefits than will be payable to other Commonwealth officers.

This opportunity has been taken also to delete from the principal act certain miscellaneous sections, the operation of which has been exhausted by reason of the effluxion of time.

The increases will operate from and including the 9th November, being the first superannuation pension pay day in November. This is consistent with the date of commencement of increases of repatriation and social service benefits. It is estimated that the cost of these increases will approximate £325,000 per annum over the next few years. The measure is designed solely to alleviate the hardship suffered by superannuation pensioners, particularly those in receipt of the lower rates, by reason of the steep increase of the cost of living since 1947.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– Having regard to the explanation offered by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), the Opposition does not propose to offer any objection to the passage of this bill. It will confer a benefit on all superannuation pensioners, and the Opposition approves of the principle that it should confer the greatest benefit on those retired officers with the smallest number of superannuation units. However, although it will confer the greatest benefit on those who, on their retirement, were in the £416 to £468 range of income, some benefit will also be conferred on those who hold 26 units upon their retirement. The Opposition favours the bill, particularly because it will be of assistance to pensioners who are in need on account of uncontrolled inflation.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– Senator Sheehan, Senator Sandford and I have frequently asked whether it was proposed to do anything for those public servants who were due to retire at the age of 60 years, but who, because of the man-power shortage during the war, continued to work until they were 65 years of age. During that period of extended service they were paid salaries, but they were not paid their superannuation pensions to which they were entitled. I have expected that some provision would be made in this bill to redress the injustice under which they have suffered. Perhaps even now the bill might be so amended as to achieve that purpose.

SenatorWILLESEE (Western Australia) [2.20 a.m.]. - State officers who were taken into the Commonwealth Public Service in 1901 were paid, upon retirement, a fixed pension of £208 a year. When the Commonwealth Superannuation Act was amended about five years ago they were granted a pro rata increase of pension. I should like to know whether it is proposed to give them a further increase.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I am sorry that I can not supply the information sought by Senator Willesee, but I shall make inquiries and arrange for the Treasury to write to the honorable senator on the subject. I have been informed by Treasury officials that a committee is still considering the case of those officers who were due to retire at 60, but who continued to work, receiving their salaries, but no superannuation payments.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Did the Minister see a recent statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the subject?

Senator SPOONER:

– No, I did not. see it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3947

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 1950

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :

House of Representatives’ Amendments Nos. 1 to 12 (vide page 4058).

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Honorable senators may remember that when the Statute Law Revision Bill 1950 was before this chamber I indicatedin consequence of a. suggestion made by Senator McKenna that in order that the alterations of the statutes could be brought up to date to the end of the year it would be necessary to make some alterations to the bill consequent on the passage of the measures that have been passed through this chamber during this session. The amendments made by the House of Representatives are amendments to the bill as passed by the Senate which have been rendered necessary and desirable simply because of the legislation that the Senate has recently passed.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– The Opposition is in accord with the Government’s view of the necessity for the alterations, and offers no objection to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adapted.

page 3948

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following items: -

Axes, Adzes, Hatchets and Sledge Hammers

Cane-cutting Knives.

Carpenters’ Claw Hammers and Engineers’ Hammers

Chrome Chemicals

Gloves - N.E.I. including Mittens.

Hypodermic Syringes

Phenol

Secateurs

Tinsmiths’ Snips

Ordered to be printed.

page 3948

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to.

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the date on which the Senate next meets.

page 3948

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator by telegram or letter.

page 3948

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory - Repatriation - Commonwealth Bank - War Gratuity - Taxation - Health and Medical S er vices - Korea.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In submitting this motion I desire, with the indulgence of the Senate, to avail myself of the opportunity to wish you, Mr. President, all honorable senators, Mr. Edwards and his staff, Hansard, and other officers and employees of the Senate, our best wishes for a very happy Christmas and a contented and happy New Year. We have had a very strenuous year and I am sure that it is very gratifying to find that we are finishing it, although at a rather late hour, in a spirit of great cordiality and co-operation. I hope that that spirit will permeate the Senate during next year.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– May I extend to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and to honorable senators on the Government benches my best wishes for the festive season. I express my appreciation to my colleagues for the assistance that they have rendered to me during this very strenuous session. The past session has been the first one that I remember during which the Senate has worked right through without a break. I extend to you, Mr. President, and to your deputy, my appreciation of your activities in this chamber and my good wishes for the festive season. I also extend those wishes to the officers and staff of the Senate, particularly to the Hansard officers, who have so faithfully reproduced the eloquent speeches made in this chamber. I also extend my best wishes to our friends in the press galleries and to honorable senators opposite. I sincerely hope that we shall return next year with renewed vigour to conduct the business of the nation. Irrespective of which side of the House honorable senators are on, I am confident that they are sincere in their endeavours to serve the best interests of the nation.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I have here answers to certain questions asked by an honorable senator of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. The first question related to the provision of hostels for British immigrants at Mowbray Heights, near Launceston. The answer I have is -

Plans and estimates for the hostel at Mowbray Heights, Launceston, Tasmania, have been completed, and tenders will be called about mid-December.

The second and third questions relate to whether a hostel at Launceston was being planned. The answer is -

No, the question of providing a second hostel at Launceston has not yet been considered.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I regret that at this late hour I am compelled to detain honorable senators, but I believe they will agree that this matter is important. A number of electors represented by me asked me to raise this matter, which concerns the case of Dr. James. Dr. James was dismissed from Heidelberg Hospital. He is an eminent and brilliant student, and graduated as bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery at the University of Adelaide in 1941. He has had six years’ war service, including overseas service. He served for four years at Heidelberg Hospital, and his record of service at the hospital is unblemished. He was dismissed, and when he inquired into the reason for his dismissal he was told that the present head of the Public .Service Board had instructed that the temporary appointment of Dr. James should be terminated. The letter that Dr. James received in that connexion reads as follows: -

I have to inform you that advice has been received from the permanent head to the effect that the Public Service Board has decided that the temporary appointment of

Dr. P. R. James, R.M.O., R.G.H:, Heidelberg, be terminated Accordingly, Dr. James is to be notified by you (in writing) that his services will not be required after Wednesday, 7th June, 1950.

Dr. James will not be eligible for pro rata payment in lieu of recreation leave.

The letter that he received from the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Mr. Dunk, read as follows: -

T refer to your letter of the 30th May in which you refer to the dismissal of Dr. P. R. James from the service of the Repatriation Commission.

Dr. James is a temporary officer of the Commonwealth Public Service and termination of his engagement lies within authority vested in the Repatriation Commission.

The Public Service Board does not propose to intervene in this matter. 1 have asked numerous questions in the Senate about this matter, and have been informed that Dr. James was. dismissed under the authority of section 82 (6) of the Public Service Act, which provides that temporary employees may be dismissed at the discretion of the Chief Officer. However, in the Gazette issued on the 8th December, under the heading of the Prime Minister’s Department, the following general order was promulgated: -

The provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1948 shall not apply for the period 1st July, 1949, to 30th June, 1950, to the following classes of employees, excepting those who are permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service: -

Repatriation Department

  1. All except persons employed on work of a clerical nature.

Clearly that provision covered Dr. James, so that there was no authority to dismiss him under section 82 (6.) of the Public Service Act. Dr. James was unemployed for some time following his dismissal. When I was at Queenstown recently, the chairman of the Queenstown Medical Union asked me whether I could obtain an additional doctor fox that town. I said that I could do so. I explained that I had Dr. James in mind and I outlined the circumstances of his dismissal from the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. The chairman said, “ We are not concerned about what happened there so long as he is a good doctor “. I told the chairman that Professor Wright, the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, considered Dr. James to be conscientious and sincere and in the top rank of young doctors. The chairman said, “ Send him over “. Dr. James then went to Queenstown. Not long afterwards, however, Senator Wright visited Queenstown and addressed a public meeting. The reason why I have delayed raising the matter until to-night i3 that I hoped that Senator Wright would be present in the Senate to hear what I had to say. Unfortunately he is not here. In his address to the public meeting at Queenstown, which, no doubt, was attended by numerous potential patients of the Queenstown Hospital, Senator Wright referred to Dr. James in a sneering manner. He said that Dr. James had been kicked out of the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, and that I was pushing his barrow for him. That the board of the Queenstown Medical Union resented Senator Wright’s statements is shown by the following press report: -

The board of management of the Queenstown Medical Union resents a statement allegedly made by Senator R. C. Wright at a political meeting in Queenstown on Saturday.

It was reported to the board last night that Senator Wright’s statement reflected on a medical officer (Dr. James), who was recently appointed a locum tenens by the board.

It was considered the remarks were likely to discredit Dr. James in the eyes of his patients, and indirectly reflect on the board of management.

The board had every confidence in the doctor’s ability, and wished to dissociate itself from any adverse remarks made by any politician. It had always satisfied itself of the suitability of ils appointees, and strongly resented such “ political interference “.

The hoard felt that Senator Wright would “ serve a more useful purpose if he did something practical in regard to relieving the shortage of doctors instead of trying to belittle those who were endeavouring to do something for the good of the community “.

The chairman of the Medical Union has written to me as follows: -

I desire to add my thanks to those of the Board of Management of the Queenstown Medical Union for your recent action in obtaining a relieving doctor for Queenstown. As you arc aware, the position in this district prior to the arrival of Dr. James was despirately acute, one doctor having to attend to thi; populations of three towns with a total population of approximately seven thousand (7,000) people.

The normal number of doctors engaged by the Medical Union is three and their duties embrace general hospital work (68 bed hospital), three surgery sessions daily, plus intertown and home visits to patients whenever required.

The impossibility for one doctor to cope with thu position is apparent and the timely arrival of Dr. James was welcomed by all.

You will no doubt be interested to know that Dr. James is performing bis duties in a very capable and highly efficient manner and as a result of a recommendation in regard to the doctor’s ability from the SurgeonSuperintendent of the Lyell District Hospital, Dr. James will in all probability be offered a permanent position on our staff.

On several occasions, I have asked the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to appoint a committee to inquire into the dismissal of Dr. James so that he may have an opportunity to clear his name. I contend that he has suffered an injustice. Whilst T have great regard for the Minister for Repatriation, I believe that his officers have blundered in this instance and I am sure he does not want to see this injustice perpetuated. Information has reached me that when inquiries were made by the departmental head into the reasons for the dismissal of Dr. James, the dismissal could not be supported. More than once, Dr. James himself has asked for an inquiry into this matter. He has nothing to hide. He only wants to clear his name. He is being persecuted by parliamentarians, particularly by members of the Liberal party, and I believe it is up to the Minister, at the very least, to appoint a committee of inquiry. Again I appeal to the Minister for Repatriation even at this late stage to give Dr. James a fair trial. The people of Queenstown resent Senator Wright’s interference in this matter. Undoubtedly, Dr. James is an outstanding medical man. That is clear from the opinions that have been expressed by Professor Wright and by medical men with whom he has worked. He is doing valuable research work. In fact, he is so interested in that science that he is doing it without payment, merely in order that he may become more proficient. Dr. James is doing his best for the community, and I believe that if the Minister for Repatriation would interview him he would find him sincere and honest. Unfortunately, the Minister has already refused on several occasions to grant Dr. James an interview. If he has been guilty ‘of any offence, then let him take his punishment, but if he has committed no offence, let us remove the stigma that is now attached to him, particularly in view of his efforts to alleviate the suffering of the sick at Queenstown. Senator Wright’s speech to the public meeting at Queenstown did Dr. James much harm in the eyes of the people of that town. Fortunately, the Medical Union was broadminded and decided to accept him at his worth as a medical man. Again I appeal to the Minister to do justice to Dr. James.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I have listened carefully to what the honorable senator had to say. I direct the honorable senator’s attention to the’ fact that I have no control over what another honorable senator might say in his own or any other State. I have also already informed the honorable senator, not once, but on several occasions, that I have thoroughly and personally investigated the case of Dr. James, and even at this early hour of the morning, I can see no reason why I should alter. my previous decision, of which I informed the honorable senator about two months ago.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I have here the answers to questions that were placed on the notice-paper by Senator Fraser, Senator O’Byrne, and Senator Critchley. With the consent of the Senate I shall have the questions and answers to them incorporated in Hansard. They are as follows: -

Senator Fraser:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Treasurer instructed the Commonwealth Bank to restrict withdrawals from current or savings bank accounts?
  2. Has he instructed the Commonwealth Bank to restrict advances to clients so that the -Associated Banks or insurance companies would benefit by the policy adopted by the Government?
  3. Will he prepare a statement setting out the actual policy of the Government in respect of these matters and submit it to the Senate prior to the coming adjournment?

The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. No.
  2. No. Ae a means of limiting the inflationary effect of expenditure financed from the bank advances the Commonwealth Bank, as the central bank, lias recently announced a more restrictive advance policy to be followed out by both the private banks and the trading sections of the Commonwealth Bank.
  3. The policy of the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister in his joint policy speech and also as indicated by me in my second-reading speech on the Commonwealth Bank Bill, 1950, is to continue the trading activities of the Commonwealth Bank in fair competition with the private banks.
Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the approaching date for the payment of war gratuities - in March, 1951 - will the Treasurer inform the Senate whether ex-servicemen are permitted to invest, in the current Commonwealth loan, their equity in the war gratuity?

The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

To permit ex-servicemen to invest their war gratuity equity in the current Commonwealth loan would require an amendment of the War Gratuity Act authorizing early payment of the war gratuity. The war gratuity is at present earning 31 per cent, per annum compound interest payable until the 3rd March, 1951, whereas the rate payable on the current

Commonwealth loan for long-term investment is 3& per. cent, per annum. On or after that date, any recipient of a war gratuity may invest in a Commonwealth loan.

Senator Critchley:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. In view of the decision of the Taxation Board of Review in October, 1949, that income tax is not payable on pay made up to employees who are servicemen in the defence forces, has the Treasurer given favorable consideration to applications for refunds of income tax paid by servicemen in such circumstances?
  2. If so, what steps will applicants be required to take in order to obtain such refunds?
  3. Will he .take the necessary action to advise these servicemen that refunds are available should the necessary application be made?

The Treasurer has supplied the following information : -

  1. The position in regard to this decision is that the Commissioner of Taxation has appealed to the High Court against the decision but the appeal has not yet come before the High Court. If the High Court confirms the board of review decision it will not mean that all tax paid on made-up pay will be refundable by the Commissioner because of the rule of law that tax payable in mistake of law is not refundable. The Government has under consideration requests made for retrospective amendment of the law to make all such payments exempt from taxation. There are many difficulties in this course of action and the Government has not yet reached a decision in the matter.
  2. See reply to No. 1.
  3. See reply to No. 2.
Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I have here an answer to a question that was asked by Senator Tangney, and with the consent of the Senate I shall incorporate the question and the answer to it in Hansard.

Senator Tangney:

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

  1. In view of the restricted formulary under which “ free medicine “ is available, will the Minister consider the addition to the list of certain sedatives which are necessary in postoperative cases and other serious illnesses?
  2. Is it a fact that while important and costly drugs to alleviate pain are not available under the “ free medicine “ scheme, sufferers from venereal disease and other self-induced illnesses are fully supplied with free medicine?

The Minister for Health has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The formulary is constantly under review and suggestions towards its amendment are considered by a committee of experts. When additional drugs are found essential to requirements, they are included. 2.Pain-alleviating drugs are available in the current formulary.
Senator SPOONER:
Minister for SocialServices · New South Wales · LP

– Senator Robertson submitted the following question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a research project is being instituted in the Geraldton, Western Australia, area for the purpose of locating tuna fish and enabling the establishment of canneries at that port?
  2. If so, will the Minister also consider a research project at Geographe Bay, Western Australia, so that the large cannery, with freezer installed, already erected at Busselton may be put to its full use?

The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers: -

  1. I am advised that the fisheries research vessel Warreen, of the Division of Fisheries of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, has recently spent a short time in waters off the Western Australian coast in the Geraldton area. These waters have been traversed on previous occasions by the vessel and occurrences of tuna have been noted. The division would not be inclined to advise the establishment of a cannery on the results obtained to date.
  2. The division’s vessel has also done some work in the Geographe Bay area. It is understood that the fisheries patrol vessel recently placed in commission by the Western Australian Government will make investigations in this area. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Division of Fisheries has, at the request of the Western Australian State Fisheries Department, loaned some nets to be used by this vessel.

On the 8th November, Senator Amour asked Senator O’Sullivan a question concerning the establishment of a music composers’ fund as recommended by the Broadcasting Committee. Senator O’Sullivan has been advised by the Prime Minister that an opportunity has not yet arisen for the Government to give detailed consideration to the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee on this matter.

Senator Armstrong:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister the following question, upon notice -

Will the Prime Minister make available to the Senate a list of nations whose forces are actually in combat in Korea?

The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

Owing to the day-to-day changes in operational requirements it is not possible to indicate which units are in actual combat. The potential combat forces either accepted or actually operating were, however, listed by the United States State Department on 20th November, 1950, as follows (State Department Far East Wireless Bulletin No. 283) : -

Australia - One air squadron, three naval vessels, ground forces (all operating).

Belgium - Air transport (operating), infantry battalion (accepted).

Canada - Three naval vessels, one air transport squadron and commercial facilities of Canadian-Pacific Airlines (all operating), ground forces (arriving shortly but not yet operating).

France- One patrol gunboat (operating), one infantry battalion (accepted).

New Zealand - Two frigates (operating), ground forces (accepted).

Norway - Merchant ship tonnage (operating).

Philippines - Seventeen Sherman tanks, one tank destroyer and regimental combat team (operating).

Turkey - One infantry combat force (operating).

Union of South Africa - One fighter squadron ( accepted ) .

United Kingdom - Ground forces and naval forces (operating).

United States - Forces from all service arms (operating ) .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3952

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator,&c. - 1950 -

No. 73 - Professional Radio Employees’ Institute of Australasia.

No. 74 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 75 - Association of Railway Professional Officers of Australia.

No. 76 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

No. 77 - Australian Third Division Telegraphists and Postal Clerks’ Union.

Australian Imperial Force Canteens Funds Act - Thirtieth Annual Report by the Trustees, for year 1949-50.

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act-

Annual Report by the Acting Chief Judge for year ended 30th September, 1950.

Annual Report by the Chief Conciliation Commissioner for year ended 30th September, 1950.

International Monetary Agreements Act - Annual Report by the Treasurer regarding the operations of the Act and of the operations, insofar as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development Agreement, for year 1949-50.

Norfolk Island Act -

Ordinances - 1950 -

No. 1 - Sale of Food.

No. 2 - Tuberculosis.

Sent of Government Acceptance Act and Seat ofGovernment (Administration) Act - Canberra University College - Report for 1949.

Senate adjourned at 2.47 a.m. (Friday), to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19501207_senate_19_211/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant