House of Representatives
28 April 1938

15th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 588

QUESTION

PERSONNEL OF INTER-STATE COMMISSION

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister state whether it is a fact, as is reported in certain newspapers that support the Government, that Sir George Pearce is almost certain to be made Chairman of the Inter-State Commission, and that Mr. F. W. Eggleston, Chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, is to be the legal member of that body? If this be so, how does it fit in with the statement attributed to the right honorable gentleman that he was opposed to appointing defeated politicians to important posts? Also, how does he reconcile it with the statement attributed to him in the United Australia party press last year, that, by standing for reelection to the Senate, Sir George Pearce had disqualified himself for appointment to the commission?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– No consideration whatever has been given by the Government to. the personnel of a body the existence of which depends upon the passage of legislationby this House. Until that legislation has been passed, no consideration will be given to the matter.

Mr.Forde. -Is Sir George Pearce an applicant?

Mr LYONS:

– There are no applicants.

page 589

QUESTION

PREFERENCES ON APPLES AND WHEAT

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Commerce whether, in view of the alarming statement which appears in this morning’s press, to the effect that the proposed agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America might result in a reduction of the existing preferences on Australian apples and wheat, he can give to the House any information that would prove reassuring to the apple export industry, which is in such a very difficult position to-day ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

– I greatly regret that the negotiations which are being conducted overseas are of such a nature that at this stage no member of the Government may publicly discuss what is taking place ; but if the honorable member will place his question on the notice-paper I shall do what I can to supply him with information.

page 589

QUESTION

ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the recent disclosures published in thepress concerning the election expenses of candidates in the Warringah electorate, one candidate stating that his expenses had amounted to £4,000 and that he knew that the expenses of others had totalled £10,000, will the Minister for the Interior take the necessary steps to introduce an amendment of the act so that it will not be necessary for 99 per cent, of honorable members of this House to return dishonest statements of their expenses?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– With respect to the last portion of the question, which contains a statement from which I entirely dissociate myself, I should like to say that the matter of the limitation of the electoral expenses of parliamentary candidates has already been taken into consideration by the Government, and it is proposed that an amendment of the law in connexion with it will be one of the terms of reference to the select committee of members of both houses that is to be appointed to report uponpossible reforms in connexion with the election of senators.

page 589

QUESTION

ROAD TO RICHMOND AERODROME

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Has the Minister for Defence considered the implications arising out of the traffic dislocation ‘ which occurred on the approaches to Richmond aerodrome last Saturday? If so -

  1. Will he consult with the Government of New South Wales with a view to improving railway facilities between Blacktown and Richmond ?
  2. Will he seek an allocation from the petrol tax for the purpose of widening the ParramattaRichmondroad, and for developing the more direct road to the aerodrome between Blacktown and Richmond ?
Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– My attention has already been directed to the congestion which occurred during the recent aerial display at Richmond. I am informed, however, that no defence significance is attachable to the road communication between Sydney or Parramatta and Richmond. The present facilities meet the. requirements of the Defence Department. The single-rail track which runs from Blacktown to Kurrajong Heights is a non-paying proposition to the Government of New South Wales and carries a very small volume of traffic in normal periods.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The road is- subject to floods.

Mr THORBY:

– Only a very small portion of it.

page 589

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION OF SOUTHERN EUROPEANS

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– In -view of the concern that is being felt by the public of Australia at the large number of Southern Europeans now being admitted into Australia, will the Minister for the Interior inform the House as to whether the whole of these people are members of families already in Australia and, if not, what other types of Southern Europeans are being admitted?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– At a very early date, probably tomorrow, I propose to make a comprehensive statement to the House covering not only the point raised by the honorable member but also all other points connected with white alien immigration.

page 590

QUESTION

RURAL DEBT ADJUSTMENT

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Treasurer say why the allocation for rural debt adjustment for the ensuing year has been reduced by £500,000?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– The money found by the Commonwealth Government for rural debt adjustment comes out of loan fund. The Loan Council from time to time, but particularly at its April-May meeting, considers the total amount of loan money that is available in Australia for all purposes, because all of it comes out of the one pool. The Loan Council at its recent meeting considered the matter of the amount available in the ensuing year, _ covering the public works of all the governments, defence requirements, and rural debt adjustment. What appeared to all the members present to be a reasonable allocation of the loan money available for those three different purposes was arrived at. It included an amount of £2,000,000 for farmers’ debt adjustment. That went against the Commonwealth account. That, was the only loan money that the Commonwealth drew from the common pool, the balance having been made available for State works. I may say, without divulging what happened at the loan council meeting, that this amount was allocated without dissent from any one premier.

page 590

QUESTION

CUT GLASS INDUSTRY

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs inform me when the report of the Tariff Board, relative to the cut glass industry will be dealt with bv this Parliament?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have not that information available, but will obtain it for the honorable member.

page 590

QUESTION

RADIO-PHONE RATES

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to the following para graph which appeared in Hie Wireless News, issued to passengers on the Awatea when that vessel was a few hours outside Sydney Heads: -

Passengers are reminded that the radiophone on board the Awatea is open to the public throughout the voyage. Calls may be booked at the purser’s bureau on A deck.- The charge to New Zealand is 10s. for three minutes conversation, and 3s. 4d. for each additional minute. The rate to Australia is £2 5s. for three minutes, and 15s. for each additional minute.

Is the rate quoted an arbitary rate or is it merely comparable to the excessive charges made in other sections of the Postmaster-General’s Department, compared with the charges made for similar services in our sister dominion?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I shall bring the honorable member’s question under the notice of the Postmaster-General.

page 590

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR CHASSIS

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Can the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs tell me what has happened to the Tariff Board report upon the manufacture of motor chassis in Australia?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– The report is still under the consideration of the Government.

Later:

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– About eighteen months ago, the Government referred to the Tariff Board the question of the manufacture within Australia of motor car chassis and asked the board to consider and recommend to the Government the best means of carrying out its policy of manufacturing complete motor chassis within the Commonwealth, and also to give consideration to the economic and national aspects of the matter. I now ask the Minister for Defence “if the very hostile evidence given against this proposal by the ex-secretary of the Department of Defence represented that gentleman’s own personal view, the view of the Military Board or the General Staff, or that of an ex-Minister for Defence, who was a member of the Government which expressed this policy in this House.

Mr THORBY:
CP

– In . view of the fact that the question refers to the actions of several “ officers, ex-officers and an ex-

Minister for Defence, I ask the honorable member to place his question on the notice-paper. I shall then be in a position to give him a full reply.

Mr FORDE:

– As the question of the manufacture of motor-car engines in Australia is one of great importance, having regard to the advisability of creating additional employment, and making Australia as self-contained as possible, will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs give an assurance that the Tariff Board’s report on the subject; which. has been in his hands for a long time, will be considered and released for the perusal of honorable “members during the present session?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I can give no such promise as the honorable member desires. About three months ago, a report of the Tariff Board was received which, after being considered by officers of the Customs Department, was referred back to the board for further information. Until the information is received from the board, the matter cannot be considered by Cabinet.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Defence state whether it is the considered opinion of his advisers that the proposed manufacture of motor chassis in Australia is not essential for national defence?

Mr THORBY:

– The Defence Department is not vitally concerned with the manufacture of motor ‘chassis because, in the event of an emergency, there are quite enough lorries, cars and other motor vehicles in Australia which could be commandeered to meet requirements. At the same time, the department would be interested in the manufacture of any class of engine that might be an adjunct to our defence organization.

page 591

QUESTION

STOCK DISEASE IN NEW ZEALAND

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– Has the Acting Minister for Health noticed a report in the press on an outbreak in New Zealand of a stock disease called eczema, which is causing very serious stock losses in that dominion? ‘ Will he inform mc what steps are being taken to prevent the introduction of it into Australia ? I should also like to know what action is being taken by the Health Department to give the public some information about this disease. At present, stock-owners seem to know very little about it.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– I have not read the report to which the honorable member has directed attention, but I shall bring the subject under the notice of the quarantine branch of the Health Department. I shall also endeavour to see what can be done to advise stockowners of this country concerning the nature of the disease.

page 591

PARLIAMENTARY SITTINGS

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am given to understand that some honorable members are not quite clear about the statement I made yesterday, concerning the sittings of the House during the next few weeks. The intention of the Government is that the House shall sit during the next two weeks on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and during the week after that on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

page 591

QUESTION

PETROL SUPPLIES

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Defence noticed a report in the press to the effect that the Japanese Government compels the oil companies distributing petrol in Japan to keep six months’ supply of petrol in hand? In view of Australia’s dependence upon foreign sources of supply of petrol and the consequent danger of blockade, has the Government considered the necessity to compel the major oil companies to keep similar supplies on hand in Australia to supplement the supplies at present available at various centres plus whatever may be produced at Newnes?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The Commonwealth Government . is not unmindful of the importance of the subject raised by the honorable member, but I am not at liberty to disclose what is being done in this country to provide oil supplies for the defence forces.

page 591

QUESTION

GIFTS FOR DEFENCE

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Treasurer inform me what is the total amount of money that has been contributed from voluntary sources for defence purposes?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I have not the exact figure available, but it is in the vicinity of £1,700.

page 592

QUESTION

DEFENCE’ EXPENDITURE

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Treasurer inform me whether the statement attributed to him in the report of the proceedings of the AustralianSchool of Political Economy, held some time ago at Canberra, is ‘correct to the effect that financial considerations did not limit defence requirements and that the Minister for Defence was the only Minister who was allowed to “write his own ticket” ? Is that a substantially accurate report? Does that view really reflect the attitude of the Treasury ? If so, is that policy car-, ried into operation?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– The report is substantially true and I have nothing to withdraw in respect of it. The Minister for Defence is, I think, the only Minister the financial requirements of whose department are not “ vetted “ by the Treasury. The only consideration given, by that department is the necessities of the country.

page 592

QUESTION

NAZI CLUB AND CAMP

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that a Nazi club and camp was opened recently by wireless by Herr Hitler near Belgrave in the Dandenong Ranges about 28 miles from Melbourne? Does the Government intend to take any action in connexion with the matter?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The honorable member is supplying me with information, not asking me a question. I do not know whether such a club and camp exist, but I suggest that we should be just as much concerned about the establishment of Communist clubs as of Nazi clubs.

page 592

DIVORCE DOMICIL

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for External Affairs · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Yesterday, the hon orable member for Watson (Mr. Jennings) asked me whether, in view of the proposals made by women’s organizations in Sydney that the Government should take action in connexion with effective domicil in divorce proceedings, the Ministry had considered the matter. I promised to bring the honorable member’s inquiry before my colleague, the Acting Attorney-General. ThisI have now done, and he has furnished me with the following reply: -

The Commonwealth Government recognizes that certain difficulties exist in connexion with divorce jurisdiction by reason of the absence of an Australian domicil. It was at one time thought that this matter might be suitably dealt with by the passage of a bill providing for the creation of an Australian domicil, and a bill for this purpose was prepared. Upon giving the matter further consideration, however, the Govern ment came to the conclusion that this proposal created certain legal difficulties, a view which was shared by some of the judges.

page 592

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON SUPPLIES

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I have received the following telegram from the residents of Beaudesert, in Queensland, who have recently suffered as the result of a cyclonic disturbance.

Severe cyclone Beaudesert unroofed many houses no iron Queensland require at least 1,500 sheets.

In view of the industrial disturbances which have taken place at Lysaght’s works, affecting the sale of galvanized iron, and in view of the acute shortage of galvanized iron in Queensland and the unfortunate position of those who have suffered from the cyclonic disturbance at Beaudesert, will the acting Minister for Trade and Customs appeal to the industry to make special quantities of galvanized iron available to the residents of the Beaudesert district in order to help them reconstruct their homes?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I am rather surprised to hear that no iron is available in Queensland. I am, however, aware that a shortage exists, due, not only to the industrial dispute, but also to the fact that although the Government permitted the free importation of iron some importers have not taken full advantage of the concession. I shall ask the officers of the department to see if it is possible to get importers to meet the wishes of the people of Beaudesert.

page 592

QUESTION

REGISTRATION OF NURSES

Mr SCULLY:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As extreme difficulty is’ being experienced in border hospitals in Queensland and New South Wales in connexion with the appointment of nurses owing to the different regulations governing the registration of nurses in those States, will the Acting Minister for Health confer with the health authorities of Queensland and New South Wales with a view to the official recognition of their respective registration of nurses?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– I have no objection to doing so, but I do suggest that the common sense of the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland ought to be able to effect such a sensible reform without reference to the Commonwealth at all.

page 593

QUESTION

AGREEMENTS RESPECTING FOREIGN NATIONALS

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it the custom of the British Government to consult with the dominion governments in regard to any agreements’ contracted between foreign countries dealing with foreign nationals before those agreements are decided upon? Has the Government copies of agreements entered into insuch circumstances? If so, can the Minister for External Affairs lay on the table of the House a copy of the agreement which it is alleged was made with the Russian Government on the 4th July, 1937, dealing with the question of a Britisher in a Soviet jail? Does this alleged agreement affect other parts of the British Empire ?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– The honorable member’s question covers a pretty wide range, and, in order that I might give it full consideration, I suggest that it be placed on the notice paper. I shall then see to what extent it is possible for me to supply a catechetical answer.

page 593

QUESTION

BOOCK BREAK-OF-GAUGE DEVICE

Mr HARRISON:

– Has the Minister for the Interior received a report from Sir George Julius, a very eminent engineer of Sydney, and also from Mr. Young, one of the expert engineers of the New South Wales Railway service with regard to the Boock break-of-gauge device ? If such report has been received, is it a fact that both of those gentlemen are in favour of the adoption of the device? If so, what action does the Minister propose to take? Failing that will he be prepared to table the reports, correspondence, plans and specifications for the information of honorable members ?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I have not received any reports from Sir George Julius and Mr. Young in connexion with the Boock break-of-gauge device, but my attention has been directed to its reputed merits.

I find that Sir George Julius did write to ‘ the former Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) and suggest that he thought it would be worth while to secure a report on the Boock breakofgauge patent from Mr. Young, Chief Mechanical Engineer of the New South Wales Railways service. Subsequently, Mr. Young made a report and, since my attention had been directed to the device, I asked the New South Wales Railways authorities if they would be good enough to make available to me a copy of his report. A reply was received to the effect that that report is regarded by the New South Wales Railways authorities as being especially for their own use, that it is their own property, and that they were not prepared -to make it available to me or to the Commonwealth Government, but that if I should go along personally to the New South Wales Railways Department I should be given an opportunity to peruse it.I have not yet had an opportunity to avail myself of that offer.

Mr HARRISON:

– Will the Prime Minister state whether it is customary for State governments to refuse to submit to the Commonwealth Government reports of a vital nature? If not, will the Prime Minister protest to the Premier of New South Wales against the arbitrary action taken by one of his departments against the Commonwealth?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– In my past experience, I have found that every State government has been willing to co-operate with the Commonwealth Government on the lines suggested by the honorable member. There may be reasons that would justify some other course of action in special circumstances. In the instance referred to I may say quite frankly that I was not aware of the position that has arisen until the honorable member asked the question and the Minister for the Interior replied to it. I would certainly cooperate with the Minister in making representations to the Premier of New South Wales regarding the matter.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– What is the name of the Minister who has charge of the Railways Department in New South Wales, and does the Minister for the Interior intend to take further action in order to obtain a copy of the report referred to, or does he propose to wait until he visits Sydney in order to look at it?

Mr McEWEN:

– I understand that the Minister is Mr. Bruxner. I was in Sydney on a recent occasion, and I had hoped to have an opportunity to peruse the report while there, but time did not permit. I propose to ask the New South Wales Minister for Railways to make the report available to me for my perusal.

page 594

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR ELECTRICAL APPARATUS

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the several complaints which have been received about the uniformity of prices in connexion with tenders for electrical engineering and other requirements of’ public bodies in Sydney, suggestive of exploitation, will the officers of the Customs Department make an enquiry to see if such exploitation exists with a view to referring the matter to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I shall give consideration to the matter.

page 594

QUESTION

FAR-EASTERN TRADE

Mr HAWKER:

– Is the Acting Minister for Commerce in a position to make a statement concerning the position of the Eastern and Australia Line in regard to its conference with the Japanese Shipping Line as to an equitable allocation of the tonnage in connexion with trade between Australia and the FarEast?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– Negotiations are still proceeding on that matter between the various interests concerned, and as soon as an agreement is reached its terms will be communicated to the House.

page 594

QUESTION

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF DEFENCE FORCES

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether it is correct, as reported in the press, that the Government intends to appoint an Inspector-General of the Defence Forces of Australia from among applicants from abroad? If so, has the Government given full consideration to the undoubted claims of those who may now be employed in the defence services of Australia, and, if not, will the right honorable gentleman recognize those claims, or otherwise indicate in what way Australian officers fall short of the essential requirements for this particular position ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– In the statement which I made in the House yesterday, I intimated that the Government intended to make such an appointment, but the matter can be further discussed at a later stage on the proposal already before the House dealing with the provision of the finance necessary to carry on the defences of the country.

Mr Curtin:

– I should think not. It is a routine matter of administration.

Mr LYONS:

– It is associated with the general plan of bringing the defences of Australia up to a state of efficiency.

Mr Curtin:

– The salary of this officer will not be paid out of loan.

Mr LYONS:

– Even if this particular matter is not dealt with under the bill to which I have referred, the defence question as a whole is being considered. I do not know what more information can be made available to honorable members regarding the matter. I said yesterday that it had been decided by the Cabinet to make the appointment. No reflection whatever is cast upon Australian officers. Applications for the position are not being called for, but with the co-operation of the British Government we shall select an efficient officer for this work, if it is possible to get one. It is hoped that he will, be able definitely to assist the Australian officers in the great task before them.

page 594

QUESTION

RED-WATER FEVER

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Acting Minister for Health aware that during the last week or ten days there has been a further outbreak of red-water fever on the North Coast areas of New South Wales? Is .he also aware that this scourge almost decimated the cattle industry along the coastal districts of Queensland a few years ago? Does he know further that the Tick Board of Control is removing the staff necessary to deal with the problem on the Tweed and Brunswick Rivers, and will he refer the matter to the Federal Tick Protection Commission to get adequate protection for those areas?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– -I was not aware of the outbreak to which the honorable member has referred. In regard to the latter part of the question I shall take the action desired.

page 595

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Mr STREET:

– Is the Treasurer in a position to say whether the National Insurance Bill which will shortly be introduced contains provisions which would entail additional work being laid on community hospitals in making some additional service by them necessary without financial recompense? If so, would it be passible to discuss the matter with the charity authorities in the different States?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I suggest that when this bill comes before the chamber in a very few days there will be full opportunity to discuss the subject which the honorable member has mentioned. I shall then ensure that he has full information on the matter.

page 595

QUESTION

ROSE BAY SEAPLANE BASE

Mr WATKINS:

– What progress” has been made in the establishment, of the seaplane base at Rose Bay?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The work is well advanced, the buildings being under construction. The resumption of land has been completed, the survey for the new roads is finished and most of the work is now well in hand. The slipway is under construction, the control office is about half finished, and the jetty will bt completed about the middle of July.

page 595

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE AERODROME

Mr WATKINS:

– What is the present position regarding the negotiations for the establishment of an aerodrome in the vicinity of Newcastle?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– It is contemplated that a new site will be selected in view of the fact that the present Newcastle aerodrome is not. large enough to meet the requirements of modern aircraft. Another site a few miles from Newcastle will provide more suitable accommodation. The proposed site is about eight miles from Newcastle. It is near Raymond Terrace about midway between Newcastle and Maitland.

page 595

AIRPORT FOR MELBOURNE

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– In view of the surprising statement made recently by the Premier of Victoria that the Commonwealth Government had never offered to co-operate in the development of an airport at Fishermen’s Bend, will the Minister for Defence make a statement at an early date setting out exactly what efforts were made by his predecessor to have that site made available on the condition that the Commonwealth Government gave assistance with regard to its developments

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The CommonwealthGovernment made a definite offer, which still holds, to the Victorian Government that it would be prepared to contribute £100,000 towards the cost of establishing the area. The Victorian Government has not accepted the offer. I shall have a complete statement, prepared setting out the details of the negotiations up to date, and this statement will be made available to honorable members.

page 595

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr CURTIN:

– I should be glad to learn, Mr. Speaker, whether certain plans have been formulated for additions to Parliament House. Were those plans circulated amongst some members of Parliament with an intimation that their approval or criticism was desired immediately so that the additions could be proceeded with before this meeting of Parliament? Has the Joint House Committee considered them, and if so, what report did it make?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable members are aware that the Government proposed to extend Parliament House by the making of certain additions. The Government, in February last, asked the Joint House Committee to consider the plans. The committee, in its reply to the Minister who communicated the wishes of the * Government, stated that a resolution had been carried disagreeing with the plans, on the ground that the upper story of the proposed additions would interfere with the privacy of the Opposition room, and with the lighting of that room. The committee intimated that it approved of so much of the plans as related to the proposed ground floor construction, and expressed the. opinion that if further accommodation was required it should be provided at the Senate side of the building. Since that resolution was conveyed to the Minister I have heard nothing more of the matter. I do not know if plans were sent to any individual members of Parliament.

page 596

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OE AERODROMES

Mr WILSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Defence favorably consider requests for financial asistance to municipalities and other organizations for the development and improvement of aerodromes in country districts when such aerodromes may be regarded as of supplementary value for defence purposes?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The policy of the Government in regard to this matter is to provide financial assistance in the establishment and maintenance of aerodromes in country areas only when they are associated with an important mail service, or are an essential adjunct of defence “requirements. Where, however, aerodromes are used merely for civil aviation purposes, or by aero clubs, the Commonwealth Government does not make any direct contribution. However, under the new agreement with the States, by which the Federal Aid Roads Act is administered, an additional amount of £600,000 a year,, representing a half -penny a gallon tax on petrol,, is to be made available to the States, and a portion of this -amount may be allocated by the States for the construction and maintenance of aerodromes..

page 596

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the proposal of the Government to have munitions manufactured by private firms, is it intended to provide those firms with the necessary equipment, or are they to provide it themselves?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– Small, experimental orders have been placed with various firms in order to test their ability to meet the requirements of the Defence Department, so that, in the event of an emergency, we may know where to place orders, and, what kind of work we can expect. So far the department has not provided any equipment, but provision for this is to be made in the. Loan Bill now before the House. ;

page 596

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Aeronautical Research - Report, dated 21st December, 1937, by H. E. VVimperis, on the Inauguration of Aeronautical Research in Australia.

Secondary Industries Testing and Research - Extension of activities of Council for Scientific and Industrial Research - Report (February, 1937) of Committee appointed to report thereon.

Ordered to be printed.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Treasurer’s Statement of combined, accounts of Commonwealth Bank and Commonwealth Savings Bank, at 31st December, 1937; together with certificate of the Auditor-General.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Bullsbrook, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

page 596

QUESTION

CANBERRA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BarkerActing Minister for Health · CP

.- lt is proposed to erect, on a site adjoining that of the Acton Court House, Canberra, a modern community hospital. The existing hospital was established in the early period of the construction of the Federal Capital, and the establishment was intended primarily for the treatment of sick workmen. Some twelve years ago, it was extended to its present form. The construction of a new hospital is a matter of urgency for the following reasons : -

  1. The present accommodation is 90 beds, but on occasions 100 bods have had to be made available in existing buildings to accommodate patients. Owing to the increased civil and military population, this accommodation is inadequate, and the extension of the present wards is impracticable.
  2. The layout of the hospital is detrimental to the economic working of the staff, and is contrary to the accepted requirements of a modern hospital. Following its recent inquiries the New South Wales Hospital Commission included the following remarks in its report: -

The commission takes the liberty of further suggesting that the present architectural difficulties and layout of the hospital are such that serious hampering of the operation of the institution occurs. The only logical remedy for this difficulty is the provision of a new hospital constructed on a flexible, comprehensive .plan.

This opinion confirms the findings of a previous investigation by the Public Service Board, in which it was suggested that, if a modern building were provided, maintenance and running costs per bed could be materially reduced. The board also indicated that, from a study’ of the statistics of the yearly average of patients and the advance in population, it would be necessary to provide for increased hospital accommodation. Additions to the existing establishment were considered to be unprofitable and unsound. 3._The existing buildings are of timber construction, are costly to keep in repair, and constitute a grave risk of fire.

The proposed building will be erected on the site for the hospital determined by the Griffin plan. The main structure will provide for the following accommodation : -

Ground Floor. - -Administration, outpatients’ department, casualty department, X-ray, ante-natal clinic, physic therapy department, pharmacy, kitchen and stores, dining-rooms, laundry and boiler house.

First Floor. - -Maternity block, operating block, children’s department.

Second Floor. - Public and intermediate surgical wards.

Third Floor. - Public and intermediate surgical wards.

Fourth Floor. - Private patients.

The number of beds to be provided is 147, and the total floor area of the building will be approximately 64,000 square feet, exclusive of balconies and roof areas. The building will bo of concrete frame construction, with brick in-filling to walls, floors will be of concrete, and the external walls will be of brick. The estimated cost of the main block, including engineering services, laundry, equipment, furniture and furnishings, is £160,000. I move -

That in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public “Works Committee Act 1013-1036, the following proposed work he referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Canberra, Federal Capital Territory - Erection of a Community Hospital.

I lay on the table plans and specifications.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 597

ASHMORE AND C ARTIER ISLANDS ACCEPTANCE BILL 1938

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in -a bill for an act to amend the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1033.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

page 597

PASSPORTS BILL 1938

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act relating to passports.

page 597

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL 1938

Motion (by Mr. Archie Cameron)1 agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Therapeutic Substances Act 1937.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

page 597

LOAN BILL- 1938

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th April, (vide page 564), on motion by Mr.. Casey -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- This bill asks the approval of Parliament for the raising by loan of £10,300,000, and it also seeks authority to expend £10,000,000 of that money on defence works specified in the schedule and £300,000 .on flotation costs, commissions and the like. It is the second loan bill which has been introduced into this Parliament in quite recent times for the purposes of defence, and I remind the country that when the previous bill of this nature was before us the Opposition opposed this method of financing defence. We are against the refusal to face up to our contemporary obligations out of contemporary resources, and I point out that this Government has consistently failed to draw on revenue to the same extent as other governments have done in- order to make provision for national defence. In this portion of my speech I do not propose to cloud the issue by dealing with the expenditure side of it at all. I desire to say a few words in opposition to the principle of this measure, which is not that of defence of the country or of providing the equipment for defence, but asks us to give to the Government authority to raise a loan of £10,300,000 ‘for defence. Now, only last week the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) must have convinced the State Premiers that it was impracticable to raise certain moneys for useful works for the economical development of the country, and one of the reasons that he gave to them was that the Commonwealth Government proposed to spend on defence moneys derived from loan sources. He, I understand, declared that a certain proportion of this money would be useful in stimulating employment; but, in this connexion I would point out that the greatest part of this expenditure would not contribute anything permanently to either the development of Australia or the defence of Australia, for, in the nature of things, expenditure on defence material is irrecoverable and materials for defence themselves, I think, can, quite moderately, be described as wasting materials, materials which rapidly become obsolescent and no longer available for the purposes for which they were provided. Since the armistice we have spent on defence about £120,000,000,. which is a very very great sum of money, and in the statement on the principles of defence which the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) made to the country he said his Government had been making greater provision for defence and had been developing the defences of the country, but- in the budget in the present year this greater provision for defence has in no way imposed any additional contribution by the people of Australia to that which they had previously made. For this current year the Treasurer took £6,000,000 out of the revenues as a contribution to a total expenditure of £11,500,000. In endeavouring to persuade the committee that he should be allowed to borrow £A.2,500,000 as a contribution towards the £11,500,000, the Treasurer said that that £A.2,500,000 would be spent on material to be purchased outside Australia, but that this item would not be a recurring item. Honorable members will recall the nature of the debate in which the Opposition affirmed that this expenditure, in the very nature of things, would impose, once it was initiated, a recurring burden on subsequent budgets.

Mr Casey:

– I said that it was nonrecurring so far as overseas loan raising was concerned.

Mr. CURTIN. The honorable gentleman interpolates that he said that it would be non-recurring in the sense of raising external’ loans.

Mr Casey:

– “ Probably nonrecurring.”

Mr CURTIN:

- Mr. Speaker, that interjection certainly lowers my previous respect for the Treasurer as an honest controversialist who faces up to the consequence of what he says. We have said that this type of expenditure for the material, in the nature of things, will involve the Government in subsequent replacement, and we further point out that in this present year and in subsequent years the Commonwealth Government will be obliged to repeat the greater part of tHe enlarged expenditure provided in the present budget compared with the previous budget. In broad outline nothing in the present budget could be regarded as non-recurring items of Commonwealth expenditure in the years to come. That was the substance of what we said. In the year before last the Government took £5,800,000 out of revenue as a contribution towards Defence expenditure. While it has been using either the surplus of previous years, without extinguishing the accumulated deficit of the Commonwealth or using surplus revenue in order to create a trust fund for defence as preferable to the extinguishing or lessening of the accumulated deficit, it has, at the same time, greatly reduced direct taxation, and greatly increased the yield from indirect taxation.

Contrast this policy with that announced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom yesterday. There, as here, the Prime Minister stated that a greatly enlarged provision for national security was necessary. But there, unlike here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately indicated how the whole programme was to be financed, at least for the present year. He said that out of a total expenditure of £343,000,000 on defence this year £253,000,000 ‘ would come from Supply and £90,000,000 from loan. Here, however, no statement has yet been made as to how much of the enlarged provision for defence the Government intends to secure from Supply. Not one single hint has been given us, other than statements made at public meetings or through the press by responsible Ministers that not one penny of additional taxation was to be imposed in order to carry on this tremendously enlarged expenditure on defence measures!

Mr Casey:

– Who said that?

Mr CURTIN:

– The Minister for Defence.

Mr Casey:

– I shall have to get him to answer that.

Mr CURTIN:

– Not only did the honorable gentleman make that statement but he also said that no difficulty would bo experienced in raising money from loan. The Treasurer however has apparently convinced the Loan Council of the impracticability of imagining that there were no present difficulties in the raising of loans in Australia.

In a period of great difficulty, as we understand the Prime Minister regards the present international position, notwithstanding the statement he made last night, yet a period which, on the authority of the Treasurer, coincides with a very great degree of prosperity in Australia, when it is reported that large profits are being made by various companies in Australia - particularly companies interested in the manufacture of either raw materials or processed materials related to defence equipment, in a period when huge incomes are being earned, the Treasurer should not have failed to tell us to what extent, if at all, he intends to invoke the existing revenues of the nation in order that we may ensure ourselves, by this programme, against the risks of attack and, at the same time, pay the premiums incidental to our greater safety.

The whole outline of this programme has been badly shaped. We have been told that £24,800,000 additional new expenditure is to be incurred in the next three years; but we have not been told in what way the money is to be found. I suggest that at this stage when we are considering what must inevitably be the principles of this expenditure - when we are being asked to vote £10,000,000. from loan funds towards an expenditure of £24,800,000- the Treasurer should have outlined to us, at least in a broad statement, how the Government intends in the next three years to find this money. I am entitled to say at this juncture that no guarantee has been given that the £10,000,000 proposed to be raised by means of this hill will not be used to provide the difference between the £6,000,000 raised from revenue this year and the £15,000,000 which will be spent in the next 12 months. When this £10,000,000 has been exhausted no guarantee, statement or undertaking has been given by the Treasurer that he will not come before the House again and ask for another £10,000,000 loan to be raised for this purpose. I put it to honorable members that it was the duty of the Treasurer yesterday to have outlined broadly the way in which the Government contemplated meeting the full expenditure of £24,800,000.

Defence expenditure must periodically reappear in a substantial way in the life of the nation, and special provision mustbe made to meet it. We shall undoubtedly have these eras of international difficulty in the future. After the present period of tension, things will then calm down, and a period will occur in which we shall be able more or less placidly to pursue our normal social and economic development. Subsequently conditions internationally will again tend to sharpen and re-armament will be again resorted to. So I say we must face the prospect of a recurrence of these waves of re-armament and of diminution of expenditure in this way when the international situation eases. It is idle, therefore, for us to imagine that this plan, despite the abnormally elaborate expenditure contemplated, can be regarded as a permanent contribution towards the defence competence of Australia.

The Prime Minister stated yesterday that when this colossal burden of expenditure had been shouldered, the maintenance charges on the nation which at present are £6,000,000 per annum will be increased to £10,000,000 per annum. That means that by borrowing this amount of money now we are not only increasing the burden on posterity but are also increasing the maintenance burden by £4,000,000 a year. The Prime Minister’s exact words in this connexion were significant. He said -

On the completion of the programme the amount required annually for the maintenance of the services then in being will be £.10,000,000 its compared with the present recurring maintenance vote of £0,000,000.

I interpret that to mean that the recurring maintenance vote of £6,000,000 per annum, which is the sum which the Government now expects to have to find under this heading, will be the charge upon revenue.

Mr Casey:

– That is an assumption..

Mr CURTIN:

– It is a reasonable assumption bearing in mind the words that the Prime Minister used. We may also reasonably assume from what he said that after the completion of the new programme the annual maintenance vote will be not £6.000,000 but £10,000,000. We are justified in construing the situation m this way.

Last year when the budgetary position of the Government was more satisfactory than appears to be likely this year, having regard to seasonal conditions throughout the Commonwealth, the Government preferred to go upon the London market rather than oblige the wealthy interests of Australia to make a move substantial contribution towards the provision for defence.

The Labour party is against this measure in principle because it is a loan bill. It is against it also because so much of the material which is to be purchased by the money raised will contribute nothing, permanently, to the capacity of Australia to meet its obligations. This loan is to be for a period of 25 years. If it is raised at 4 per cent, and there is no redemption of debt from the sinking fund in the interim, it will mean that in 25 years we shall have paid £10,000,000 in interest and will still have to redeem the debt or convert it. We may have to find £10,000,000 for redemption. That means, in a nutshell, that for defence equipment costing £10,000,000 this nation will have to pay £20,000,000. A great part of that money, at any rate half of it in the first instance, will be loaned to the country by wealthy interests which (have been made capable of lending money because in recent years they have made vast profits. At present they cannot find satisfactory industrial outlets or a better investment for their surplus wealth than Commonwealth loans at 4 per cent, for the currency of the loan. The people who will lend this money to the nation will be much better off by doing so than by investing it in speculative commercial stocks. Moreover, during the period of the loan the firms interested in armaments in Australia - and it is on armaments that the money is to be spent - will have made vast profits. Taken en masse they will have made £10,000,000 by their investment and the money will still be owing to them. The equipment upon which the bulk of the money will be spent will undoubtedly by that time be no longer physically suitable for the defence of the citizens upon whom the debt will have fallen.

What I have just said sets out the cardinal objection of the Labour party to the borrowing of money for defence purposes. Perhaps the Treasurer will be able to show that a certain proportion of this expenditure will be devoted to the construction of buildings and other equipment which may be regarded as permanently available for defence purposes. To the extent that that is so I would be prepared, if no other alternative were available, to say that the money might be obtained from loan. But when the Government goes on the market for money in this way it undoubtedly drains the pool of private wealth that would otherwise be available for the development of the industrial enterprises of this country. The outlook of the Treasurer himself on this subject last year was a perfectly feasible one. At that time he was prepared to ask the Commonwealth Bank to issue treasury-bills. Under that policy whatever interest is payable goes to our own national instrumentality.

Mr Casey:

– When did I adopt that attitude?

Mr CURTIN:

– The Treasurer stated when an expenditure of £2,000,000 sterling was under consideration last year that he did not propose immediately to go on the London market to raise the money, hut would arrange for the Commonwealth Bank to issue treasury-bills.

Mr Casey:

– That was only pending the raising of the money. The sum would afterwards be funded.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is so, but the Labour party would not fund the debt. It would be retired out of the proceeds of the National Debt Sinking Fund.

Mr Casey:

– That is where we differ.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is so. The policy of the Government favours the people who find money for the making of war. In fact, this is one of their most important means of investment for some people who support the Government.

Mr Casey:

– That is a debating reply.

Mr CURTIN:

– It is nothing of the kind.

Mr Lane:

– That is what the honorable member “ put over “ during the last election campaign.

Mr CURTIN:

– I summarize by saying that no specification whatsoever has been submitted to us to show how this programme is to be financed. This is an unfair way in which to submit a general programme for such an expenditure as is contemplated.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– Unfair!

Mr CURTIN:

– Yes, to the Parliament.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA · LP

-The honorable member was not unfair in a recent statement?

Mr CURTIN:

– No; and I say to the honorable member for Henty that he would be a poor professor of the art of political fairness.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– I was referring to the honorable member’s statement about the honesty of the Treasurer.

Mr CURTIN:

– The honorable member has brought this upon himself. I have in mind statements for which the honorable member has apologized more than once after having made them.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– But not statements of a personal kind.

Mr CURTIN:

– If the honorable member for Henty wishes me to say that I regard the Treasurer as personally anxious for war in order that somebody might make a profit out of it, I resent that interpretation of my contention. I do not hold that opinion of the Treasurer or of any of his fellow members, but I do say that the political outlook of the party which ministerialists support and represent involves that. There is another side of this bill. Not only are we asked to authorize the raising of money; there is also set out in the bill, the particulars of the proposed expenditure, but the outline given to us is the vaguest imaginable. No detail of any sort or description is provided and the bill, I venture to say, is the result, very largely, of the undertaking given by the Treasurer to raise £10,000,000 for defence. The Defence Department has been asked in effect, “Here is £10,000,000; how will you spend it?” Hurriedly the officers of the department have divided thetotal provision into thecustomary heads of army, navy, air force, and munitions, and each of these has been given a substantial slice, quite regardless of any examination of the actual details of what money they could usefully use and of the provision which they do need for defence purposes.

Mr Casey:

– That is not a fact.

Mr McCall:

– It is pure assumption.

Mr CURTIN:

– Then the Treasurer might at least have gone into much more detail or circulated the details for the information of the House generally.

Mr Casey:

– I said that I would do so at the committee stage of the bill.

Mr CURTIN:

– : We may have a repetition of what happened as the result of the Prime Minister’s undertaking given to me last night that copies of his statements would be distributed to honorable members as early as practicable. It was not until one o’clock to-day that copies of his two important statements reached members of the Opposition. When the details of this tremendous bill to provide £10,000,000 are presented to the committee, there will be no time for deliberation or reflection by the committee; the money will be voted blindly, so far as the actual details are concerned. Honorable members opposite will then go away saying to the country, “.We have safeguarded the defence of the nation by voting £10,000,000. “ But they will not be able to say to the country that they have safeguarded the taxpayers by’ paying £10,000,000 when probably £7,750,000 would have sufficed for the purpose. Nor will they be able to say that they have had submitted to them the multitudinous details out of which this tremendous aggregation of money has resulted.

Mr Casey:

– Details of the proposed expenditure are being circulated to honorable members now.

Mr CURTIN:

– Then we gain a little as we proceed.

Mr Casey:

– Not at all. The decision to circulate the details was made earlier.

Mr CURTIN:

– I can now appreciate why the Chief Justice of the High Court, the other day in Sydney should have said to the people of Australia that His Majesty’s Opposition is as important. in the good government of Australia as is the Government itself. I intend to oppose the item of £ 1,750,000 for naval construction, because that is not to be provided for naval construction at all. No new ships available to the naval forces of the British Commonwealth of Nations will exist as the result of this expenditure.

Mr MCCALL:

– What about the sloops being constructed at Cockatoo Dock Yard?

Mr CURTIN:

– They were provided for in the Estimates which the Parliament voted before Christmas.

Mr MCCALL:

– Not all of them.

Mr CURTIN:

– Where is the provision for the cruisers which the Government proposes to buy? I ask the Treasurer if this schedule includes a provision for the purchase of a cruiser from Great Britain.

Mr Casey:

– It includes the first instalment of £1,000,000 on that account. The honorable gentleman will find that in the circulated statement.

Mr CURTIN:

– I am not in a position to study the detailed statement and make my speech at the same time; but glancing at it, I notice that £1,000,000 of the £1,750,000 is to be provided for the purchase but not for the construction of a cruiser. A cruiser already constructed may be very much the same as some of the things we have bought in the past which have been found to be not quite good enough elsewhere for the purpose for which they were constructed. This fact has to be borne in mind as indicating the soundness of the premises with which I commenced my speech. Only £:l ,000,000 is provided in this bill as a contribution towards the purchase of a cruiser. The cruiser is to cost more than £1,000,000.

Mr Lane:

– We are to purchase two cruisers.

Mr CURTIN:

– If that is so, it means that when the next instalment for the purchase of the two cruisers has to be made another loan will have to be raised.

Mr Casey:

– That is merely assumption.

Mr CURTIN:

– Does the honorable gentleman undertake that that money will be raised out of revenue? I say that it is an assumption to contend that it will not come from, loans.

Mr Casey:

– That is perfectly true.

Mr CURTIN:

– I say further that the presentation of these papers in this way leaves the only fair construction, namely, that, as part of the purchase price has to come from loan, its total has also to come from loan; That is a fair and reasonable construction of the whole of the financial arrangements about which the Government has apparently not made up its mind. That is what I complain about. Having completed the preparation of details as to how the money shall be spent, the Government should complete preparation of the- details as to how the money, is to be provided. That would be fairer to the taxpayers at present and it certainly would be fairer to the taxpayers of future generations. I put it to the country that if we must expend this money to increase the naval forces we should do so in such a manner, as to lay the foundation of naval construction capacity in Australia. What will be the position when these units are added to the Navy? In the event of emergency, ships, not only of the Navy, but also of the mercantile marine, will suffer damage, and where will they be repaired ? We are not engaged in the construction of dockyards or ships and, in the event of emergency, we will be in the position of not having available engineering services for the maintenance and repair of ships or their replacement when worn out, which means that no start is being made by the expenditure of this portion of the defence money in placing Australia in a position of self-reliance. We are not in a. position to construct cruisers.

Mr McCall:

– We could construct them at Cockatoo Dockyard.

Mr CURTIN:

– If so, we ought to be constructing them; we ought not to be buying ships from other navies.

Mr Beasley:

– And obsolete ships at that.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Order ! I ask honorable members to cease interjecting.

Mr CURTIN:

– We also say that, having regard to the general purpose of the Government’s plans, the money might well, on examination, be more usefully expended upon increasing the aerial defence establishments of the Commonwealth. This is a matter upon which no information has been made available to honorable members. Wo are not able to check up either the technical evidence or any other evidence as to how and by what means Australia can be best defended against attack. All that is given to us is a vague statement which fails to carry conviction, which all too often serves as a stalking horse upon which honorable members opposite pose before the country as patriots merely because they are reckless of the burdens they impose upon the people and of the consequences of what they do. We of the Opposition arc prepared to examine every detail of proposed expenditure for defence and to say the extent to which it is necessary and the extent to which the resources of Australia are able to provide it without handing on unbearable burdens to posterity. That represents the maximum of what the Australian people are capable of doing. We want to know, apart from mere phrases, what is required of us and how best to use what we have available for the purpose. I ask the House to remember that, in connexion with the general financial programme of the Government, every pound spent in this way represents a pound which cannot be made available for the social welfare of the people. I remind the Treasurer that only the other day he gave a demonstration of that by cutting down the loan programmes of the State governments. Those loan programmes, I have no doubt, include the provision of hospitals and other services in. the respective States. Because a situation has arisen, which Ministers say justifies the necessity for this enlarged programme, this staggering financial programme, for the defence of Australia, it is idle for us to take refuge behind mere generalities. We ought to have far better information than has been given to us, and much more time should have been made available for the consideration of this measure. I say to the country that, before I was asked to debate the second reading of this bill, the supplementary outline of the details should have been handed to me. Courtesy at least demands that the Leader of the Opposition should ordinarily be given such consideration. No member of this Parliament is in a position to examine the schedule without having had reasonable time to carefully dissect the details associated with it.

Mr Casey:

– It was compiled only during the lunch hour.

Mr CURTIN:

– If it was compiled only during the lunch hour, then from what material was the total arrived at?

Mr Casey:

– I shall reply to the honorable gentleman in due course.

Mr CURTIN:

– The Treasurer will say that the Cabinet has had this matter before it for some time, and knows all about it, but it is the Parliament of this country that must vote the money for the carrying out of the scheme. We are not a mere registration bureau to give effect to the decisions of Cabinet. I agree that as the Government has a majority in this Parliament its policy will be approved, but I claim that the policy on which the Government relies as being a good one should at least be explained adequately to the Parliament before . authority is sought for its passage,- so that the country may be satisfied that extravagance will be prevented and vested interests will not be given undue opportunities for profiteering. The Opposition has no assurance on these matters, and detailed- information has been denied it. Because of its rooted objection to loading posterity with the burden of defence measures required at the present time it has always insisted that whatever is done to defend the lives of the people of Australia should be paid for out of the present wealth of the country, and by the people deriving incomes in Australia at the present time. I remind the House that the armaments race has been in progress in many countries for a long period. Comparing Australia with other countries, the approximate percentages of taxation to national income are as follows: - Australia, 17 per cent.; United States of America, 20 per cent. ; “ Germany, 23 per cent. ; Great Britain, 25 per cent.; Prance, 26 per cent.; Italy, 30 per cent. In a lecture on world armaments delivered at the University of Perth this month, Mr. Colin Clark pointed out that the percentages of national income being spent on armaments by the larger powers are as follows: - Great Britain, 6 per cent.; Australia, 1 per cent.; United States of America, 2 per cent.; France, 12 per cent; Japan, 12 per cent.; Germany, 16 per cent.; Russia, 20 per cent.; and Italy, 21 per cent. I do not welcome an increase of taxation for defence purposes; I should prefer to use the proceeds of extra taxation for social purposes, and for the development of the cultural side of our civilization, but the Labour party realizes that the defensive capacity of this country must be increased. The recent statement by Mr. Chamberlain adds additional conviction on that point. We feel that Australians have to rely on themselves. My fundamental objection to this measure is that we ought not to rely on posterity for the provision of our present defence.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has not made a speech such as those we have been accustomed to hear from him. Obviously, he was experiencing heavy weather, and at times he had much difficulty in extricating himself from the verbal morass in which he found himself. I am sure that the fact that he will oppose this bill comes as a surprise, both to this House and to the people at large, and the reason given for this opposition if still more extraordinary. I shall reply briefly to the main points submitted by him. He said that the House had not yet had any clear statement from the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) as to how our defence programme for the next three years is to be financed. He reminded us that in Great Britain the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an indication to the public as to how he intended to raise the money required during the coming year for defence purposes. I remind honorable members that, in the last budget which the Treasurer presented to this chamber, he gave a clear outline of how the money was to be found for the current year’s defence programme, and I think that I can say on his behalf that when the next budget is introduced he will clearly show how the money required for defence for the ensuing year is to be obtained. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the Labour party opposes this measure because it will do nothing to help Australia to meet its obligations abroad. That is an extraordinary statement. Surely the means being taken to provide for the security of Australia, Australian industries and Australian workmen are calculated to ensure the meeting of Australia’s obligations.

The main point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that by raising this money we should be placing in the hands of the wealthy section the means whereby they could invest their money at rates of interest higher than bank deposit rates, and so add further to their wealth. I cannot deny that money provided by the wealthy section finds its way into government loans, but I believe the vast majority of ‘ it is used in extensions of business undertakings or is invested at rates of interest higher than those prevailing with respect to government loans. Who provides the great bulk of the money that goes into these loans? A glance at the report of the Banking Commission shows that it is part of the policy of the State savings banks of Australia, which are the repository of the savings of the great mass of the workers of this country, to place most of their funds, which run into millions of pounds, into government loans. I suggest that these deposits do not represent the savings of the wealthy classes of the people. There are other institutions which also place ‘ at least a large proportion . of their funds into government loans. I refer to the insurance companies. I suggest, with every confidence, that into the coffers of these institutions pours money from all sections of the people, including the workers. The main objections, to this bill are puerile and frivolous, and the Opposition would be well advised to go into caucus again, and give consideration to the facts which I have mentioned.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the money required for defence should be raised by treasury-bills, to be redeemed out of existing sinking fund moneys. In any case, treasury-bills have to be met some time, and usually they are met by loan. I ask the House to realize that the redemption of treasury-bills out of sinking fund moneys would constitute a woeful misuse of such funds. The Leader of the Opposition has not made one useful suggestion. His last point is that no provision has been made to assist Australia to be more self-contained in wartime, but honorable members will find that a great deal of the money to be raised for defence will be expended on naval works, particularly at Cockatoo Island Dockyard. I refer to the following items : -

Mr Beasley:

– Those works will not necessarily be carried out at Cockatoo Dockyard.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– The main point is that the work will be done by Australian dockyards. The point which the Leader of the Opposition has made is contrary to the facts; therefore, his case breaks down in its entirety.

We should take a glimpse of world events in determining whether or not this measure is necessary. We must admit that those events, . following rapidly one upon the other, make it impossible for us to face the future with any degree of confidence, To-day the world is spending £2,400,000,000 sterling on armaments., or, in Australian currency, £3,000,000,000, or a little over £57,000,000 a week. I am taking the expenditure for 1937, which is three times that of 1913. The permanent defence forces of the various nations total 8,500,000, as compared with 6,000,000 in 1913. Of the total expenditure on armaments, 64.8 per cent, is incurred in European countries, and of the total of £3,000,000,000, the expenditure of seven countries accounts for 76 per cent. Another point we have to realize is that apart from Great Britain, France and the United States of America, all the great nations of the world are under the control of dictators, men who hold the fate of millions in their hands. These dictators have shown definitely that they are seeking fresh territory. Some have already committed acts of aggression, and we are wondering to-day whether a certain dictator is going to commit another such act. In view of these circumstances, we must take what measures we can to make ourselves more secure. One of the most alarming features of the present situation in Europe is the fact that, in those countries ruled by dictators, the young people are being trained to accept the idea of the totalitarian state, and to believe in the inevitability of war. If the people of those countries, particularly the older people, were given a say in the determination of their foreign policies, there would be less to fear. We must realize that many of the ideals and aspirations to which we clung at the conclusion of the last war must now be, to a large extent, abandoned. For instance, we then declared and believed that force would never again be used to settle international differences, that the principle that might was right had ceased to direct international relations, and that in future the nations of the world would bring their differences to an international court for solution. We must now recognize that the nations have abandoned these principles and ideals, and we must act accordingly. The greatest single menace confronting the peace of the world to-day is the possibility of an attack on Czechoslovakia by Germany. It is true that Herr Hitler has given some kind of an assurance to Czechoslovakia that he has no designs upon its territory, but, in view of his record, it is very difficult to place much reliance upon his assurances. Particularly is this the case when we know the Sudeten German party in Czechoslovakia is making great demands upon the Government of Czechoslovakia, and that those demands are being backed up by the Nazi press in Berlin. The colonial aspirations of Herr Hitler are well known, and are a potential source of danger. Despite his assurances to Czechoslovakia, we know that in his book Mem Kampf, which to+day is the religion of Germany, and possibly of Austria also, Herr Hitler has stated that he will not rest until all German minorities in other countries are united under the German Reich. Dealing with the position of Czechoslovakia, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Chamberlain, after pointing out that Great Britain was not bound automatically to go to the assistance of Czechoslovakia if that country were attacked, went on to say -

But while plainly stating this decision, I would add this : where peace .and war are concerned, legal obligations are not alone involved, and, if war broke out, it would be unlikely to be confined to those who have assumed such obligations. It would be quite impossible to say’ where it would end and what governments might become involved. The inexorable pressure of facts might well prove more powerful than formal pronouncements, and in that event it would be well within the - bounds of probability that other countries, besides those which wore parties to the original dispute, would almost immediately become involved. This is especially true in the case of two countries like Great Britain and France, with long associations of friendship, with interests closely interwoven, devoted to the same ideals of democratic liberty, and determined to uphold them.

From that statement it seems to me to be much more likely that Great Britain would be drawn into the conflict if Czechoslovakia were attacked than that it would be able to remain neutral. If that should happen what is the position of Australia?

Mr Holloway:

– Australia would ‘be just where it is now - minding its own business.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Apart from natural concern in Australia regarding the fact of the Old Land if Great Britain became involved in war, the fact is that Australia, being part of the British Empire - as it is,, despite what certain honorable members opposite seem to think - would be liable to attack. Moreover, as Australia is one of the granaries supplying the United Kingdom with essential foodstuffs, it is almost certain that our trade with that country would be the object of attack. We know that international trade is now so interwoven and complex that, once war breaks out, it is extraordinarily difficult for nations indulging in such trade not to become involved. The United States of America provided an example of that during the Great War. Only twelve months before the entry of that country into the war, a presidential election was fought on the principle of non-participation, but, nevertheless, the United States of America was unable to keep out of the conflict. The Prime Minister, it is true, has stated that international tension has somewhat lessened, and I think it has, to some degree. This is attributable in the first place to the signing of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, which, if it means anything, must mean the weakening of the Rome-Berlin axis. Again, the position of France seems to be. improving under the direction of the new Premier, M. Delardier. This is all to the good. Then, in the East, Japan, a potential enemy, is fully involved in its conflict with China. It may, therefore, be stated that the position has eased, but I believe that the factor contributing largely to that improvement, the factor which was probably responsible for the Anglo-Italian Agreement itself, is the growing strength of the British Empire. In my opinion, a strong British Empire is the greatest single factor in the world to-day making for peace. Until recently British foreign policy was based on the principle of collective security through the League of Nations, but we must face the fact to-day that we can no longer rely upon the League of Nations to keep the peace of the world. Great Britain and the Empire generally still subscribe to the principle of the League of Nations, and if it were possible to rally all the members of the League of Nations around Great Britain and France so that an act of aggression against any one of them would be resisted by all, it might still be possible to place reliance on the League of Nations for our national security. We know, however, that we cannot depend upon this, and therefore we must rely for security on the British Empire and on ourselves.

It is essential to remember that no one dominion of the Empire could successfully defend itself by its own efforts. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition said that he agreed with the pronouncement of the British Prime Minister in regard to defence. He said that if he were an Englishman that policy would meet with his entire approval, and he went on to say that a similar pronouncement made in respect of Australia would also meet with his approval. Mr. Chamberlain based his policy upon four main points : The security of the United Kingdom as the corner stone of the defence structure, the protection of trade routes, tlie defence of British territories, and cooperation in the defence of the territories of any allies which Great’ Britain might have in the event of war. The Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons, sought further elucidation of this policy, and received a reply from the Imperial Government. I quote the following from the Prime Minister’s speech: - the first main effort ‘ of the British Government includes not only the protection of the Mother Country, but also the preservation of the trade routes, which would be carried out by the naval forces supplemented by military and air forces, which at the same time provide the principal protection for British territory all over the world. Thus the defence of Australia and the trade routes between Australia and Great Britain is an essential part of Great Britain’s defence policy, forming as it docs part of ‘ the first main effort.’

That, is a clear statement indicating that the defence policy of Great Britain rests upon the foundation of imperial cooperation. If the Leader of the Opposition approves of the policy of Great Britain as enunciated by the British Prime Minister, he must also agree to place in the forefront of Australia’s defence policy the principle of co-operation with other units of that Empire in defence matters. The embarkation of the Government of Great Britain on its present huge naval programme is in itself an indication that Groat Britain intends to use its navy in the defence of the dominions as well as Great Britain itself. We know that Great Britain is at present constructing 500,000 tons of naval vessels, and that during the next twelve months 60 new ships, including two new battleships, will be launched, and will be available for the protection of the trade of the Empire.

I come now to the subject of Australia’s own defence efforts. Because of our geographical position and the nature of our trade, and because any attack must come from overseas, the navy must always remain our first line of defence. That, of course, if it means anything, means that we must co-operate with the British Government, and that is the safest and cheapest policy for Australia to adopt.

Then, of course, come the air force, army and munitions, and so forth. I have not the time to deal with these subjects that I thought I should have, but the air force is becoming more, and more predominant . in defence, and one thing I think that we have to determine to do in Australia is to develop an air force in excess of any that could be used by any attacking power, bearing in mind, that such attacking power would have to transport to Australia the great bulk of its planes and the materials with which to keep those planes in action. Therefore, the development of an air force of that description is of paramount importance.

Generally speaking, the Government’s programme, as it concerns the navy, the air force, and munitions, finds satisfaction with the vast majority of the people, but I come now to that other most important section of defence, the army, of which we do find justification for welldirected criticism. In 1920, senior army officers, lately returned from the Great War, met in conference, and presented to the Government a set of recommendations in a certain order. The order on which they thought that we should embark on a defence programme was: (1) commanders and staffs; (2) munitions; (3) coast defences; (4) training of staffs and, last, personnel. I think that we can reasonably be assured that a good programme is in hand in respect of coast defences and munitions, but I now approach the most important parts of that report, and I give a quotation from it that will instantly allow honorable members to follow the drift of my remarks. This quotation is -

The field army is organized on a peace-time basis. Some time must elapse before it can pass from pence footing to a state of readiness for war. Steps to shorten this period are necessary.

Iii a national broadcast on the 16th July, 1936, the former Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) stated that the force necessary to deter an invader would be 200,000 men, and reiterated -the fact that in the Great War our troops had nine months of solid training before they went into action. Now, in the light of that quotation and in the light of Sir Archdale Parkhill’s statement, I ask the House and the people of Australia whether we can consider our 35,000 militia-men sufficient, whether we can consider them up to the required standard of efficiency, and whether we can assure the taxpayers of Australia that those men are being trained in such a way as to show that money is being expended on them to the best advantage.

The case for universal training as against the militia system is one on which I should like to hear the opinion of experts before voicing my own opinion. Certain beneficial results accrue, and will always accrue from a system of universal training, but it must be soundly based militarily. The same thing, of course, applies equally to the militia.

Mr Sheehan:

– Has the honorable gentleman joined the volunteer forces?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– No; I have not. Neither could I very well join the volunteer forces. In any case it is for - men younger than I to do so. At present it appears that we have neither one system nor another, ‘neither a system based on good principles of universal military training nor a system that will bring the men to the state of efficiency needed for them to play their part in the defence system. The Government should take facts into consideration, and set about making improvements.

Finally, I wish to say a few words on the question of the necessary taxation to carry out the enlarged defence programme. I think that the best system of taxation for any defence system should be-

Mr Ward:

– Based on ability to pay.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Yes, as the honorable gentleman says, based on ability to pay. Those people who have the greatest stake in Australia should be prepared to pay the greatest amount of taxes necessary for the carrying out of this programme. By way of question, 1 made a suggestion in this House the other day that certain companies in Australia that are, undoubtedly, exploiting the Australian people should be made to pay some of this money, and I made the serious suggestion that an excess profitstax, or if honorable members like, a super tax, should be imposed on companiesearning more than 12 per cent, on their stock.

Mr Ward:

– What about watered stock?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– All the factors could be considered, and the best method to be adopted would be determined by those taxation officials versed in the different classes pf taxes. I believe that if the income tax rate is to be raised, as I believe it must be, on a parallel with the British example, that a super tax should be considered by the Government. It is definitely fair, and would commend itself to the vast majority of thepeople; it is a tax that at any rate has some affinity to the war profits tax raised during the period of the Great War. Reverting to remarks I made earlier, I believe that by expending money to be raised under this measure in Australia and by thus making ourselves strong as part of the British Empire, and thereby helping to make the Empire strong, we are helping in no small way in stabilising the conditions of the world, and in warding off a war that might mean the destruction of existing civilization.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- The honorable member who has just resumed his seat betrayed gross ignorance of the needs of Australia in the matter of defence, when he said that our first line of defence was the Navy. He spoke glibly about the fact that we are to pay, or, at least, partly pay, for two cruisers and build one or two smaller vessels, but he cannot imagine that any nation about to attack us would, just because we had a couple of cruisers, send along similar vessels. It would not! It would send battleships that would blow our cruisers out of the ocean before they had time or opportunity to fire a shot. The honorable member referred to the fallacious statements during its currency that the last war was a Avar to end war, that the theory that might was right would cease thereafter to exist amongst the nations of the world, and that they would be prepared to go to a league of nations or some other international organization to solve inter- mational problems. Why does not the honorable gentleman face up to the position ? Just as much responsible for the position that exists in Europe to-day as is Germany are the nations that imposed the Treaty of Versailles on the defeated enemy, because in that treaty they made a set of conditions that have led to today’s chaos. There is not an expert in world affairs, British or French, or of any other nationality, who does not admit that the fundamental mistakes made in that treaty which arbitrarily drew lines across the map of Europe and heaped people together in uncongenial groups created the restiveness that now exists. This is a lesson of history of which we must take such cognizance that in the future we shall not make such deadly mistakes, and when the nations of the world meet in conference they must allow the prejudices and hatreds engendered by that fateful instrument, the Treaty of Versailles, to be dissipated, so that the fair lily of peace will have an opportunity - some sort of opportunity at any rate - to grow and blossom in the world. It is of no use for us, with the tongue in the cheek, to talk about our being spotless. Every signatory to that treaty is to be blamed for the wretched position that exists in Europe to-day. I venture to say that, were it not for the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler could not have created the hysteria and war fervour that he has raised in Germany by talking about the persecution and degradation of the fatherland. The damage that was done at Versailles must be obliterated; there must be an end to this talk of meeting force with force. It should be realized that there is some justice in the aspirations of these people.

Mr Thorby:

– Which people?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The whole of the defeated nations of the world that come under the crucifying conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. I counsel the Minister to read even the British writers, to read Norman Angell, Bernard Shaw and other men who have written of these matters and analysed them from the humane point of view, men whose hearts are burning with ah anxious desire to bring about peaceful conditions. Let there lie an end to the belief that superior races should dominate the others. That is the spirit which produces world calamities.

Mr Thorby:

– Do you suggest-

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I suggest that the whole spirit of the Treaty of Versailles was one of hatred and revenge. The Governments of the British Empire are treating with Hitler to-day, and all that I have mentioned should be realized when the problems that beset us are being handled.

The Australian Labour party stands definitely and emphatically for the defence of Australia.

Mr Thorby:

– Since when?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Always. We are not going to allow any honorable members opposite to tell us what constitutes an adequate defence of Australia, because we do not believe that they know. We stand definitely for no private profit in armaments and say that the payment for defence should come from taxes on the wealthy interests whose wealth will be protected if war comes to Australia.

A necessary precedent lo a proper defence outlook is the settlement in this country of a manhood which will be able and willing to defend it. I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) to come into my electorate and visit particularly Port Kembla, where the iron and steel trust is entrenched. He will then see for himself how these wealthy and soulless interests impose upon the workers. The Australian, representatives of the iron and steel trust at Newcastle and Port Kembla make immense profits out of defence expenditure, yet many of the workers they employ have to live in hovels. If the honorable member will visit the Flinders-street camp at Port Kembla he will find it hard to say what the workers there have to defend.

If the Government desires to develop a truly national spirit in Australia, it must turn its attention to the provision of decent living conditions for the people. I say deliberately that the man on the dole,, the man on relief work, and others so situated, have nothing to defend here. lt is futile for honorable members who 7’epresent the “squattocracy” of this country to talk as they so frequently do about what the workers have to defend. Many of the people whom I represent hardly know where to get sufficient food and clothing for their wives and children. Our first duty, therefore, is to reconstruct the economic life of the people. If that is done it will be found that the people will be eager to defend themselves should the need arise.

I do not think it can be denied that the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) yesterday on international relations, and the subsequent speech, of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), predicted a position in the world definitely easier than that which faced us early in December last. If that is not so, the right honorable gentleman and his colleagues misled us, and were not telling the truth. I do not say that they were not telling the truth. I simply point out that their speeches visualized a world in which conditions were definitely improved compared with those of last December. In those circumstances, I agree with the sentiments expressed last night, and again to-day, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin). The honorable gentleman asked why the Government wished so suddenly to increase enormously our expenditure on defence.

Mr Thorby:

– Does the honorable gentleman say that there is no justification for this expenditure?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I definitely assert that no member of the Government hai yet shown any real justification for an increased defence expenditure of £40,000,000. In fact, the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer show that no increase is justifiable. At any rate, there can be no possible excuse for our “Suddenly rushing into this expenditure.

Mr Thorby:

– It is not a sudden rush.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– If it is not a sudden rush, the Government was recreant to its trust in not requesting, last December, that this expenditure should be incurred. At that time, proposals were submitted to us which we were led to believe were, in the opinion of the Government, adequate to the needs of the situation. A programme covering twelve months’ expenditure was introduced. Now we are told that we must visualize a three-year programme involving the expenditure of an additional £40,000,000.

Mr Thorby:

– These proposals arc in continuation of proposals submitted toParliament in 1932.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Nothing was said last year about these proposals, yet now we are told that the situation is so critical that we cannot have an extra day to examine them. Surely that is ample reason for my declaration that these are sudden proposals. If they are not, the Government is undoubtedly trying to put something over. Why cannot we be given an opportunity to study this policy over the week-end? Apparently, an effort is being made to create a war hysteria. Maybe the Government is paving the way for another election stunt.

Mr Thorby:

– No election is in sight.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– We never know. This policy is, to my mind, seriously suspect. To whom did the Government look for advice when it decided to embark upon this business? It went straight to the representatives of the armaments profiteers. No company in Australia will make such big profits out of these proposals as the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which manufactures practically all” the steel used in Australia. This huge company is linked in one huge trust with every other enterprise interested in iron and steel in Australia. Yet it was to these people that the Government rushed to ascertain. not only how ‘much it should spend, but how it should spend it. The representatives of this organization and allied interests were appointed to the Advisory Committee to assist the War Council. I have no doubt at all that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited will make profits aggregating hundreds of thousands of pounds oUt of the new defence expenditure which the Government is now proposing.

There can be no question about it that the Government of the United Kingdom, and also this Government, have thrown overboard the principle of collective security, and have reverted to the old, bad policy of balance of power. The negotiations between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Italian Government indicate clearly that Great Britain is seeking alliances .with other countries with the object of maintaining a balance of power. I do not often take : the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) as my authority for a statement, but he spoke the truth in a speech which he delivered recently in this House when he said that the policy of balance of power was the most prolific cause of war in the world. Undoubtedly, it involves the piling up of armaments. The nations of one group do their best to overawe the nations in another group by weight of armaments, and so the race goes on.

The Labour party stands for “ No private profit from the manufacture of war materials and. equipment “. Immediately after the Government announced its enlarged defence programme last year, and before it had time to spend any of its money, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited increased the price of steel in Australia from 5s. to 20s. a ton. In spite of this fact, the Government chose directors of thi3 company to advise it in connexion with its defence _ expenditure. There was not the slightest justification for that increase of the price of steel that was made at that time.

Mr Thorby:

– Have not all award rates of wages been increased?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– No; they are lower now than in 1925.

Mr Thorby:

– I know what they are. 1. have to deal with them.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I also know what they are. I have the rates’ before me, and I propose to read them before I finish my speech. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which must ‘inevitably make greatly increased profits by reason of this new defence programme, has larger reserves of funds than any company of the same character and of similar subscribed capital in the world. Moreover, its shareholders include many of the wealthiest people in Australia. The company is undoubtedly interested in the development of the war hysteria, and many of those financially interested in it must be classed as warmongers and profiteers. They first set out to create a panic and then get the Government to increase its defence expenditure, and thus, in due time, the company makes its rake-off and the shareholders get their dividends. That procedure is characteristic of all the companies interested in the international armaments ring. The Broken Hill- Proprietary Company

Limited is the Australian link of this ring.

The profiteering propensities of the armament ring are almost beyond belief.. Some time ago, I gave some figures in this House in support of that statement. My authority was Mr. Lloyd George, who used them when he was Prime Minister of Great Britain. Honorable members will recollect that at one stage of the war, very great difficulty was being experienced in England in obtaining armaments. The armament manufacturers were draining the life-blood from the country to such an extent that the Prime Minister said that if prices were not reduced Great Britain would have to fall out of the war or adopt some other drastic alternative. The financiers whose money was invested in the armament firms were, on the one hand, doing their utmost to get men to enlist, and on the other hand, charging the highest possible prices for the sinews of war. The situation ultimately became so bad that the British Government took the drastic action of assuming the control of all armament manufacturing enterprises. Thereafter, a proper costing system was instituted, and armaments were manufactured under government supervision. The result was that Mr. Lloyd George was able, after two years, to inform the House of Commons that 18-lb. shells for which the armaments ring charged the Government 22s. 6d. each were being manufactured under government supervision for 12s. each, with a consequent saving in the period under review of £85,000,000. Lewis guns, for which the armaments manufacturers were charging the nation £165 each, were manufactured under government supervision for £35 each, with the result that in a twoyear period the British taxpayers were saved £500,000,000. I make this statement on the authority;, of the then Prime Minister of Great Britain. The speech in which he gave these particulars may be read in the official report of the debates in the House of Commons, a copy of which is to he found in the Parliamentary Library. If we could take the profit element out of the manufacture of armaments and clip the wings of this inhuman ring of financiers, we could abolish war forever.

The armament manufacturers are, of course, the financiers. The operations of the big firms which manufacture war equipment are inextricably interlocked with those of the big financial groups of every country of the world. Even in Australia, the directors of our big iron and steel manufacturing enterprises are, as we have seen, selected to advise this Government on the purchase of war equipment. These men first create a war scare, and then they get the Government to increase its defence expenditure. Next they cause steps to be taken by the Government to float a loan to pay for war equipment. Then they sell for exorbitant prices the goods that they themselves have manufactured, and so make their rake-off. It will be seen, therefore, that these people get it going and coming. If the Government wants to eliminate war entirely, and to bring about perpetual peace, it should cease talking about building a few more battle ships and a few more guns. If instead it should remedy economic conditions, war will have gone for ever. Nobody can contest that” argument. The profits of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited are greater to-day than ever before. Except in respect of two years, namely, 1931, when they amounted to £S3,257, and in 1932, when they amounted to £103,720, they gradually rose to £670,442 in 1935. Furthermore, reserves allotted in respect of depreciation increased from £293,804 in 1926, to £541,949 in 1935, whilst the total profit spread over ton years was £2,910,406, in net profit, and £3,341,877 placed to reserves. These figures are given in a booklet issued by the company itself, and stand in print for all honorable members to study.

The Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) says that the increase of the price of iron and steel, through which the company has secured a rake-off from the Government’s defence expenditure todate and will secure a still larger rakeoff from the proposed expenditure of £40,000,000, is due to increased wages and improved working conditions granted under new awards. I point out that in 1929, ‘bis company employed, in all its general works and steel and iron works, 5,500 men, to whom wages paid annually amounted to £30,000. -

Mr Thorby:

– Only a very small” proportion of this money will be expended, on steel.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– When their arguments are being upset, honorable gentlemen opposite invariably commence to> shift ground. In 1936, this company employed 6,091 men, to whom the wages; paid amounted to only £29,000; less; money for more men. Dealing with the awards referred to by the Minister for Defence, I point out that under the 1925’ award, storemen received 15s. a shift compared with 13s. 6-6/lld. under the- 1935 award. Tool sharpeners received 15s. 5d. in 1925, and 14s. in 1935, whilst bloom chippers received 16s. 6d. in 1925’ compared with 15s. 2d. in 1935.

Mr Thorby:

– Will the honorablemember quote the 1938 rates?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The 1938 award does not apply to anything like the number of men- to which the 1935 award applied. The maximum rate under the iss award, is 2s. 3d. an hour, which, would be about 17s. a shift as against 16s. 6d. I admit a small increase hasbeen made, but this rate applies in respect, of only two or three technical trades within the industry and was secured onlyafter Judge Cantor visited the works and” realized the intolerable strain under whichthe men concerned were asked to labour.

Mr Thorby:

– Nevertheless, comparingthe 1.935 award with the 1937-38 award, is it not correct to say that there havebeen very definite increases not only forthe men employed by the Broken Hil! Proprietary .Company Limited, but also for men engaged in all the technical branches of the industry? Even during: the last month, substantial increases have been granted.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The Ministertalks about increases. The point, is that the increases granted are not anything” like they would appear at first sight, because the speeding-up methods adopted by the company have resulted in men being put off and losing time due to sick”ness resulting from the increased strain.

Mr Thorby:

– But the rates were increased.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Virtually Iterates were not increased. The highestwage rate paid by the company is– £5 2s. ‘Sci. :a week in respect of blast furnaceworkers, who really have the worst job of the lot. That is the highest maximum rate paid under any award affecting the Broken Hill Proprietary Com.pany Limited. Bearing in mind the intolerable conditions under which these men are asked to work to-day, I submit that the recent increase of the price of iron and steel was entirely unwarranted. The only reason why the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited rushed in and effected the increase, was in order to secure a bigger rake-off from the expenditure contemplated by this Governmnent. It was only when the defence policy of this Government was :made known, and the company knew that there would be a market in Australia for its iron and steel that it was prepared to increase its prices. Even the Minister for Defence criticized the company’s action in increasing the price of steel, whilst all of those industries depending on supplies of iron and steel made a similar protest. The honorable gentleman knows full well that this increase has had something to do with the holding up of ordinary industrial progress in this country. The increase has resulted solely from the fact that this huge armament ring and combine seeks the plums of governmental expenditure.

Mr Thorby:

– There is no armament ring in Australia.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– There is, and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is part and parcel of it. I reiterate tint the increase of the price of iron any steel has been caused for the reasons which I have just explained. Does this Government wish the workers not only to defend Australia, but also to toil in the making of iron and steel for armaments under nerve-racking and bodymaiming conditions comparable to those existing in industry 100 years ago? At any rate, what have these men to defend ? What have they to fight for? In a recent issue of The Sunday Sun, Sydney, it was stated that almost 1,000 people around Port Kembla are living in tents and huts, under conditions which would not be tolerated for the dogs they cheer around the Wollongong tin hare course. The -same newspaper stated that 18 adults were found living in one house with six bedrooms. It may cause laughter, but if this Government possesses any sense at all, it will take immediate steps to eliminate such conditions in this country. The newspaper to which I have referred, also states -

Ten adults and three children shared three bedrooms in another house.

Two other places with three bedrooms housed eight adults and two children each. ….. The official census-takers discovered one boarding house at Port ‘Kembla which had 13 bedrooms and 22 guests.

Nearly every day I am personally confronted with similar slum conditions. In every sphere in which this monopolistic combine operates similar conditions exist. In order to make itself surer of a bigger rake-off, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited recently circulated a report that it had solved the unemployment problem in its industry. I have in my hand a photograph of an assembly of unemployed men which was outside the company’s works at Port Kembla on the day that its report was published. Propaganda of that character is circulated in order to attract people on relief work and on the dole to the company’s works where they will be forced to live in camps under conditions of the nature which I have described. They respond to the propaganda of the lying press of this country, but their presence around the company’s works is used with the object of speeding-up those employed in the works, because each man knows that if he loses his job there are five or six men waiting on his heels to take it. That policy has been applied by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ever since it became a monopoly. The business or commercial man does not exist who has not the utmost contempt for this company. Yet it is among the directors of such a concern that this Government seeks men to advise it in respect of its defence’ policy. As directors of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, they rake off profits from the sale of iron and steel whilst, at the same time, they are the Government’s financiers. We find represented in the company’s share list the Baillieu Group, the Sydney Morning Herald interests and the John Darling interests. And when one studies the directorates of banks one finds the same people in control. They rake off profits in the form of interest on government loans and then get back with further profit the money they loan in the sale of armaments. If that represents the best policy this Government can advance for - the defence of Australia I shall have nothing to do with it, and I am prepared to take the risk of saying so in my own electorate. Surely the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited can be expected to bear some of the burdens of defence when it takes all the profits. It should be made to pay through taxation. It is so rich that it has to hide its profits under the guise of watered stock. Recently it- divided £1,700,000 from reserves among its shareholders at the nominal cost of £1 10s. a share. The same shares were quoted on the Sydney Stock Exchange at from £3 5s. to £3 10s. At the outbreak of the war the capital of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, was £600,000 compared with its present capital of £4,249,850. “ In 1919 an amount of £1,500,000 was distributed in £1 bonus shares and by capitalizing another £900,000 the company consolidated all its Ss. shares at £1. Yet this Government proposes to give, possibly, another £1,000,000 in excess profit to this company.

Mr Thorby:

– From what other source can the Government secure iron and steel?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– This Government should follow the example of the British Government and apply a costing system. Lt might seem hard to expect this company to sell at cost but the Gov.vernment could and should inaugurate a costing system in order to prevent profiteering by the company. The Minister for Defence, of . course, laughs at such a suggestion, but he does not laugh when it is a matter of bleeding the taxpayers of money, or of sooling other men on to war or asking them to sacrifice their lives in the defence of their country. Probably it is just as well that the Government’s proposals provide for the establishment of a coastal fort beside the works of this company. But that is by the way. The point I stress is that there is nothing laughable in ray submission. I urge that this com pany should not be allowed to rake off great, profits but that it should be made to shoulder some sacrifice in the defence of Australia, particularly when it is remembered that it has had millions of pounds handed out to it by this Government in the form of bonus shares.

Mr Thorby:

– What has the company done with those profits?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Put them back into industry in order to make more profits. And as it makes more profits, it creates more hovels and brings about more human, misery. That is its history, and any one who visits Port Kembla and investigates conditions there will realize that fact. Under its defence proposals this Government will also enable Lysaght’s, another branch of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, to secure a rake-off from its expenditure. In order to show that this company’s profits are made at the cost of the health and of the lives of its workers, I quote what the press has to say about conditions in Lysaght’s works at Newcastle: -

They call it the pickling yard at Lysaght’s in Newcastle. The throat is parched and sore; eyes smart; fingers burn; breath conies in painful jerks; but, here, the relentless river of iron flows past for constant attention . . . After a while your gums will probably shrink and your teeth fall out. But why worry? If your stomach hasn’t been sufficiently galvanized to withstand the inroads of the deadly fumes, there is milk for sale at the union canteen.

Doctors declare that milk is the only effective antidote to sulphuric acid fumes. Before the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited took over Lysaght’s works, milk was supplied by the company; but after “the company took control the free provision of milk was withdrawn and it is now sold to the workers by the union. At Newcastle the works are referred to as “the abattoirs.” The Port Kembla works are known as “the butcher’s shop “ ; they are nothing but a slaughterhouse. Go to the hospital at Wollongong at any time -and you will find the wards full of men who have been injured in the course of their employment. I sa.w in that hospital a man who had fallen on his stomach on a red hot iron plate; the doctors and the nurses were fighting to save his life. Such accidents are common because of the speeding-up methods indulged in by the company, which are designed to force men to work until they are almost exhausted; so distressed do they become that they fall down on molten plates or red-hot iron.

I protest as far as in my power against a company of this kind making one penny of profit out of armaments necessary for the defence of this country. This company is the only one which is in a position to manufacture armaments, and, as is well known, it has been built up as the result of the provision of bounties and other forms of assistance by a generous Commonwealth Government. Australia has been very generous to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and now, when we are told that this country is facing danger, this company, which has wrecked the lives of thousands of our workers, which has drawn millions of pounds from the Commonwealth Treasury in bounties, and has enjoyed the highest possible protection, is to get an excess, a profiteer’s price for the manufacture of things necessary for the defence of Australia. It is national criminality to allow it. If the company is to receive orders from the Government as the result of the provision of this loan money, which after all the wealthy shareholders of the company will themselves lend to the Government at interest because they are the capitalists behind the associated banks, the Government, if it has any Australian sentiment, aye, any self-respect, will do what Mr. Lloyd George did in Britain, institute a costing system within the accounting section of the company designed to ensure that Australian defence requirements are provided free of profit. It would not be too much to ask the company to provide our essentia] defence requirements free of cost, because it has been placed in its present influential position at the expense of the people of this country and of the degradation and destruction of the lives of thousands of our workers.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- Nobody could be enthusiastic about voting an increase of money to be used for military purposes. It inevitably means that the resources of the country which would otherwise be available for industrial and social progress have to be diverted to safeguarding the existence of the country. Nobody could be enthusiastic about that and I do not suggest for one moment that members of the Government have any enthusiasm about this regrettable state of affairs; but I am equally certain that the Government is not going to allow any sort of profiteering in connexion with the expenditure required to meet a national emergency. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), in a statement which appeared in the press on the 10th March last, gave a public undertaking that, if necessary, profits derived from the manufacture of defence material would be controlled hy legislation. As regards the company upon which the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) has made such an attack, I would remind him that the Government which he supported did a great deal to increase the tariff duties on the output of that company, and that the present Government has done a great deal to reduce them. If there has been undue fleecing of the public, it has been done under charter from the Government which the honorable mem bec himself supported. The record of theo company as an employer certainly does not tally with the situation which the honorable member for Werriwa purports to record.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The honorable member goes into the company’s’ office and drinks whisky.

Mr HAWKER:

– I know a very considerable number of men who work in the iron quarries of the company in South Australia as labourers or mechanics, or in other capacities. But what we are debating to-night is not the operations of companies such as this, but rather the Prime Minister’s statement and the Government’s financial proposals in connexion with its defence policy. The spending of the money is not the only subject upon which we feel no enthusiasm : the misunderstandings, the mistrust between countries cause distress to everyone of us. Probably honorable members have noticed iii the newspapers to-day a reminder from the vice-consul of one of the great overseas countries bordering on the Pacific that not so many years ago his country and the British Empire were loyal allies working together to face a common emergency. None of us can be glad that a situation has arisen as the result of which, to take one example, unionists who on the whole support the election of honorable members on the other side of the House, have been boycotting the shipping of goods to that country. The Leader of the .Opposition (Mr. Curtin) said yesterday, that he hoped nothing would be done in this country to increase international stress, international misunderstanding or international bad feeling; yet there is that undercurrent of distrust among members of trade unions in Australia.

Since the last budget Estimates were framed in August of last year, all over the world there have been developments which show the unmistakable growth of international tension. From week to week, waves- of danger seem to sweep over the world, and then the situation relaxes again for a few weeks, sometimes even for a few months ; but each new wave of danger seems to be greater than the last. It is for that reason that the Government has very rightly taken steps to increase the defence provision for Australia, and tispeed up very substantially the rate at which the provision should be made available. I suggest to the House that, regrettable as it is to have to allocate the country’s resources for these works of national security, it is very poor economy not to make a job of the matter once it is undertaken. The provision which we are asked to make to-day is mainly for the extension of the technical equipment of the three defence arms - it goes further than that in regard to the Air Force, because it is definitely an enlargement of all phases of air defence - but the provision asked for to-day is almost entirely for the technical improvement of equipment, for an increase of the quantity and means of producing munitions and equipment, and for the requirements for the proper arming of trained men. This enormous sum, almost entirely to be used for technical equipment, does not provide for either man power or for naval vessels, which alone would decide the issue and give the country security. That is left for some time in the future. The change which the expenditure of the money will effect in our defence provision is to alter the defence system from what might be called the nucleus of a nucleus to a nucleus. Nobody can call that a complete defence system. I do not suggest for one moment that that stage is not a necessary preliminary to a proper defence system, but nobody can pretend to call it in itself a defence system. The most it will give is the means to produce a defence system within six months or a year. That seems to me on the whole an inadequate objective in the present circumstances. We, of course, do not know what are Australia’s arrangements with the British Government; we cannot know them ; we, as private members, should not know them; potential enemies must be left in uncertainty, and left guessing. It is quite clear that if we could afford them, either by ourselves or in conjunction with other parts of the British Empire, good naval vessels would give the country absolute security and save us from all the controversial difficulties of raising men and giving them a chance of adequate training. As I have said, none of us know exactly what are the prospects of Great Britain sending a detachment of capital battleships to the Pacific in case of emergency. Likewise, none of us know what are the prospects of the United States of America sending’ battleships to this part of the Pacific, though it is generally assumed that that country cannot be counted upon to do so. I hope that that is not the case. The. cruisers to be purchased out of the money to be provided, quite clearly cannot be counted as an adequate contribution from Australia to the naval forces of the Empire, which would be sufficient to protect Australia and other British countries in the Pacific ; but it seems to me, that if there is reasonable prospect of Australia being assisted in any substantial way, we should not shirk the financial liabilities involved in the provision of a fair share of a common naval unit for our own protection and that of other portions of the British Empire. If we were equal to these obligations it seems to me that the security, not only of Australia, but also of our overseas trade would be assured. Even though it is not possible for Britain to divest the heart of the Empire of its naval protection, and protection for the trade routes necessary for the existence of England itself, the Mother Country might be able to send to this side of the world naval detachments which would materially increase our security by neutralizing any naval forces which an agressor nation despatched to raid our commerce. There cannot be much doubt that provision for a fair contribution towards such a unit by Australia would be a great encouragement to our kinsmen in other parts of the Empire to send aid to us if we were in need of it. On this subject I quote from the work of a distinguished retired British naval officer, Captain Bernard Ackworth, views which express in some measure the thought of some British naval authorities about Australia’s contribution to the common defence of the Empire. In his book, Restoration of England’s Sea Power, published two or three years ago, Captain -Ackworth offers this comment -

There remains that standing threat to tlie peace of the world - a White .Australia.

I disagree with that statement, but it is a point of view on a controversial subject -

The author believes, with many others, that the White Australia policy is unjustifiable in view of the immensity of the territories involved, the unsuitability of the climate of great tracts of the Continent for white settlement, and the restriction of population in the temperate zones. But, in spite of these facts, he must assume that the policy will be maintained with all the repercussions it must have upon the necessary strength of the Navy towards which Australia contributes so little.

I put it to the House that if we were prepared to contribute to the common defence of the Empire an amount nearer to what our share should be, having regard to our population and our resources of wealth and trade, our action would help to win the goodwill of our kinsmen in other parts of the Empire who are taxed almost tragically to ensure their defence, and to some extent for our defence.

Under the very greatly increased provision in this bill expenditure on the Australian Navy is to be £15,000,000 spread over three years. The total defence expenditure on all services will be £15,000,000 annually, representing about £2 per head of the population, compared with about £10 per head in the United Kingdom. It is true that, individually, the people of Great Britain are richer than we are, but even if we mee; sure our contributions on the proportion allocated for defence in the respective budgets, it will be found that the British taxpayer is paying about double the amount to bc demanded of taxpayers in Australia. Bearing in mind the huge amount of British investments in Australia it is, I consider, fair to expect that a share of the expenditure on our defence should be borne by other parts of the Empire; but nobody can honestly suggest that an Australian navy consisting of five cruisers, not one of which would be a match for a battle cruiser, is an adequate contribution. True, our cruisers would be useful as trade convoyers, and our navy is a better contribution to Empire safety than is the provision made by other dominions ; but since we are in a much more isolated position, and are exposed to greater dangers, our defence must accordingly be a. much heavier charge on the national budget than it is in other British dominions. If, however, as was done in 1914, we could make provision for even one battle cruiser, it would be able to take its place find co-operate with any detachment that Britain might send to Australian waters. I am not suggesting this as an alternative to our existing provision of cruisers for convoying and work of this nature; I suggest that, in conjunction with them it would be a very great deterrent to coastal raids by relatively small enemy cruisers. In Australian waters, where the chances of getting information would be all in favour of our ships, it would be a very risky business for any but large enemy warships to attempt raiding operations, so the addition of a battle cruiser to the Australian fleet would go a long way towards providing complete protection for our coastal trade in the event of Britain being unable to send a detachment to our assistance in time of emergency. “While I have not the slightest doubt that the Treasurer was sincere when he, said that expense was not the limiting factor in our defence policy, it may be influencing the Government. If because of expense or for any other reason we were prevented from contributing our fair share towards the defence of Australia and adjoining countries, the only other way in which we could make the Commonwealth really secure would be to have sufficient properlytrained men with adequate equipment to defend our shores. Byitself, equipment is not enough. There has been a suggestion that a large air force could, by itself, protect Australia. I agree that we must have an adequate air force - one every bit as good as the ‘Government proposes to establish; but thereare limits to the service which this arm of defence can perform. Recent experience has demonstrated that aircraft cannot prevent warships and transports from moving freely in Spanish waters; nor have they prevented the Japanese troopships from landing men on the Chinese coast. In the early stages of the Sino-Japanese war the Chinese had American planes superior in performance to those of the Japanese, but still they were not able to sink a single Japanese ship, or to force enemy warships to weigh anchor and steam a round. The only ships seriously damaged by aerial bombardment were neutral vessels, which were attacked by mistake. Vessels sunk by the Japanese aircraft were relatively small river boats.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– And. they were at anchor.

Mr HAWKER:

– That is so. Although any defence system which did not include’ adequate air support would be ineffective, an air force, by itself, could not give the country protection. Demoralisation and devastation has been caused by aerial bombardment in places where troops have been congested. Such attacks have savoured of the barbarous, and have had a demoralizing effect on civilians; but against even important objectives air craft have very definite limitations.I quote herean extract from a letter which I received recently from a. prominent business man in Hong Kong, dealing with the bombing of the Canton-Kowloon railway, an important line carrying munitions into China -

As with practically every circumstance throughout this unfortunate affair, the press have done all they can to exaggerate the bombing of the Canton-Kowloon railway. The damage clone so far has been very easily and quickly repaired, and the manager of the railway Rays he would prefer any number of air raids to one wash-out, such as occurred last year owing to heavy rains.

There is a popular impression that aerial defence is cheap. That is an entirely mistaken idea. About eighteen months ago a select committee in Great Britain made inquiries into the relative costs of aeroplanes andcapital ships. Taking into account landing grounds, ground organization and replacements required for aeroplanes; it was found that £8,000,000 sterling- that is £A.10,000,000 - the cost of a capital ship with maintenance and replacements would provide only 42 medium-sized twin-engine bombers. It is hardly credible to uninformed persons that an air force is so costly. Another important consideration is the wastage of aircraft in war. Towards the end of the Great War, air casualties exceeded 50 per cent. a month, which meant that the whole air force had to be re-equipped every two months. It is estimated that in any future war, owing to the greater power and higher speeds, the casualties might be much greater, even as high as 80 per cent, a month.

Mr Curtin:

– Despite that fact, Great Britain is greatly expanding its air arm.

Mr HAWKER:

– That is so, and we should do so also; but Britain is not depending solely on air defence. A defence system without adequate aircraft would be like a racing motor car without steering gear.

Another vital factor in Australian defence is transport. An effort should be made to provide an additional railway or road to connect Sydney and the southern capitals with Newcastle and the northern districts of New South Wales and Queensland. A connexion should be made between the central and south Queensland railway systems similar to the existing link from Longreach to Winton, in order to have an alternative to the coastal railway. Also, in addition to Darwin., other . defence bases should be established in the north of Australia. These are all technical schemes, for which no provision is made at the present time. However, in the last resort, the deciding factor in any life or death struggle is man power - trained man power. Under this proposal no effort is made to cope with the real problem. There are to be 500 more troops to man the highly specialized coastal defences, 370 more to man the new anti-aircraft guns, and about 200 additional officers for the training of the militia units. There is to be some enlargement of the intake at the Royal MilitaryCollege, and one extra day’s training is to ibc provided for the militia. But it seems to me that that does not cope with the problem at - all. The strength of a country is judged by the number of its ships of war, by its military strength, and by the calibre of its trained soldiers, whether militia or regular troops.

On all sides we hear criticism of the condition of the Australian militia. A great deal of this comes from ex-soldiers. We observe the militia units ourselves, and, no doubt, foreigners also see them. In practically every case, officers connected with the militia confirm the misgivings, which are fairly widespread, about the inadequacy of the training made available to the militia and its insufficient strength. Evidence of the patriotism of the young mcn of this country is furnished by the fact that 35,000 of them give up their time by serving in the militia, although they receive little encouragement to do so. In many units the training is undoubtedly irksome, and scarcely any encouragement is given; yet young men enter the ranks, and do their best to fit themselves for the work of defence.

Mr Ward:

– Their spirit is quite different from that of the profiteers whom the honorable member supports.

Mr HAWKER:

– Nobody on this side* is supporting the granting of opportunities for profiteering, or slackness in watching that the profits made out of the manufacture of munitions are not exorbitant. TThe militia appears to be inadequate in its numbers, and also in the provision which is made in the existing circumstances for its training. It is not very often that a senior militia officer is able to express his opinion publicly. One of these officers, who did so last year, was quickly pounced upon and prevented from saying more. This is what he said -

Take an infantry battalion, for instance. To-day, it consists of roughly 250 to 300 men of all ranks, of whom, say, 100 are comparatively efficient, 100 have a smattering of military knowledge, while the remainder are quite inefficient. On mobilization, these would be built up to about 900, the 600 or more additional men being untrained civilians. As wit!) infantry, 60 it is with the artillery. That is the farce on which Australia will depend for its very existence. It would have no chance against a well-trained modern army.

This officer also remarked -

Our existing infantry units form the nucleus of our war time units. Some of the men in these units attend no camps of training; some attend only one camp, while some attend two or more camps. Their training consists oi eight days in camp each year. It is absurd to think of making these units efficient under such circumstances.

It is sometimes suggested that it in impossible to handle a larger number of troops until there are more trained officers to take charge of them. Actually, the handling of the men is one of the best forms of training for an officer. It is not merely necessary to teach the men the use of the rifle, hut the junior officers have to bc trained in the leading of the men, and that cannot be done quickly; more senior officers require training in the practical co-ordination of smaller units. The more intricate technical arms become, the greater is the need for training. It is recognized that at Gallipoli, after eight or nine months of training, although the plan for the landing was well worked out by the staff, and although the men and the junior officers were magnificent, the intermediate leadership was responsible for an enormously greater number of casualties than were necessary, and, probably, this deficiency led to the failure to take the position on the first day, and to the loss of the campaign. A lengthy training of officers is required to enable the men to be led in such a way that the losses will not be disproportionate, and that the chances of success will be reasonable. The senior militia officer to whom I have already referred further stated -

The units are so small that it is impossible to train leaders efficiently. Our infantry leaders, both officers and non-commissioned officers, are doing all that is humanly possible under the circumstances to achieve efficient results. . . . Their practical training consists in leading imaginary troops equipped with imaginary weapons. These imaginary troops frequently perform impossible tasks. The greatest difficulty of the infantry officer is to handle his human material with understanding and sympathy under the most trying and difficult conditions! - a difficult enough task in peace, but most difficult in battle. Practical experience alone can teach him. Under the present circumstances, he cannot have this practical experience. It is not right to wait until an invasion comes to give him that experience. Then it is gained at the cost of valuable human lives, and, perhaps, of a defeat in battle, with disastrous results for the whole nation.

I believe that the only way to deal effectively with this problem is to institute some form of universal military training. I realize that there are political difficulties to be overcome. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has tied his hands with regard to conscription, but there is a great distinction between conscription for overseas service and universal training for the protection of one’s own country. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which Australia could send overseas an enormous expedition such as was despatched during the last war. The world position is such -that we cannot afford to denude Australia of defence. It if therefore necessary for us to make adequate provision for our own defence.

Mr Brennan:

– Did not the honorable member want conscription last time to make the number more?

Mr HAWKER:

– Actually I did not. If our troops had not the necessary training, their losses in war would be much greater than they need otherwise T>e. To shirk the obligation to give the men sufficient training at the earliest possible moment would be to gamble in blood and lives because of political convenience, or, possibly, personal inconvenience with regard to the training. It would be cruel to take such a risk, having regard to the safety of not only the country, but also the young men themselves who may have to face the emergency, with the risk of bereavement of their families and the other losses caused by death and mutilation.

There is a still greater value in an adequate defence system, because, if a country is properly prepared for defence, the risk of it having to use its strength is almost negligible. We do not want to prepare young men to fight, but to make the country secure. We do not desire to pour out millions of pounds on armaments to destroy people. An adequate defence system makes a country secure by deterring attack, and shielding the younger generation from the’ danger of having to fight.

Mr Ward:

– The honorable member would not have to fight.

Mr HAWKER:

– The honorable member may sneer at me as much as he likes. I have actually seen men blown to atoms because our guns had not the necessary munitions, and men’s lives were thrown away for want of experience and training. That is the thing we must avoid at any cost. Although I support the proposals now submitted to the House, I call on the Government to make a job of it, while it is tackling this matter, by making the country safe against attack, thereby ensuring, as far as possible, peace and prosperity.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- Although practically every honorable member who has addressed the House has constantly referred to what he terms the defence proposals of the Ministry, it seems to me that anybody who cares to make an examination of world history will recognize that this Government has already committed Australia to participation in war, and that the present proposals are part of the war plans which, were formulated and agreed to by the Government at the Imperial Conference in 1937. I recall that honorable members on this side of the House continually sought to secure information from tha Government representatives as to what actually transpired at the Conference in that year. We were referred to the report which had been made to the Parliament as evidence of the business transacted, but in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 26th May, 1937 - a journal which is the official organ of the United Australia party in New South Wales - the people were informed as follows: -

It is clear that Australia led the other dominions in the defence discussions. Sir Archdale Parkhill’s speech, although much longer than the others, showed the Commonwealth’s real grip of the situation, and deeply impressed the delegates. This, however, represents only one phase of the defence deliberations, about which important discussions are taking place outside the conference between the dominion Defence Ministers and experts with Britain’s Chiefs of Staff. The results of these conferences will not appear in the main conference minutes, nor will they be disclosed to the public.

What happened at the conference did not appear in the report. What the

Labour party desired to have made available to the people of Australia was the discussion that took place behind closed doors. The Government was anxious to prevent the public from .being made aware of the facts, because for political reasons they did not want the country to know that it had already committed Australia to a policy of war.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) told us in his statement yesterday that the tension had eased throughout the world generally. That being so, it would appear that there is no necessity for the greatly increased expenditure on defence, which the Government proposes. If, as the Government says, the policy of the British Government has not changed, hut remains what it was prior to the dismissal of Mr. Eden from the British Cabinet, what is the reason for the Australian Government proposing to increase the vote for defence to approximately £43,Q00,000 in- three years? According to a recent press statement, messages from Mr. Chamberlain, which elaborated the reports of his. speech, had convinced Mr. Lyons that there is no ground for the impression that the dominions will have to rely on their own resources in time of war. That statement is in direct conflict with those of Government supporters during this discussion. They have urged that additional money be provided for defence because grave doubts exist whether aid would be forthcoming for Australia in the event of a world war taking place. Yet, the Prime Minister states that he is convinced that a world war is not likely to take place. The Labor party believes in providing for the adequate defence of this country, but it is of the opinion that Australia should not he defended merely in order that a privileged few may be given the right to exploit the workers, who will be expected to risk their lives during the war and afterwards pay the cost of it as well. Any one who has paid attention to the events following the last war, knows that much of the degradation and distress which followed it was the result of the enormous accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few persons. Those who fought and risked their lives, and the dependants of those who fell, had to bear the burden result ing from the actions of imperialist governments. There are some who profess to believe that Australia is in danger, but I do not agree with them. I am of the opinion that Australia is in less danger from foreign aggression to-day than for many years past. The Government is indulging in a good deal of propaganda and is conjuring up imaginary foes, not because it believes that Australians in immediate danger of attack, but because it wants to create in the minds of the people a readiness to respond to the call of the war drums when they sound. When that time comes, it wants the people to believe that wherever they are asked to fight they will be fighting against Australia’s enemies in a war of defence;

The nation most frequently mentioned as a potential enemy of Australia is Japan, but honorable members generally have admitted that Japan seems to he fully occupied with the war which it has ‘ undertaken in China. Since I have been a member of this Parliament .1 have frequently heard honorable members opposite speak of the Soviet Republics as constituting a world menace ; but no other nation in the world can contribute so much towards the defence of Australia as can Russia. It. has one of the most powerful military forces in the world, and so long as it retains its present position, Japan will be afraid to engage in any wars of aggression far removed from its own shores. Much has been said lately of the increased resistance offered to Japan by China. There can be no doubt that that has been made possible by the assistance rendered to China by the Soviet Republics. Although Russia has great military strength, I have not yet heard any honorable membersuggest that its armies are likely to be employed in a war of aggression. Nevertheless, those armies constitute an important factor in the defence of Australia.

The House would do well to consider whether the proposals of the Government constitute a defence programme for Australia, or have been dictated by imperialist interests. It is no use denying that Great Britain has other interests besides the defence of its own shores. British capitalists have invested money, not only in those portions of the world over which the Union Jack flies, but also in practically every other country. Britain is prepared to engage in war to defend those investments whereever they exist. The newspapers recently have contained a good deal concerning the oil fields of Mexico. Many of the disturbances which have taken place in that country are the result of the manoeuvring of British and American capitalists to obtain control of the sources of oil supply. Wherever British interests are affected, British warships and troops will be sent, and sacrifices will be called for, in order to prevent losses on the investments of the capitalists themselves.

During this discussion other honorable gentlemen have pointed to Germany as Britain’s potential enemy, but I am of the opinion thai Great Britain is more likely to be involved in a war with Japan than with Germany. The reason for my belief is that Germany is not challenging Great Britain’s supremacy in the commercial world to the same extent as Japan is doing. Germany is attempting to build up a selfcontained nation, whereas Japan is under the necessity to extend its territory in order to obtain raw materials for its industries and markets for its manufactured goods. Japan must add to its territory or perish as a capitalist power. When Japan set out to obtain additional territory on the mainland of Asia, it immediately challenged British commercial interests” in the East. Newspaper reports have informed us of the way in which the Japanese authorities have interfered with British commerce on the Yang- tse Kiang River, and elsewhere in China. Because Great Britain values its investments in the East, there is a possibility of conflict. The whole defence programme of the Government is based upon the possibility of Great Britain being called upon at some time in the future to defend its interests, if not its possessions, against Japanese aggression.

The schedule to the bill sets out that £20,000 is to be expended upon defence works at Darwin. Can any of the military experts sitting behind the Government tell the House in what way the strengthening of the defences at Darwin can affect the defence of Australia? We were told some time ago that the Singa- pore Base was designed as & means of protecting Australia, but, in my opinion, its construction was due to a desire to protect, not so much Australia, but Great Britain’s possessions and interests in the East. Singapore is far off the track that would be taken by any Japanese force setting out to attack Australia. Why should such a force go thousands of miles to the west to attack Singapore and risk defeat when it could come along a more direct route to the north coast of Queensland, and land, say, in the vicinity of Rockhampton, where there is only one single railway track connecting that part of the continent with the larger centres of population further south? If the Japanese intended to attack Australia they would make for some portion of the Queensland coast, and not travel thousands of miles out of their way to attack Singapore. Mr. Winston Churchill said recently that the Singapore base was no menace to Japan because of its great distance from that country. Honorable members may not be aware that Singapore is as far from J apan as Portsmouth is from .New York. My point is that if Singapore is no menace to Japan because of its situation, it cannot provide any adequate protection for Sydney, the greatest city of the Commonwealth, which is 1,000 miles further from Singapore than Singapore is from Japan. As I have said, the strengthening of the defences of Darwin will not make Australia’s position any more secure. If, for instance, the Japanese desired to attack Australia, why should they worry about Darwin ? Even if a Japanese force landed there it would have to travel ‘hundreds of miles, some of the distance over rough and desert country, without the assistance of roads or railways to reach the centres of population. The reason for the proposed expenditure mt Darwin is that it is desired to establish an auxiliary base there, so that, in the event of the British Fleet being driven from Singapore, it would have another base to retire to in order that it might continue to defend Britain’s possessions in the East.

When, during .the recent election campaign, the Labour party was charged with advocating a policy of isolation, its sup- porters pointed out that if other countries, as well as Australia, were to place in power Labour governments which would genuinely support a policy of peace, a Labour government in Australia would co-operate with them in preserving world peace. Honorable members speak of collective security among nations, but such a thing has never existed in the world. There can be no collective security under the capitalist system, because capitalist countries will co-operate only so long as co-operation serves their own purposes. That is true also of unilateral treaties and arrangements between, nations. The pact which has just been entered into between Great Britain and Italy will be of no value whatever if Mussolini chooses to say that the interests of Italy will be better served by departing from it, or vice versa. That is true of every treaty made between imperialist powers. Now we are told that it is necessary for us to shoulder additional burdens against some unnamed foe. At this stage we are unable to say from what quarter aggression is expected, because the Government has not yet made available to members of this Parliament any detailed information regarding the danger which it says confronts Australia. Appearances suggest that Australia is not in any real immediate danger of attack from overseas. The Labour party believes in the adequate defence of Australia. There has been some discussion as to the meaning of the term “ adequate defence “. In the opinion of the Labour party, the first step towards the adequate defence of any country is to provide its people with, something worth defending. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) spoke of the conditions which prevail in certain industries which are likely to make enormous profits out of the defence programme, and suggested that that was a sufficient justification for those workers being called upon to risk their lives in the defence of Australia and its industries.

Sitting suspended from6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr.WARD. - The Minister . quoted certain awards in an endeavour to prove that the workers were receiving more than in 1925, the year referred to by the honorable member for . Werriwa. The fact is, however, that the Broken Hill Pro- rietary Company, Limited, or its subsidiary, the Australian Iron and Steel Company, engages men for a few days, and then discharges them so that they may go back to the ranks of unemployed. Their earnings over a period of twelve months are, as a consequence, very low. The Minister for Defence has been going around the country making foolish statements regarding the attitude of private firms towards the manufacture of armaments for the Government. According to a statement published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 17th March last, he stated - .

All chambers of manufactures had guaranteed their wholehearted co-operation in any capacity without profit.

In the same newspaper, dated the 29th March, the Ministeris reported as follows -

page 623

QUESTION

PROFITS NOT CONSIDERED

Mb. Thorby’s Praise

The Minister for Defence, Mr. Thorby, said yesterday, that themaking of profits had not even been considered by manufacturing firms which had undertaken to co-operate with the Government in its new defence scheme. The manufacturers, said Mr. Thorby, had displayed an excellent spirit in their desire to help the Government. They had undertaken to bear the cost of installing any additional machinery or of altering or adding to their factories to make them suitable for any requirements of the Defence Department, and they had shown no desire to make any profits. The manufacturers regarded their co-operation with the Government in the defence of the country as a form of insurance.

Evidently, that opinion is not shared by the Prime Minister, who, in the issue of the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date, was reported thus -

Mr. Lyons also declared that there was no basis for suggestions that large profits would be made from munition making. “ I am confident “, he said, “ that no Australian company will seek to make more than reasonable profits, but, if any action were necessary, the Government would not hesitate to take it.”

We know that the armament ring has made very considerable profits out of the British Government’s re-armament programme; that is proved by the following figures -

The profits of the Vickers Group for 1937, amounted to £2,020,000 sterling, Vickers Armstrong £1,985,000, and the English Steel Corporation £1,317,000. The dividends were 10 per cent, on ordinary Vickers, and 20 per cent, on deferred ordinary English steel.

Those are the revealed profits, but if the watered stock were taken into account, the profits would be exorbitant. Of course, the same thing applies to the Australian wing of the armament trust. Very shortly after the declaration of the Prime Minister that action would be taken to control excessive profit making out of. arms manufactured in Australia, the Australian Iron and Steel Company proposed to increase its capital by £2,000,000. It is not intended to invite the public to subscribe this capital; it is merely to be handed over to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, Limited, which already controls the Australian Iron and Steel Company. In effect, the nominal capital of the company is to be increased by this amount, so that the enormous profits the company is making will not be apparent to the public. The Government has not indicated that it intends to take any action in this regard.

Mr.WARD. - Of course, we know that this Government has always been reticentregarding the activities of wealthy interests in Australia in exploiting the general community. The Treasurer has earned a reputation for the manner in which he has used his position to protect wealthy interests. We all recollect the time when he used his official influence to suspend the operation of certain Commonwealth legislation so that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company might complete the distribution of £1,000,000 of bonus capital before the coming into operation of certain taxation provisions.

Mr WARD:

– Those facts have been established on the floor of this House. My only regret is that the workers do not recognize that their worst enemies are not outside Australia, but within it. If the Australian workers, and those of other lands, could only realize that they stand no chance of benefiting by any imperialist war, the prospects for peace would be brighter. The fate of the workers in all wars is to be sacrificed and exploited, and the only point for speculation is whether they are likely to be exploited under one form of Imperialism more than under another. It is quite clear that in the coming war we shall be told that we must fight to defend democracy. Does any one really imagine that democracy ever existed in this country? The Government has attempted to prevent the entry into Australia of a British subject without a definite charge being preferred or an adequate inquiry being held, and a former Minister is now sitting on the back benches because of public resentment against this encroachment on the liberty of the subject. Now the Government proposes to restrict free speech. It has been decided that before any comment can be made over the radio regarding international affairs, the subject-matter of the discourse must be submitted to Government officials so that they may examine it to see whether, according to them, it is accurate or otherwise. Legislation has been enacted by anti-Labour Governments restricting the right of assembly. Notwithstanding all “ these restrictive measures, honorable members opposite . talk about the need for defending democracy. When we pronounce that word we should put the emphasis on the “moc” because it is only mock democracy that exists in “Australia or anywhere else in the British Empire. The workers should remember that what the Government is proposing is not a defence policy, but a war policy. The Government knows quite well that once the country embarks upon this plan it will be headed for war. The only thing not yet disclosed is the country we are to fight, and the date upon which the war is to start. The armament race which took place in Europe before 1914 inevitably led to the Great War, and the present armament race will as inevitably lead, to another war. The Australian people will have to pay, yet the swashbucklers on the other side of the House-

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member must not make offensive personal remarks. They are disorderly.

Mr WARD:

– Not only are honorable members opposite prepared to involve the country in heavy expenditure, and place a crushing burden on posterity, but they, and the Government are anxious, as soon as they advance their schemes sufficiently, to impose conscription for overseas service. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) said that he was in favour of universal military training but not in favour of conscription. What is the difference? What is universal training but a preparation for conscription for the next war? Then, when war comes, the prepared cannon fodder will be already here. Let us examine the sincerity of the patriots who support the Government. It is proposed to expend a sum of £43,000,000 on armaments over a period, but an answer to a question in this House by a Labour member revealed that so far voluntary contributions towards the defence fund amounted to the enormous sum of £1,700. That is what the wealthy interests have been prepared to give without interest or payment, but when it is proposed to float a defence loan of £10,300,000, these super-patriots are not prepared even to subscribe to the loan at par. They must receive a discount, and the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has stated that £300,000 is to be allocated for this purpose.

Mr Casey:

– The honorable member would twist the Bible if he got a chance. The truth is not in him.

Mr WARD:

– Surely the Government does not expect the workers to do the fighting and pay for the war as well. They have been bled white to pay for the lastwar. I agree with the statement of Archbishop Mannix during the Great War when he said “ Stop the profits, and you stop the war “. There is no doubt that the next war also will be a war for profits. So long as profits, can be earned, or require protection, the war will go on. There is growing up in Australia an important financial group that is anxious for the Government to proceed with its war plans. Have honorable members forgotten the inquiry of a League of Nations committee into the manufacture of armaments by private firms? It was an inquiry, not by a Labour organization, but by a special committee of the League of Nations, and this is what it found -

That armament firms have -

Been active in fomenting war scares, and in persuading their own countries to adopt war-like policies.

Attempted to bribe Government officials both at home and abroad.

Disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programmes of various countries in order to stimulate armament expenditure.

Sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.

Organized international armament rings through which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.

Organized armament trusts by whichthey have increased the price of armaments to governments.

Those are the findings of the committee appointed by the League of Nations. Has this Government or the British Government ever attempted to control the private manufacture of armaments and take the profits out of the promotion of wars? If wewere able to examine the position with respect to the Government’s initial loan programme, under which it proposes to raise a loan of £10,300,000, we should probably find that from £500,000 to £1,000,000 would represent profits to be derived by those interested in the manufacture of armaments.

The Government is deliberately attempting to create a state of war hysteria and panic. It is hoping to be able to inflame the populace with the idea that we are immediately menaced by aggression from some overseas power. Let the Government name the overseas power which is menacing this country. The best contribution the Australian Parliament could make to the preservation of peace would be by saying in no unmistakable terms that if British imperialists arc prepared to go to war in order to protect investments in any part of the globe, it will be their own affair and they cannot depend upon our assistance. What happened in 1922, when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister of England, and the British Government was faced with the possibility of entering into conflict with Turkey? I refer to what is known as the Chanak incident. On that occasion the British Government communicated with the governments of the various dominions asking what measure of support the dominions were prepared to give to Great Britain in the event of that country renewing hostilities , with Turkey. The Dominion of Canada replied emphatically that it was not prepared to give any assistance, while the Commonwealth of Australia stated that it was prepared to render assistance only if absolutely necessary. As a result of the unfavorable- replies received from the respective dominions, war was not declared on Turkey; instead, peace talks took place and terms of settlement were arrived at. The Australian Government together with the governments of other dominions were, on that occasion, able to prevent this country and other portions of the British Commonwealth of Nations from being again involved in war. People living under decent conditions have no incentive to enter upon a war of aggression, but wherever capitalism is the system of government, or controls the economic working of the country, war cannot, be prevented, because capitalism cannot solve its difficulties by any other means. The workers must be told that if they wish to avoid being involved in the sacrifice of life in a war and in the sharing of the financial burdens that would follow, there is only one course open to them - to use every endeavour to abolish capitalism wherever it may be found. That is the only logical contribution towards peace that the workers in any land can make.

There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer. During the last election campaign, although the war plans of the Commonwealth Government were then known to a favored few of the Ministers many government supporters told the Australian public from the platforms that they were not favorable to the introduction of conscription for overseas service. The Prime Minister himself stated that the Government had no power to impose conscription without first referring the question to the people. But I have here a statement made by the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes) at Chatswood on the 20th October, 1937. He said -

Lang says that next time there will be no referendum. Conscription will be enforced by proclamation. This is a wicked as well as an utterly baseless statement. Have the people of Australia forgotten the world war? 1 could have enforced conscription by proclamation then. Nothing would have been easier.

I would point out that the constitutional position in that respect is no different to-day from what it was during the Great War. Therefore, if the Government is of the opinion that conscription for overseas service should not be imposed in this country until the people have been given an opportunity to express their views on the question, why has it not taken the necessary steps to amend the Constitution by providing for that protection of the people’s rights? The Government is not sincere. A referendum was held in 1916 and again in 1917, not because the “Nationalist winthewar Government “ desired to give the people an opportunity of voting upon the question, but ‘because it was powerless to give effect to conscription by any other method. In those days, there was a division in the ranks of the Labour movement; many members of that party in this House “ ratted “ and assisted to form a Nationalist government. There was also a division in the ranks of Labour senators. Although a number of them were prepared to support a referendum, they were not willing to go so far as to vote for outright conscription without referring the matter to the country. If the Nationalist Government had had a majority in both Houses in favour of direct imposition of conscription in those days, it would have imposed conscription without referring the question to the people, just as the present Government would if it had a majority in both chambers and an outbreak of war occurred.

These are the dangers which confront the Australian people. I am hopeful that Australians will, as a result of their own efforts, prevent themselves from being pitch-forked into an imperialist war, and that we shall endeavour to preserve friendly relations with our neighbours. I trust that the people will not be induced to support provocative actions by the Government in an effort to create an unfriendly atmosphere amongst the nations in the Pacific. That is the only way to prevent Australia from becoming involved in another world war. During the last few years, this country has endured the pretence of having an Australian government. The position, however, is that the present Commonwealth Government is a puppet of British Imperialists and does what it is told. That is why ‘we see members- of the Government continually tripping abroad ; they go to receive instructions from the Imperialists in Great Britain. - Instead of submitting to Parliament statements care- fully prepared for public consumption with respect to happenings at Imperial Conferences, the Prime Minister should tell us as well what happens behind closed doors.

I conclude by saying that, as a Labour representative, I shall do whatever I can to prevent Australia from becoming involved in another world war. I shall endeavour by word of mouth and by any other means to prevent the sacrifice of Australian lives in an imperialistic war for the protection of investments in any part of the world. At the same time, I shall support the Labour party’s policy of adequately defending this country, not to protect the privileged few who live in ease and luxury on the unearned increment produced by the sweat of others, but in order that some day we may have the opportunity to bring about a state of social justice under which all the people shall enjoy decent conditions. Then there will be no need for patriotic speeches to stimulate recruiting. If the people obtain social justice there- will be no occasion to make appeals to them to prepare to meet any possible aggressor.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Flinders

.- In debating the bill it is, I think, quite unnecessary to enter into a controversy upon the respective defence creeds of the Government and the Opposition, because although there is definitely a major difference between the two policies as they have been enunciated, I consider that the implementation of those policies under present world conditions requires .the taking of identical steps in each case. The major difference to which I refer lies in the fact that the Government pins its faith to defence in co-operation with the rest of the British Empire, whereas the theory of the Opposition is that co-operation would be unwise and that our whole duty is to provide entirely for a self-contained defence. But however earnestly we pursue either of those policies, the steps to be taken to implement either would be identical. If we were to ask the other portions of the Empire to suggest what we’ should do in co-operation with them, I feel sure they would propose that we should take exactly the same steps as we would take if we concentrated solely upon the defence of Australia - as though we were outside the British Empire altogether.

In the circumstances, I desire to refer to only one or two major items in the defence programme now before the House, but before doing so I should like to congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) upon the splendid efforts he has made to get in touch with the four departments he administers and to coordinate the efforts of those departments upon a sound basis. The job of keeping in personal contact with those departments in normal times is, I feel, a very big one, but to cope with the expansion now taking place and to co-ordinate the work of the respective departments is a most difficult undertaking. The Minister, however, has set about it in a most workmanlike manner. If one discusses with him any aspect of defence in which he happens to be particularly interested, he cannot help being impressed by the Minister’s grasp of the position. During the last two or three weeks he has been subjected to a considerable amount of unfair and uninformed criticism. He has, for example, been criticized because the Royal Australian Air Force is not equipped to-day with what are considered to be really first line aircraft. Any one who has gone into the problem of obtaining up-to-date aircraft in Australia cannot but realize that it would have been impossible for either the Air Board or the Minister to do more than has been done, to obtain efficient aircraft for the Air Force. Even before the most intense portion of the British re-armament programme was embarked upon, the Air Board had the greatest difficulty in obtaining reasonably up-to-date machines for Australia, and as a result of the feverish efforts made during the last year to meet Great Britain’s requirements, it has been quite impossible to obtain the machines desired. The provision of Avro-Anson aircraft, our most modern machines, represents a considerable achievement on the part of the authorities, and shows that the British Government realizes the importance of the efforts we are making to arm ourselves efficiently. But even though Avro-Anson machines are of a modern type, they are probably more useful for training the crews of bombers than for use as high-speed bombers themselves. As training machines they are first class. I have had many opportunities of seeing the Royal Australian Air Force at work, apart altogether from ceremonial occasions such as the very impressive air pageants which have recently been held, and which I think were masterpieces of organization and efficiency. I have also had the privilege during the last couple of years of witnessing the work of the Royal Air Force, and 1 would say that the organization and standard of efficiency displayed by the Royal Australian Air Force during the recent displays do not suffer in any way by comparison with those of the former body. Having often made unexpected arrivals in fogs at air force aerodromes, I have met and seen mechanics of all ranks at their work. I have been astonished and delighted at the splendid type of personnel in the Royal Australian Air Force. I also had an opportunity, while Air ViceMarshal Nicholl was in this country on exchange duty, of seeing a great deal of him. I do not think I am betraying private conversations when I say that he was delighted with the standard of efficiency that he had found in all ranks. He once brought to my home pictures that he had taken of the Royal Australian Air Force, both in the air and on the ground, and I said “ They will be wonderful propaganda if you show them, in England. He replied, “ Yes, that is why I took them. I am sure that they will astonish people there.” I think that the Minister, and Air Board, for a considerable time before the present Minister took charge, have taken every step in their power to modernize the Air Force, and the establishment of the aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend was one of the most statesmanlike things done in Australia for many years. I have had the opportunity of seeing that factory and, although I am not an expert on the technical side, I am quite convinced it is one of the most (modern aircraft factories in the world. Thanks to it, I am certain that our general purpose aircraft within eighteen months from now will be up to first-class standard, and we shall have available adequate reserves and the ability to maintain those reserves in the event of war.

Another matter in respect of which the Government, particularly the Minister for Defence, has been criticised, is the proposed appointment of an inspectorgeneral from overseas. I welcome that appointment, not only for the reason advanced by the Minister, namely, that he wants a critic and an adviser who has up-to-the-minute knowledge of what has been done in other countries to modernize defences, but also because I am sure from my observations of other forces, that we cannot have too great an exchange of senior officers between the services of Australia and the United Kingdom. The Royal Australian Navy, although email, in efficiency and in modernity and preparedness will compare with the ships of any navy in the world. Not only can we boast that an Australian cruiser is equal in efficiency to a cruiser of the Royal Navy, but also we have the proud recollection that on every occasion when our cruisers have taken part in gunnery and. other competitions with other naval squadrons of the Empire, they have held their own, and, at times, have even been victorious over all rivals. The efficiency to which our navy has been developed is due not only to the exchange of junior officers and to the fact that we have continually sent our senior officers overseas to keep them up-to-date, but also to the fact that continually senior officers from Great Britain have come out here on exchange. In the Royal Australian Air Force, we have profited a great deal from the visit to Australia of Air Vice-Marshall Nicholl and the experience gained abroad by Air Vice-Marshall Williams and Air Commodore Goble, who have served for periods of up to two years in high commands in the United Kingdom. One of the faults of our defence organization of late years has been that our senior officers in the military forces have not had the same opportunities. Although all senior officers have gone through the Imperial Staff College and had other opportunities when comparatively junior to gain experience overseas, I do not think that any senior officers have been abroad for several years, certainly not since the mechanisation and modernization of the military arm in the United Kingdom. Therefore, far from being criticized, the Minister for Defence should be applauded for having decided to appoint an inspector-general from overseas. His action does not suggest that our senior officers are not capable of filling any position; it means that just at the moment we have no senior officer who has been overseas to observe modern military methods. I hope a corollary to the appointment, for a period, of an inspector-general from overseas> will be the sending of our most senior officers abroad in order’ to equip them with up-to-date military information. It is one thing to read about modern methods and another to see them being carried out and to converse with those who operate them.

One of the things that is exercising the minds of our people and the members of this House, is ‘the desirability or otherwise of introducing some form of national service to put our land forces on a more satisfactory basis than they occupy to-day. I am of the opinion that something more effective should be done to train our man-power than is being done. The Government must come to the introduction of some form of national service, which, quite apart from its defence value, hae virtues on the physical and civic sides. From the defence aspect alone, it is, I think, necessary. We need something far more concentrated than the form of national service that we had previously. There was a virtue in the former system of national service, in that it trained a considerable number of officers and’ men to handle troops, but its virtue in actually making soldiers was not very great. I do not think that having a man in camp for a fortnight or for twelve Saturday afternoons, when he would prefer to be at a football or cricket match makes him much of a soldier. Any national service that we introduce should be more concentrated than that. The men should be in camp at a. time when it will least interfere with their future civil life; continuous service for six months with occasional refresher camps would be more valuable than many years of Saturday afternoon drills. I feel that we CoUld have a larger force than the militia provides, probably 40,000 or 50,000 men of good physique, who had been given an opportunity really to equip themselves as soldiers.

The next point on which I feel that our defence proposals fall short of what is requisite to meet the immediate situation, is that there is no provision of any force to defend Australia’s first line, where we shall have to meet the invader. Most people who have discussed defence seem to visualize an invasion of Australia at one fell swoop- a foreign force suddenly arriving off our coast with a tremendous fleet and landing 100,000 troops, and sending aircraft in hundreds to bomb om cities. Well, when that stage ia reached we shall have lost the war ; if we are ever in a situation when any Asiatic power in great numbers can send ships to land an army on our coasts we shall be unable to defend ourselves, although we would put up a gallant fight. We must endeavour to ensure that ‘it is impossible for any country to bring down on this land au invading force, and it is quite possible for us to do that in cooperation with the rest of the British Empire. Australia is greatly handicapped in many ways by its distance from the rest of the world, but that distance is of inestimable value from the defence point of view. No country - not even an Asiatic country, which would be the nearest possible invader of Australia - could afford to send an army to sea in transports, protected even by a great fleet, without securing its lines of communication. Therefore, our first line of defence is a base on which we could concentrate naval and air forces that could harry the lines of communication of the potential invader. Our first line of defence - and this is a fact which most, people seem frightened to mention - is Singapore. To that base we have contributed not one single penny, although our sister Dominion, New Zealand - a considerably less wealthy country than Australia- has contributed a £1,000,000. If the United Kingdom became engaged in war in Europe, the first action that Australia would have to take for its own security, or to aid the United Kingdom, would be to give some assistance in the defence of Singapore, so that the embarrassment of the mother country in Europe might not be taken as an opportunity for the first stage of the invasion of Australia. Our great danger, with the United Kingdom certainly unable to reinforce and probably unable to maintain its garrison in Singapore, would be that some Asiatic power would choose that moment to remove that potential menace to its lines of communication if it should make some move to the south. I feel, therefore, that we should have some force kept on a war footing - it would necessarily be a volunteer force because even if we had national training, it would not allow of trainees being sent overseas - that could make secure our first line of defence.If that first line of defence should fall - I feel it is unlikely to fall if we cooperate with New Zealand, India, and whatever forces the United Kingdom can spare - we would still need some force capable of preventing the setting up of enemy bases in the islands to the north which would be the next steps of an enemy planning the invasion of Australia. Therefore, I urge the Government - whether it does or does not introduce compulsory military service - to provide a land force which can be sent wherever the security of Australia is menaced.

I have already said something concerning the excellent training received by the members of the Royal Australian Air Force, but I should now like to refer to one very obvious deficiency in the present training of pilots, and that is ‘ in connexion, with cross-country flying. The members of tho Royal Australian Air Force are very keen, and in manoeuvres and aerobatics, are equal to airmen to be found elsewhere, but in the past sufficient money has not been available to train them in long-distance cross country flights. Unless they are able effectively to carry out flights to any part of Australia at a moment’s notice, it is almost useless to have an air force at all. A rowing coach once laid down the maxim that the only way to learn how to race is by racing. I should like to point out to the (government that the only way in which our men can learn to fly across country is by cross-country flights. Whatever the cost of giving our men this experience -the cost in money, machines, and, even human life - it must be borne in order to avert much greater disasters later. It does not matter how good pilots are, and how much they have learned about flying, they must be able to find their way across country. Unless they have had adequate experience, the great majority of our men will be unable to do it. I suggest to the Minister for Defence, as I have on previous ocacsions, and to the people of Australia, that it would be a good idea to give our air force officers who have had complete aerodrome and theoretical training some experience as assistant pilots on our commercial air routes. Some will say that that would throw a number of pilots out of work. That is not the proposal. We should realize that in time of war, airline pilots will be called upon to play their part. Excellent as they are as airline pilots, they have no knowledge of the very intricate training needed by military pilots. Our air-line pilots could be given periods of training in the Royal Austraiian Air Force, while air force officers could act as assistant pilots along our air routes, transferring from one route to another until they had experience of all. In these circumstances we would have a considerable number of pilots in our air force who would know intimately every one of the major air routes they may have to travel in time of war. My endeavour this evening has been to make constructive comments and answer unfair criticism. The principal points I emphasize are : First, that there is no provision for a- substantial land force to be made available at a moment’s notice wherever Australia’s interests may be menaced; and, secondly, we must be propared for a very heavy expenditure of money in order to enable our air force pilots to be able to find .their way over this continent. There has been a good deal of concern about the accidents that have taken place in cross-country flights, some of which occurred under very difficult conditions, but it would be reassuring to the people of Australia ‘ if the Minister for Defence obtained from those countries where statistics are available the casualties in other air forces. I venture to suggest that the casualties that have taken place in training during the existence of the Royal Australian Air Force are probably lighter than those in most other air forces in the world. Notwithstanding the regrettable accidents that happen, sometimes with fatal results, the number has been as low as we can expect. That does not mean that they should not be guarded against in every possible way.

Mr Beasley:

– Would not the comparison need to be based on flying hours?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Yes.I have had some personal experience in the matter of training, and I consider that on a basis of flying hours, our casualties would compare favorably with casualties that have occurred in air forces in other countries.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- The bill, the second reading of which is before the House, is to authorize the raising of £10,000,000 for defence purposes. It is right that the proposal should not come before us as an amendment of the Defence Act, and that its outstanding character as a loan bill should be made evident in its title. We are living in times of wars and rumors of wars. At present it is true that rumors are quoted at a higher rate on the stock exchange than wars. Every time something expected or unexpected occurs, a more than ordinarily violent onset, of the jitters is induced. There are loud shrieks from various governments to double, treble, or even quadruple their defence votes. The consequence is that more and more money is poured into the insatiable maw of the Defence Department, with the result that the more that is poured in, the more evident it becomes that the sum, however great, is insufficient. In this connexion, I recall Tennyson’s lines -

Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’

Gleam’s that untravell’d world whose margin fades

For ever and for ever when I move.

Thus it comes about that Great Britain’s £1,500,000,000 for defence to cover a period of three years, which staggered all sane observers in 1936, is to be increased in 1938 out of all proportion to the changes that are alleged to have taken place in G reat Britainor in Eur ope. The extravagant provision which the Commonwealth Government asked this Parliament to accept on behalf of Australia a few months ago is to-day, by means of extravagance, piled upon extravagance, to be multiplied in the rough by three. For this extraordinary and hysterical development no reasons are given. We are left to assume the reason, from what is called the changed situation in Europe. There is no doubt that the position in Europe and in the world generally has changed. It has changed perhaps strikingly in the last few months, and certainly within the last few years. It has changed notably since a world war was fought for four tragic horrible years to make the world safe for democracy. It has changed since we fought through that dismal, terrible and fruitless period in order that we might in the end have fought a war to end war. No doubt it is a far cry back to the Treaty of Versailles, but to that period can be traced the situation as we find it to-day. That was a period of exposed secret treaties, when we were falsely told that we were not engaged in the war to secure one inch of additional territory. It was a period in which we were building up material for the work of an eminent Englishman, Mr. Ponsonby, which- might be described as a book of conventional lies used for the purpose of starting and continuing war. Let me not be accused, as I sometimes am by minor critics animated by personal animosity, of making charges against Britain or its allies in contradistinction to those countries which at that time were our enemies. There is room to accommodate them all in the same boat, and I do so cheerfully. In connexion with a defence measure, the question arises of why capitalism is always on the war-making side. I acquit this Government of being a conscious war maker. I merely accuse it of being a marionette. As the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) said in an eloquent speech, it is merely a puppet of the British Government. Just as this Government switched on the collective security and took the high road for war with Mr. Eden, so, at a moment’s notice, without reason or explanation, it has switched back and taken the high road of more conventional imperialism with Mr. Chamberlain - without, I say, any satisfactory explanation. Its movements are automatic rather than intelligent.

Its music is piping in low tones, but without tune. For example, it Speaks of

Australia being a nation. It has declared so and has intimated its intention, at no distant date, to introduce a bill to ratify certain clauses of that statute passed so graciously by the British Parliament at the request of this Parliament, but which this Government, though representing a nation, will not ratify to-day or tomorrow, or next year, and has not ratified during the last seven years. But still Australia, in its view, for election purposes, and in certain company, is always to be regarded as a nation 1 Australia is a nation, but not, it must be understood, in the minds of these diffident imperialists, a nation capable of sustaining the responsibility to defend itself. It is a leaning nation, dependent upon the Mother Country - always a full-blooded, strutting nation so far as the members of this Government are concerned, when they are invited to tour abroad ,or to tour in Australia, hut never a nation when asked to shoulder a gun or accept the responsibility of nationhood by repelling an enemy from its shores.

It is a nation, too, without a foreign policy. The nearest approach the members of the Government have ever made to a foreign policy was when the Treasurer was, at one period of his life, appointed a liasion officer and passed as a superior uniformed messenger between Downing-street and Australia House to carry tales from one centre to the other, imagining himself to be, by virtue of that office specially created for him by his friend the Prime Minister of the day, a leading imperial Australian statesman and diplomat. However, from that day to this, he has never been guilty of a thoroughbred Australian thought on any political subject whatsoever.

We are a nation in the eyes of this Government, but without any place in international law. We have, nowhere, any diplomatic representative. We are not invited to exercise the power to make treaties except minor business engagements which are usually, under this Government, made to our disadvantage. In short, therefore, we are a nation for very shame, because the British Government made us so by an act of parliament which it passed at the request of an Australian Labour government.

What I have said describes, as the culmination of our national status, the method by which our nationhood is exercised and administered so unworthily by those who, if I may say so, compose this craven Government.

Mr Lane:

– None of the boys laughed at that remark!

Mr BRENNAN:

– My honorable friend, merely because he cannot see a joke when it is made, should take care not to make jest of serious subjects. The Government makes the Commonwealth of Australia a nation comparable to >a small boy in his father’s breeches - small and very ridiculous.

The question still remains “ Why do capitalist governments pile up arms? “ I shall endeavour to supply, as germane to this question of defence, a few reasons why this is done. The reason usually given for nations piling up arms in this insane race is that each desires to be stronger than the other. Inasmuch as this is impossible and absurd, it might be expected that it would ultimately bring confusion upon the thinking men in this Government - if there are any. But they are quite undaunted, for this is not the real reason at all. There are other reasons.

War is invariably represented as a tragic and sudden emergency. It is generally tragic ; it is certainly not often sudden. Why there should be surprise that that happens for which preparations have been consistently made is entirely beyond me. Be it a holocaust or a house party, people usually expect the thing for which they prepare to take place. Therefore, I see no reason for surprise at a war afflicting this country in a comparatively short time, seeing that such urgent preparations are being made by this Government for the holocaust which it professes to foresee.

The effect of a declaration of war - and indeed. war preparations is that agitation and education are immediately stifled in the working class. This is a great achievement on the part of capitalism to make the workers docile. Immediately, in such circumstances, are introduced such convenient weapons as war precautions legislation, censorship, internment camps and others in secret and without regard to either the law or justice of the case. These are the methods by which the working classes of this and every other country are dragooned into silence ; the methods by which the masses Of Germany and Italy, and, to a minor degree of Britain itself, are dragooned into silence by Governments which in one way or another oppress them and reduce them to obedience.

Moreover, large numbers of workers are unhappily bribed by security of employment at comparatively high wages to prepare weapons to’ slay their fellow workers in other countries. No occupation under capitalism gives such security of tenure or such high wages as that of preparing for the slaughter of one’s fellow men.

Again, every country produces its new batch of profiteers in war time.- This is a very important consideration for capitalism, and is another reason why capitalism is always ranged with the war makers. These are the. loud-mouthed, fireside patriots who helped to keep the last war going, and who will help to make the next war and keep it going. They are not only the armament makers, whose vile seed is being sown in this country by this Government for harvest in due course; nor are they only those who provide raw materials for the armament makers for the same insidious and deadly purpose. The war maker, to give him his due, is a good gambler and plays for high stakes. Instead of the prosecution in a police court, which he deserves, he will most probably enjoy, in due course, the honor of a title or some distinction of that kind. He becomes noted as a philanthropist because, out of the millions he makes’ in profits, he hands back a small percentage in the name of charity. This secures for him a reputation as the best of good fellows, the presidency of the local club, and, ultimately, a sure seat in Parliament for the rest of his honored life.

The present bill is, as I have said, significantly a loan bill. It is not an amending defence bill. Its purpose is to provide a substantial income, not for the speculative profiteer in this case, but for the sober investor who can be relied upon as being upon the side of the Government and its fellow war makers. This investor, though less blatant than his brother, is an equally reliable ally in the last extremity.

Then it has to be borne in mind that the younger generation since the last war has had time to grow. Cheated of its natural inheritance, this generation has inherited a crop of the dragon’s teeth of war. What is to be done with this rising generation? Some provision is being made for it in this’ bill, and further provision is in course of being made for it by this Government in the party room. The older members of the new generation will be invited to enlist. They will probably agree to do so, for the deadliness of idleness in a great country, and poverty in the home, of which they should be the main support, are intolerable to’ thenatural instincts of Australians in their own country. So men will probably be persuaded to enlist. The younger lads will, in the name of compulsory military training, be congregated into camps and interested and instructed in the noble art of slaying. But I point out that the great trouble is that the technique, of killing changes from day to day. The diploma acquired in a few months for skill in this art may be found to be utterly useless in another year by reason of the vastly changed conditions apply-., ing to the noble art.

There is nothing in the European situation, as it is called, or, for that matter, in the Asiatic situation, to justify this bill. This whole policy is an outburst of a kind of hysteria on the part of the Government. Hysteria is not quite the word to use, for it is more a calculated panic stimulated by interested parties. Still, the word, hysteria will do at the moment. What has occurred in Europe or in Asia to justify such a vital change as has taken place in the defence policy of Australia? Germany has, as everybody has expected for many months past, moved up into Austria, or down into Austria, as the case may be. But no excitement arose about the inevitable and the obvious until it actually occurred. In like manner Japan, as everybody expected, began to move southwards into China, but there was no excitement about it until the expected had happened. Our special horror, the invasion of Abyssinia, is so many months old as to have been almost forgotten, and our anxiety in regard to it is greatly mitigated by the fact that at an early date brothers Chamberlain and Mussolini will be moving together for the purpose of having the King of Italy designated Emperor of Abyssinia. Recognizing, perhaps, that there is no wide difference separating Great Britain from Germany or Italy, Mr. Chamberlain is making very good friends, and I commend him for it, with representative statesmen in Italy, and later a similar move is to follow - in fact it is now in progress - in respect of Germany. Bur although it is not my purpose, or practice, to criticize, either favorably or adversely, the operations of a friendly government such as that of Great Britain, I cannot for one reason, and it is a very good one, withhold a word of praise from Mr. Chamberlain in respect of his speech upon defence delivered in the House of Commons on the 7th March last. I call attention to some points about that speech, more particularly for the purpose of rivetting attention upon the pusillanimous attitude of the Prime Minister of this country in respect of the defence of Australia. Let me remind the House of the main points stated by the British Prime Minister : -

Our main strength lies in the resources ot mau power, productive capacity and endurance of this country, and unless these can be maintained, not only in peace but in the early stages of war, when they wll be the subject of continuous attack, our defeat will be certain whatever might be the fate in secondary spheres elsewhere. Therefore, our first main efforts must have two main objectives: we must protect this country and we must preserve the trade routes upon which we depend for our food and raw materials.

In the forefront of British policy is a declaration by the British Prime Minister that the first consideration of Great Britain must be the lives and food supplies upon which human life in the United Kingdom depends. I commend appreciation of that clear statement of his first duty to his own people to this Government, which never seems to recognize that it has a first duty to Australia, but believes, or affects to believe, that its duty is to follow blindly the lead of a non-representative Government on the other side of the world. Continuing, Mr. Chamberlain said -

Our third objective is the defence of British territories overseas from attack, whether by sea, land -or air. I would remind the House that our position is different from that of many Continental countries in that we have the necessity at all times of maintaining garrisons overseas in naval bases and strategic points in different parts of the world. That makes it necessary for us to have available forces which can be despatched on what may be imperial police duty. In war time there would undoubtedly be substantial demand* for reinforcements to be sent to these strategic points, but, taking them in order of priority, they are not as vital as the defence of our own country, because as long as we are undefeated at home, although we sustained losses overseas we might have an opportunity of making them good hereafter.

The Prime Minister of this country, by a most extraordinary misconception of obvious facts, seems to have been under the false impression that this reference to territories overseas includes Australia and other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– He was quite right too.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Does the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) suggest that those words had any reference whatever to this dominion?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I should say that they had, unless Mr. Chamberlain was asleep.

Mr BRENNAN:

– From the context I should say that if they did they would be words conceived in impertinence and entirely inappropriate to the facts, and I would not accuse Mr. Chamberlain of such an attitude of mind. I have no hesitation whatever in reading -those plain words as referring to territories other than, and entirely different in status, from the dominions. ‘ That fact is borne out by the words which I have just quoted commencing with the phrase “I would like to remind the House that our position is different from that of many continental countries. . . .” Does the honorable gentleman suggest that the Prime Minister of Britain would speak in such terms of Australia or any other dominion - as naval bases and strategic points in which garrisons had to be maintained? He meant nothing of the sort.

The fourth object of British defence policy, as outlined by Mr. Chamberlain, was co-operation in the defence of the territory of any ally of Britain. I do not take the view that the British Prime Minister excluded all reference to the dominions as a broad hint that Britain would not be able to support Australia, or any of the other dominions, in an emergency. I take another view, and it is that the tone and verbiage of that statement is designed to make it clear that Mr. Chamberlain recognized the fact, which is implicit in the Statute of Westminster, that it is not part of his privilege, or duty, to dictate, or even make public suggestions in the House of Commons, in relation to the conduct of preparations for the defence of any one of the dominions, for that reason, in making this statement of Britain’s defence policy, he was careful, and properly so, to exclude all reference whatever to any one of the dominions and confined his observations entirely to Britain and Britain’s dependencies.

Sir Charles Marr:

– New Zealand has a naval base which Britain maintains under an arrangement with the Government of that dominion.

Mr BRENNAN:

– There may be some such arrangement, but if it exists it does not really alter the effect of what I say. I shall now quote from the April number, dated the 1st April, of Current Notes on International Affairs, compiled by the Department of External Affairs. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) seems to take this reference smilingly, but I should like to compliment the compiler of this little review on his work in reporting, as I think, accurately and in an attractive form, facts and occurrences of external affairs without expressing any opinion whatever. In this connexion it is to be noticed, as I have frequently said, that this Government never expresses an opinion upon foreign affairs; it has no opinion upon foreign affairs. Therefore I compliment the compiler of this review on providing for reference a useful record of what is taking place. I could not compliment the Prime Minister on his re-hash of this matter in a statement in another connexion, to which I am not permitted at present to refer. This review of the 1st April states -

The second part of Mr. Chamberlain’s speech left the impression in some quarters of the dominions that they would have to rely upon their own resources in time of war. As a result, the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr. Lyons), in consultation with Mr. Chamberlain, received assurances as to Great Britain’s policy, and on the 14th March he issued a statement as follows: -

Honorable members will notice that this was not a statement by Mr. Chamberlain in further explanation of his earlier statement, but was issued by the Prime Minister of Australia, and a masterpiece of evasion it is. It reads -

I have been in consultation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in connexion with some important aspects of defence raised in Mr. Chamberlain’s speech of the 8th March, particularly in regard to those portions which seemed to indicate that the protection of oversea possessions would be only the third objective of the British defence policy. As this may cause some misgiving in the minds, not only of the Australian public, but of. the people of the other dominions,I have ascertained from Mr. Chamberlain the actual position as viewed by the British Government.’

Mr. Chamberlain has pointed to the fact that what was called by him “ the first main effort “ of the British Government includes not only the protection of the Mother Country, tout also the preservation of the trade routes, which would bo carried out by the naval forces supplemented by military and air forces. …

That statement makes it perfectly obvious that the Prime Minister of Australia embarrassed the British Prime Minister by entirely misunderstanding the meaning of the speech which the latter had made, and, at the same time, reducing the standard and status of Australia below even his own, and the Government’s, mean conception of the position that this country really occupies in the scheme of things.

Mr Casey:

– Utter nonsense !

Mr BRENNAN:

– Does the Treasurer say that the reference to the territories . includes Australia?

Mr.Casey. - No; but I say that what the honorable gentleman says is utter nonsense. .

Mr BRENNAN:

– The Treasurer dare not reply to that; he is offensive, and not informative. I would say that my conception of adequate defence is that, if we were to employ, say, in round figures and subject to due analysis of them in the light of the necessity for Australia’9 adequate defence, twothirds of this proposed expenditure on the education and employment of youth, to encourage them to settle and breed the race with a new and natural impulse to protect the country in which they had been given fair conditions, if we were able to make this nation an example to others so that it would encourage, not an artificial flow of migration for the purpose of introducing persons into hectic competition with our own people in jobs of which there are not enough to go round, but a natural immigration which would enable immigrants to work side by side with our fully-employed Australians, there would be no need for this policy of defence or this policy of artificial migration. As a further measure of defence, I should he inclined to chain up .to the Australian Navy in Australian waters, subject to its being employed on special occasions, for obvious defence, a little beyond them; but I should be against any part of that Navy being employed prowling about the world as an emissary of ill will and promoting ill will between ourselves and nations with which we have no quarrel. I stand for a foreign policy of Australia responsible for its government, an Australia ready to take and accept that full responsibility, and to provide adequate defence for it.

Mr JENNINGS:
Watson

.- The bill before the House is one to authorize .the raising and expending of a sum of money in connexion with the defence policy of the Government. National defence is the most important question that could be discussed in this House to-day, because in the safety of our country lies the very lifeblood of the nation, whether pacific economic, or political. No one prefers a policy of armaments. It seems paradoxical to-day that we are forced into a policy of armaments to ensure peace. In one of the greatest instances in modern history, Britain, in order to lead the way to peace and the world to sanity, adopted the formula of disarmament; but that policy failed. If Britain had” kept to its former policy the world would not to-day be in the disastrous position in which we find- it. We find that Britain, iri order to ensure peace, has now adopted a policy of war. There is nothing jingoistic, nothing menacing to any other nation, in that. It is plain common sense. In view of the position of Australia to-day, in connexion with world events, this Government has been forced to bring down the policy now under the consideration of the Parliament. Any one who has read the speech of the Australian Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), or, indeed, read of the events that have taken place in other parts of the world, cannot ‘help but be impressed with the disturbed and dangerous position of the world to-day. Great responsibility rests upon the world’s leaders; the balance of peace or war lies in their hands. We remember what a small spark it was that set the world ablaze in 1914; the same position may easily arise to-day. If we consider- this country worth while - and is there any other country in the world to compare with it - we must take the necessary steps to prepare it against any possible aggressor. Who the aggressor may be we do not know, because history has shown that friends of to-day may be the enemies of to-morrow. We know that certain secret treaties exist; but we do not know their import; we can only draw our own conclusions. One conclusion that we can readily reach is that there are certain countries in the world which have set covetous eyes on Australia, and, unless we are prepared for all emergencies, we may wake up one day to find that our cherished ideal of a White Australia, referred to in this House to-night, is a thing of the past, a beautiful dream shattered by the blast of war. We welcome the pronouncements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) in connexion with the action we are taking to defend Australia in these troublous times. Possibly these very pronouncements, which have been broadcast to the world at large, will have the effect of ensuring our safety, and will cause those envious countries to which I have referred to turn their thoughts to peace instead of war. So far as Australia is concerned, we hope that this may be so. In that case, it may not be necessary tq carry out the full programme which has been laid down to cover a period of three years. Australia is a peace-loving country, and lias no desire to pile up armaments., which in the very nature of things are in the category of unreproductive work. The Government, we may be sure, has no desire to make our taxation burdens any heavier than they are At the same time, let us remember that any money we have to find for defence purposes is nothing but national insurance, the premium for ensuring national safety, the price of peace. The last thing that could be said of the present Government is that it is a * scare “ government, just as the last thing we would think of saying of the British Government led by Mr. Chamberlain is that it is making the greatest defence appropriation in Britain’s peace-time history for the sake of stirring up the anger of the other nations. Certainly it may be stirring up their anger, but that is because this huge expenditure is upsetting their own plans, and not because they have the slightest need to fear that Britain will use its power for aggressive purposes. When we come to consider the taxes which the people of the Old Country have to pay for these defence measures - far more per head than the Australian people are paying or will be called upon to pay - Ave have every reason to be thankful that our own burden is not heavier than it is. Doubtless it would be much heavier if we had to rely solely upon our own efforts, but fortunately we belong to a great- Empire which is a single unit in matters of defence. Therein lies our safety. To borrow a word from our friends opposite, the watch word of the Empire is “ solidarity

Let us run briefly over the policy of the Government. The enlarged defence programme as enunciated by the Prime Minister contemplates an increased expenditure, apart from the civil aviation vote, of £43,000,000 in the next three years. Of this sum £24,800,000 represents additional expenditure; so that we see that nearly one-half of the sum would have been spent in any case to put our defences in reasonable order. So far as the navy is concerned, we find that two additional cruisers of the type of the H.M.A.S. Sydney, armed with 6-in. guns, are being purchased from Great Britain. They are, in fact, already built, and it is fortunate for us that they are being made available to us. Two new sloops are to be built in Sydney. It is unnecessary to say that Ave should have liked to see, the two cruisers built in Australia if possible, but as the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hughes) used to say in the old Avar days, “ time is the essence of the contract “. As a matter of fact we want the ships here and now, and not in the dockyards either of Great Britain or Australia. It is not because Ave have not the workmen in this country to build them that we are buying ‘them from Great Britain - I believe that Australians can build anything if the need arises - it is simply because the need for them is urgent. Even if the necessary material were available in Australia, it would take a long time to build the cruisers in our dockyards, and we might not be given the time. One might say that a ship on the blue water is worth a hundred in the dockyard. These vessels must be manned, and so there is to bc an increase of 1,500 in the sea-going personnel. The naval plans also include an increase of the defences of the main ports against submarines and mine layers, and an increase of naval stores, ammunition, oil fuel and shore facilities. All this means money.

I turn now to the army. It is interesting to find that there is to be an increase of the fixed coast defences at Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Port Kembla, Melbourne, Hobart, Albany, Fremantle and Darwin. There will be an increase of permanent troops. Increases will also be made in respect of anti-aircraft defences, including personnel and extensions to the factory for the production of antiaircraft guns. Military engineering and signalling schools are to be established, and the small arms school is to be extended. There is also to be established a command and staff school for the higher training of both permanent and militia officers. All of this costs money, and for the army alone £5,500,000 is to ‘be expended.

Still greater expenditure is proposed in connexion with the air force. I am glad that the Defence authorities have revised their plans for the expansion of the air force. Many of us to-day would hesitate to say whether the navy or’ the air force should be regarded as the first line of defence for a sea-girt country like

Australia with its tremendous coastline of 12,500 miles. At all events we have had lessons enough in recent months to show the terrific damage1 that bombing planes are capable of inflicting. As a matter of fact, Spain and China : both bear witness to that. For this reason 1 am delighted to know that the Government is setting about a great air force programme which is estimated to cost no less than £8,800,000 during the next three years. It is fitting that Canberra, as the seat of Government, should figure prominently in this programme. I do not speak as an export, but from reports which have been made available it would appear that a fleet of aeroplanes at Canberra’ could command a great part of the eastern and south-eastern coastline of Australia. Moreover, the fact that the Royal Australian Military College is situated at Duntroon, within the Federal Capital area, and that there is a splendid landing ground close by, is an added reason for the development of aviation in this centre. Three aeroplane squadrons are to be established here. In addition two more squadrons are to be established on the coast of New South Wales, two at Darwin,, one at Brisbane, and one at Pearce, in Western Australia. It is pleasing to know that another flying school and the expansion of existing establishments are also part of the programme, together with the completion of the permanent air force and the necessary ground organization. But that is not all. The Government is not losing sight of the necessity for expanding the local aircraft industry, already a good start has been made in that direction. It is also proposed to continue the development of civil aviation and of air routes throughout Australia.

Recently wo have been reading of the a. i mindedness, of New Zealanders. I am 6ure we all derived . a great deal of satisfaction from statements concerning the achievements of our friends in the sister dominion, but the people- in this country are every bit as airminded. There is1 little need for me to remind honorable members of the achievements of the late Sir Charles Kingsford .Smith, the late Sir Ross Smith, Sir Keith Smith, Parer, Mcintosh, the late Bert Hinkler, and last, but’ not ‘ least, Jim Broadbent, who, but a day or two ago, broke the AustraliaEngland air record. The names of many others could be added to the gallant band of aviators whom I have mentioned who are made of the same stuff ; men of the “ Dinkum Aussie “ type, ready to dare anything and go anywhere, and knowing no such word as “ fail “. Some of them I have referred to perished in their attempts to bring glory upon themselves and their native land, but their fate has not dimmed the glory of their achievements, which laid the foundation for others to build upon. By daring great things, Australian aviators have made great things possible. We welcome this news about the airmindedness of our New Zealand friends, because New Zealanders share with Australians the glory of the Anzacs, and we are one in the defence of these southern shores- ron the seas, on the land and in the air. Nor should we forget the airmindedness of the young women of both countries. The Jean Battens of New Zealand are matched by the Nancy Birds and the Bonneys of Australia, and there is the remarkable feat of a girl aviator at Broken Hill who made her first solo ‘flight after not more than five and a half hours’ tuition.

Civil aviation has already made great strides in Australia. No country is better suited to flying, and there is to-day hardly a part of this vast continent that is not linked by air routes. The importance of this development cannot be over-estimated. Every civil pilot is a potential air force pilot, and would most assuredly be pressed into service in war time emergency. This is why we should neglect no step to encourage civil aviation. Greater facilities should be provided for our young men in flying, both in civil aviation and in the permanent air force. I know a number of fine young men who are extremely anxious to take up flying, but, unfortunately, they are barred by lack of opportunities. Some time ago one or two applied for cadetships at Point Cook, but were informed that they were two or three months over the required age. It is unwise to have such a hard and fast provision governing admission of cadets to the Air Force ; it may deprive us of some of the best material available. I understand that the age range is from 18 years to 22 years. Why a young man who is only a month or two over 22 years old should be ineligible for admission to the Air Force is beyond my comprehension. The authorities should exercise some discretion in these matters.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– What should be the age limit?

Mr JENNINGS:

– I understand that in Great Britain the authorities accept as cadets for air force training candidates ranging from 1’7-J years to 25 years. That seems to be a more reasonable arrangement.

I notice that the sum of £1,750,000 is to be set aside for modern armament, such as anti-tank guns and rifles, light tanks, armoured cars and various types of equipment required on mobilization. Our defence reserves in all types of ammunition are “to be increased and £2,800,000 is to be set aside for expenditure on government munitions factories, and the organization of industry to meet any possible demands that may he made upon it. A Bren gun factory is also to be established.

The Government’s proposal marks an important step forward in the defence of this country. The programme has been drafted following consultations at the Imperial Conference, but its extent is influenced by recent international events and Britain’s revised plans. We have been informed that the position will be reviewed continually by the Government and the Council of Defence. The programme is a flexible one, and may be increased or reduced during the next three or four years according to the trend of the international situation.

Many people are of the opinion that the system of compulsory military service, which was in operation for several years, should be reintroduced; but the Government does not favour the idea, believing that the young manhood of Australia is patriotic enough to respond to all calls made under a voluntary system. No doubt our young men will demonstrate” that the Government’s reliance upon them is fully justified. Voluntary training camps are necessary, but the opinion is held in some quarters that the time allotted for training is insufficient. If experience supports this belief, the training period should be extended, and I am quite sure that the Government will have the cordial co-operation of all employers in this policy of national insurance.

At this stage 1 should like to make one or two observations concerning the steps necessary in order to make the present system more effective. I am convinced that voluntary enlistment will be greatly assisted if the forces are made more attractive; that is, if more attention is paid- to the social and recreational side of training. Much can be done in this direction. For instance, I suggest that if better and more distinctive uniforms were provided for parade purposes, the men would become proud of their uniforms and their regiments. Experience has proved that there is no better way to build up regiments to full strength than by providing attractive uniforms for ceremonial parades. The Scottish regiment in New South Wales is a striking instance of the success <if this movement, funds being raised from private sources in order to purchase special parade uniforms. This sort of thing helps to produce a friendly rivalry between the various regiments. We need only recall the distinctive and’ attractive uniform of the New South Wales Lancers of 30 or 35 years ago - the magnificent showing which they made on parade, and the reputation they built up at home and abroad - to realize what an attractive uniform means to a regiment:

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Wars are fought with weapons, not. uniforms.

Mr JENNINGS:

– I- am well aware of that, but to assist the objective of voluntary enlistment, my point is that a distinctive and attractive uniform for parade purposes is an important factor in attracting young men to the colours. It may be of interest to the Minister to learn that because of this the New South Wales Scottish regiment has a long waiting list of applicants for admission and is able to select the best type’ of men.

Over and above all this, however, there is the need for straining every nerve to make the existing forces more efficient. To this end I should like to see greater assistance and encouragement- given to the rifle club movement throughout Australia. In my opinion rifle clubs have not received the encouragement which is their due. Rightly or wrongly the movement feels that it has not the confidence of the defence authorities.. If this is so, the position calls for serious attention, because rifle clubs are a great national asset from the defence point of view. As one who has been very closely associated with riflemen in my electorate for many years, I am much concerned at the apparent indifference shown to the movement by the defence authorities. If there is no ground for this suspicion it should be scotched without delay.

Mr Spender:

– Are not members of rifle clubs supplied with free ammunition?

Mr JENNINGS:

– A certain quantity is supplied free. At the last meeting of their association in Sydney riflemen had to pay £9 5s. a thousand for ammunition in excess of the quota issued to them. When we remember that members of rifle clubs give their time voluntarily, and that each of them spends approximately £15 a year in perfecting his rifle shooting, it is little enough to ask that they be given every possible encouragement in their patriotic activities. Furthermore, a great proportion of them are ex-service men who would be ready in any emergency in which the country might need their services. I sincerely hope that the Government will do the right thing by these men, who feel that they have not been getting the encouragement due to them.

Some mention has been ma.de of financial contributions by public bodies or private citizens to the strengthening of the Australian air force. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the patriotic gesture of the Eastlake Golf Club in Sydney in donating £100 towards the cost of an aeroplane for defence purposes. It .is an action that has greatly, impressed the people of Australia and has led to various other offers with the result that the Government has established a trust fund for such gifts. I know many members of the Eastlake Golf Club. They are mainly young men, and I see in their action an expression of the spirit of the new generation of Australians. It is the old Anzac spirit over again, the spirit that is destined to make thi3 country a great nation.

The Government is moving along right lines in its defence policy in strengthening all services, in taking steps for an adequate munitions supply, and in summoning to its assistance the great industrial establishments of Australia. It has taken a course which is important to the highest degree. I am sure that this assistance will be given willingly and that we may look for a proper system of co-ordination between the defence authorities and private industry.

Some mention has been made of the profits arising out’ of the manufacture of munitions. To create a national munitions industry would result, in a staggering cost. Under the Government’s proposals, if there is any suspicion of excessive profits, the Government and Parliament will take the ‘necessary action to protect the interests of the people.

As part of the British Empire we expect to see the most thorough co-operation between the defence measures of Great Britain and those of Australia and every other part of the British dominions. That co-ordination is vitally necessary for the safety of the Empire. That we can count on Great Britain’s assistance, should we. be attacked, goes without saying, and it is equally true that Britain could count on our help if it were needed. Our policy, like Britain’s, is one of defence, not defiance, and the whole world knows it, although there are some countries which, for their own reasons, prefer to make it appear otherwise.

For instance, what is the Singapore naval base but a defensive base. It threatens no one, and it will never threaten any one, yet it stands as a defensive base against any one who may threaten us. Honorable members know its significance as well as I do, and, as far as Australia and New Zealand are concerned, it is the rock upon which our house is built. Let us hope that we may be spared the horrors of war, but let us be ready to defend our country should the need arise. The old days of isolation have passed, and will not return. Owing to the latest methods of warfare, the invasion of Australia is not an- impossibility, and it is of no use to hide our heads in the sand. No matter how great our defensive measures may be - and here I speak particularly of our air defences - it is possible that, in a mad world, enemy machines may escape the vigilance of our defenders, and attack our cities. Although we pray that gas masks may never be required by our citizens, full instruction in the use of these masks ought to be given. I also consider it necessary to adopt a gas mask of a uniform type throughout the Commonwealth. I should be lacking in my duty if I did not refer to the possibilities of the world situation, and the urgent need for preparedness.

There is no room for party differences with regard to this all-important matter, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to hear that the Leader of the Opposition was to be invited by the Prime Minister to assist in a consultative capacity in framing a defence policy which would have the whole-souled support of every member of the community no matter how much we differ on other issues, so that our defence plans might be received with unanimity by the House and the people. All Australians, irrespective of class, have a, deep love for their country, and are rightly proud of the land of their birth. In a statement which the Prime Minister recently made over the national broadcasting network, he remarked -

Much as ve deplore, as a peaceful people, the need for a heavy expenditure on armaments, the price for the preservation of peace is small compared with the costs of the ravages of war, and, if we are prepared to defend ourselves, we are the more likely to deter an aggressor and to continue to live in peace.

In those words, the Prime Minister put the whole position in a nutshell. In view of the trials and disasters which have befallen other countries at the hands of foreign invaders, it behoves us to put our own house in order. Let us make it plain to all who may have designs upon Australia that “ this bit of the world belongs to us,” and that we are determined to defend it as we would our individual homes and families. Let us make this country safe and secure for our people and for the generations to come.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– -I should like to be able to subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan). It would ‘be gratifying to be able to use the millions of pounds now being devoted to defence measures in the construction of hospitals, the improvement of schools, and the increase of pensions, and in the various other services that ensure good living conditions for our people. But, unhappily, it is not possible to do that and at the same time guarantee the continuance of those benefits over a period of years. A great deal of controversy has ranged around the defence question in this House, but not outside it, because the people of Australia as a whole - and they demonstrated it in a convincing manner at the last elections - are behind any proposal to defend this country adequately and to render it safe for present and future generations.

A considerable conflict of opinion is noticeable among members of the Opposition. The honorable member for Batman, in the course of his rather interesting and lengthy speech, declared that, in his view, Great Britain would not come to the aid of Australia in the event of our needing assistance because of enemy attack. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) stated in his policy speech, and he said it again in this House, that many hundreds of millions of British capital were invested in Australia. The member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), who delivered a somewhat bitter attack on Great Britain, declared that the British imperialists could always be depended upon to come to the salvage of the millions that they bad invested. So, between these three statements, there is a great conflict of expressed opinion among members of the Opposition. I am rather inclined to the view that the great bulk of Labour feeling throughout Australia has been more adequately expressed by the Leader of the Opposition than by those who have followed him in this debate. I believe that those who usually support the members of the Opposition throughout the country, equally with those who rally to the banner of other parties, are prepared to make any sacrifice, and to do their utmost to put this country on a sound foundation with regard to defence.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this country is such as to induce any possible aggressor to desire it. There is no doubt as to the answer to that inquiry. It will be agreed by honorable members on all sides that Australia is well worth holding. The next question - is “ How can we best defend

Australia with the resources at our command ? “ There are two contrary policies, one put forward by the Opposition and the other by the Government; but there is not a great deal of difference between them, because- the Leaders on both sides have expressed a determination at least to defend this country from within. The great difference between the policies is that whereas supporters of the Government believe that the most effective defence of Australia is to be provided by working in co-operation with the other units of the Empire, members of the Opposition have expressed the view that Australia could be well equipped to defend itself without outside aid. In reviewing the world situation, there is not very much difference between the military point of view and that of the layman or even that of a schoolchild. It is obvious to all that a country like Australia, with its vast spaces and .small population, is not in a position to defend itself against countries of far greater wealth and with huge resources of manpower and armaments. Because that is so, members on this side of the House believe that, apart from all considerations of sentiment and ties of kinship, there is great need to link Australia with the other units of the Empire for defensive purposes. As to our economic welfare, I have heard to-night, from Opposition members who have spoken, some rather remarkable statements, the trend of which was derogatory to Great Britain and critical of the uses which that country is likely to make of the dominions. I hope that Australia and the other dominions will continue to make such use of Great Britain as Great Britain will make of them. It must be remembered that Great Britain provides the best market for Australian primary products, and that on the success of our primary industries depends the welfare , of those engaged in secondary industries, including the many scores of thousands of industrialists whose homes are in the cities. Apparently some members of the Opposition, such as the honorable member for East Sydney and the honorable member for Batman, have forgotten that the fall of the prices for wool, wheat and other primary products made possible the depression from which we have only just emerged. Prom the speeches of those honorable members it could be inferred that there is no need for Australia to link itself with Great Britain economically or in matters of defence, or, indeed, in any way.

Mr Martens:

– Who said that?

Mr ANTHONY:

– That is the only inference which can be drawn from their speeches. The reason for this panic has been asked. Opposition members would almost make it appear that it is a matter for regret that the world situation is such that we at this moment are not in most vital danger. Various speakers charged the Government with acting in a panicstricken way notwithstanding that the world situation had’ improved.

Mr MAKiN:

–Does the honorable member think that the situation has improved ?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I thank God that it has improved. That improvement has given us the breathing space that we require. It enables us to prepare our defences now rather than wait for the blow to be struck, ‘ only to find then that we are unprepared. It is a matter for congratulation that we have been given some respite, for it enables us to build up our defence forces and provide naval bases and ammunition supplies. These things take time. It is a matter, not of a few months, but of years. I sincerely hope that Australia is in no immediate peril, but it is well that we should heed the lessons of recent history. We must recognize, as has already been pointed out, that agreements may be torn up without any compunction on the part of those who sign them. That, unhappily, is a fact which we must recognize.

Mr Beasley:

– Was not the last war “ a war to end war ?”

Mr ANTHONY:

– I went to the last war believing that it would end war, but I now doubt that such. a thing is possible. I shall endeavour to show that this country is a desirable prize for other nations, and also that Australia provides sufficient provocation to challenge them. I shall also quote figures to prove that other nations will be compelled, by the force of circumstances and hungry stomachs, to seek outlets for their surplus and growing populations. One potential enemy of Australia has been mentioned, and there is general agreement that if trouble comes it will come from the north. As regards Japan, I shall quote some figures to which I hope honorable members will listen, because when their import is realized, their significance is obvious. I ask honorable members to exercise their powers of reasoning and work out for themselves what must happen eventually, if not within the next few years. Japan proper contains an area of 147,000 square miles and has a population of 70,000,000 people. Australia contains almost 3,000,000 square miles. .

Mr Beasley:

– The honorable member should not provoke Japan.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am not provoking Japan, but am giving facts that the people of Japan, and, indeed, of all the world know, or can know by studying any book on geography. I shall show clearly where the provocation to Japan comes from. The population of Australia is under 7,000,000 people. It is true that, despite its size, Australia contains a comparatively small area, of fertile land. Much of it is desert land, incapable of sustaining any population. I go further, and say, that, in my opinion, the possibility of Australia absorbing large numbers .of people has been greatly exaggerated, if those people are to enjoy a reasonably decent standard of living. I do not think that Australia can carry a very large population and maintain that standard of living which Australians have a right to expect. But not all other nations have our standing of living, and some of them may welcome the opportunity to enjoy our standards. I have made these comparisons in order to demonstrate to the members of the Opposition particularly, but also to the supporters of the Government, and the people of Australia generally, that there is every reason why other nations should regard this country with envious eyes. That constitutes Australia’s peril, if not to-day, then in the years to come. Victoria with an area of 87,000 square miles, is about half the size of Japan, but its population is only about 1,843,000 people.

Mr Makin:

– Does not the honorable member see that he is justifying the things said abroad about this country?

Mr ANTHONY:

– There is no secret about the matter. The figures I have quoted have been published, and are available to any one. I am trying to demonstrate the need for the Government’s defence programme. We should not bury our heads in the sand, and pretend that everything is as it should bc. People abroad know just as much about the potentialities of our country as we do ourselves. We have a fine country, and we have elected to tell the peoples of other countries to keep out. We have, quite rightly, I believe, determined upon a White Australia policy. We have asserted the right to keep out, not only Asiatics, but also Southern Europeans, and any others if we so decide. If we are to maintain that policy, we must be in a position to support it, even by force. The expenditure of £43,000,000 on defence as proposed by the Government is necessary to prevent the peoples of other countries from seizing territory in Australia on which to settle their surplus population.

Regarding the Government’s loan proposals, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition to the extent that only works of a permanent character should be done out of loan money. The cost of aeroplanes, munitions, etc., which are essentially perishable, should be met out of taxation. If this rule be applied to the present proposals, we find that only £3,300,000 pf the £10,000,000 which it is intended to expend should be found by way of loan, while approximately £7,000,000 should be found by direct taxation, contributed to by every one, the wage-earner as well as the man in receipt of a higher income. The defence policy of the Government provides for collaboration with, other units of the British Em pire, and in this respect it differs from the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labour party insists that Australia should in no circumstances be committed to warlike activities outside Australia without the absolute and established consent of the Australian people. That declaration was made by the Leader of the Opposition, and if that policy were applied, it would not be possible for Australia to send a military force even to the defence of Singapore without submitting the issue first by referendum to the Australian people.

Mr Makin:

– Who has a better right to decide the matter?

Mr. ANTHON Y. When war breaks out, and the enemy is steaming towards our shores, there will be very little time to consult the people by way of referendum. That is why there is throughout Australia a deep distrust of the defence policy of the Opposition. If democracy means anything, it means the acceptance of the verdict of the people as expressed at the polls, and it was demonstrated at the elections on the 23rd Octoberlast that the people of Australia were not prepared to adopt the policy of the Labour party. Notwithstanding that, however, the Labour party still enunciates on the 28th April the self-same policy which was rejected, by the people the previous October.

Mr Makin:

– We are consistent, at any rate.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Such consistency is likely to keep the honorable member and his colleagues permanently in Opposition. I listened with a great deal of interest and respect to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe that the opinions expressed by him on many matters relating to defence are sound. I believe, with him, that the most effective means of defending Australia, having regard to our geographical position and the nature of our resources, is by means of the air force. In this connexion it is interesting to observe the importance attached to the air arm by other countries which have had greater military experience than we have had. The following figures relating to the air strength of the various nations were published in Whittaker’s Almanac last year . -

The position with respect to Germany is that it was limited by the Versailles Peace Treaty to the number shown, but since Herr Hitler took control of that country there has been no limit to the number of aircraft manufactured there and the exact air strength of Germany is now unknown. The figures I have given demonstrate what those nations with a knowledge of war and of the effectiveness of the air arm think of that section of the fighting services. I believe the Commonwealth Government should give further consideration to the question of providing for the defenceof this country in that way. It is true that of the amount of ?40,000,000 proposed to be expended by the Government about ?12,000,000 ‘ or ?14,000,000- speaking from memory - has been allotted to the air arm, and the expenditure of that sum may possibly bring our air force more in line with what is required.

In submitting these remarks I have expressed my personal views, and 1 believe the views of the people I represent. It is my opinion that our safety and security depend upon co-operation with Great Britain, and that it is also to our economic advantage to co-operate with that country. It is, I consider, the only way by which we can assure for this and future generations the right to live in this country in peace and prosperity.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Archie Cameron) adjourned.

page 644

ADJOURNMENT

Visit of Attorney-General to Great Britain

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– Last night I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), without notice, a question with regard to the visit of the Attorney-General to Great Britain. After side-stepping the question with one or two crude attempts at humour the right honorable gentleman asked that it be placed on the noticepaper. I acceeded to his request and submitted the question in the following form - 1, On what mission has the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Menzies) proceeded to Great Britain?

  1. Is it of a public nature?
  2. Is the Commonwealth Government responsible for his expenses?

The answers are -

  1. The Attorney-General has proceeded to England as a member of the Australian Delegation which has been authorized to discuss with the Government of the United Kingdom and as far as possible with representatives of other Governments matters relating to the trade and commerce of Australia.’
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.

The answer to the question, vague and hopeless as it is, bears out the remark of the Attorney-General that the Prime Minister had sent him to Great Britain “ to (attend some conference or something “, and that that was all he knew about it. It confirms what I said. The Attorney-General departed for England in the hope of “ doing something if possible”; but otherwise he went away purely on a pleasure trip at the expense of the country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

page 645

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Shipping Freights on Wheat

Mr Scully:

y asked the Acting Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. In view of the excessive freights on wheat charged by overseas shipping companies, will the Minister call a conference of representatives of the shipping companies to discuss the adjusting and reduction of such freight charges to an equitable basis?
  2. W)ill he consider the advisability of an export subsidy on wheat, to compensate wheatgrowers for the excessive freight charges?
Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

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

  1. Very little wheat is carried by the regular hipping lines trading with Australia, consequently freight rates cannot be influenced by ny arrangement with organized ship-owners, and therefore no useful result could be obtained by calling a conference of those interests. The great proportion of wheat is transported in tramp ships under charter, and charter rates are governed by the supply of and demand for these ships. They might come from any part of the world, and perhaps foi one voyage only. The impossibility of the Commonwealth Government dealing with their owners is therefore obvious. I might add that freight rates for wheat have receded substantially from the peak rate of last year.
  2. Yes; though this does not commit m« at this stage to any opinion on such a proposal.
Mr Ward:

d asked the Acting Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Has hia attention been drawn to the statement of Mr. Wilson, president of the Victorian Wheatgrowers Association, published in the press of the 17th Mardi, 1938, in which he declared, “ that the shipping combines; through increased freights, were imposing to-day a levy on the wheat industry of about £3,000,000 a year. In less than two and a half years freight rates had been doubled. In effect, growers were being taxed an amount which worked out at ls. a bushel.”?
  2. If so, has the Minister made inquiries as to the correctness of Mr. Wilson’s statement, and if it is correct, what action has the Government taken, or what action does it propose to take, to prevent this exploitation of primary producers?
Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

Wheat is not carried by the regular Conference Lines, but for the most part by special ships chartered for the purpose. Charter rates ure world rates, and they rise and fall according to the requirements of ‘exporters throughout the world, and the tonnage available. The Commonwealth Government is, therefore, not in a position to arrange conferences or influence freight rates as is the case in her other major exports which are carried by the regular shipping services.

Motor Building Industry: Profits of Companies

Mr Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

r asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will the Minister, before allowing the Tariff Board, or any other authority, to interfere with the Australian motor building industry or to pry into the profits of such companies, cause an investigation to be made into the profits made by overseas Arms such as the Morris Company, in order to determine whether motor users of Australia are exploited to a greater extent by overseas manufacturers?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

I am not aware of any investigation by the Tariff Board into the profits made by the Australian motor building industry. * Generally speaking, however, in making its recommendations, it is essential that the board inform itself on all phases of the industry concerned, and the manner in which it does so is one entirely at the discretion of the board. If the board considered it necessary in the course of its investigation into any industry to inquire into the profits made by any Australian manufacturer I would certainly not request the board to restrict its inquiries or lay down any lines of procedure for the board to follow.

Australian Chilled Beef: Quality of Exports to Britain.

Mr.Forde asked the Acting Minister for Commerce, upon- notice - 1.Is it a fact that the officer of the Department of Commerce in London has issued reports to the department criticizing the standard of Australian chilled beef exported to Britain?

  1. If so, will the Minister make a statement to the House in regard to the matter?
Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

n. - The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

In December last the Commonwealth Veterinary Officer in London did issue a report to the Department of Commerce concerning the quality of Australian chilled beef inspected by him during the month of November, 1937. The Veterinary Officer stated that thu quality of Australian chilled beef shipments during the period (i.e. month of November) had at no time been outstanding, and in some cases had been definitely inferior. Publicity was given to this report in certain newspapers as referring to Australian chilled beef generally. This was definitely incorrect. The Veterinary Officer reports every month, and it is quite misleading to isolate the report on ona month’s arrivals and interpret that as comment on Australian chilled beef exports all the year round. The chairman of the Australian Meat Board at the time expressed the opinion that the report of the Veterinary Officer was not causing any anxiety. The -Australian beef export trade is largely seasonal, and it is difficult to procure a large supply of high-grade cattle for export in the summer months, at which period the Queensland season is at its ebb. The quality of chilled beef going forward from Australia over the whole year is quite satisfactory.

Naval Defence: Commonwealth Aid for Harbours

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Tn view of the importance of naval defence, will the Government give favorable consideration to the resolution curried at the Interstate Conference of Australian harbour authorities held at Sydney during April, 1937, seeking Commonwealth aid for harbours which lend themselves naturally for such defence work?
  2. Will he have inquiries made as to the suitably of the Tamar for a depot for flyingboats and/or other naval purposes?
Mr Thorby:
CP

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

  1. The resolution will receive careful consideration.
  2. Information regarding the Tamar River is already in the possession of the Naval Board, hut the naval programme does not contemplate the establishment of a naval depot there. The Tamar is now being used, when necessary, by the Royal Australian Air Force seaplanes for alighting and taking off, and is quite suitable for such purposes.

Registration of Aliens

Mr Spender:

r asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that no provision exists for the registration of aliens so as to record their individual location and movements from time to time?
  2. If such provision exists, what is the nature of the same? If none exists, what steps are contemplated being taken to ensure that complete information thereon is available at any given time? 3. (a) Are any measures being taken, in respect of immigrants from foreign countries - (i) to compel them to’ -acquire, within a specific period, a reasonable knowledge of the English language and to make their residence in Australia conditional upon their so doing, and (ii) to check the further growth in our midst of close foreign colonies of people from the samecountry of origin; (b) if so, what is the nature of such measures; (c) if not, are any measures directed to the subject-matter contemplated ?
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The matter of the registration of aliens is at present under consideration by the Government. 3. (a) (i) No. (a) (ii), (b) and (c) A systematic examination of alien population in the principal industries and areas wherethere is an aggregation of aliens has already been made by special officers of the Department of the Interior. It is proposed to extend and continue these investigations and tn arrange for the Commonwealth Investigation Branch to co-operate with officers of the department.

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act

Mr Mulcahy:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to amend the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act this session?
  2. If so, will the Government pxtend to the ex-soldiers of the South African War the provisions of the act?
Mr Thompson:
Minister without portfolio, assisting the Treasurer · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. It may be necessary, during this session, to amend the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act with regard to minor details.
  2. It is not the intention of the Government to include provision for South African war veterans in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act.

Defence: Co-ordination of Transport: Royal Australian Air Force.

Mr Spender:

r asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What co-ordination, if any, exists between the Commonwealth and the various States in respect of the use of the railways and rolling-stock of the States for defence purposes (including the evacuation of civilian populations from points attacked) in the event of any national emergency? Is there any one central authority in charge of any such co-ordination, and, if so, what is such authority?
  2. Are proper measures available at any given moment to effectively transport and maintain any civilian population evacuated from capital cities and main coastal ports in the event of the same being the subject of attack ?
  3. Is the present defence programme designed to protect Australia against anything beyond sporadic naval raiding of an enemy power? If so, is it designed to effectively protect Australia against hostile invasion ? 4. (a) In what respect are the speed, range, ceiling, climbing capacity and general performance of the N.A.33 different from that of the N.A.16?

    1. How do these compare with those of -
    1. the latest fighting machines of America and the major continental powers, and
    2. modern commercial aircraft operating in Australia?
  4. How old respectively are the specifications for the N.A.16 and the N.A.33?
Mr Thorby:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) Powers instituted under the Defence Act whereby the Governor-General -

  1. may in time of war authorize any officer to assume control of any railway for transport for naval or military purposes (vide section64).
  2. may require (at any time) any railway or tramway in any State to convey Defence Forces and provide the rolling-stock necessary for the purpose (vide section 05).
  3. The WarRail way Council is the coordinating authority on matters of railway transportation for defence purposes. This council consists of the Quartermaster-General (as President) and one representative, normally the Chief Commissioner of the Commonwealth Railways, and of each of the State railways.

    1. The evacuation of civilian population, should it ever be necessary, is a matter for decision by the Federal Government on the recommendation of its military advisers. No specific arrangements to meet this eventuality have yet been formulated.
    1. No. See answer to 1 - (c).
    2. The Government’s defence policy provides for defence against both, invasion and raids. As raids are the most probable form of attack, the completion of the defence against this contingency is theimmediate objective of policy. The new defence programme will provide adequate defence against raids and, at the same time, will afford a deterrent to and a substantial measure of defence against invasion. 4. (a) Although it is not in the public interest to disclose performance details of the N.A.33, it may be stated that in all respects it is superior in performance to the N.A.16.
  4. – (i) The exact performance figures of aircraft in use in foreign air services are not known, but it is ‘ believed that, in its class, the N.A.33 is equal, if not superior, to comparable aircraft in use elsewhere . The type being built in Australia (the “Wirraway”) embodies further improvements on the N.A.33.
  5. No commercial aircraft operating in Australia has a greater speed at full load and operating height than the N.A.33 and in general military characteristics, such as manoeuvrability, ceiling, rate of climb, &c, the N.A.33 is greatly superior.

    1. Dates of specifications are not known, but it may be stated the prototype of the N.A.16 fitted with the Wasp engine was first submitted for test in April, 1936, and the N.A.33 in June, 1937.

Royal Australian Air Force

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many aeroplanes have been added to the Royal Australian Air Force during 1935, 1930, and 1937?
  2. What is the strength of the Royal Australian Air Force to-day?
  3. What arc the various speeds these machines are capable of attaining?
  4. How long have the machines used by the Royal Australian Air Force been in use?
Mr Thorby:
CP

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

  1. It is not in the public interest to disclose the actual numbers of aircraft added during any period. The authorized first line strength, however, which’, of course, does not include aircraft for reserve, training, and wastage, rose during 1935, 1930 and 1937 from 30 to 90, as follows:- 1935, nil; 1936, 30; 1937, 36.
  2. The first line strength of the Air Force to-day is 96 aircraft, organized into eight squadrons and ancillary services.
  3. The land planes in service squadrons have a top speed of approximately 186 miles per hour at their operating height with full war load. The seaplanes have a speed of 120 miles per hour. The types of aircraft with which these service squadrons are equipped are the same as those now used in the Royal Air Force for similar duties.
  4. Service Types. - “ Demon “ - first deliveries three years ago, but the greater proportion have been in use approximately eighteen months; “Anson” - first deliveries fifteen months ago, but the greater proportion in use less than twelve months; “Seagull “ - first deliveries two and a half years ago, but more than half those received have been in use twelve months only. Training Types. - “Wapiti”, “Bulldog”, “Southampton “ - First taken into use as service types ten years ago, but for the last two to three years have been used for training purposes only; “Moth” - type first “ taken into use ten years ago, but individual aircraft have been replaced from time to time; “ Avro Trainer “ - in use one to two years.

Unemployment on Northern Coalfields.

Mr James:

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that the unemployed of the South Maitland coal-fields districts did not share in the recent Federal unemployment grant, becausethe Defence Department claimed that there was no suitable Federal property in this locality, and seeing that this grant was for the relief of unemployment and that the mining districts did not share in it, will he make a special grant to the Northern coal-fields districts and also take into consideration having improvements made to the Cessnock civil aerodrome for the purpose of encouraging the training of many thousands of youths in these districts who are anxious to join the air force’;

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

In connexion with the allocation of the Commonwealth unemployment relief grant, special consideration was given to the question of the selection of suitable works in the Kurri Kurri district, but it was found that there was no work offering of a character suitable for the employment of unskilled labour.

In the case of the Kurri Kurri drill hall, it was found that thebulk of the expenditure on this work would have been incurred on the purchase of materials and that the work would not have absorbed more than a few unskilled labourers.

The unemployment relief grant provided for expenditure on purely Commonwealth works. As the Cessnock aerodrome is not a Commonwealth property, no portion of the funds provided could be expended thereon.

I would point out that, while it has not been possible to provide work in Kurri Kurri, a Considerable amount of money has been made available for works in the Newcastle district.

With regard to the honorable member’s request that a special grant be made to the Northern coal-fields, the Government regrets that it is unable to see its way to accede to the request

Pishing Industry : Survey in Tasm an i an Waters.

Mr Barnard:

d asked the Minister in charge of Development, upon notice -

With the object of making a more detailed survey of fishingbeds in Tasmanian waters, will the Government make the new survey vessel available for this purpose as soon as it is placed in commission?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

It is the present intention that the first investigations to be carried out by the Commonwealth fisheries vessel will cover southeastern waters including portion of the east coast of Tasmania.

Sale of Commonwealth Line of Steamers : Recovery of’ Outstanding Amount.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the present position with respect to the legal proceedings instituted by the Commonwealth Government to recover the outstanding amount owing on the sale of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The White Star Line, to which the Commonwealth Line of Steamers was sold, is in liquidation, the Commonwealth’s claim against the liquidator being £766,584. The amount which the Commonwealth will receive as dividend on the winding up of the company depends upon the admission or otherwise of a claim for a. much larger sum by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which was rejected by the liquidator.

The Royal Mail Company appealed to the courts against the’ decision of the liquidator and the appeal was allowed. The effect of this judgment was to admit as a claim against the liquidator a liability to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company of £1,802,000. Under this decision, the Commonwealth would have received as final payment approximately £239,000.

The liquidator, supported by the Commonwealth, appealed to the Court of Appeal against this decision and the Court of Appeal has decided that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company must pay in full certain amounts due to the White Star Line for calls before being able to rank for dividend against the assets of the line. The result of this decision will be that the Commonwealth will probably receive £378,000 instead of £239,000.

It is not’ known whether the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company intends to appeal to the House of Lords but, should this action be taken, the Commonwealth will support the liquidator in opposing the action.

Visit of Attorney-General to Great Britain

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. On what mission has the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) proceeded to Great Britain?
  2. Is it of a public nature?
  3. Is the Commonwealth Government responsible for his expenses?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. The Attorney-General has proceeded to England as a member of the Australian delegation which has been authorized to discuss with the Government of the United Kingdom and as far as possible with representatives of other governments matters relating to the trade and commerce of Australia.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Department: APPOINTMEN t of PERMANENT Medical Officers.

Mr Rosevear:

r asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the suggestion in the Auditor-General’s report that three permanent medical officers be appointed to the staff of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Department in NewSouth Wales, and also to his statement that the Government had decided bo take steps regarding the matter?
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint such a medical board in New South Wales?
  3. If so, are Bitch boards to be appointed in all States, and, if not, why not?

Mr. CASEY-The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. The question of medical examination for invalid pension purposes throughout the Commonwealth is at present under consideration.

Loans to States for Public Works

Mr Forde:

e asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement, appearing in yesterday’s press, by the Premier of Victoria, Mr. Dunstan, that the development of Victoria had been retarded because of the small amount of loan money madeavailable to it from year to year, and has he any comment to make on the accusation made by Mr. Dunstan?
  2. Is Mr. Dunstan’s complaint not similar to complaints made by several other Australian Premiers?
  3. What action does he propose to take to see that the carrying out of necessary public works in the States is not retarded by a lack of the necessary loan moneys which must inevitably result in further unemployment?
Mr Casey:
UAP

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

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. It is the responsibility of the Loan Council to approve loan programmes of State public works in the light of relevant factors, including the capacity of the market.

Tyres for Motor Vehicles: Cost to Commonwealth

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What was the total cost to the Commonwealth last financial year for rubber tyres and tubes for all Commonwealth motor vehicles?
  2. Were the sales effected by tender or treaty price ?
  3. What, if any, was the total amount of discount, and the discount rate per cent.?
Mr McEwen:
CP

The information will be obtained and furnished to the honorable member as soon as possible.

Duty on Imported Motor Chassis.

Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the purpose of continuing to collect 0.7d.. per lb. on imported motor chassis since the objective for which the duty was imposed has apparently failed?
  2. Is this to be regarded as a permanent revenue duty?
Mr Casey:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

The Government is awaiting final consideration by the Tariff Board of their investigation into the question of the establishment of motor chassis building in Australia. . When this report is received, the Government will determine its policy in this regard. In the meantime, the necessity for collecting the 0.7d. per lb. duty still exists’.

National Debt

Mr Wilson:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What was the national debt in 1902, 1904, 1000 and so on in two-yearly periods to the 30th June, 1937 - not including exchange?
  2. What was the incidence of taxation per year and per head during that period?
  3. How much has been borrowed from overseas, Great Britain, America, or any other countries ?
  4. How much was borrowed for the Great War?
  5. Did actual money, such as gold, reach Australia, or was it in the form of goods?
  6. What amount was paid in interest to overseas investors during the year ended the 30th June, 1937?
  7. What is our total internal debt?

    1. Who are the principal bondholders, private individuals or banks, trustee companies, &c.?
  8. What amount was paid in interest in internal loans to the 30th June, 1937?
  9. How much of both internal and external loan is free of Federal Income Tax, and how much is free of both Federal and State Income Tax?
  10. How much has been paid in interest from 1902. to the 30th June, 1937?
Mr Casey:
UAP

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

Wireless Broadcasting : Use of Telegraph Line Between Studio and Transmitter

Mr Clark:

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

  1. Under what terms is the telegraph line provided between Country Broadcasting Services’ Sydney studio and its transmitter at Amaroo ?
  2. Is it permissible for this line to be used for private business correspondence of the Country Broadcasting Services, or is it limited to service messages to enable proper control of the transmitter?
  3. If private correspondence over this line is not permitted, will the Minister ensure that such is not allowed?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as early as possible.

Australian Broadcasting Commission : Policy in South Australia. - Balance Sheet.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 27th April, the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) made certain inquiries regarding the tabling in Parliament of the balancesheet of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following information: -

The report and balance-sheet of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be tabled next week.

Mr Price:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Was an advisory committee set up in South Australia to. advise the Australian

Broadcasting Commission on the general policy of broadcasting in South Australia?

  1. If so, what are the names of. the members of this committee?
  2. What was the date of their appointment?
  3. How many times has the committee been called together?
  4. What recommendation, if any, did the committee make to the Broadcasting Commission and what action was taken thereon?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

The questions raised by the honorable member have been referred to the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Resident Minister in Canberra : Provision of Home.

Mr Curtin:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What is the estimated cost of the building being erected for a resident Minister in Canberra ?
  2. How many rooms are in this building?
  3. Was provision for the erection of this building made on the Estimates?
Mr McEwen:
CP

n. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. The contract price for the erection of the building, including engineering services within the building and the block is £6,332. The estimated cost of drains and paths is £175.
  2. Fourteen (14), excluding lavatories, bathrooms, laundry and garage.
  3. The erection of this building- is being financed from the. Federal Capital Territory Architectural and Engineering Votes.

Brisbane Post Office.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 27th April, the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. George Lawson), made certain inquiries pertaining to the proposed new post office for Brisbane. The Postmaster-General has supplied the following information : -

No special authority has been given to the Deputy Director, Brisbane, to discuss the intentions regarding the projected new building for the general post office, but naturally he is conversant with the proposals, and there seems no reason why he should not discuss points of particular concern with those who may be locally interested in the matter. Negotiations between the Postal Department and the Department of the Interior are still proceeding and finality has not yet been reached. It is the intention of the Government to carry out its promise to proceed with the rebuilding work as soon as the details of the plans have been settled.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 April 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380428_reps_15_155/>.