House of Representatives
29 April 1938

15th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell)took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 651

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state the position with regard to the national unemployment insurance scheme for Australia, and inform the House whether the silence of Ministers on this matter in recent days may be taken as an indication that the proposal is to be shelved ?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– The answer to the hitter part of the question is “ No.” Recognizing that it is essential to have the co-operation of the States before proceeding with such a proposal, the Government has done everything possible, without success, to secure that co-operation, but it has not come to the conclusion that it is impossible to obtain it, and it will continue its efforts in that direction.

page 651

QUESTION

INTER-STATE COMMISSION

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Yesterday, in reply to a question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I inadvertently said that there were no applicants for appointment to the Inter-State Commission. What I had in mind was that the Government had taken no action to call for applications. I overlooked the fact that quite a number of persons, anticipating the possibility of the passage of legislation for the appointment of the commission, have sent on reminders that they will be applicants when the positions are being filled.

Mr Curtin:

– Did they state their qualifications?

Mr LYONS:

– Some of them did; others simply asked that they should not be overlooked when the appointments were being considered.

Mr Forde:

– Some of them thought that the Prime Minister knew them.

Mr LYONS:

– Possibly, and some did not.

Mr.Curtin. - Is it because the right honorable gentleman knows them that they will notbe appointed?

Mr LYONS:

– One might like to appoint all of them, but a selection has to be made. Among the applications received in this way there was not one from Sir George Pearce.

page 651

QUESTION

YAMPI SOUND IRON ORE DEPOSITS

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for the Interior lay on the table of the Librarythe full report received from Dr. Woolnough and those associated with him regarding iron ore deposits, particularly those at Yampi Sound?

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

– As this matter is now engaging the attention of the Government, from the point of view of policy I am unable to undertake to lay the report on the table of the Library.

Mr GREGORY:

– Can the Minister for the Interior inform me whether the committee appointed to examine the iron ore deposits of Australia visited Yampi Sound iron ore deposits at any time, or whether it obtained any knowledge in regard thereto other than by reading reports? Seeing that iron ore is being continuously exported from Port Pirie, to the benefit of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited., what action is being taken in regard tothe embargo in connexion with Yampi Sound?

Mr McEWEN:

– Various experts representing both the Commonwealth Government and the Government of Western Australia have visited the localities in Australia where iron ore deposits are known to exist, and reports made by these experts are in the possession of the Government. The second part of the honorable member’s question touches upon government policy and it is not customary to deal with such matters in reply to a question.

page 651

QUESTION

PORT OF HOBART

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Some time ago the

Premier of Tasmania, Mr. Ogilvie, asked the Commonwealth authorities to make a marine survey of the Port of Hobart. Can the Prime Minister state whether this Government will be able to carry out the survey at an early date, as it is required for defence and economic purposes ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am not aware of the details of the matter. I know that such an application was made, and that it has been dealt with in a way which I hope will be satisfactory. I shall secure a reply, and make the information available to the honorable member.

page 652

QUESTION

RADIO VALVES

Mr SCHOLFIELD:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– Will the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs state whether his attention has been drawn to a circular which honorable members have received, in which it is definitely said that no Tariff Board inquiry has taken place regarding radio valves? If that is so, is it in line with the Government’s statement that it is largely guided by the Tariff Board in fixing rates of duty?

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

– I have received a copy of the letter referred to. I believe it is a fact that no inquiry has been made on the subject of the duty on radio valves, but it is likely that one will take place in the near future.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs inform me whether the trade diversion restrictions against the importation of radio valves into Australia from the United States of America is still in operation? If so when is it likely to be withdrawn?

Mr PERKINS:

– The restriction is still in force. Whether it is likely to be lifted I am at present unable to say.

page 652

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr. PERKINS laid on the table reports and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Reciprocating Steam Engines of the quick revolution, self-lubricating type.

Aircraft Compasses

Fixed Resistors for Wireless Receivers

Textile Articles of Furnishing Drapery and Napery

Petits Pois and Mushrooms

Ordered to be printed.

page 652

QUESTION

WOOL STORAGE IN GREAT BRITAIN

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister, if such action has not already been taken, ensurethat the Commonwealth Ministers, on arrival in Great Britain, will discuss with the British Government the advisability of providing for the storage of adequate supplies of wool in the United Kingdom, in case an emergency should arise rendering difficult the transport of this essential commodity?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall get into touch with the members of the ministerial delegation, and place the suggestion of the honorable member before them.

page 652

QUESTION

AIR MAIL SURCHARGE

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General state whether the surcharge on overseas air mails will be apportioned in accordance with the example set by the British post office, or whether the Ned Kelly tactics of the Australian post office will be continued, to the disadvantage of the people of this country?

Question not answered.

page 652

QUESTION

CUT GLASS, POTTERY AND EARTHENWARE

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When does the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs expect that the report of the Tariff Board on the cut glass industry will be tabled, and when will the House have an opportunity to discuss the board’s report on pottery and earthenware ?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I am unable to answer the question at this juncture, but I shall obtain the desired information and supply it to the honorable member,

page 652

QUESTION

MIGRATION POLICY

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government intends to give the House an opportunity to discuss its migration proposals during the present series of sittings?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I hope that that will be possible. I cannot guarantee that the discussion will be initiated between now and the next break prior to the presentation of the budget; but, if it is possible, the Government will be only too glad to make the opportunity available.

page 652

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Employment in New South Wales.

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Defence seen the statement from the Government of New South Wales which suggests that, in the additional defence expenditure, approximately £500,000 only has been allotted for New South Wales, and on projects which will give employment for skilled artisans only? If this is so, will the Minister accede to the request of the New South Wales Government that the Commonwealth Government should’ communicate details of its defence plans to the State Government, so that the latter will be able to plan road, bridge and other State works of defence value ?

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Treasurer gave a fairly comprehensive outline of the defence works as apportioned amongst the various States, and he indicated the kind of works to be put in hand in the coming year. A careful dissection of these proposals has been made to ascertain the amount of employment they will give in various groups and in different areas of the States, and it is wrong to say that skilled artisans only will benefit. The defence programme will provide employment for a large number of unskilled men, even, for instance, at Newcastle.

Mr Beasley:

– Will they be daylabour jobs?

Mr THORBY:

– Mostly contract jobs.’

Mr Beasley:

– Contract jobs do not give much employment, because workers usually follow the same contractors.

Mr THORBY:

– That is not correct.

Mr Drakeford:

– A contractor will not employ any man.

Mr THORBY:

– I quite agree. He employs the best men available. Skilled work, reinforced concrete work and road work will be undertaken: as the result of the defence plans. In the consideration of the measure now before the House, a good deal of information will be given on this matter.

page 653

QUESTION

OFFICERS’ TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr FORDE:

– Will the Minister for Defence inform the House whether the Government’s decision to establish an officers’ training school in Sydney, and to train 220 non-commissioned officers, is in preparation for the reintroduction of compulsory military training?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The decision to establish an officers’ school in Sydney is for the purpose of training the present commissioned officers, who are to be given an opportunity to be trained on a uniform basis throughout the Commonwealth. No such opportunity is available to officers at the present time, and it is essential to train them in one school.

page 653

QUESTION

B CLASS BROADCASTING LICENCES

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General lay on the table of the Library the files dealing with the issuing of B class broadcasting licences in Tasmania, since the inception of broadcasting in that State?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I shall submit the honorable member’s request to the PostmasterGeneral. .

page 653

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Buildings for Department of Health

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I noticed in the local press that it is proposed to erect offices for the Health Department on the site in Canberra set aside for the Institute of Anatomy. If a decision has .been made in regard to this matter, will the Acting Minister for Health state whether cognizance has been taken of Act No. 29 of 1924, under which the Commonwealth of Australia covenanted with the donor of the exhibits housed in the Institute, that this site would be set aside for the sole purpose of the erection of a Museum and the housing of the exhibits? If this matter has not been finally dealt with, I shall be glad to know whether it will receive the attention of the Government, because the rumour is current in this Territory that the act to which I have referred has been contravened.

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

– I can assure the honorable member that before finality is reached the whole matter will be referred to the Solicitor-General, and due consideration will be given by the Government to any advice tendered to it by that gentleman.

page 653

QUESTION

CAPITAL OF NEW GUINEA

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for External Affairs inform me whetHer he has yet received the report of the committee which has been’ investigating the suitability of sites for a new capital for the Mandated Territory of New Guinea? If not, and in view of the fact that certain people are virtually living on the edge of a volcano at Rabaul, will he try to expedite the submission of the report ?

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

– The report was received by me yesterday, but I have hot yet had an opportunity to peruse it. I quite appreciate the urgency of the matter, and will deal with it promptly.

page 654

QUESTION

LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some, time ago I asked that a responsible officer of the Postmaster-General’s Department should receive a. deputation from the Liverpool Council in connexion- with the post office at Liverpool. The deputation was held, but although many months have passed neither the Liverpool Council nor I have heard anything more about it. No reply has been received to the representations made. I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether he will make inquiries and ascertain the decision of the department on the matters submitted by the deputation and advise the Liverpool Council and myself of the result?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I shall give effect to the honorable member’s wishes.

page 654

QUESTION

TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform me when the negotiations between the Oom.monwea.lth Government and the Government of the United States of America for a trade agreement are likely to be concluded?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am unable to give the honorable member even an approximate date. As a matter of fact, no negotiations are at present actually in progress.

page 654

QUESTION

SURRENDERED INSURANCE POLICIES

Mr JENNINGS:

– Is the Treasurer able to give me any information concerning the number of insurance policies that have been surrendered since 1929?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Statistics covering the matter are included in the Commonwealth Year-Booh, and I refer the honorable member to that volume for the information for which he has asked.

page 654

QUESTION

FOREIGN NATIONALS

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– Yesterday the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) asked me the following questions : -

  1. 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 ?
  2. Has the Government copies of agreement* entered into in such circumstances?
  3. 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?
  4. Does this alleged agreement affect other parts of the British Empire?

E arn now able to give the honorable member the following replies: -

  1. Yes, when the interests of the Dominion Governments or Dominion nationals are concerned.
  2. The Com mon wealth Government receive* copies of such agreements!
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes, the Common wealth of Australia, Kew Zealand and India.

page 654

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE PENSIONS

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Defence cause to be prepared in the near future a table showing how the superannuation, or pension provisions for regular members of the Australian Defence Forces compare with the pension provisions in respect of equal ranks in similar services in the United Kingdom?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– I shall make inquiry - to see the extent to which it is possible to prepare the information the honorable member desires.

page 654

QUESTION

REFERENCES TO TARIFF BOARD

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Will the Acting Minister for Customs kindly explain to me the procedure which must be followed by a manufacturer who wishes the Tariff Board to make an inquiry into a particular subject?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I suggest that the honorable member consult with me personally on the subject and I shall advise him in regard to it. Inquiries would have to be made first by an official of a department to see whether the desired inquiry had real merit. If that were found to be so, I should then refer the matter to the board for investigation.

page 655

QUESTION

DAY SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– “Will the Prime Minister inform me whether the Government has given any consideration recently to the holding of more sittings of Parliament in the day time? If so, what decision was reached ? If the matter has not been considered will the right honorable gentleman undertake to give it consideration in the near future?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No consideration has been given to that subject lately. Although I am quite prepared to make an inquiry in regard to it, I suggest that to adopt such a policy would involve the honorable members who live in distant parts of the Commonwealth spending a much longer time in Canberra than they do at present. I am not personally optimistic about the prospects of such a procedure ‘being adopted.

page 655

QUESTION

INVERELL RIFLE RANGE

Mr SCULLY:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Defence inform mc whether, when the defence estimates are being framed, consideration will be given to the claims of country districts for added facilities? I point out that the Inverell rifle range has not been available for use for some considerable time owing to the fact that a new location has not been provided.

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The statement of the honorable member is not quite correct. Inverell has been without a rifle range owing mainly to the inability of the local riflemen to agree upon a new site. The present range was condemned because it was dangerous to the public in consequence of the fact that a main highway lias been constructed behind the rifle butts and in the direct line of rifle fire. There is no relatively high ground behind the existing rifle butts. An officer of the department has visited Inverell on two occasions with the object of assisting in the selection of a new site, and he is at present conferring with local residents on the subject.

page 655

QUESTION

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr BEASLEY:

– Some time ago, when a deputation was introduced to the Minister for Commerce in regard to proposed amendments to the. Seamen’s Compensation Act, that right honorable gentleman agreed to confer with representatives of the seamen before the amendments were finally drafted. I understand the amendments are now under consideration. I therefore ask the Acting Minister for Commerce whether he will arrange for the Minister who is handling this subject to meet a small committee representative of the workers concerned before the draft of the bill is finally adopted?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– I can undertake to carry out any promise made in this- connexion by the- Minister for Commerce. I believe that the bill to which the honorable member has re- ferred, will be in charge of the Assistant Minister in the Senate (Senator MacDonald), and I shall ask him to meet representatives of the union. If he is unable to do so I shall do it myself.

page 655

QUESTION

DUST FROM BULK-HANDLED WHEAT

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Will the Minister for Health inform me whether the Department of Health has yet concluded its inquiries into the effect upon the health of the workers concerned, of wheat dust which rises in the course of the bulk handling of wheat on the water front? If the inquiries have not yet been completed will the Minister ascertain when the report is likely to be available?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– I shall look into the matter and give the honorable member a reply to his question next week.

page 655

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIR MAIL SERVICE

Mr A GREEN:

– Is the Minister for Defence able to inform me whether the Australian land routes in connexion with the overseas air-mail service from Darwin have yet been decided upon ? If so, what arrangements have been made?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The Government has decided, that there shall be direct air routes from Darwin to Perth and Darwin to Adelaide, in addition to the main flying boat service route from Darwin to Sydney.

page 656

QUESTION

SINO-JAPANESE DISPUTE

Reported Capture of British Vessel

Mr BAKER:

– In view of the proximity of Australia to the area affected by the Sino-Japanese dispute, and of the interest of the British Commonwealth of Nations in the subject, I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any information from the British Government relative to the report in the press to the effect that the Japanese have captured a British vessel, and that H.M.S. Cricket had been detailed to recover the vessel from the Japanese?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have no knowledge of this matter other than that contained in newspaper reports. Some communication may be received in regard to it to-day.

page 656

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ MAINTENANCE COSTS

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Defence give the House an approximate estimate of the cost of maintaining a soldier in respect of housing, clothing and food, and state how it compares with the amount considered adequate by the various capitalistic governments of this country-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable gentleman does not frame his questions in accordance with the Standing Orders,- he will not be allowed to continue.

Mr WARD:

– Well, by the various governments representing employing interests.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member will resume his seat.

Later:

Mr WARD:

– Is the Minister for Defence able to make available to the House the approximate cost of maintenance of a soldier in respect of- housing, clothing and food, and is he, able to inform the House whether that compares with the amounts made available throughout Australia for ‘the maintenance of unemployed soldiers of industry?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– There is no basis on which I could give the information asked, because the cost of maintaining a soldier varies in every part of the Commonwealth.

page 656

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION OF SOUTHERN EUROPEANS

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether the published report of his policy in connexion with the immigration of Southern Europeans was prompted by the enormous influx of Southern Europeans or by the fact that they are not prepared to live under normal Australian conditions?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– In the first place, there was no published report of my policy, for I have no policy - it is always the policy of the Government - and, in the second place, the Government has no policy in regard to Southern Europeans; its policy concerns white aliens; and the published statement was a considered statement of the policy adopted and applied by the Government in regard to white alien migrants.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Was the Government’s policy in regard to white aliens prompted by the fact that there has been an enormous influx of Southern Europeans, or was it due to the fact that Southern Europeans are not prepared to establish themselves under Australian conditions of livelihood?

Mr McEWEN:

– The policy of the Government was prompted by only one motive - the motive of doing the right thing for Australia.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– Is the Minister for the Interior aware that migrants coming to Australia from southern and central Europe are subject to no sort of moral or medical examination before they leave their country of origin, whereas British assisted migrants coming here are subject to the most searching examination as to medical and moral fitness? ‘

Mr McEWEN:

– The position is that no white alien migrant may enter Australia without a permit, and that permit is not given without an intimation, among other things, that he will not be allowed to land without an examination at the first port of call in Australia. The invariable custom, therefore, is for the migrant to undergo an examination before he leaves his own country so that he will not be refused entry by our authorities at the first port of call.

page 657

QUESTION

FENCING MATERIALS

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs aware that farmers are able to obtain for fencing purposes steel posts and other material of that kind which are, I understand, the monopoly of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, only on advance order’s of six months, and has he considered that matter in relation to customs duties? What is the Australian Liberal Country party doing about it?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

-My attention has not been called to any such shortage, but I shall have inquiries made. . Mention was made in this House a few days ago of a shortage of galvanized iron and steel plates, but the particular item mentioned by the honorable member has not been brought under my notice.

page 657

QUESTION

MUNITION WORKS

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether in view of the vulnerable position of existing Australian armaments and munition works on the coast line, the Government has made any decision to establish them in inland centres ?

Mr THORBY:
CP

-Some of the small arms factories are a considerable distance from the coast-line. All matters of that nature are taken into careful consideration.

Mr POLLARD:

-Can the Minister inform me what works apart from the works at Lithgow are outside the possible range of gunfire from warships?

Mr THORBY:

– The whole of the munition works of Victoria are outside the range of such gunfire. I do not class the Yarra River as part of the coast-line.

page 657

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Mr BAKER:

– In introducing the proposed national insurance legislation, will the Treasurer give careful consideration to the position of Queensland State Government employees, particularly the public service proper and the police, and also to the position of State employees in other States who have for many years made considerable contributions towards their own superannuation?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– As I have suggested to other honorable members who have brought up questions relating to national insurance, the honorable member will have full opportunity to discuss these matters at an early date when the proposed bill comes before the House.

page 657

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Arrested Nationals - Reciprocal arrangement, dated 14th July, 1937, between the Soviet Government and the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and India, with respect to arrested and imprisoned nationals.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Darwin, Northern Territory - For Administrative purposes.

Orange Bounty Act (No. 2) 1936 - Report of working of the act, together with return showing amount of bounty paid.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1938 -

No.6 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia; Australian Postal Electricians’ Union; Australian Third Division Telegraphists and Postal Clerks’ Union; Commonwealth Postmasters’ Association; Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association; Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association; Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia; Fourth Division Officers’ Association of the Trade and Customs Department; Fourth Division Postmasters’ Postal Clerks and Telegraphists’ Union; and Postal Electricians Supervisors and Foremen’s Association.

No. 7 -Line Inspectors’ Association.

No. 8 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union ofAustralia.

No. 9 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

No. 10 - Commonwealth Postmasters’ Association.

No. 11 - Fourth Division Postmasters, Postal Clerks and Telegraphists’ Union.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Regulations amended -

Statutory Rules 1937, No. 118.

Statutory Rules 1938, No. 35.

page 658

PASSPORTS BILL 1938

Bill brought up by Mr. McEwen, and read a first time.

page 658

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH APPROPRIATION BILL 1938

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Administrator’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Casey) agreed to -

Th at it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue fund a sum of £250,000 for the purpose of scientific and industrial research.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Casey and Mr. Thorby do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. Casey, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

; - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

I should like as briefly as possible to explain the purposes of this measure and then leave the matter for debate at a later date. The purpose of this measure is to appropriate the sum of £250,000 from the revenue of this current financial year in order to form a trust fund which will be known as the Science and Industry Capital Trust Account for the purpose of financing capital works in connexion with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Honorable members are, of course, aware that the work of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research up to the present has been confined almost entirely to attempting a solution of primary production problems. Honorable members will also be aware that late in 1936 the Government set up a committee known as the Secondary Industries Testing and Research Committee which was composed of leading industrialists and eminent scientists. The report of that committee, which has been actually available to honorable members and to the public for some little time,I formally laid on the table of the House yesterday, and several copies are available to honorable members on the table in the Library. This committee made its report in 1937, and it recommended, amongst other things, an Australian standards reference laboratory, an aircraft and engine testing and research laboratory, a research service, an information service and a testing service for secondary industries. Subsequent to the report of this committee, the Government, as the House is aware, was fortunate in having the services and advice of Mr. H. E. Wimperis, lately director of Aeronautical Research in Great Britain. Mr. Wimperis is a very eminent gentleman in his field, and we had him here for upwards of six months. He was primarily engaged in advising the Government on the establishment of an aircraft industry in Australia and on the necessity for aeronautical research. His report, which has been in the hands of the public for some time, was also formally tabled yesterday and copies are available in the Library. Broadly speaking, for the purposes of this bill his report bore out in its entirety the report of the committee on secondary industries research. So far as this bill is concerned, the broadening of the activities of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has a distinct defence flavour. The two main institutions that will be brought into existence by reason of the moneys made available under this bill are an essential link in the big defence effort that Australia is making now and will make in the years immediately ahead. The two principal institutions which it is proposed to bring into existence are a National Standards Laboratory, which it is hoped to establish in the University grounds in Sydney, and an Aeronautical Research Laboratory situated close to the works of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation at Fishermen’s Bend, in Victoria. The report of Mr. Wimperis, dealt more specifically with the aeronautical side, and honorable members who have read his report, or even such extracts from it as have been published in the press, can be in no doubt regarding the need for the inauguration of aeronautical research in Australia.

There is already in existence in Australia a number of standards, which really means that there is no standard at all, and it is to overcome that disability that these proposals have been evolved. Up to the present these matters, where they have been dealt with at all, have come under the control of the State governments, though the Commonwealth Government has power, under the Constitution, to legislate in this respect. At the present time, there are as many standards in Australia, as inert; are States, but there is no set of standards common to Australia a3 a whole. 1 refer of course, in particular, to standards of length and mass, of electrical and light units and to all the other physical properties with which mau has to deal in secondary industries. In Great Britain, standards are dealt’ with by the National Physical Laboratory. The Commonwealth Government has been in close touch with that body which has agreed to afford us all possible assistance. “We are approaching in Australia the era of what is called “ mass production “, when parts of any one implement, whether for defence or for any other purpose, may be made either in separate factories or in different branches of the one factory, and it is essential that all those parts should be, within very close limits, of the same size.

Mr Beasley:

– The Commonwealth Government has no power under the Constitution to deal with standards relating to some matters. Is it proposed to take additional power for this purpose ?

Mr CASEY:

– It is not a matter of imposing ourselves on any one. I believe that those who control the secondary industries of Australia will welcome the setting up of an institution to ensure the maintenance of absolute standards. These standards will be made available from the central laboratory in Sydney through subbranches established in all the other capital cities where there is need for them. The absolute standards will be taken from the standards of the National Physical Laboratory in Great Britain, and they will be exchanged with those in that institution from time to time in order to ensure continuing accuracy. In all capital cities there will be kept substandards calibrated against the stan dards in Sydney, and various factories will have their master gauges calibrated in the same way.

Mr Jennings:

– Will the institution also fix chemical standards?

Mr CASEY:

– No. The main institution will cost approximately £80,000 for building and equipment, and this will cover also the bare necessaries for the creation of sub-standard branches in the other capital cities.

The Government’s proposals’ have been acclaimed by the leaders of all branches of secondary industry in Australia. It is also proposed to establish a testing service which will be a branch of the principal National Standards Laboratory. The object is to organize a system of testing by a national body whose status will carry recognition throughout the Commonwealth and abroad. At the present time there exists only to a limited extent means for the testing and supervising of materials to ensure that they conform to a standard size. I am sure that we shall receive the co-operation of the States in this respect. It is also proposed to inaugurate an information service. This is not directly relevant to the present measure, but its purpose is to disseminate scientific knowledge among Australian manufacturers. It is proposed to seek such knowledge in Australia and abroad, and to make it available for the benefit of secondary industries in this country. We want manufacturers to know exactly what is going on in other countries, and to apply the fruits of that knowledge to Australian production.

It is estimated that the Aeronautical and Engineering Research Establishment will cost eventually £143,000., and that the National Standards Laboratory will cost £80,000, making a total of £223,000. The whole of this amount will not be expended immediately, but we desire to press on without- delay with the designing of the buildings, and the ordering of the necessary equipment. Some part of this., delicate equipment must be imported from overseas. The Commonweath is fortunate in having been able to make arrangements to retain the services of Mr. Wimperis to advise it upon the purchase of equipment suitable for Australian conditions.

The balance of the £250,000 which it is proposed to appropriate will be needed for the setting-up of a number of subsidiary establishments of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and for the extension of existing establishments. One of these is a fisheries research station at Port Hacking in New South Wales. The Government of New South Wales has kindly handed over to the Commonwealth the old State fisheries research station at Port Hacking. It has not been in use for some years, but the Commonwealth Government, through the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, proposes to modernize the station, and to make such additions as are necessary. It will then become the head-quarters of the fisheries research vessel which is shortly to be put into commission. A sum of £12,000 is to be expended upon buildings and equipment. The station at Port Hacking is peculiarly suitable, for. this purpose, not only because i.t is situated roughly in the middle of the coastline upon which the research vessel’s activities will be carried out, but also because it will be possible from there to keep in close touch with the food preservation laboratory which is being established at the Homebush abattoirs in Sydney.

The Government proposes to inaugurate a trust fund .to be known as the Science and Industry Capital Trust Account, into which will be placed this year a sum of £250,000 from revenue. .The Government has always exercised the closest scrutiny over such trust funds, and they are established only when it is believed that they are the most suitable method of financing a particular undertaking. It is of no use commencing a project of this kind unless the Government can see its way to carry it to completion. Very little of the amount of £250,000 will be expended this year, but a great deal of it will be committed, some of it -in the ordering of equipment overseas, though that equipment may not be delivered for over twelve months. The actual expenditure of the money will extend over a period of two years, though most of the commitments will be entered into almost at once.

Mr Beasley:

– What additional cost for maintenance will be involved?

Mr CASEY:

– The maintenance cost of the National Standards Laboratory in all its activities will be about £10,000 and that of the Aeronautical Laboratory will be about £12,000 per annum. This subject is so large that almost infinite details could be sought. To the best of my ability I shall at a later stage of the debate supply to honorable members who are interested the information for which they may ask. Generally speaking, the Government is convinced of the necessity for the closest link between science and industry. Other countries, particularly those which are more advanced industrially than Australia is, found out years ago the necessity for such a link. In these proposals we are following them along the soundest lines that -we can discover.

Mr Forde:

– Can the Minister say what extra staff will be required?

Mr CASEY:

– I cannot give the information at this stage, but I should say that a score of individuals will have to be appointed, some of them very highly trained, whereas others will be employed as laboratory assistants.

Mr A Green:

– Is there any coordination of American and British engineering standards? For some time they were at sixes and sevens.

Mr CASEY:

– We propose to work to British standards. I am not aware of the extent to which they agree with the American standards.

Mr Holloway:

– Has the Commonwealth Government obtained control of an area of land at Fisherman’s Bend?

Mr CASEY:

– Some time ago, when this project was being considered, the Government of Victoria was approached, with the result that a favourable option over an area of about 10 acres at Fisherman’s Bend was obtained. The land is situated between that of General MotorsHolden’s and the National Aircraft Factory, and abuts on the river. I commend the proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fords) adjourned.

page 661

LOAN BILL 1938

Debate resumed from the 28th April (vide page 644) on motion by Mr. Case? -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BarkerActing Minister for Commerce · CP

– One cannot consider the defence proposals of the Government without taking into consideration some of the events in international affairs which led up to them. At the time of the Imperial Conference, about a year ago, the international situation was certainly not without clouds. Since then the position has progressively deteriorated, not only in Europe, but also in the Far East. We Lave witnessed the intensification of the civil war in Spain and the intrusion of other Powers on the Spanish Peninsula - and when I speak of other powers, I do not mean only those which have assisted General Franco, but also those which have assisted that institution which, for want of a better name, is’ known as the Spanish Government. More recently, we have witnessed the inclusion of Austria in the German Reich, and we have been forced to take notice of the situation which is developing day by day in Czechoslovakia. There have also been difficulties in the newer States along the Baltic, as well as uncertainty in Poland, whilst the state of affairs existing in the Balkan Peninsula -generally gives ground for concern. The only two rays of hope which have brightened the situation were referred to by the Prime Minister, when he spoke of the consummation of an agreement between the British and Italian Governments, and an agreement, possibly of less moment, but, nevertheless, important, between the Governments of Britain and Ireland. In connexion with the latter of those agreements, it is interesting to note the rather extraordinary change of front on the part of the head of the Irish Government, as reported in to-day’s press. Mr. de “Valera is reported to have said that whereas a few years ago he wished that Ireland was 500 miles further out in the Atlantic, to-day he is happy to know that it is situated under the apron of Great Britain.

Mr Brennan:

– He did not say that. If the Acting Minister must quote Mr. de Valera, he should quote him fairly.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I thought that my remark would bring the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) into the debate. Last night the honorable gentleman had a rather extraordinary experience. He could not be persuaded, by any interjection whatsoever, to depart from his written notes. Indeed, he established a completely new record. It may be that the notes which he quoted with such eloquence and fervour were not his own, and that, therefore, he was under necessity to conform strictly to the text.

Mr Brennan:

– The honorable gentleman is not usually so dirty as that.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– In addition to the deterioration which has taken place in Europe, a most serious state of affairs exists in the Far East. No one can say what complications are likely to take place there, and it would be unwise to hazard a guess. We in Australia cannot but be influenced by the information which comes to us, by various means, from that part of the world.

Mr Brennan:

– Tell us what it is.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Premier of Tasmania, Mr. Ogilvie, had something to say on the subject. I repeat that we in Australia cannot but be influenced by the trend of affairs in the Pacific. A night or two ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) took the Government to task for the general military situation. He referred to the example of the United States of America in regard to trade agreements, but he did not tell the House that that country, in addition to establishing records in the consummation of trade agreements, is also establishing other records, particularly in regard to its expenditure for defence. On the showing of the United States of America, the trade agreement between that country and Australia is certainly not a reason why that nation should fail to provide for the effective defence .of its territory; nor should we fail to provide for the effective defence of Australia. It is - not part of my duty to go into the details of the defence plans of the Government. That will be done by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby), a gentleman who is carrying out a very onerous task with, I think I may fairly say, the full concurrence of the House, great ability and tireless energy, as is evidenced by the magnitude and complexity of the proposals which have been brought before the Parliament.

During the last election campaign the Government was accused by the Opposition of having only one objective in view in its defence policy, namely, the introduction by some subterranean method of a form of conscription. I do not think that the gentlemen who said that really believed it themselves. At any rate, the electorate did not believe it. A clear distinction must be drawn between conscription as describedby the members of the Opposition, and the existing law of this country, as contained in the Defence Act. Under that legislation every man between the ages of 18 and 60 years is liable for military service, as and when required, within the territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. During this debate’ I have not heard one word from Opposition members to suggest that they desire those provisions of the Defence Act to be repealed ; and certainly the Labour party, when it was in office, did not attempt to repeal them. The Scullin Government did not even take the trouble to repeal the compulsory provisions of the act; it simply suspended them.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– It could not do anything else.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It did not even try. I remind the honorable gentleman of Tennyson’s words : “ ‘Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all “. Apparently, the Labour Government at that day was not prepared even to love.

Mr Brennan:

– It did not make pretences, but contented itself with actions.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The policy of the present Government in regard to defence, can be clearly understood by every section of the community, but that cannot be said of the policy of the Opposition. I now ask honorable members opposite what is the policy of the Labour party in regard to home defence?

Mr Makin:

– The Acting Minister should attempt to justify the Government’s defence policy.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Opposition must face up to this problem. It will have to explain to this House and to the country the medley of voices which comes from its members on the subject of defence. What was the note on which the speech of the Leader of the Opposition ended yesterday? If I understand the English language aright, the honorable gentleman said that the Prime Minister had given no conclusive proof of the necessity for the defence programme of the Government.

Mr Brennan:

– Hear, hear !

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Sydney Morning Herald, which honorable members generally will agree is a fairly reputable journal, reported the Leader of the Opposition as having said recently -

The view that the Federal Government was drifting away from the defence policy which it submitted to the people during the election campaign, and instead, was leaning towards the programme which he himself had formulated, was expressed by the Federal Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin).

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– He said the same thing in this House.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Then how can the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) say “Hear, hear!” to what I said just now?

Mr Makin:

– That can be easily explained.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I have quoted what “Caesar”; said; now let us hear what “ Caesar’s wife “ has to say. In the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date, there is a report of a speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) on the subjectof defence. His remarks were a direct contradiction of those of his leader. That was not the first occasion on which Caesar and his wife have disagreed. Apparently, they have not been together for some time. The Deputy Leader took the Government to task; he was critical. He said that the Government was getting away from the ideals in regard to defence which ought to actuate the Australian Government.

Mr Brennan:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Again the honorable member for Batman says “ Hear, hear “, but it stands to reason that those divergent views cannot consistently be supported by members of the Opposition. I shall now quote the remarks of one of the younger members of the Labour party - a notable member of the party, in that he has three supporters among honorable members opposite in the persons of the honorable members for Denison (Mr. Mahoney), Franklin (Mr. Frost) and Bass (Mr. Barnard). I refer to Mr. Ogilvie, the Premier of Tasmania, who believes that it is necessary to go even further than the Commonwealth Government proposes to go in regard to defence.

Mr Frost:

-Does the Acting Minister disagree with him?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I do not. Are members of the Opposition oblivious to the fact that the Labour Premier of an Australian State has condemned the apathy of the Labour movement in regard to defence? Mr. Ogilvie put up a proposition which can be understood by the people of Australia, but we find no echo of support for it from the occupants of the front bench opposite.

Mr Frost:

– And the Minister for Defence disagrees with it.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The other night exception was taken to certain actions of this Government in relation to the international position. We were told that we had no foreign policy, that we were following blindly in the footsteps of Great Britain. We were criticized for not having taken certain action consequent upon the resignation of Mr. Eden, and then, on other occasions, it seemed that the fault of the Government was that it had taken _ action in this respect. The fact of the matter is that this Government cannot concern itself with the resignation of a member of a government of another British country ; that it not our affair. All we were concerned with was the implications of the moves that led up to Mr. Eden’s resignation, and anything that might eventuate therefrom. Other resignations have taken place, and anybody, I think, would admit that the British Government would have been quite wrong if it had taken steps, for instance, to inquire into the reason why a very senior member of the last Lyons Government resigned from office. Similarly Australia would have been surprised if Canada had concerned itself with the resignation at a later date of our Minister in Charge of Negotiations for Trade Treaties. Such matters concern only the governments involved, and we must give each government credit for being able to manage its own affairs. This Government is certainly able to do that.

Last night the honorable member for Batman expended a great deal of eloquence in upholding the policy of the Chamberlain Government as an example to this Government.

Mr Brennan:

– I did so in respect of the points in Mr. Chamberlain’s speech to which I referred.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The honorable member described the policy of Mr. Chamberlain’s Government as excellent, and one which this Government could well copy. Mr. Chamberlain had laid down certain conditions with regard to the defence of Great Britain which thehonorable member thought that the Commonwealth Government should follow in respect of the defence of Australia.

Mr Brennan:

– I said that the British Government showed a capacity for minding its own business and that this Government might well follow its example in that respect.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Apparently the honorable member now wishes to qualify his statement, but I suggest thathe should read in Hansard the remarks which he made last night. I shall quote from a very important Sydney paper, and one whose veracity honorable members opposite will not question, The Labor Daily. In its issue of the 5th March, it said that Mr. Chamberlain’s policy was “ as simple as it is cynical, and as clever as it is diabolical.” I do not know whether the honorable member for Batman, when referring to Mr. Chamberlain’s defence policy, appeared in the guise of what at one time was called advocatus diaboli. But probably that was the true reason why he supported last night the British Government’s policy, and his remarks offered further evidence of the confusion existing among honorable members opposite with regard to defence. I refer honorable members to another statement from The Labor Daily of the 5th March -

The frontiers of Australia are not Sydney or Port Moresby - but Shanghai and Madrid. We can defeat fascism on the banks of the Yangtze. Wecan preserve our democracy in the streets of Madrid.

All those statements are evidence of the existence of various schools of thought among honorable members opposite.

Mr Frost:

– And there are various schools of thought among Government supporters in respect of defence.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No division exists among honorable members on this side of the House. There is absolute union and unity of purpose in respect of the policy which this Government has proposed for the acceptance of this Parliament.

Mr Makin:

– What about the party meeting ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– There is nothing secret about party meetings of honorable members on this side. They are fully reported in the press, and I suggest that it would be an excellent thing for politics in this country if similar conditions applied in respect of party meetings of honorable members opposite. If that were so we would be presented with a rather interesting story, one which would provide headlines “for the press. The issue confronting the people of Australia in respect of defence is that they can rely on the Government as at present constituted to give effect to a certain defence policy, one which is flexible and definite in its purpose, and has as its first objective the safety of our country. The Government’s first consideration is local security, and it has not deviated in the slightest from that purpose. This policy conforms absolutely to the first principle of war, namely, to guard one’s own territory and forces.

Mr Makin:

– That represents a change of the Government’s defence policy.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Not at all. It is the defence policy of this Government, from which we have not departed and from which no amount of mis representation on the part of honorable members opposite can induce us to depart.

Mr Curtin:

– The Government has not departed from its defence policy because it has not previously had a policy.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely beside himself on that point. In yesterday’s debate I noticed a remarkable measure of agreement among honorable members opposite, and I was astounded. I did not hear the early part of the debate, but I was amazed and delighted to hear the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) announce that he was in absolute agreement with the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) on the question before the House. That, I think, is something for which the Opposition can feel extremely thankful”, it is the only sign of agreement among themselves in respect of defence that we have yet witnessed, because never before has disagreement among honorable members opposite on this matter been deeper, greater, or more unbridgable than it has been during the last few weeks. Lot us examine these differences of opinion. The Leader of the Opposition - Caesar - and his political wife, the honorable member for East Sydney, have told us different stories.

Mr.Curtin. - East Sydney at least is above suspicion.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I have heard a very different story.

Mr Casey:

– Rumours from the party room ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– And rumours out of the party room ! I have no doubt, however, that all honorablegentlemen opposite will be able to reconcile their divergent view’s; and also reconcile with Mr. Ogilvie’s advocacy of compulsory military training their desire to have no form of military training whatever. That feat, no doubt, will be easily accomplished.

Mr Curtin:

– Does the honorablegentleman say that the alternative is compulsory military training, or no training at all?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– During, my membership of this House I have not yet heard oneword from honorable members opposite to suggest that they believe in training: anybody. All I have heard is that they believe in a system of home defence, and on that point also they are not unanimous. If the honorable member for East Sydney can explain what form of defence he believes in, I suggest that every member of this House will be prepared to stay here for a week to listen to him. I have heard the honorable member for Batman denouncing every form of defence. The facts are that divisions of opinion may exist on both sides as to what will happen in the international sphere in the future. There is no harm in facing up to the facts and I believe in doing so. I am sure that this Government will face up to the facts as they exist to-day. There is no denying that honorable members supporting this Government have advocated certain definite measures which the Government has not been prepared to adopt, but it is only reasonable to expect that they will express their opinions; in fact, the Government would think very little of them if they failed to do so.

Mr Curtin:

– That is precisely the case with honorable members on this side of the House.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– There is complete and absolute unity among honorable members on this side in regard to the proposals which the Government has placed before this chamber. The people of Australia have to choose between this Government’s policy and a set of contradictory propositions put up by the Opposition, and I contend that if this alternative were tested before the people tomorrow the Government would win as it did at the general election, for the simple reason that the electors of Australia have no faith in either the intention, or. the capacity, of the Opposition, if it were elected to power, to implement a defence policy. On the other hand, the people of Australia have complete confidence in the defence programme placed by the Government before the House, and I have no doubt that these proposals will be carried.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I do not suppose there is any question which runs across classes and partiesin Australia more than does this issue of military preparation. Divisions of opinion exist on all sides, and have been just as obvious on the Government side . in the course of this debate as on this side. All supporters of the Government apparently unite upon a policy of local security, but from some of them we gather that local security is to be obtained by fighting in Europe, whilst others seem to think that it is to be obtained by preparing to fight in Australia and not out of it. The Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) made great play upon the advocacy of compulsory military training by Mr. Ogilvie. I point out that Mr. Ogilvie advocated such action as a proposed change in the Labour party’s policy. He, did not propose a policy for Australia or for himself, but simply suggested, and apparently the Labour conference in Tasmania supported him, that the policy of the Australian Labour party should be changed so as to provide for compulsory military training. Remember, however, that that proposal is compulsory military training for the defence only of Australia and territories controlled by Australia.. To that extent it is perfectly consonant with the policy of the Labour party.Mr. Ogilvie opposes as much as anybody else the idea of raising forces for active service overseas.

Mr Holt:

– The Labour party in this House agrees with him.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– No. Mr.

Ogilvie is merely making a proposal for an alteration of the Labour party’s platform by which he is bound. Before such an alteration can be made, he must get the support of representatives of other States at the Australian Labour party’s interstate conference. On this issue the difference between the policy of the supporters of the Government, and of the members of the Labour party appears to be this: The defence policy of the Government and of its supporters is to be planned and operated in co-operation with Great Britain and other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations ; that is to say it is to fit into the mosaic of a general imperial scheme to be directed by the imperial authorities, the Australian authorities merely doing their part in effectuating the general scheme.. On the other hand the Labour party, and the Labour movement generally,believe that the defence policy of this country should be one which, has regard to the possibility of Australia being attacked and should be designed solely for the purpose of warding off an attack. That is to say, the Australian Labour party’s scheme of defence does not fit into the imperial or British scheme of defence at all, whereas the Commonwealth Government scheme does. If war should break out the actions of this Government would be determined by the imperial command. The policy of the Government may change from time to time, but it is constant in that it is framed in relation to Great Britain’s policy. If the form of British policy should change, the Commonwealth Government’s policy would change with it. Some have said that the present Government has abandoned the defence policy on which it went to the country, and has adopted a new policy. It has not done that. The substance of the defence policy on which it went to the country was that it would co-ordinate its defence measures with those of Great Britain. It is still doing that, although the form of the policy abroad may have changed.

Mr Beasley:

– Then it has changed its defence policy.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– The policy has changed only superficially. The central feature of it remains the same, namely that it can be co-ordinated with the policy of Great Britain. The policy of the Labour party provides for the defence of Australia only - preparation to resist aggression - and it is not adopted out of ill will or hostility to the British people or even to the British Government; I think that we must distinguish between the two. Those who dislike the policy of the British Government do not necessarily dislike Great Britain. It would be as unfair to charge Major Attlee with dislike of Australia because he dislikes the Australian Government’s policy, as it is to charge the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) with hostility to Great Britain because he disapproves the policy of the British Government.

Mr Lane:

– But he has a special leaning towards Ireland.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– He may have, and I would not blame him for it, but that docs not imply hostility to the British people. It is very obvious to-day that neither Mr. De Valera nor any party in Eire is hostile towards the British people. The defence policy of the Australian Labour party is framed with the object of promoting the peace of the world. It is a sort of categorical imperative. The Labour party proposes that Australia should act in the matter of defence in such a way that its actions may become a rule of conduct for the rest of the world. The only preparations for war which can be consistent with the peace of the world, are those which are for the exclusive purpose of resisting invasion. If nations concentrate solely upon resisting invasion of their own country and do nothing more, it is obvious that they will not be suspected or feared ; consequently war will be unlikely.

Mr MCEWEN:
CP

– Does that mean that the Labour party would have no interest in the defence of New Zealand?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– The Labour party’s platform contains provision to cover the position in respect of New Zealand. At the Perth Conference in 1918 a special provision was included in the platform to provide that action overseas could be taken with the consent of the Australian people., because it was represented that if New Zealand were attacked the Australian people would wish to assist them.

Mr Anthony:

– How would the consent of the Australian people be obtained?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– By means of a referendum, as was proposed in the United States of America quite recently. If a nation makes preparations which are not strictly limited to its own defence against actual invasion, such preparations are bound to be misunderstood and misconstrued by other nations. The only way in which a peace-loving nation can prepare for defence, is by making preparations in such a form and with such restrictions that obviously its measures are intended solely for its own defence and cannot be used for any other purpose. That is why the Labour party, in framing the details of its defence policy, provided a scheme which cannot be used readily except for defence of Australia against aggression. That is why it regards as objectionable, the provision of large ships of war; these are equivocal weapons, because obviously, while these may be used for the defence of Australia, they may also be used for other purposes, including the general defence of the Empire. We should study closely the Australian position. In spite of what has been said by some honorable members, including the Assistant Minister (Mr. Archie Cameron), it must be fairly obvious that Australia is not in greater clanger of invasion than it had been; in fact, the danger is less that it was some time ago. . We must realize that there are three great nations bordering the Pacific. If Australia were in danger of invasion, it would expect invasion from one of three nations. No one can seriously contend that Australia is in danger of being invaded by the United States of America. The other nations are Japan and Russia. Whatever one may think of Russia, one cannot escape the conclusion that that country is determined not to go to war except in the defence of its own territory. Russia will not go to war for the promotion of the Communist cause in other countries. The big schism in Russia to-day is owing to the difference of opinion between those who believe that Russia should fight only for the defence of Russia, and those who want that country to become the centre of a world revolutionary war. The Trotsky party has always believed that the only way socialism can become an accomplished order is by its spread to all countries and that advantage should be taken of war to bring about a world revolution. The Trotskyists want to make Russia the spearhead of a world-wide social war, but Stalin is against that policy. Russia abandoned the great Communist party of Germany, and recognized Hitler’s accession to power. Undoubtedly it has abandoned the promotion of the Communist cause in China, and has been much criticized on that account. In the present conflict, China has not received any assistance from Russia beyond obtaining supplies of munitions.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Is not that a valuable form of assistance?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– Yes, but other nations are doing the same. Great Britain supplies munitions to any nation. In a totalitarian State, the Government has to accept responsibility for everything, but a democratic State may decline responsibility for the activities of private capitalists. The one thing that stands out crystal clear in the world to-day is that the Government of Russia will not fight except for the defence of its territory; not even for the support of communism in other countries will it draw the sword. It is clear that Russia has no aggressive intentions towards the rest of the wor*d and much clearer that it has no such intentions towards Australia. The position in respect of Japan is much better than it has ever been, because it is quite obvious that, whatever be the outcome of the Sino-Japanese conflict, Japan will be in a state of financial exhaustion similar to that in which it found itself at the termination of the Russo-Japanese war. If it wins, its full resources of men and money will be required to consolidate its conquest; if it fails, it can be, to a great extent, disregarded. . And what I am about to say regarding Other powers will also apply to Japan. Ear-flung empires are embarrassing to mother countries. Great Britain would be a stronger nation to-day if its Empire were not so scattered. No nation wants a far-flung empire like that of the British people. To-day, the expansionist nations are aiming at conquests near at home, so that they can have concentrated and easily-controlled territories, which will not involve them in overseas adventures or actions. That is what Japan, Italy and Germany are striving for. Italy and Germany have in view not the acquisition of remote overseas colonies.

Mr Badman:

– Is not Germany asking for the return of its former colonies?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I shall deal with tl at point shortly.

Mr ARCHIE Cameron:

– Italy waged a war against Abyssinia, which is far distant.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– Abyssinia will not be a long way from other Italian territory when the whole Italian plan has been consummated.

Mr ARCHIE Cameron:

– What is that plan ?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– It is perfectly obvious that Italy is aiming at a Mediterranean empire, including a portion of Egypt, and of Northern Africa. Germany is aiming at the hegemony of

Central Europe, probably spreading eventually to the East. In reply to the point raised by the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Badman), it seems to me that a great deal of talk about the return of the former German colonies is intended for overseas consumption. It supplies the German Government with an argument. I do not believe that Germany desires a colonial empire; if it does, that empire will come, not by the retrocession of its former colonial possessions, but by the annexation of Holland and the acquisition of Dutch overseas possessions. “Whatever may be the position in Europe, it seems perfectly clear that a war with Italy or with Germany would be a war fought out in Europe, and would not affect Australia.

Mr Gregory:

– Can not the honorable member realize that nations outside Europe might join in?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– What other nations could do so ? I have disposed of tha’t point. It is, -in my view, quite in-, conceivable that Russia would take part in any war unless attacked, and it would appear to be out of the question for Japan to do so in order to assist either Germany or Italy.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Does the honorable member think that Japan would maintain the status quo in the Pacific during a European war?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– For years the position of Japan will be such that it will not be able to do anything in that direction. Further, I do not think Japan desires outlying possessions.

Mr Francis:

– Who told the honorable member that?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– My own common sense, which also tells me that Great Britain would be more secure to-day if it did not possess a far-flung Empire. Now that the plane of warfare has shifted from the sea to the air, the nations desire empires comprising territories near home which can be controlled and policed from the air rather than from the sea. I believe that the change of the method of fighting from the’ sea to the air has altered tremendously the imperialistic ambitions of nations. Oversea colonies are quite a secondary consideration with Germany. If German ambitions with respect to the acquisition of territory develop, Germany will occupy most of Central Europe, and, similarly, if Italian ambitions extend further, Italy will establish a Mediterranean empire.

Even if I believed there was a much greater danger of attack- than is actually the case, I should nevertheless endorse the policy of the Australian Labour party as the correct one for Australia, or any other country, to adopt. A great deal of the danger of war eventuating is undoubtedly due to preparations made for war. Nations cannot continually prepare for war without incurring that danger. In such nations there grows up a class of people habituated to the idea of war. They see in war all sorts of opportunities for capitalistic success and the conquest of new markets. Members of the working class see that if new markets can be gained by their masters a greater degree of employment can be provided, while administrative and military classes see in any war opportunities for advancement. A nation cannot continue preparing for war without having to fight some day; it cannot make such preparations without creating a state of fear among other nations. The only attitude consistent with peace is one that cannot be construed in any way as being in preparation for action overseas. In those circumstances the policy advocated by the Labour party is, I believe, the right one for this country. If Great Britain were, involved in any way at all it would be a tremendous disaster for Australia.

Mr Anthony:

– Does the honorable member think that other countries would regard Australia as a separate political entity ?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– No. If Great Britain were at war I am certain they would not regard Australia as not being at war, too. If, for instance, Great Britain were at war with Japan, the Japanese would probably attack Australia, irrespective of what Australia did. But that does not affect my position. I hold that whatever happens to Australia or to any nation in the long run, we must make a stand for world peace, and with that object in view, if it is necessary to make preparations for war, only such action should be taken as could not be construed as anything but preparation for the actual defence of our own territory. I do not believe that there are malevolent nations in the world or that the rulers of any nations are actually malevolent. In my opinion the greatest danger of war results from international misunderstandings. There is little danger of war between Great Britain and the United States of America, because both nations speak the same language and read the same books and there is a free interchange of ideas between the two. But there is a great danger of war between countries that do not possess the same institutions and do not understand one another’s views. As I pointed out a moment ago, nations that prepare for war upon such a scale that they could wage a war overseas create fear in other countries.

Mr Anthony:

– Is not Great Britain’s unpreparedness for war the cause of the present risk of war?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I do not think so. One factor that in my opinion may bring lis to the verge of war is the closed Empire policy for which we, as well as Great Britain, are responsible, and under which* an attempt is made to close the Empire’s markets to other nations. This policy, which was adopted by Great Britain in 1931, is bringing war nearer.

Mr Prowse:

– Let us reduce the tariff.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I would favour a commercial union with New Zealand and the United States of America, and considerable reductions of the tariff. I should be prepared to make many sacrifices to bring peace nearer, because I realize that there cannot be peace when nations cease to deal with one another. All these things are secondary to the necessity to maintain peace. There is in my mind a difference between a nation saying: “We are going to keep our own markets as far as possible for ourselves, but we will trade with everybody else on an equal basis” and saying “We will keep our own markets as far as possible for ourselves and beyond that trade only with favored peoples “. The latter is the more dangerous attitude and, as I say, I believe it is the closed Empire policy rather than Britain’s unpreparedness that is making for war. Prior to the adoption of that policy by Great Britain in 1931 the British Empire had acquired a great deal of overseas territory without opposition on the part of other countries, because it was realized that when Great Britain took possession of, for instance, a portion of Africa or Asia, it did not exclude other nations from trading with the inhabitants on equal terms with British people, whereas if Germany, France or any other country assumed control of an undeveloped area a monopoly of trade would be established by that country. But Great Britain has abandoned its former policy with the result that the danger of war has been increased.

I have, however, been drawn from my main theme. I repeat that in my opinion the defence policy enunciated by the Labour party, and to which I heart and soul subscribe, should be adopted in the interests of Australia.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Henty

– At the outset I desire to congratulate the Government, and the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) in particular, upon the enlarged national defence scheme placed before the House. To me it is admirable so far as it goes, but my complaint is that it goes neither far enough nor fast enough. I shall, however, deal with that point at a later stage.

I regret that the Minister for Defence has spent so little time in the House during this very important debate. Apart from debates during the Great War, this is the most important discussion on defence that has ever occurred in this Parliament, and it is most unfortunate that the Minister should not have been in a position to listen to the views - many, I admit, critical, but many also constructive - put forward by honorable members. I make that comment, however, in no chiding spirit. I assume that the Minister is not present because he is overwhelmed with the great burden he is carrying at the present time. That brings me to a very interesting point. In no other part of the world would the Minister for Defence be absent from Parliament during a debate of this nature, and I am impelled to ask whether the Minister is not carrying an impossible load, and to urge strongly upon the Government the desirability of giving immediate consideration to the -question of dividing the Defence Department into two sections, and creating another portfolio. The crisis through which we are passing at present demands, I think, such action, for which there is ample precedent. For many years there was in this country an Assistant Minister for Defence when the defence programme was more or less normal. There are Assistant Ministers in departments of much less significance, and the responsibilities of which are less onerous than are those of the Defence Department at the present time. There is, for instance, a Ministry for Commerce under the control of a Minister and two Assistant Ministers. Heaven alone knows what they do, but that is the position. Then the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has acquired an assistant within the last six months, and altogether several departments are double-banked with portfolios, while the defence of Australia, which is of supreme importance at the present juncture, is dealt with by one Minister who is not able to remain in this chamber for more than a few minutes at a time during a vital debate, continuing over a number of days.

I desire now to refer to the proposal to appoint for a term not clearly defined an Inspector-General of the Australian Military Forces, and to bring to Australia to occupy that post an officer of general rank in the United Kingdom. In past years there have been visits by a number of very highly placed and distinguished British officers who have dealt with defence matters as a whole. For example, Sir John Salmond came to Australia some years ago to advise upon the Royal Australian Air Force, and important representatives of the British navy have visited this country also; but in each case their mission has been a brief and special one. They have been requested toreport to the Commonwealth Government upon our defence system, and to make recommendations with respect to it, and I trust that the Government will, if possible, confine the duties of the distinguished officer who is to come from Great Britain on this occasion in a similar manner. I make that request for a num- ber of reasons, but particularly because I believe that the briefer the visit the better the man we shall get. There is not an unlimited number of officers of general rank of outstanding capacity in the British Army, and to bring one of these gentlemen to Australia for any long period would, in all probability, interfere very seriously with his status and promotion in the British Army.

To me the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was incomprehensible ; throughout, it consisted of a series of contradictions, and it was quite contradictory of the previous responsible statements made by my honorable friend. As recently as the 26th March last the honorable gentleman said -

The defence programme outlined last night is a vastly different thing to the theories of collective security and external cooperation which hitherto have been the Prime Minister’s preoccupation.

And then he went on to say - ‘ 11 is is realism, lt faces the facts as they ;i fleet Australia and Australians.

That was, apart from detail, one hundred per cent, endorsement of this scheme; it was a complete endorsement of its principle, its enlarged nature, and the increased expenditure. I admit that the honorable gentleman went on to say in the course of that statement that the Government had stolen the Opposition’s defence scheme. If that charge is true why did the honorable gentleman occupy the best part of an hour yesterday in condemning the Government’s scheme? He said that the scheme is his own, yet yesterday he literally kicked it to pieces. The honorable gentleman still stands for a policy of isolation, a defence policy running along independent lines; he says that it is our duty in the formulation of a defence policy to look after Australia only, just as it is the part of every other portion of the Empire to look after itself only. The honorable gentleman is against co-operation.. It is a. case of “ Each for himself, and the devil take the hindmost “. If that policy were carried out in the present circumstances, Australia would probably be the country that the devil would take. The honorable gentleman is in favour of each of the component parts of the British Empire providing separately for its own de- fence. It must be obvious to the honorable gentleman that the certain way to court defeat is to allow an enemy such as we might . have to face - a powerful nation in itself, and not improbably a combination of powers - to dispose of the British countries one by one. When the Leader of the Opposition was in the midst of his speech yesterday some one asked a question about our export and import trade, and he made the remarkable statement that he advo- cated a policy for the defence of th is country by the Australian Navy confined to Australian waters; but he gave very little explanation of the confines of those waters. He then said - “But things are allright in the. world ; they have substantially improved in the last few weeks ! “ He also said, in effect, “ There is a prospect for the future “ - indicating the near future - “ of such an alliance, beginning with the trade agreement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, as would guarantee the trade routes of Australia in time of war “.

Mr Curtin:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– The honorable gentleman said that we should stand aloof and have nothing to do with the rest of the Empire in matters of defence, but, “ Please, United Kingdom, and I pray you, the United States of America, if we get into trouble, look after our trade routes “. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) was a little more specific as to what he would do. He was quite clear that he would keep the Army at home, and quite clear, apparently, that he would keep the Air Force at home, but he said, “ I am in favour of allowing the Navy to go a little way from Australia “. Did he mean to Rottnest Island, Thursday Island, Tasmania, or where? The remarks of these honorable gentlemen plainly indicate that the party opposite has no policy whatever in relation to defence, and that its purpose is merely to oppose for the sake of opposing. Such an attitude at this time is particularly deplorable.

Mr Curtin:

– Does the honorable member favour the borrowing of £10,000,000 for the Government’s defence programme?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– I shall come to that a little later. I should like first to say a few words upon the very important subject of the preservation of our trade routes, because this seems to me, and I am sure it must appear so to all who have pondered it, to be one of the most important aspects of our defence requirements. Our common aim is to make this country so unattractive, so formidable to an invader, that no nation would care to attack us; but to my. mind the very beginning of the safety of this country is the protection of our trade routes. If we chose a policy of isolation and a powerful aggressor came against us, our little Australian Navy, even after we have built it up by the expenditure of moneys provided for in the schedule to the bill, would be sent to the bottom, or shut up in our various harbours. At any rate it would be completely out of action in a fortnight. Then, suddenly, and completely, our export and import trade would be stopped. We would awaken some morning to find that we could not send away a single bale of wool, a quarter of beef, a carcase of lamb, a gallon of wine, or a pound of butter or any of the other export commodities of this country. That is not a matter of controversy, but of plain fact. The outcome need not be dwelt upon. We should then find ourselves immediately overwhelmed with surplus primary products; all prices within Australia would go down to a level insufficient to pay transport charges to the markets. At one sweep would be destroyed, not only the employment of the countryside, but also the purchasing power of the people, and, in turn, the great majority of our metropolitan and industrial workers, business men and employers of every sort, would be thrown idle. That would be the logical outcome of any policy of isolating the defence of this country rather than of co-operating in time of trouble with the Empire as a whole, and particularly with Great Britain. Let me say quite clearly that I shall resist in every possible way, asI am sure the Government itself would, any sort of conscription in this country for overseas service, either in peace or war. But the great citadelupon which all British protection in this part of the world rests is Singapore; upon that base naval might and effectiveness will be concentrated in time of war, and it is to the force based on Singapore that we must look for protection -against an invader. Certainly, upon the fate of Singapore will very largely depend whether an invader will come to Australia or not, and how far our trade routes will be kept open for normal business in time of war. That being so - and it is certainly so - how can we possibly have an effective policy without full co-operation with Singapore ? Why was the Singapore Naval Base established? It was created at the cost of millions of pounds of the British taxpayers’ money, with very little supplement from outside, not to defend London, but for the defence of the British Empire comprehensively, including Australia and British possessions in the Far East and in the south-eastern Pacific. Singapore stands virtually across the lines of communication of the one enemy which this country may anticipate.

Mr Gander:

– The honorable member refers to Japan.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– I do. Why not talk plainly. In the British House of Commons British members speak frankly of Germany, Italy, Japan or Russia, and I believe that Japan will apprecia te our honesty if we discuss these matters frankly. Besides, we have, to consider not Japan alone. There is in existence to-day a three-power pact, two of the signatories of which are the most overcrowded and the most land hungry countries in the world. In Australia we have at once the richest, the fairest-

Mr Nock:

– Most undeveloped.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– And the least defended of all the countries in the world.

I turn now to discuss briefly the problem of Australia’s Infantry Forces. I wish that I could be as positive as is the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) that there is no danger in the near future. Unhappily I have not his certainty of mind. I do not suggest that invasion is imminent, but I am not unmindful of the fact that international law and international morality have apparently -been forgotten by the rulers of some great countries. During the last two or three years we have witnessed aggression in a most terrible form. I applaud the Government’s scheme, as far as it goes; but I emphasize that, without adequate infantry forces well equipped and sufficiently trained to go into immediate action, Australia cannot be considered safe. Eminent military authorities believe that if invasion does come to this country, which God forbid, it will come, not as a great army, but in a series of raids. Military strategy would probably suggest the landing of say, 10,000 troops at one point with feints, demonstrations or actual landings elsewhere.

While I am in complete agreement that we must have these technical services upon which the Government proposes to incur heavy expenditure, it is, I believe, essential that we should have adequate infantry to meet the raids in strength where and when they may be made. Obviously an aggressor would not land forces in the north-west of Australia, where it would be easy to get ashore, because that portion of the Commonwealth would have no attraction for the enemy. The objective would be one or more of our vital industrial areas. If to-morrow we had a couple of months’ notice of impending danger of forces being landed simultaneously near Sydney and Melbourne or in Western Australia what strength would we have to resist them? Once they got ashore we could not expect to halt them with our air forces, and the vulnerability of modern naval units to attack from- the air has been very much exaggerated. This, at all events, is the opinion of British naval authorities. Therefore, if an invading force landed within striking distance of Newcastle, Sydney or Melbourne, our position would be extremely grave. Our present infantry strength is 35,000 militia, scattered all over Australia, whose training amounts to twelve half-days a year and six days in camp, “less two days travelling to and from camp, so that their actual period of training is ten days a year. I have no wish to criticize the mcn. On. the contrary I warmly commend them for their public spirit. But the truth is that we have the greatest difficulty in getting sufficient numbers, and the physical standard of the units is not as high as it should be: it is not nearly up to the standard for acceptance during the Great “War. Yet this is the force upon which we should have to depend to guard Australia against the possibility of two or three heavy and well-planned raids.

It is interesting to see how the 35,000 militiamen are distributed in the various States of the Commonwealth. The distribution is, of course, very largely on a population basis. Thus, in the great State of New South Wales we have less than. 13,000 of these slightly trained men, and in Victoria we have 9,500. These men would, in ali probability, be confronted by war veterans or conscript trained forces. In Queensland, that part of the Commonwealth which an invader would obviously find very habitable, there are only 5,000 partly trained militia. South Australia has 3,000, and there are only 2,300 in Western Australia, which is so isolated from the rest of the Commonwealth, that rapid ‘assistance could not be given. The State of Tasmania has a mere 1,200. If the members of our militia were comparable to the Australian Forces in France and Palestine in 1917 and 1918, the defence force, although being still totally inadequate, would be experienced fighters upon whom strong reinforcements could be rested with the certainty that they would very quickly reach a high standard of efficiency.1 The capacity of the present militia forces to absorb and train recruits must be very Low indeed. Months would elapse before we could produce men with sufficient training to go into the line against experienced troops without suffering appalling casualties.

The position is even more serious than that. We have no system for the calling up of reinforcements in an emergency. This is an aspect which I wish particularly to stress. I urge the early reestablishment in this country of the area officer system, and I suggest that area officers should, wherever possible, be supplemented by industrial officers. These officers would be responsible for compiling a register of all men in the Commonwealth between the ages of IS and 50 years fit for service or wartime industry. The men should be classified accord ing to whether they are to be front line men or industrial workers. If they are highly skilled, then they would be in a reserve for industry. If they are classified to go into the front line, they should be allocated in such a way that their services would be available immediately the order for mobilization was given. Under existing conditions in Australia, if the order for mobilization were to be given to-day, there would be chaos. It is not difficult to visualize the disorganization that would occur in Sydney in the event of a sudden raid.

I happened to be in France on holidays in 1914 when the war broke out, and I was amazed ‘by the efficiency and expedition with which mobilization was carried out. The only notification that France was at war was a single typewritten line giving the date of mobilization, 1st August; yet within halfanhour, the older men in the fifties began to pass down the streets on their way to the barracks, where they were equipped, and given such duties as fell within their capacity. By the tenth or twelfth day, mobilization’ had extended to the first reserves, or the near reserves, for whom the barracks were ready, so these men were able at once to enter the fighting services. We are not .a conscript country, and never want to be, but we should make adequate provision for our defence so that if war does come, our men may go into action in a businesslike way.

Mr Mahoney:

– And the war profiteers will prosper.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– I sincerely hope that war will never come to this country, and, I urge that we take every possible step to keep our sons out of war.

Like the Prime Minister, the Acting Minister for Commerce and many other honorable members I have a son of military age, so it would be foolish to suggest that I am in any way speaking in favour of war.

I emphasize that a scheme for the systematic mobilization of Australian manhood should be drawn up by the Government, concurrently with the addition to the Air Force, the Navy and coast defences. It has been said that we have not the necessary equipment for larger numbers who might be enrolled for compulsory training. I strongly challenge that statement. The existing equipment for infantry, machine gun, artillery units and other arms is used only on twelve half-days and one “week in every year) so the possibility of expansion of training is apparent. A battalion commander in Melbourne,7 to whom I spoke last week on this subject, informed me that with his existing equipment he could train five time the present number, provided more training days were made available.

There is nothing warlike in my suggestion. It is purely sound defence. On what would a potential enemy take stock of this country? Would it be our 70 odd aeroplanes, or double that number, as proposed under the enlarged defence scheme? Would it be the cruisers of the Australian Navy or our coastal defences? No. All these things would count for little, if we were without an efficient infantry force. An enemy would measure our defence potentiality on our trained man-power, or man power in availability. If we were measured only on our very limited technical services and our 35,000 partly trained militia men our rating would be very low indeed. An enemy would know that if his forces could get ashore, resistance would be very slight. If, however, we had a proper system providing for the rapid mobilization of an effective defence force, we should be assessed as a far more formidable objective and probably be left to enjoy our peace.

I submit that scheme with confidence to every member of the Opposition, and I put if forward as a commonsense one. I ask honorable members first to satisfy themselves as to conscription. Everybody must subscribe to the statement made yesterday by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) that one cannot visualize stripping this country of its manhood as was done in the Great War. It may be that we could send two or three divisions somewhere overseas, but they would be volunteers, and we could always be certain of getting volunteers; compulsory training is in no way associated with conscription for overseas service.

What does recent history show as to the indispensability, of infantry ? Madrid; for a year or more, has stood against all the modern mechanism of war. Why? It has been practically bombed to bits, and ii is constantly under heavy gunfire, but it has stood so far because of its strongly entrenched and indomitable lines of infantry. I do not say that infantry will save Barcelona, yet, if there were sufficient infantrymen, they could save that city. Most of the professional army of Spain went to the Nationalists, and what a price Republican Spain has paid through not having a trained army ! Had it possessed the professional army, the story would have been entirely different. It started with untrained troops, and that is the reason why it has paid such a terrible price.

The history of Gallipoli tells of a glorious landing and a magnificent achievement up to a point, but every good mind in. the Australian Imperial Force knows” that if we had had there a division of Australians from France, as they were in 1917 or 1918, or a division of dismounted Australian Light Horse from Palestine, as they were in those years, they would have swept through irresistibly to the Narrows. The United States of America started in the war from scratch,” where we should have to start to-morrow - without even a mobilization scheme - and quite a year went by before that country had any men in France. Take the SinoJapanese war. Why have the Chinese, temporarily, at least - I do not say permanently - checked the Japanese, despite all their armaments and modern mechanism ? It is because when this conflict began China had for years been engaging in a great deal of internal warfare. Probably a couple of million Chinese had been more or less in arms and had been handling rifles. The present CommanderinChief, Chiang-kai-shek, had really great forces in arms at the outset of the war. The Young Marshal, the Manchu, had a considerable army with which he was engaged against the socalled “ reds “. These forces, once opponents, are now combined against the Japanese, and, in addition, there were armed bandits in the northern provinces practised in guerilla tactics, who have all thrown in. their lot with Chiangkaishek. Without modem equipment,. China, by attacks upon communica- tions, and by being able to stand up to the enemy, has achieved the miracle of stopping one of the greatest powers in the world, despite the fact that that power is armed with all the latest equipment.

As I see it, there is real danger to Australia; I do not say to-morrow, but in the years close ahead. It is in the power of this Government, and the Parliament as a whole, actually to remove that danger, to save this country from aggression, and to k«ep our young men out of war. I have no doubt at all that, as the debate proceeds, and as the Government gives more consideration to its present defence scheme, it will remove the one great weakness in it, which is that, for at least some time ahead, it provides no infantry of immediate fighting account.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) went to considerable pains to allay public fears that the Government might impose conscription upon this country, A careful survey of the speeches delivered by honorable gentlemen on the Ministerial side would at least provide matter for earnest thought, because it is evident that those honorable members would be prepared to impose upon the manhood of Australia a system of compulsory military service which would definitely require the bearing of arms, not only within the borders of this continent, but also overseas. The whole party history of honorable members opposite furnishes justification for my declaration. No matter bow extensive may be the defence programme of the Government, apparently it will never satisfy the desires of those who are incapable of appreciating the limitations of the resources of this country. The honorable member also said that the present defence proposals of the Government neither went far enough, nor could be put into operation rapidly enough, to suit him. One would imagine that we were actually engaged in the consideration of defence proposals following upon a declaration of hostilities. The panicstricken manner in which honorable members opposite have spoken on this subject makes it appear that they are incapable of reviewing the situation in a calm way. Their speeches have consisted in the main either of strictures upon members on this side of ‘the chamber or of observations such as might be expected in time of actual war, and have not been in any sense helpful to the country. Both the honorable member for Henty this afternoon, and the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) last night rendered a grave disservice to Australia in seeking to show that there was substantial justification for the viewheld in certain other countries of the world that we were not developing this country, or populating it in a reasonable way. When our representatives subsequently attend international conferences of one kind and another, they may be confronted with reports of these and similar speeches. The deduction that we are not entitled to retain possession of this country should not be made possible by the utterances of members of this Parliament. 1 therefore seriously deprecate the speeches of the honorable members to whom I have referred. If any people in the world can be said to be really developing the country in which they live, it is the Australian people. The last 150 years have conclusively shown the marvellous colonization characteristics of our people and have undoubtedly justified our possession of this country. We have, in fact, made remarkable progress.

The speech of the honorable member for Hunty was also contradictory in that, while he said with one breath that the defence programme of the Government was not sufficiently extensive and was not being implemented at a sufficiently fast rate, he said in the next breath that even with the elaborate expansion now proposed, the programme, in respect of ‘its naval and air force provisions, would be ineffective.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– The honorable member is in error.

Mr MAKIN:

– I suggest that the honorable member for Henty should carefully read the report of his speech. He will then understand why I make this assertion.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– Do not make a sermon out of it !

Mr MAKIN:

– The honorable member will no doubt be required to answer for what he has said, for I am not mistaken in my impression of the meaning of his utterance. He will, no doubt, recollect that he said that even with the increase of the Navy, foreshadowed by the Government, it would still not be difficult to bottle up all our vessels in certain harbours of this country. He will also recollect saying that, even if we were to double the number of our aircraft, the force would still be incapable of undertaking the service which it was intended to perform. In spite of these remarks, however, the honorable gentleman enendorsed the programme of the Government, and even went so far as to offer his congratulations to .the Minister for Defence. If anything more inconsistent is desired than the remarkable speech of the honorable member I do not know where it could be obtained. I would say to honorable gentlemen opposite who make extravagant statements-

Mr Gander:

– Why is the honorable member for Henty leaving the chamber?

Other honorable members interjecting,

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).I must insist on honorable members refraining from interjections.

Mr MAKIN:

– It is remarkable that though some honorable gentlemen opposite do not hesitate to lecture the members of the Opposition, they are unwilling to listen to criticism of their own observations. The retirement of the honorable member for Henty from the chamber is in itself eloquent testimony to his unwillingness to listen to the other side of the question.

We have before us for consideration a bill which provides for a loan of £10,300,000 for certain defence equipment. I strongly protest against such a measure being introduced without a great deal more explanation of it than has been furnished to us by the Government. The purpose of this bill, we are told, is to provide, in part, for the financing of a three-year defence programme involving an increased expenditure of £43,000,000. That being so, the Government should have given us much more information than it has seen fit to provide. If it had not been for the timely rebuke of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) we should not have had the meagre information that is now before us. Even as it is, I challenge the propriety of some of the items which appear in the schedule that- has been tabled.

Before proceeding to a detailed consideration of this schedule, however, I protest strongly against the failure of the Prime Minister, or some other responsible Minister, to explain fully all that is involved in this proposed added expenditure of £43,000,000. The Government should undoubtedly have related the expenditure proposed in this bill to that contemplated in the remainder of the programme that is to be implemented next financial year, and in the following year.

Mr Thorby:

– The Prime Minister gave a very clear outline of the threeyear programme in the statement he made on Wednesday night.

Mr MAKIN:

– I have considered that statement and I do not regard it as in any sense the comprehensive survey to which we are entitled. The proposal of the Government to finance its defence programme out of loan funds is definitely unsound and out of harmony with the wishes of the general community. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday pointed out clearly to the House that defence equipment is a wasting asset; it is subjected to deterioration and obsolescence to a degree more marked than in any other public utility. That being so, surely it is our obligation, and not that of future generations, to provide for the expenditure upon this equipment. It should be provided for by either direct taxation or by utilizing those undoubted facilities that are possible to the nation through the Commonwealth Bank. I feel that it is reprehensible for the Commonwealth Government to try to place upon the shoulders of future generations the burdens that the present generation should rightly carry. Honorable gentlemen opposite would not be so enthusiastic about this enlarged defence programme if fresh taxes upon their special friends were inescapable. The method that is ‘being adopted, however, not only avoids fresh taxation of the wealthy interests of this country and absentees, but also gives them a further opportunity to extract profit; because under this bill £300,000 is set aside to meet expense involved in the flotation of the loan, which is, of course, a “ rake-off “ for them. And, after having obtained that “ rake-off “, they will have the further opportunity to make profits in meeting the orders of the Government under the defence programme, as well as the constantly recurring interest bill which will ultimately aggregate this loan amount to double the figure set down. In a word, the Government is opening the way to exploitation of the people of this country by private banking interests and armament firms that have their affairs so closely interlocked, and, accordingly, I oppose the proposal now made, first, because it lays down a principle in the financing of defence expenditure which is not only unsound, but also definitely wrong; secondly, because no ministerial statement has been made to justify this enormous expenditure to cope with what is claimed to be a state of emergency; and thirdly, because I am emphatically opposed to the private manufacture of armaments in which exorbitant profits are made at the expense of the nation and, in particular, its social welfare. What state of emergency exists to-day that was not apparent six months ago? When six months ago the Government increased the rate of expenditure on the defence of this country we were told that the amount then- provided would meet all requirements. What has occurred ‘since then to change the opinion of the Government? The Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) endeavoured to explain that world conditions had deteriorated, and that the international situation gave cause for greater fear than was the case last year. But I do not think that any honorable member of this House, or members of the general public, will endorse his declaration. As a matter of fact, the position in Europe to-day1, and in the world generally, shows some appeasement compared with last year. It becomes all the more astounding that the Government should seek sanction for its programme provided for under this bill when one .considers the world -situation. Unless the Government is prepared to advance to this House some further justification for the programme that it has submitted, we are not warranted in making available to it means which will en able it to create a war hysteria in this country and deprive the people of the social benefit due to them.

I seize this opportunity to declare that the Government will never implement the social insurance proposals to which it has committed itself. The Government will find a convenient excuse to shelve the scheme, or abandon it altogether. Of course, it will not accept responsibility for its action ; it will make some excuse such as that the States refuse to co-operate, and then it will use the money that should have been devoted to the inauguration of this important social service for the furtherance of its colossal ‘defence schemes. ‘

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member “may not discuss national insurance on this bill.

Mr MAKIN:

– It is stated in the bill that the sum of £1,000,000 is to ‘be devoted to paying the final instalment on the cruiser Sydney. The first instalment was paid from revenue, and Parliament was given to understand that all subsequent instalments would also be paid from revenue. Last year, however, the Government departed from that principle, and an instalment was paid out of the loan of £2,500,000 which was raised overseas. At the time the Treasurer informed honorable members that this loan was to be used to meet non-recurring expenditure, and nothing was said at the time about part of it being used to pay’ the second last instalment on the cruiser Sydney. Now a further £1,000,000 of loan money is to :be used to make the final payment on the cruiser. Thus the new loan of £10,000,000 is not even to be expended wholly on the Government’s new defence programme; part of it is to be used to pay for the old programme. The Treasurer tried to make us believe that the new loan is to be raised entirely in Australia, but when we remember what happened in regard to the instalments on the cruiser Sydney, we are justified in .believing that he will be quite capable of borrowing still more money overseas for defence purposes. Honorable members are entitled to receive more explicit information than has yet been vouchsafed to them. Of course, Government supporters may have been given additional information in the party room, but, on the information so far made public, Parliament would not bo justified in giving the Government authority to raise this loan for defence purposes, more particularly, if there is any danger that the money, in whole or in part, is to be raised abroad. Further borrowing overseas will lead the country buck to the calamitous conditions that prevailed some years ago. Such a policy does not deserve the endorsement of this Parliament or of the people.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Holt) adjourned.

House adjourned at3.7 p.m.

page 678

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Wireless Broadcasting : Use for Educational Purposes

Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. To encourage the use of broadcasting for educational purposes, will the Government consider recommending the remission of radio broadcast listeners’ fees on receivers installed in schools?
  2. What would be the estimated loss of fees entailed by such remission ?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Consideration has been given to such proposal on several occasions, but the Government has found it impracticable to extend the concession of free licences beyond those permitted to blind persons.
  2. It is not possible to say what loss of fees would be entailed.

Canned Pineapple Industry: British Preference : Export Trade

Mr Francis:

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement in connexion with the Angro-American Trade Tact appearing in yesterday’s press that some variation in preference to Australian canned pineapples is probable?
  2. If a variation is likely, what is proposed?
  3. In view of the special efforts made by this industry to increase production to meet overseas trade, the many difficulties overcome, and the enormously increased areas coming into hearing this year, will he urgently communicate with Sir Earle Page, leader of the

Commonwealth trade delegation to the United. Kingdom, instructing him to make strong representations to the United Kingdom Government to ensure the preservation of existing preferences to avoid chaos in this important and expanding industry?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. Whilst negotiations are in progress the Government is unable to disclose details of any proposals or of the course discussions are taking. As far as canned pineapples are concerned all that can be stated is that before the Ministers left Australia full investigations were made, and they have in their possession complete data including the views of representatives of the industry.
Mr Francis:

s asked the Acting Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

What is the quantity and value of canned pineapples exported to both the United Kingdom and Canada for each year from 1932 to 1937 inclusive?

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

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

The quantity and value of canned pineapples exported from the Commonwealth to the United Kingdom and Canada for the years referred to were as follows: -

Resident Minister in Canberra : Provision of Home

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - -

What is the capital expenditure involved, in connexion with the ministerial residence at Canberra, on -

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. £200 (for connexion from the supply mains to the house).
  2. and (d) £320 (covering sewerage and water supply).

Expenditure on engineering services within the house, and within the allotment, such as electric lighting, sewerage, heating and water, is included in the contract price. The engineering services referred to in (a), (b), (c) and (d) are provided for in connexion with the erection of all buildings on new subdivision, and expenditure on them is chargeable against the administration and not to the lessee.

Foodstuff Reserves in Britain : Purchases from Australia.

Mr Wilson:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

n asked the Acting Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Having regard to the cable news in the daily press to the effect that the British Government has arranged substantial purchases of wheat and other foodstuffs to provide for possible national emergency, can he inform the House as to whether his department took any action to secure a share in these orders in the interests of Australian wheat-growers and other producers ?

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

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

The Commonwealth Government was not aware that the British Government was actually making purchases of wheat recently, and, consequently, the Commerce Department was not in a position to take any action. The Government has no knowledge of the purchase of any other foodstuffs.

Automatic Telephone Exchange at rockhampton.

Mr Forde:

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

  1. When was it decided to establish an automatic telephone exchange at Rockham pton?
  2. What is the estimated cost of (a) the equipment, and (b) thenew building?
  3. What sum of money has been provided in the 1937-38 Estimates for the work?
  4. When will the work be commenced, and when is it expected that it will be completed?
  5. What has been the cause of the long delay that has taken place in establishing an automatic telephone exchange inRockhampton ?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

  1. August, 1937. 2. (a) £21,316. (b) As tenders for the building have not yet been called, it is inadvisable to state the estimated cost at this stage.
  2. £15,500.
  3. The date of commencement cannot be given, but efforts are being made to introduce the automatic service concurrently with the issue of the telephone directory in May, 1939.
  4. There has been no undue delay, bearing in mind that the present exchange is capable of meeting the existing needs.

Commonwealth Bank: Unclaimed Deposits

Mr Mahoney:

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the total amount of unclaimed money of depositors in the Commonwealth Bank where the amount of each depositor is £1 and under?
  2. What is the amount of unclaimed deposits over £1?
  3. Is any interest paid by the bank on these deposits.? If so, on what amount?
  4. What action is taken by the bank to find the owners of these unclaimed deposits?
Mr Casey:
UAP

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

Migration

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Will he supply figures showing (a) the total number of immigrants who have entered Queensland during the calendar year 1937 and for the three months ended 3 1st March, 1938, and (b) the nationalities of immigrants who have entered Queensland during the periods mentioned?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The information is being obtained.

Manufacture of Munitions

Mr Mahoney:

y asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What is the amount allocated to Tasmania by the Commonwealth Government for the production of munitions in that State?
  2. What number of men will be employed in such production ?
Mr Thorby:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) So far as government factories for the production of munitions are concerned, the Government is merely extending existing units and not building new establishments, consequently, no amount has been allotted to Tasmania nor to the other States in which there are no governmental factories.

  1. As regards supply of ammunition components by private industry, the funds made available for the organization for industry have not been allocated specifically to States, and the final allocation will depend upon the location of the selected companies. This matter of selection is now receiving attention.

    1. See 1. (a) and (b). Although up to the present no arrangements have been made for direct munition manufacture in Tasmania, it is expected that the increased demand for metals will benefit that State.

Royal Australianair Force: Accidents

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will you supply a statement giving the number of aeroplanes belonging to the Royal Australian Air Force that crashed during the years 1932 to 1938?

Mr Thorby:
CP

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

The information desired by the honorable member would disclose details which are regarded as highly secret by all air forces throughout the world. It would, therefore, not be in the public interests to supply the statement asked for, but I am prepared to give the reasons and further information privately and confidentially.

Militia Forces.

Mr Holt:

t asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice - 1. (a) What was the number of trainees in the militia forces during the twelve months’ period prior to the re-introduction by the Scullin Government of the voluntary training system ?

  1. What percentage of those called up for training during that period were rejected on the ground of physical unfitness?
  2. What was the cost of military defence in that year? 2. (a) What is the number of militia force trainees at present in training?
  3. What percentage of volunteers have been rejected on the ground of physical unfitness since the re-introduction of the voluntary system ?
  4. What is the estimated cost of military defence for the financial year 1937-38?
Mr Thorby:
CP

– The information will be obtained and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as early as possible.

Removal of Sandy Bay Rifle Range

Mr Frost:

t asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he state when the rifle range at Sandy Bay, Tasmania, is to be removed?

Mr Thorby:
CP

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

The general terms of the transfer of the range were agreed to in 1935, but on these being reduced to a formal agreement, the

Hobart City Council raised objections to a clause indemnifying the Commonwealth against accident on the danger zone. Investigation of matters associated with this clause is still proceeding, and the decision of the Hobart City Council and the Glenorchy Commission is awaited. Immediately on receipt of the decision the agreement will be completed and the work of removal will proceed.

Wireless Broadcasting: Use of Telegraph Line Between Studio and Transmitter

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 28th April, the honorable member for Darling asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Under what terms is the telegraph line provided between Country Broadcasting Services Limited 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 Limited, 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?

I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following answers to his inquiries: -

  1. A combined telephone and telegraph service of a private wire character is provided for Country Broadcasting Services Limited between the studios at Sydney and Orange and the transmitting station at Amaroo.
  2. Yes; it is a private service available for, but limited to, the business of the company.
  3. See answer to 2.

Industrial Requirements for Defence

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, prior to seeking the co-operation of the workers in defence matters, it is necessary that he should make himself conversant with their economic position caused through the displacement of labour by the introduction of machines?
  2. Is he willing to investigate, at least, the highly mechanized industries, such as coal mining, for a start, and to take some practical steps to reduce the hours of labour in order to offset the effect of the machines?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. It is not considered that it is necessary to adopt the suggestion of the honorable member. The Government has arranged for the constitution of an advisory panel consisting of representatives of trade unions, which will provide a means of consultation between the Government and trade unions on matters appertaining to the industrial side of defence requirements.

Telephone Calm Between New Zealand and Australia.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 28th. April, the honorable member for Wentworth made certain inquiries pertaining to the charges for telephonic conversations between the Awatea and (o) Australia and (b) New Zealand.

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following information : -

The charge for telephone calls between Kew Zealand and Australia, which was fixed by agreement between the two Administrations, is £2 5s. for three minutes’ conversation and 10s. for each additional minute. It will be appreciated that conversation from a mobile station Such as the Awatea is practicable in both directions immediately the vessel leaves port, and it is consequently anomalous to permit conversation from the ship at an amount substantially lower ‘than the through rate. It has to be remembered that the charge covers conversations to and from any point served by the telephone trunk network of Australia, and a tariff similar to that imposed by the New Zealand Administration would not only bc inconsistent with the agreement for the through “service, but would be totally unprofitable. The department has no knowledge of the reasons which induced the New Zealand Administration to introduce a charge so much below the rate which is applied by them, in common wilh Australia, for through traffic.

The honorable member might be interested to know that the tariffs for through traffic, and also for ship traffic, are at present under review, and it is hoped that means may be found to reduce the charges, although there is no likelihood of the fees between the Awatea and Australia being reduced to the level of those which are now applied to traffic between the vessel and Now Zealand.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 April 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380429_reps_15_155/>.