House of Representatives
30 June 1943

16th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 16th Parliament
  3. 1943

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S.Rosevear) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 568

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bill was returned from the Senate without requests: -

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1942-43.

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Loan Bill (No. 2) 1943.

Tasmania Grant Bill 1943.

page 568

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills was reported : -

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1942-43.

Loan Bill (No. 2) 1943.

Tasmania Grant Bill 1943.

page 568

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) - by leave - agreed to -

That government business shall take precedence over general business to-morrow.

page 568

NEW AND OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) - by leave - agreed to -

That Standing Order No. 70 - eleven o’clock rule - be suspended for the remainder of this week.

page 568

BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– As Chairman, I present the second report of the Broadcasting Committee.

Ordered to be printed.

page 568

QUESTION

DULY AND HANSFORD PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Non-unionist Employees.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether members of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch of the Security Service have visited the homes of women non-unionist war workers who are employed at the works of Duly and Hansford Proprietary Limited? If so, will the right honorable gentleman state why these women have been singled out for attention whereas he, during the last month, has refused to take any action against a large number of employees of the same works who are on strike?

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable gentleman asked a question, and then made an assertion. I have no knowledge of what has been done in the matter he has mentioned. I shall ascertain the facts and advise the honorable gentleman. The latter part of his question, which contains an assertion, is not as correct as he believes it to be.

page 569

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN” AIR FORCE

Promotion of Empire Air Trainees - Late Acting Flight Lieutenant Brennan - Acting Rank

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Air state whether or not finality has been reached in respect of the promotion of Australians trained under the Empire Air Scheme who are serving overseas? If so, what decision has been reached?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– Finality has been reached, and an agreement has been signed, in regard to the promotion of Australian airmen who are serving overseas. I propose to make a statement upon the matter before the end of the session.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Air, and I preface it by reminding the Minister of the statement which he made in the House last week on the subject of promotions in the Royal Australian Air Force, with particular reference to Paul Brennan, and his reported demotion. How does the Minister reconcile his statement that Brennan had not been demoted with the fact that Brennan, in a public statement, claimed that he thought he had been, and that he himself told me - I was personally acquainted with him - that he had been demoted? How does it come about that his rank, as indicated by his uniform, also showed that he had been demoted?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– by leave- Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary published in certain newspaper’s, the statement made by me in the House on the 25th June, 1943, concerning the case of Acting Flight Lieutenant V. P. Brennan was strictly accurate. My statement was divisible into two parts -

First, that advice received from Royal Australian Air Force Headquarters in London indicated that, in according with Royal Air Force practice, action had been taken in London for acting rank to be relinquished on ceasing to fill a vacancy in the Royal Air Force warranting such rank. That message, addressed to Royal Australian Air Force Head-quarters, dated the 13th May, read, “ Acting Flight Lieutenant V. P. Brennan relinquishes acting rank, with effect from 17th January, 1943 “- on which date his service with the Royal Air Force terminated.

Secondly, that no action had been taken by the Royal Australian Air Force in Australia to give effect to the action taken in London.

It must be recollected, if this matter is to be properly understood, that under the Air Force Act and the Air Force Regulations, the Governor-General is the authority having power to terminate grants of acting rank, and such action is authenticated by promulgation in the Commonwealth Gazette. If such action is not taken by the Governor-General any action by any other authority inconsistent therewith is ineffective. Therefore, the decision made in London would not be effective until given effect by the Governor-General in Australia.

Flight Lieutenant Brennan was appointed to a commission with the rank of pilot officer on the 15th July, 1942, vide the Commonwealth Gazette, No. 207, of the 30th July, 1943. He was confirmed in his appointment and promoted flying officer on the 15th November, 1942, as recorded in the Commonwealth Gazette, No. 107, of the 20th July, 1943. He was granted the acting rank of flight lieutenant with effect from the 1st December, 1942, vide the Commonwealth Gazette, No. 66, of the 25th March, 1943.

No further Gazette action has been initiated or taken, and, consequently, Acting Flight Lieutenant Brennan retained the rank of acting flight lieutenant until the date of his death, as I previously stated.

Any misunderstandings which have occurred in connexion with this case have resulted from a failure to appreciate the foregoing principles, and possibly from one signal sent from Royal Australian Air Force Head-quarters to his unit referring to Brennan’s rank as being pilot officer. It must be understood, however, that that signal was one relating exclusively to a posting. It was not, nor did it purport to be, an authority for the granting or relinquishment of rank and could not, in any circumstances, be regarded as any authority whatever to vary his rank. All earlier and subsequent signals described Brennan as flight lieutenant or acting flight lieutenant. Further, as indicating quite clearly that there was no misunderstanding on the part of those responsible for initiating action for the relinquishment of acting rank, the official file shows that the rank of acting flight lieutenant was quoted in -

  1. signal from the unit notifying the casualty;
  2. signal and departmental letter to the next of kin relating to the casualty ;
  3. the official accident report;
  4. the official casualty list;
  5. unit orders promulgating his posting to his unit in Australia. This order was dated the 28th May, 1943.

The one signal to which I have referred as mentioning the rank of pilot officer has apparently been misinterpreted in some quarters as having an effect which it could not have, and was not intended to have. It was a posting signal only, and as such could not affect in any way the rank of acting flight lieutenant.

His monetary entitlements are based on ranks as promulgated in the Commonwealth Gazette, and, accordingly, his pay and allowances between the time the actingrank of flight lieutenant was granted, viz., the 1st December, 1942, until the date of his death, will be at rates payable for that rank.

When an officer is once granted acting rank he retains it until action is taken by the Governor-General to terminate it. In accordance with the policy laid down by me last year, and recently reaffirmed by me, whereby officers granted such rank in the course of operational service overseas will not be called upon to relinquish it when recalled for operational service with the Royal Australian Air Force in the South-West Pacific, I emphatically repeat that action was not taken to deprive Flight Lieutenant Brennan of his acting rank;

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Air aware that in the Royal Air Force acting rank, if held for three months, is made substantive and is carried by the officer, although he may be surplus to establishment ? Will the Minister arrange that a similar practice shall apply in the Royal Australian Air Force, and also that officers returning from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Australian Air Force and carrying rank in the former for three months, shall be granted substantive rank in the Royal Australian Air Force equivalent to their acting rank in the Royal Air Force?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am not aware of the practice which the honorable member says exists in the Royal Air Force, but that will be investigated, and consideration will be given to the honorable gentleman’s representations that such a practice be adopted in Australia.

page 570

QUESTION

CARE OF DISABLED RETURNED SOLDIERS

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The wives of a number of soldiers who have returned from abroad with war disabilities joined one or another of the different women’s services during their absence. Because of their disabilities, some of these men urgently need the attention and help which their wives, if completely free, would be able to give to them. Will the Minister for the Army investigate the conditions governing release from the services to which these women may be attached, with a view to their liberalization?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Sympathetic consideration will be given to all such cases. If the honorable gentleman will bring them personally to my notice I shall have each investigated immediately.

page 570

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Report of War Industries Committee - Appointment of Industry Expansion Commission

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– by leave - Honorable members will be aware that shortly after my Government assumed office approval was given to a request of the Premier of Tasmania that an investigation should be made into the economic position of Tasmania as affected by conditions arising from the war. A committee, consisting of Professor E. R. “Walker, the Honorable Sir George Bell, M.P., and Mr. H. 0. Barnard, M.P., was accordingly appointed to make a survey of the economic position of Tasmania as affected by, and in relation to, Australia’s war problems and war effort. The report of this committee has been under the consideration of the Government for some little time. It had been my intention to table this document, but for security reasons it has not been possible up to the present to make public the whole of the committee’s report.

The report was completed in May, 1942, and action was immediately taken by the departments concerned to consider the various recommendations contained therein. Briefly, the measures that have already been adopted by the Government are as follows : -

The responsible departments are proceeding with plans to give effect to the recommendations of the committee regarding the production and processing of vegetables;

The Vegetable Seeds Committee has given Tasmania every consideration in preparing its seed programme ;

The Director-General of Man Power has been requested to give particular attention to the specific recommendations of the committee relating to man-power;

Action has been taken to encourage tin mining in Tasmania;

Various measures have been adopted, which meet all the recommendations of the committee in regard to shipping;

A programme for the construction of wooden ships in Tasmania has been approved; “Negotiations are proceeding for greater quantities, of pyritic concentrates to be produced in Tasmania ;

The production of ammunition boxes has been undertaken;

Responsible officers of Commonwealth departments have been appointed in the State to deal with local matters and to collaborate with the State authorities.

During the last twelve months there has been a significant change in Tasmania’s position in relation to Australia’s war-time industrial effort, and the State is now moving towards a stage at which all its economic resources will be fully directed to maximum war production. However, there are still some recommendations of the committee which require further action. The respective departments have been advised of the Government’s decision on these matters, and arrangements have been made to ensure that they will be implemented without delay. These matters include - The appointment of a full-time officer to the Tasmanian Board of Area Management ti> act as liaison officer with the Victorian Board of Area Management; the issue of a general departmental direction that, where war work can be done as efficiently in Tasmania as on the mainland, Tasmania should be given special opportunities to do the work so that its labour supplies may be fully employed within the State; consideration of the potential importance of the fishing industry in the post-war period.

The proposed establishment of the aluminium ingot industry in Australia has received the active attention of the Government. A survey of the Australian resources of bauxite has been completed, and supplies sufficient in quantity and suitable in quality are available, and inquiries have been made overseas regarding plant and equipment necessary for the establishment of the industry. The power position also has been investigated, and plans had been prepared for the establishment of this industry on a worth-while scale in Tasmania. The matter had reached the state of final consideration by the Government, but in view of the present political situation it has not been possible to reach a decision, or to proceed with the presentation of the bill to Parliament.

In outlining for the information of honorable members the position in relation to many matters raised by the Tasmanian War Industry Committee, I have not been able to set out all the action taken by, or under the consideration of, the Government to meet the committee’s recommendations. I think it will be agreed, however, that the committee’s investigations have been of singular value, to both. Tasmania and the Commonwealth, in furthering the economic war effort of that State.

I should like also to inform honorable members that the Government has approved of the setting up of a Tasmanian Industry Expansion Commission on similar lines to the Western Australian Industry Expansion Commission. The terms of reference of the Commission will be -

  1. To advise the Commonwealth Government on measures necessary to ensure the fullest and most effective use of Tasmania’s industrial resources for war purposes.
  2. To serve in Tasmania as a Commonwealth advisory authority co-operating with the Department of Post-war Reconstruction and with State authorities in planning Tasmania’s participation in the post-war economic reconstruction.
  3. To submit to the Commonwealth specific proposals for such industrial and related development as are necessary for these purposes.

Although, as will be seen from the terms of reference, the commission will be primarily an advisory body, it will in practice take .an active part in promoting the maximum use of the capacity of Tasmania in meeting war requirements. It will pursue investigations, offer advice, and make recommendations independently of normal departmental procedure, on specific matters relating to the war effort -where Commonwealth action is called for, and, in its examination of such measures, the commission will take into consideration the ultimate effect of such action upon the Tasmanian economy as a whole.

The members of the commission will be Mr. C. H. Ferguson, chartered accountant, Hobart, chairman, with Mr. D. Meredith, Mr. John Reynolds, and Mr. K. J. Binns as members. A further member is still to be appointed. Mr. Meredith is the late general manager of the Electrolytic Zinc Company and is now acting as business administrator in the Ministry of Munitions, Tasmania. Mr. Reynolds is the chief commerce officer of the Department of Agriculture, Hobart, and Mr. Binns is the investigation and statistical officer of the State Treasury. The latter two gentlemen are the nominees of the State Government.

” THE BRISBANE LINE.”

Appointment of Royal Commission

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

.. - by leave - I desire to inform the House that the Honorable Charles John Lowe, a justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, has been appointed a royal commissioner to inquire into and report upon the following matters : -

  1. The statement “ I am most reliably informed that one important report is now missing from the official files” made by the Minister of State for Labour and National Service in the House of Representatives on the 22nd June, 1943, in the course of the debate in that House concerning the matter known as “ The Brisbane Line “.
  2. The question whether that Minister was informed in the terms or to the effect specified in the statement set out above.

  3. If that Minister was so informed -

    1. the particulars of the information given to that Minister and referred to in the statement set out above ; and
    1. the question as to the person by whom, the circumstances under which, and the reason why, that information was given to that Minister.
  4. The question whether any document concerning the matter know as “ The Brisbane Line “ is missing from the official files specified in the statement set out above, and, if so, the particulars of the document.
Mr WARD:
Minister for Labour and National Service · East Sydney · ALP

– by leave - I enter a most emphatic protest against the terms of reference of the proposed royal commission. What the public are anxious to know is whether the charges which I made against the Menzies and Fadden Administrations in regard to responsibility for the plan known as “ the Brisbane line “ strategy are true or not. In my opinion no inquiry which does not permit of the fullest investigation of my charges will satisfy the public. I asked for the fullest inquiry long before the matter was raised in this Parliament. Shortly after I had made my first allegation regarding “ the Brisbane line “, I was reported as having said, and I did say -

The Minister for Labour (Mr. Ward) suggested to-day that an inquiry should be held on his claim that during the term of the previous Federal Government a strategic plan was formed which included the sacrificing of part of northern Australia to an invader. “ I would welcome any form of inquiry,” Mr. Ward said, in reply to criticism by various Opposition members.

I repeat that this proposed inquiry will be farcical; it will not give me an opportunity to call witnesses and to present the evidence I possess, proving beyond doubt the responsibility of the MenziesFadden Government for “ the Brisbane line “ strategy - that defeatist plan which was referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) when he said, “ the defeatist plan which existed when we took over “. The terms of reference of the royal commission are farcical, as I shall prove. The first matter referred to the royal commission for inquiry confines examination, not to the charges that were made in my speech, but to one sentence of that speech, namely, “ I am most reliably informed that one important report is now missing from the official files “. I ask honorable gentlemen opposite: If I have no evidence and cannot prove my case against the previous Administration, why are they afraid of a complete and open inquiry into my charges? Why do they want to confine the inquiry to that one sentence? The second matter for inquiry is -

  1. The question whether that Minister was informed in the terms or to the effect specified in the statement set out above.

That again confines inquiry to that one sentence. The third and fourth matters are -

  1. If that Minister was so informed -

    1. the particulars of the information given to that Minister and referred to in the statement set out above; and
    1. the questions as to the person by whom, the circumstances under which, and the reason why, that information was given to that Minister.

  2. The question whether any document concerning the matter known as “ The Brisbane Line “ is missing from, the official liles specified in the statement set out above, and, if so, the particulars of the document.

Both the Prime Minister and I have said here that we are now satisfied, at this stage, that there is no document missing from the official files.

Mr Curtin:

– Lest there should be any misunderstanding about that remark, I say that I never at any time had any doubt about the files being complete.

Mr WARD:

– We are both in agreement that no document is missing from the official files. Why, therefore, is a royal commission required to examine a question regarding the official files as to which nobody is in disagreement? It would appear that the Opposition is fearful of what would be divulged if there were a most complete and open inquiry. If it is not, why did it not ask for an inquiry back in October, 1942, when I first made the statement in regard to “ the Brisbane line “ ? Why did it wait until it got some sort of argument on which it believed that it could sidetrack the demand for an inquiry into “ the Brisbane line” strategy? As a Minister of this Government and as the person involved, I believe that I should have been consulted regarding the terms of inquiry. I believe that I was more entitled to be consulted than was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), who is not a member of the Government. But, although the phraseology of the terms of reference has been twisted in order to make them appear different, they are those for which the Leader of the Opposition asked, and nothing more. The people of this country want to know the truth about “ the Brisbane line “. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make out that he is also dissatisfied with the action taken because counsel of which he disapproves has been selected to assist the commissioner. He is trying to create the impression that I am to get a fair opportunity at this inquiry. A daily newspaper says. “ This allows of the widest possible investigation “. It does not. The purpose of the statements in the press by the Leader of the Opposition and the newspaper comment is to try to create the idea that I have received fair and just treatment in regard to the nature of the inquiry which has been decided upon. Even now I ask - and surely the Opposition will not resist - that the whole of my charges, which I can prove, as I have the evidence, in regard to “ the Brisbane line “ strategy be subjected, to the most complete form of inquiry. I repeat that no matter what may happen the people will never be satisfied until we have such an inquiry into the very grave charges that I have made.

Later:

Mr WARD:
ALP

– Did the Prime Minister receive from me a written request for the terms of reference of the royal commission to be extended sufficiently to permit of a full inquiry into my charges against the Menzies-Fadden Administration regarding its responsibility for “ the Brisbane line” strategy? If so, will the Prime Minister indicate to me why it was finally decided that the terms shall be restricted, and shall not be extended in the manner that I desired ?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I rise to order. I should like to know whether a member of the Government who is under suspension and whose case is sub judice is entitled to address a question to the Leader of the Government in public?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No point of order is involved.

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service waited on me last Friday afternoon, as also did the Leader of the Opposition, and each submitted to me proposed drafts of terms of reference for the royal commission. They were taken into full consideration by the Government, and I have already announced its decision. The commission has been, issued, and I entirely agree with what has been done. The request which was made to me in the House, was that I should agree to the appointment of a royal commission to investigate whether certain documents were or were not missing. I agreed that the matter ought to be investigated. The general question of the defence policy of this country is a matter not for judicial investigation but for decision by the Parliament and the people.

page 574

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have a complaint against the officers of the Department of Labour and National Service in Perth. Constance Bastian, a dressmaker, of 197 Adelaide-terrace, Perth, complains that she has been persecuted by officers of that department. She says that on the 18th June last, a national service officer called at her place of business and demanded that she go with him to be interviewed by “ the chief of the Gestapo “. I ask the Acting Minister for Labour and National

Service whether officers are authorized te require persons to attend for crossexamination? Will he inquire into the incident ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Health · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not know anything about a Gestapo.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Then the Acting Minister should ask his predecessor.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– If I wanted to know anything about Gestapo methods I would ask the honorable member for Barker. I know nothing about the particular case mentioned by the honorable member for Perth. I can only suggest that it may be that the woman referred to, like other women in Australia, had been required to register and report, but had failed to do so. I do not know whether that is the case. Inquiries will be made in the matter.

page 574

WAR EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE

Mr JOHNSON:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present a statement of the confidential reports which have been addressed by the War Expenditure Committee to the Prime Minister for the consideration of War Cabinet.

page 574

QUESTION

CURTIN GOVERNMENT

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the “ red-baiting speech broadcast by the right honorable Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hughes) last night in which he prophesied dire consequences at the hands of the Communists for this country if the present Government remained in office? Has the Prime Minister compared the doleful utterances of the right honorable gentleman with the optimistic cables from London reported in the Sydney Sun yesterday as follows : -

page 574

QUESTION

SHARES UP ON EVATTS SPEECH

LONDON, Tuesday- Dr. H. V. Evatt’s inspiring broadcast from London on Sunday night has had an immediate tonic effect on the shares of many companies connected with Australia, New Zealand and the Far East, says the Financial Times.

The Australian Attorney-General said that more planes would be sent to the South-West Pacific.

From Eastern banking to Malayan and Australian base metal shares, from British and American Tobacco and Burma Oil to a long list of rubber descriptions (although these properties are still in enemy possession), there was almost a general improvement in prices yesterday, states the paper.

Many jobbers were at their wits’ end to find stock to supply the new demand. - AAP.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Newspaper passages should not be quoted at length in asking questions.

Mr WARD:
ALP

– Will the Prime Minister inquire whether the outburst of the right honorable gentleman is due to some nightmarish dream about socialistic tigers which were expected to devour the Government which he led 30 years ago?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I have always read with interest what the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) has to say. I also read with very great interest the views of the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) . On many occasions, I have had the greatest admiration for pronouncements by the right honorable member for North Sydney. Last night was not one of those occasions. He has said many kindly things about me; some of them were much more generous than I considered I deserved, though I believe that they were sincere. If he will set those kindly remarks on the assets side, against his criticisms of myself on the liabilities side, I still believe that he will concede me a surplus.

Mr Hughes:

– I suggest that the matter which the Prime Minister has so feelingly mentioned might be referred to a royal commission.

page 575

QUESTION

REFUGEE ALIENS

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Last week I asked the Prime Minister whether any direction had been given for the call-up of refugee aliens from enemy countries. Is the right honorable gentleman yet in a position to inform the House why those refugees have to date been exempted from call-up for service in the Civil Constructional Corps?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– After the honorable member asked the question, I conferred with those Ministers whose administration is closely concerned with the matter. I have received a report, and certain action has been .instituted. I shall inform the honorable member privately what has been done, because I do not consider that the subject should be widely publicized.

page 575

QUESTION

RENTS

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Acting Attorney-General inform me whether the High Court has ruled that the Commonwealth Government may grant certain federal judicial powers to State courts only by act of Parliament, and not by regulation? Will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation to confer those powers on State courts, as many landlord-and-tenant cases are being delayed at the present time.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– During the last two days, the Solicitor-General has discussed this matter with the Prime Minister and myself. We are greatly concerned about the decision of the High Court in this case. At the moment the Government is discussing with the Opposition the practicability of reaching an agreement regarding the introduction, before the House rises, of a short bill to meet the situation.

page 575

QUESTION

STOPPAGES IN INDUSTRY

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to recently issued labour statistics which revealed that for the first quarter of this year, 26S,000 working days have been lost through stoppages, compared with 378,000 working days during the whole of 1942? What steps does the right honorable gentleman propose to take to correct this very serious decline in the control of industry?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I shall take an early opportunity to inform the House of the proposals of the Government.

page 575

QUESTION

SHORTAGE OF COMMODITIES

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for War Organization of Industry made a survey of the serious shortage of certain essential commodities which, though in ample supply in the southern States, are unprocurable in Queensland and Western Australia? Is it possible to improve the position?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for War Organisation of Industry · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– The making of a survey of all shortages of civilian requirements in Western Australia and Queensland is a very large task, hut a section has been set up in my department to iii; ke certain investigations of these problems. Those investigations will occupy some time, and even when the inquiries reveal shortages of commodities in Queensland though there are ample supplies in other States, it is not always possible to rectify the position. Many of the shortages are due to lack of transport between the southern States and Queensland. If we have to decide between sending non-essential civilian goods or munitions and equipment to the northern areas, I am afraid that the people of Queensland will have to make do with what commodities they have.

page 576

QUESTION

PHOSPHATIC ROCK

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Commerce received the report of the Joint’ Committee on Rural Industries dealing with phosphatic rock in Australia? Has the committee recommended the expenditure of £500 for prospecting in the Molong-Canowindra area? If this recommendation has been made, will the Minister issue instructions for the work to be commenced immediately?

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware whether the report has been received, but I shall make inquiries, and if the expenditure of £500 for prospecting is recommended, I shall take up the matter immediately with the Treasurer.

page 576

QUESTION

BARLEY

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
ALP

– Did the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture during the week-end reach a decision regarding the South Australian barley industry, which he may feel disposed to disclose to the public before the Prime Minister delivers his policy speech?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– A decision has been reached and an announcement will be made at a very early date.

page 576

INCIDENCE OE MALARIA

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · Capricornia · ALP

– by leave - As they are fully alive to the urgent necessity for protecting the civilian population against malaria, the Australian Army medical authorities are taking a leading part in implementing an expanding programme of anti-malarial plans which they also, in the first place, devised. I wish to emphasize that the views of the Army medical experts coincide with those of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), who has said that the invasion of Australia by malaria could be as dangerous and as farreaching in its effects as an invasion by the Japanese. The Government and the Army are determined to prevent any further spread of the disease.

General MacArthur, realizing the great importance of the matter, directed that a special advisory committee be appointed, a part of the functions of which was to propose measures to prevent the introduction into Australia of tropica] diseases. The chairman of this committee is Colonel N. H. Fairley, O.B.E., and the permanent secretary is Colonel M. J. Holmes, D.S.O., both’ of the Australian Army Medical Corps, Australian Forces. Other members of the committee are Squadron-Leader S. C Baldwin, formerly of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, and three eminent malariologists from the American Army.

Concrete evidence of the success which has already been achieved by this committee is to be found in the fact that the incidence of malaria in Cairns, which is regarded as a potentially malarious area, is, this year, substantially lower than it was last year. For the purpose of malaria control, Australia has been divided into potentially malarious and non-malarious areas. The potentially malarious areas are those in which the anopheles mosquito, which transmits malaria, abounds, and comprise, broadly, the coastal slopes of northern Australia. I am assured by the Army medical experts that there is practically no risk of the transmission of malaria in the southern parts of Australia, except as a rare accident. Every possible precaution will, however, be taken by the Army and the Government to safeguard the civilian population against the spread of the disease. In the prevention and control of malaria in New Guinea the Australian Army has made remarkable progress in the last few months. The whole army, and not only the medical corps, realizes that malaria is an even more- deadly enemy than the

Japanese, but all are confident that they can defeat malaria as well as the Japanese.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

- by leave - Whilst I have the highestappreciation of the work that is being done by the Australian and American army medical officers, and of the assistance that is being given by the Commonwealth Department of Health, through Colonel Holmes, I insist that the Minister’s statement, that there is practically no risk of the transmission of malaria in the southern parts of Australia, is contrary to the best medical opinion in Australia and also in the Australian Army.

Mr Forde:

– The information that I conveyed to the House was prepared by army medical officers.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– My recommendations were concurred in by the medical men, both in army and civilian practice, who are best qualified to express an opinion. I therefore trust that before the House rises the Prime Minister will give consideration to the request that I made a few days ago that steps shall be taken to ensure agreement on policy on this subject of preventing the spread of malaria throughout Australia.

page 577

QUESTION

BLANKETS

Mr BARNARD:

– I have received a letter from a friend in Tasmania concerning a complaint that there is a shortage of blankets for nurses at an Australian general hospital. This complaint has been supported by other personnel in the hospital. I ask the Minister for the Army whether he will have the position investigated.

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I have not been approached concerning the supply of blankets for the use of nurses in military hospitals, but I assure the honorable gentleman that if the subject comes within the ambit of my authority, and a request is made for additional blankets for the use of nurses, ample supplies will be provided.

page 577

QUESTION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Supplies of Tyres and Tubes

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

– by leave - The question raised last Thursday by the hon orable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick) on the adjournment relates also to measures which road transport authorities are finding it necessary to take as a result of very serious shortages of tyres and tubes. There is no need to emphasize the seriousness of the whole rubber situation. The supply of new tyres is so desperately short, and the action of the authorities, who are responsible for the maintenance of essential road transport, was imperative. That action was not limited to restricting road transport, but included the taking of positive steps to ensure that essential road transport services shall be maintained, notwithstanding the extreme shortage of tyres and tubes. Tyres cannot be provided by the Controller of Rubber for all primary producers at present, or, for that matter, for all users in many other groups or spheres of operation. It has therefore become necessary to endeavour to promote co-operation between primary producers and others so that the limited number of tyres available shall be used to equip a reduced number of vehicles operated on a community or co-operative basis, thus providing all the essential carrying service needed for a number of people grouped together for this purpose. Direct measures will be taken by transport authorities to achieve the same objectives in metropolitan and urban areas. In country districts in all States, transport advisory committees have been formed composed of responsible people in each area who understand the conditions. These committees will assist State road transport authorities in meeting local transport difficulties. Transport advisory bodies in country municipalities are encouraged to promote the community use of vehicles so that the essential work of distributing supplies and delivering produce to rail or markets shall be maintained, notwithstanding the restrictive effects of the serious tyre shortage.

No inflexible rules have been laid down and the action taken in any particular area must have regard to all prevailing conditions. It is realized, for instance, that in particular remote areas the pooling or sharing of vehicles would be impracticable. These cases will be considered on their merits, and tyre equipment will be made available so far as is practicable, having regard to available supplies. All these matters will be handled by State road transport authorities, who will keep in mind the general conditions of transport in each State. The sole objective is to ensure that essential vehicles or essential road transport services shall be maintained. Tyre shortage is inescapable and is having serious results, in any event. If deliberate planning were not undertaken to meet this situation, complete chaos and the wholesale stoppage of road transport in important spheres would result. The Government’s policy has been developed by the Commonwealth Land Transport Board in collaboration with the State read transport authorities. The most natural and, in fact, the only course open, having regard to the shortage of tyres, was a pooling of resources and the adoption of co-operative measures generally by the users of motor vehicles.

page 578

QUESTION

PENSION RATES

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Following a question which I asked the Minister for Health and Social Services last week concerning the adverse effect that the recent increase of 5s. a week in war pensions is likely to have upon invalid and old-age pensions, I ask the Minister whether, before he relinquishes his office, he will confer with the Minister for Repatriation with a view to removing the existing anomaly?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– Yes, before I relinquish office I shall do as the honorable member has requested.

page 578

QUESTION

PRODUCTION OF FOODSTUFFS

Mr LANGTRY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the improvement of the defence position of Australia, and the possibility of a shortage of necessary foodstuffs, will the Minister for the Army use his influence to obtain from the military authorities a little greater leniency than they have shown in connexion with the release of members of the Australian Military Forces for the production of essential foodstuffs?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The provision of manpower for not only primary industries but also munitions establishments and the fighting services is constantly being reviewed by the War Commitments Committee, as well as by the Government.

Although the danger of Australia being invaded is not so great to-day as it was a year ago, the security which this country enjoys can be ensured only by the maintenance of adequate fighting forces. The security of Australia must always be the paramount consideration. The Government is not unmindful of the requirements of the primary producers. On one occasion during the last eighteen months approximately 30,000 members of the Australian Military Forces were granted seasonal leave to enable them to assist in the planting or harvesting of crops. The Department of the Army is at present co-operating fully with the DirectorGeneral of Man Power. There is a nucleus of 5,000 soldiers between the ages of eighteen and nineteen years who are being made available to assist primary producers in the harvesting of their crops. The strong representations of the honorable member for Riverina for further assistance will be given consideration.

page 578

QUESTION

ARMY CANTEENS

Article in “ Smith’s Weekly “.

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for the Army yet in a position to table the report for which he called concerning the visit that was paid to Smith’s Weekly by two Army officers, and the demand that they made to be informed of the name of the person who had supplied to that newspaper a copy of the balancesheet of the Army Canteens Fund?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I have called for the report, but have not yet received it. When it comes to hand I shall peruse it and shall then advise the honorable member as to whether or not I consider that it ought to be tabled.

page 578

QUESTION

INTERNMENT OF PHILLIP RAOUL HENTZE

Mr WARD:
ALP

– Will the Minister for the Army make available to me the files and all other information in possession of his department concerning the internment of the alien brother-in-law of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender)- Phillip Raoul Hentze? Will the honorable gentleman also state what part was played by the honorable member for Warringah in the representations which eventually secured the release of his brother-in-law ? Can the Government furnish any information concerning the position that is now occupied by this alien brother-in-law of the honorable member, and state whether or not it is true that in the first instance there was not sufficient evidence to warrant his detention? If the evidence was sufficient, what action does the Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I am not in a position to make a decision in the matter to-day, but I shall call for the production of the file to which the honorable gentleman has referred.

page 579

QUESTION

SEED OF RUBBER PLANT

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Supply and Shipping any information additional to that which he has already given in regard to the approach that he made to authorities in the United States of America for the release of a quantity of seed of a rubber plant that is known to grow in low rainfall areas in America ?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– I have no further information. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is handling this matter. In order that the information concerning the stage that has been reached with the experiments that have been made with seeds by that body may be brought up to date, I shall ask my colleague, the Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Mr. Dedman), to prepare a statement on the matter.

page 579

QUESTION

PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Moving PICTURE Film.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish >to add to the statement that I made last Friday concerning the desire of honorable members to have photographs taken in this House. On that day a photograph was taken, but it included only the members of the Government. For this I am not responsible. I have definitely informed the photographers that photographs must not be taken in King’s Hall or in the corridors, and that they may be taken in the party rooms only with the consent of the honorable member concerned. So that hon orable members may be advised, I now inform them that it is proposed to take photographs of the House at approximately 4 p.m.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - The Opposition takes strong exception to the methods that have been adopted in connexion with the taking of photographs and “ talkies “ in this House. One had only to view the propaganda film screened this morning to appreciate the extreme unfairness of the position that has arisen. The Prime Minister was photographed in the course of making a statement, only a section of which is reproduced in the “ talkie “. No statement in rebuttal from the Opposition side of the House is given. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not intend that such unfair propaganda should emanate from this House in such circumstances. The matter needs to be watched, and the protest of the Opposition should be noted.

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I assure the right honorable gentleman that both the photographer and the recorder took an unfair advantage of me in that I did not know what was being done.

Mr FADDEN:

– I draw the attention of the Prime Minister- to the strange coincidence that that portion of the film which deals very materially with the subject to be investigated by a royal commission, the appointment of which has been announced to-day, is the only matter that is publicized. The Opposition makes the strongest possible protest against this being shown and used in this “ talkie “ in the manner that is evidently intended. I am positive that the Prime Minister will agree that the utilization in such circumstances of a “ talkie “ having such a subject-matter would be extremely unfair and would not be calculated to add to the dignity of the House or maintain the political traditions of this nation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is not referring only to the newspaper photograph that has been taken. I assure him that I have a vivid recollection of happenings in the past, when empty seats in this House were photographed and publicized, and some honorable members were photographed at untimely hours without their consent, the results being publicized to their detriment. For that reason, I have issued strict instructions that no photographs are to be taken in the precincts of the House, except in the party rooms, and then only with the consent of the honorable member concerned. The failure to have both sides of the House photographed will be rectified to-day, because I have given the press to understand that one. photograph of each side of the House may be taken at approximately 4 o’clock. j&o snapshots may be taken.

Mr McEwen:

– I ask leave to make a statement.

Government Members. - No

Leave not granted.

Privilege

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

– I rise to a matter of privilege. One day last week, permission was given by Mr. Speaker to certain interests - I forget exactly who they were - to take moving pictures of the House in session. It was stated that the film was being made for the purpose of showing people abroad, particularly in the United States of America, scenes depicting the parliaments of the various British dominions in session. Upon that statement being made, the House signified- its approval of the proposed action, and in due course the pictures were taken. No reference was made at the time to the fact that it was intended also to record speeches, nor was it stated that it was proposed to exhibit the film to the Austraiian public. I raise the question of privilege on two grounds: First, that the House gave its approval to the taking of the pictures on the express understanding that they were for exhibition abroad, and that they would present, in what I would hope to bc a good light, the parliaments of the various dominions in session, including the Commonwealth Parliament. It is quite clear that, had it been understood that these pictures were to be exhibited to the Australian public, assurances would have been sought by the Opposition that there should be an unbiased and balanced presentation of the activities of the House. It is equally clear that had the House been invited to approve of the recording of speeches, to be heard subsequently in foreign countries or by the people of Australia, the Opposition would have sought an assurance that no publicity would be given to propaganda statements, and that no opportunity would he taken to propound statements or express ideas upon controversial subjects, and unless the other side were given an opportunity to express its view. I did not have the privilege of seeing the film this morning, but my colleagues have told me about it. I understand that the Prime Minister is shown speaking in reply to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the motion of want of confidence in the Government. What could be more farcical or more biased than to publish in this way the reply of the Prime Minister without publishing also the charges to which the reply was made ? To publish allegations that Australia was virtually defenceless, when we know perfectly well-

Mr Curtin:

– Do not be unfair.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not want to beunfair, but I am told that the Prime Minister is recorded in this film as saying that, in Western Australia, the situation was too grievous for description. Well, there is an answer to that. I do not quarrel with the Prime Minister, as a partisan, making a statement of that kind, because there is a complete answer to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member get back to the question of privilege ?

Mr McEWEN:

– I maintain that it was improper for the House to have been misled into giving its approval for the recording of a speech of the kind I have referred to when, had honorable members known what was proposed, they would have insisted upon the answer to the allegation in the speech being presented in the same film. I demand that this one-sided statement be withdrawn from publication.

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– On the question of privilege : Mr. Speaker is in charge of the House of Representatives, not the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that Mr. Speaker was requested by a company that had been engaged by the United States of America War Information Office to permit the taking of pictures, and Mr. Speaker agreed. I was notified that it was intended to set up apparatus in this chamber, and I was asked whether it would be an embarrassment to me. I said that I did not like the lights, but if it was to be done, I would not object. So far as I was concerned, all the arrangements were completed and carried through without reference to the Government or any government instrumentality. Neither the Department of Information, nor any other Commonwealth agent, had anything to do with it. The pictures were taken by a private company engaged by the United States of America War Information Office, the company being commissioned, to prepare a film about Australia at war. It has been taking pictures in many places. It was desired to take a “ short “ of Parliament in session. Whatever has been done is not the responsibility of the Government, nor of any government instrumentality.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The Prime Minister can correct the position now.

Mr CURTIN:

– How can I correct it? This picture is as much the property of the company as is a photograph taken by a newspaper.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It was obtained .under false pretences.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is not so.

Mr Holt:

– Is it not a fact that the company which released the newsreel “ short “ containing the shots to which the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) has objected is the same company which prepared a propaganda film for the Government under the title of “South- West Pacific”?

Mr CURTIN:

– I shall find out, but supposing it is, what is the point ?

Mr Holt:

– The Prime Minister says that no government instrumentality was in any way concerned with the taking of the pictures in this Parliament. Does he suggest that there is no link between the Government and this company which has been receiving government patronage?

Mr CURTIN:

– I think that the honorable gentleman is using language that he finds rather ready to his tongue, but which he does_ not customarily use. No favours have been distributed to this company or any other company. In fact, the chairman of this particular company happened to be an anti-Labour candidate at the last general elections.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– So was the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles).

Mr CURTIN:

– All I have to say is that the Government did not make any arrangement for the taking of the film in this House last week. All the arrangements were completed between Mr. Speaker and the company. The company can use this film in the course of its business, as it thinks proper, so far as I am concerned, in the same way as representatives of the Press, who sit in the gallery, use the matter they collect. They have privileges in this building, but they do not always present a balanced picture of what goes on in this House.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I was Speaker when this application was made. On the 21st June, when I arrived in Canberra, I was asked to decide, as a matter of urgency, a request that permission be given to Cinesound Productions Proprietary Limited to make a film of Parliament. I was told that it was to be purely a propaganda film and that the film was to go to America and would not return to Australia within about four months. I was also told that the matter of getting the assent of members generally on the Government side would be attended to by Government supporters. I was assured that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) had consented. It was suggested that I should consult members of the Opposition. I did so, and I got general assent, on the understanding that the film was not to be shown in Australia, at any rate for some months. I added the condition that substantially equal time should be given to both sides of the House. On receipt of those assurances, I assented to the film being made.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- As a matter of privilege, I move -

That the company producing the talking film in which only one side of the House speaks is guilty of contempt of this Parliament.

This is a matter of the highest principle. It is a matter which no honorable member, whether he is supporting the Government or in opposition, in the Government or out of the Government, can afford to treat lightly. It must be dealt with on its merits in an absolutely impartial way. If pictures are permitted to be taken, subject to definite promises that both sides shall be fairly presented, the honouring of those promises is, surely, incumbent upon the people who give them.

Mr Calwell:

– The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) made a speech on this matter.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The honorable member for Parramatta could have made a motion of privilege if he had desired to do so. It is an unprincipled, thing that only one aspect of the position should be put before, not merely the people of Australia, but also the people of the whole world. By means of censorship, or whatever other powers the Government has, it should be possible to make absolutely sure that there shall be fair play. I hope that this motion, which says that these people, by not obeying the implications of the undertaking given to Mr. .Speaker, upon which his permission was obtained, are guilty of contempt, will be passed. If it is not, incalculable harm will be done to Parliament.

Mr Curtin:

– This will be listed for to-morrow.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The only guidance I have in the Standing Orders is this -

All Questions of Order and matters of Privilege at any time arising shall, until decided, suspend the consideration and decision upon every other Question.

The debate must go on.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– After hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), I may say that no man in authority is better served than the man who is served in innocence or ignorance.

Mr Curtin:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I could quote instances which go back to John a’Beckett; but I will not do so. I understand that when this picture was being filmed there was a sound recording instrument in the gallery, and a prominent member of the Prime Minister’s staff who, at one time, gained the distinction of becoming known as the unofficial Government spokesman “ was up there. The right honorable gentleman’s henchman has a very pretty hand. “Whenever he wanted the right honorable gentleman’s speech to be recorded he raised his hand, and, .as soon as he wanted the recording to cease, he dropped it. The whole thing was very well worked.

I think, personally, that there were some grave omissions in the recording. One of the omissions was one of the best speeches delivered - that made by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies). I can speak with great impartiality on this, for I took no part in the debate on the motion of want of confidence, as I was one of the few in this House who did not need to speak to prove that they had no confidence in this Government. As ‘custodian of the privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker, you should make inquiries, even to the extent of a royal commission.

Mr Ward:

– Why interrupt the business? Let us take a vote.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Just because the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has “ditched” himself, there is no reason why he should try to “ ditch “ the House. You, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of our rights and privileges, should make inquiries and discover whether the “ unofficial Government spokesman “ was doing his part in the gallery, and seeing that the recording was properly made. I know that he is interested, because he just passed a note to the Prime Minister by way of the Acting Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honorable member second the motion ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Yes ; I would second anything at the present time.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Opposition

– If any justification were required for this motion, it was amply provided by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) when he gave his version of the arrangement between Cinesound and himself, acting on behalf of this House, in his capacity as Speaker. In view of all the circumstances, the proper thing for the Government to do is to withdraw the film from circulation in Australia. As the honorable member for Perth hai indicated, the Cinesound company has violated the trust which he, on behalf of this House, reposed in the organization. He made the condition that the picture shall not be released in Australia until at least four months from .the date on which it was taken.

Mr Frost:

– Why four months?

Mr FADDEN:

– I do not know; but the Minister for Repatriation heard the ex-Speaker state definitely the conditions upon which he agreed, on behalf of the House, for the picture to be taken. The honorable member for Perth declared in no uncertain manner that he imposed an important condition.

Mr Frost:

– I rise to order. Is the honorable member for Perth able to produce in writing the arrangement which he made with Cinesound?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No point of order is involved.

Mr FADDEN:

– Things have come to a pretty pass in this chamber when the word of the ex-Speaker is not accepted.

Mr Frost:

– The Leader of the Opposition will not accept any statements made by honorable members on this side of the House.

Mr FADDEN:

– In view of the undertaking which the company gave to the then Speaker, the film should not be released in Australia until a period of at least four months has elapsed. The Government should honour that condition.

Mr Curtin:

– I did not exhibit the film this morning. I have not got it. The picture does not belong to the Government.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

.- As the Government Whip, I was approached by the then Speaker .(Mr. Nairn) to ascertain whether supporters of the Government would object to the taking of the motion picture in this chamber. The fundamental reason for this approach was to discover whether the Government would agree to allow the taking of the picture. In fact, some supporters of the Government desired to object to it. Honorable members on this side of the chamber had nothing to do with the taking of the picture.

Mr FADDEN:

– I have no doubt about that,

Mr CONELAN:

– The motion is a lot of rot, and is a continuance of the irritation tactics that the Opposition has indulged in this week. Debate on the motion is an utter waste of time. The motion picture was exhibited by the Cinesound company, whose property it is. The company screened the picture because it considers that the leading man of this country should be shown to the people of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honorable member for Cowper definitely moved “ that the company producing the film in which only one side of the House speaks is guilty of contempt of the Parliament “. I now have a copy in writing of the motion, but I notice that he has made a considerable addition to it. Consequently the motion in my possession is not the motion that the House is debating. I ask him to amend his written motion in conformity with the motion that he originally made.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

,- Some honorable members have treated the motion as frivolous.

Mr Ward:

– So it is.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I deeply regret that some honorable members opposite are prepared to treat it as frivolous, because I regard the screening of the film in question as a repudiation of the undertaking given to the then Speaker. That amounts to contempt of the Parliament. The Prime Minister is taking a mean advantage of the situation. I make that statement advisedly, although I hold the right honorable gentleman in the highest esteem. The company definitely gave to the then Speaker an undertaking not to exhibit the film in Australia within a certain period. I support his version of the affair, because his word was challenged by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost). The words which the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) used to-day were identical with the words that he used to me and to other members of the Opposition in the party room, when he came to ascertain our reactions to the proposal that the company should be granted permission to make the film. The Cinesound Company declared that the film would be exhibited in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States of America, for the purpose of showing Australia’s war effort to our Allies, but undertook not to exhibit it in Australia within from four to six months.

Mr Frost:

– It is six months now !

Mr FRANCIS:

– I deeply regret that the Minister for Repatriation saw fit to cast a doubt upon the word of the ex-Speaker by asking whether the agreement existed in writing. The implication was that if the honorable member for Perth were unable to produce such a. document, he was dishonest. Ear too much time is being taken up at this juncture-

Government Supporters. - Hear, hear !

Mr FRANCIS:

– This is degrading to the Parliament and degrading to the Ministry. If the public could only hear this debate, some honorable members opposite would not be re-elected.

Mr Frost:

– “Who is responsible for it?

Mr FRANCIS:

– I appeal to the Prime Minister.

Mr Curtin:

– Why?

Mr FRANCIS:

– I appeal to the Prime Minister to do the right and decent thing.

Mr Curtin:

– What does the honorable member desire me to do?

Mr FRANCIS:

– Request this company to honour the undertaking that was given to the members of this Parliament through Mr. Speaker.

Mr Curtin:

– That is Mr. Speaker’s business, not mine.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The right honorable gentleman is the leader of the Parliament and of the country for the time being, and if he will not take action in relation to this American picture company, who will do so? If he does not take some action, the results will be on his head. I believe that any advantage that the Government might hope to gain from what is to be done with this picture will prove illusory, for the people will not stand for this kind of thing.

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– I do not know why I, as Prime Minister, have been brought into tins discussion. Because an incident has been recorded which might, be regarded as of value to the case of the Government, honorable gentlemen opposite have become very concerned about the dignity and rights of Parliament. I am equally concerned.

Mr Spender:

– The ex-Speaker has told the House the basis on which the permission was given.

Mr CURTIN:

– Exactly.

Mr Spender:

– If the conditions are not observed, the company will be guilty of contempt.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is beside the point. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) has asked me to do “ the decent thing “. What does he consider to be the decent thing?

Mr Francis:

– Support this motion.

Mr CURTIN:

– Apparently, whatever has been done must be pinned on to the Government. I object to that procedure. I have had no part in this business. I was told by the honorable member for Perth that certain things were proposed. I had nothing to do with the matter. I did not know until I saw the picture that my remarks were being recorded. I knew certain photographs were being taken, but I had no idea that sound equipment was also being used. I pose, for the attention of the House, certain considerations which are germane to this issue. It is now said that nothing that is recorded of the proceedings of this House must be used for a one-sided presentation to the Australian public. That, of course, should apply to the press, as well as to the motion picture company. The honorable member for Moreton has asked me to take pertain action. What action can I take?

Mr Spender:

– The right honorable gentleman can support this motion.

Mr CURTIN:

– That would not accomplish anything.

Mr Spender:

– It would. The company would be declared guilty of contempt and could be dealt with accordingly.

Mr CURTIN:

– Would it be contempt?

Mr Spender:

– Of course.

Mr CURTIN:

– I do not know.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The press has done this kind of thing over and over again, and no action has been taken.

Mr CURTIN:

– While the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) was the Speaker of this House, he was concerned that in recording, for the Australian public, the proceedings of the House complete fairness and impartiality should be observed, and that preference should not be shown for honorable gentlemen either on the right or on the left of the ‘Chair. In actual fact that was not always achieved. Photographs have been taken. in this chamber, time and time again, and only honorable gentlemen on one side of the Chair have appeared in the pictures published in the illustrated press of this country. Honorable gentlemen opposite, apparently, were not worried about that. In relation to the taking of these moving pictures, the honorable member for Perth laid down his conditions. I accept his statement of the facts of the case, as I would accept any other statement that the honorable gentleman made. But where do I come into the matter? Do honorable gentlemen opposite desire me to confiscate the private property of this company, under a national security regulation ?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– That might be the next step after declaration of contempt.

Mr CURTIN:

-I suggest that the proper procedure would be for Mr. Speaker to remind the company of the circumstances under which it was allowed to operate. I am the Leader of the Government, and, as such, I have certain rights; but I am not the custodian of the rights and privileges of the Parliament.

Mr Spender:

– We all are.

Mr CURTIN:

- Mr. Speaker is, in particular. Yet the honorable member for Moreton desires to pin the whole business on to me. All I say is that I do not know what the company has to say, or why it has acted as it has done. I was just as surprised as any other member of the House when I saw the picture, but it is somewhat surprising to me to discover how very fearful honorable gentlemen opposite are that some advantage may accrue to this side of the House from the screening of it.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

.- The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) seems to be more concerned about his own part in this matter than in the intrinsic merits of the question. The right honorable gentleman has said that he did not know what was in the film until he saw it at the theatre. As he has seen it he must agree that it presents a most partial case in favour of the Government. Indeed, it records the very sentiments of the Minister for Labour and National Service. The question of whether the Government has or has not responsibility for the preparation of this picture is not the issue before us. The issue is whether the company, having been granted a qualified permission to take certain pictures has abused the hospitality which the House has extended to it. The honorable member for Perth, as the then Speaker, acted for the House in relation to the application made by the company, and from the statement he has made to us, it is clear that the company has abused its privileges. It would have been bad enough had the company secured a general authority to take pictures in the House, and had shown partiality ; but the offence it has committed has been intensified and aggravated because it has acted in direct contravention of the conditions stipulated by the then Speaker. Therefore I trust that the House will carry the motion, and that, subsequently, further action will be taken to put the trouble right.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- No question of contempt can arise in relation to the action of the Cinesound Company as it was given permission by the House to take pictures. Honorable gentlemen opposite have expressed surprise at what the company has done, but it, as the press has often done in this House in days past, has quite naturally devoted attention to the highlights of our proceedings. In the past honorable gentlemen opposite have enjoyed more than their fair share of press publicity. It appears now that although they can “give it”, they cannot “take it”. No complaints have been made by them in the past in relation to the undue share of press publicity which they have received in the reports of the proceedings in this chamber. It was only natural that this moving picture company should pay attention to the highlights of our debates, and that the Leader of the Parliament for the time being should be given special attention by its officers. In the past, the leaders of previous governments have been given considerable film publicity, as well as a great deal of publicity in the press and over the air. The right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) is well aware of this fact. When he returned from the Middle East, he figured in a special film, the display of which undoubtedly provided valuable propaganda material for his government. No complaints were uttered by members of the Labour party on that account. We were satisfied that it should be so. I point out, also, that the publicity on that occasion was obtained at the expense of the country. The motion picture which we are at present considering has been produced at the expense of a private company. I cannot see that any offence has been committed in connexion with this production. I understand that the company gave an undertaking that the picture would not be displayed in Australia for four months. No indication has been given that the company does not intend to abide by its undertaking. All that has happened is that we have seen a pre-view of the film.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It was also shown in Sydney last Friday.

Mr MORGAN:

– Then the honorable member must have had an earlier preview. A pre-view was given, to which everybody was invited, and honorable members on both sides could judge for themselves the impartiality of the picture. It appears to me that the real reason for the complaint of honorable members opposite is that a little more publicity than they received was given to Government members. I agree with the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) that the speeches delivered in this House ought to be brought more prominently to the notice of the public. I should like the example of New Zealand to be followed. In that Dominion, even during the war period, the speeches of all members are broadcast and the people can appraise their respective merits. I hope that the practice will be followed when the new Parliament assembles after the forthcoming elections. In bringing forward the motion, the Opposition is actuated by a desire to cover up the matter of “ the Brisbane line “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! “ The Brisbane line “ has no connexion with the matter of privilege.

Mr MORGAN:

– It has some connexion with the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have already ruled that it has not.

Mr MORGAN:

– Then I merely wish to say that the sooner a true map is published and placed before the people, the better.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are prepared to discuss this matter with the ex-Speaker (Mr. Nairn) and the film company, in order to ascertain whether or not the arrangement that was entered into has been carried out, and report to this House to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER. - The determination of the matter had better be left to the House.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I wonder whether the Opposition has stated its real objection to this particular picture? I witnessed the screening of it this morning. Although honorable members opposite have protested against the recording of the Prime Minister’s speech, and have objected particularly to certain portions of it, I shall be intrigued to learn whether there were not also other phases of the film to which they took exception, but about which they are now silent. I wonder whether they considered it was a good thing for Peter Lalor to be depicted on the screen - whether they cared for the introduction of the Eureka Stockade insurrection in the film.

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Melbourne is speaking of a film which is not the subject of this debate. Am I to understand that all honorable members will be equally privileged to discuss both of the films that were screened this morning ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– A film that was taken in this House has been exhibited. The question is, whether or not, in the manner in which that film has been presented, the privileges of this House or its members have been infringed in any way. All honorable members must confine their remarks to that subject.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am concerned with the matter of privilege, because the screening of that picture is associated with other historical events, and honorable members opposite may object to the introduction of matters which deal with certain phases of Australian history that they want the people to forget; for example, the Eureka oath, and the fact that the four-star flag of Eureka is embodied in the Australian flag.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member would be well advised to bring his remarks more up to date.

Mr CALWELL:

– I was working up to the Baker version of “ the Brisbane line”.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Reference to “ the Brisbane line “ is equally out of order.

Mr CALWELL:

– If that is your ruling, sir, may I suggest that we have a royal commission into ‘the whole matter, including “ the Brisbane line “ ? I should have no objection to the Cinesound company being pilloried and adjudged guilty of contempt if, with strict impartiality, the editor of every daily newspaper were brought to the bar of Parliament and made to face the charge of having shown contempt for the privileges of this House, which are daily invaded. Honorable members are daily, and particularly at the week-end attacked in the most insulting fashion by journalistic drivellers and funk-hole fusiliers, as well as by other persons, who are dodging their war responsibilities by making it appear that they are performing a national service when they lampoon members of this Parliament. That m’atter of privilege is even more important than the one that has been raised by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). It is time the Parliament began to assert itself. There was a time in the history of parliaments when those who dared to interfere with the rights of honorable members were summoned to the bar of the House, and, if found guilty, were confined in the dungeons. We have not yet a lock-up; we should have had one long ago. If there were one, I am certain that newspaper editors would be its habitual occupants.

The picture to which objection has been taken was a factual portrayal of recent happenings. I presume that honorable members opposite would be satisfied if the company concerned were to arrange to take a picture of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Eadden) making a statement in rebuttal of, or, if he so cared, in agreement with, that of the Prime Minister and have it embodied in the other film.

Mr McEwen:

– Had that been the proposal, possibly it would have been agreed to.

Mr CALWELL:

– I should have no objection to that course being followed.

I hope that Mr. Speaker will advise the picture company concerned that it would be a good thing to allow the views of both sides of the House to be stated. The Prime Minister has correctly asserted that it is not his function to tell this company what it ought to do. The protection of the rights of honorable members is the duty of Mr. Speaker. If .there has been failure to ensure fair treatment to honorable members, it occurred before permission to take the picture was granted; and it was then that honorable members opposite should have considered the possibilities that have since eventuated. They would have had much more ground for bitter complaint had they not been allowed to view the screening of the picture this morning and had it appeared on screens all over Australia some weeks hence, in the middle of an election campaign. They have had an opportunity to make a protest, and the motion ought now to be withdrawn, if Mr. Speaker will give the assurance that he will convey to the company concerned the views that have been expressed and arrange for honorable members opposite to receive treatment which they regard as fair in the circumstances. The withdrawal of the picture would be a bad thing for Australia. I think that the people of Australia are entitled to hear the Prime Minister express the sentiments of the Government. They are entitled to the opportunity to see the Commonwealth Parliament in session.

Mr McEwen:

– None of that is disputed. It is a question of fair presentation.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am glad to find the honorable member for Indi in agreement with me. I am sure that the company concerned has reason to be thankful to the Opposition for having given such a splendid advertisement to its production.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The real question raised by the motion of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) is whether or not the undertaking given by a motion picture company to the Speaker of this House has been violated, and whether the company was given certain privileges in this

House for the taking of pictures on terms which were made known to members of this House. The issue is only clouded when the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and others seek to compare the position of the company with that of newspaper representatives. Press representatives have certain privileges conferred on them by the House, and it is in the competence of the House, if it believes that such privileges have been violated, or contempt has been committed, to take disciplinary action. That was done recently in respect of a press correspondent in the Senate. To assert that our real grievance in this matter is that a one-sided presentation has been given is to avoid the real issue. The question is, whether or not an undertaking was given to Mr. Speaker, and whether or not - permission having been given on the strength of that undertaking - it has since been violated. I am surprised that you, Mr. Speaker, have seen fit to take up the attitude that this is a matter entirely for the House to decide.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Now that the House has taken the matter up, it is a matter for the House to settle.

Mr HOLT:

– With respect to you, sir, I point out that you are the custodian of the privileges of the House in this matter. You have a definite responsibility, and if your predecessor was given a certain undertaking, and that undertaking has been violated, I submit that there is an obligation upon you, as the custodian of the privileges of the House, to take appropriate action. There is another matter which calls for close inquiry by the House, and a clear statement by the Government. I refer to the fact that this company, which is now under discussion, and which is accused of having violated an undertaking given to the Speaker of the House, is the one which has been used by the Government itself to prepare propaganda films which are nominally designed to show to the people of Australia, and of other parts of the world, something of the Australian war effort; but which, whether intentionally or not, do convey Government propaganda of a very subtle but very effective kind. Seeing that there exists this very close link between the company which is issuing the newsreel in which the

Prime Minister is featured and the Government itself, because of the company’s preparation of its propaganda films, there is a special obligation on the members of the Government to say that, if any breach of the company’s undertaking to Mr. Speaker has taken place, they will support such action as the House sees fit to take in the matter.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- -Foi many years, I have been concerned about the taking of photographs in this chamber. It is true that, in the last nine years, the subject has not been raised as a matter of privilege, and I should like to believe that the. right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) has now acted from the highest motives. However, judging from events which have taken place here during the last two weeks, I am forced to the conclusion that the right honorable member’3 action has been influenced by party political considerations. What is the history of the taking of photographs in this chamber? On almost all occasions the pictures have been taken of honorable members sitting on this side of the chamber, and they have been used as propaganda for Government purposes. Sometimes the House has given permission for photographs to be taken, and always the photographer, working from the gallery, takes pictures of the Government side of the chamber. I do not know anything of the arrangement that was made about the taking of this particular film. All I know is that I was asked one day while I was in the lobby to come into the chamber because a film was being taken. I asked on whose authority it was being done. I wanted to know who had given permission for the setting up of paraphernalia in the gallery, and I was told that it had been done by Mr. Speaker. I left it at that. I was told that the picture was to be shown all over the world. I did not object, although, as a matter of principle, I do not approve of the taking of pictures in the chamber, because, in the past, almost without exception, such pictures have shown only members and supporters of the Government. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) mentioned the propaganda value of the film. I was not able to see it because I was otherwise engaged. I am sorry that 1 did not see it. If the film has certain propaganda value for the Government I <lo not see any reason why it should not lie exhibited in Australia. If our Allies want to take pictures of this House in session, and they have received permission to do so, I do not think that Mr. Speaker has a right to restrict the exhibition of the film to a place outside of Australia.

Sir Earle Page:

– Does the honorable member think that the company ought to break the agreement into which it entered?

Mr BARNARD:

– In the first place, I do not think that Mr. Speaker had a right to impose conditions. If he did, the conditions ought to have been stated clearly to honorable members. If the condition that has been mentioned had been stated I should have opposed it. I may have been in the minority, but I should have opposed it on the principle that, if it is to he a film for general exhibition outside this country, it should also be seen in this country. I refuse to believe that this motion is on the high plane that I should like it to be. Its objective is not to prove a breach of privilege or to ensure the maintenance of the dignity of this Parliament, but to waste time, and, if possible, to discredit the Prime Minister, who has done an excellent job of work without receiving very much co-operation from honorable members opposite. I hope that the House will decide that there has been - no breach of privilege.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Therefore, any agreement with the Speaker oan be broken.

Mr BARNARD:

– That may be the honorable gentleman’s opinion.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- I do not intend to delay the House, but I have information which I believe the House should have. Although I am prepared to accept the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) that he was innocent of the fact that this film was to be used, I know that his publicity secretary, Mr. Rodgers, was not innocent, because I was sitting in front of him in the theatre this morning when he said to Mr. Ross Gollan, political correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, “ Watch this ; this is good stuff ! “ before one scene of that film came on the screen. It was rank propaganda. This is a grave breach of privilege. If the Prime Minister is the honorable gentleman that I think he is the film will be withdrawn.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I do not know what the electors of Australia think of this Parliament. Last week and this week we have had nothing but obstruction from the Opposition. It has used any pretext in order to hold up the Government’s business. Dilatory motions have followed closely on the heels of each other. I think, however, that Opposition members are beginning to realize that their obstructive methods have reacted against themselves. To-day, we had the screening of a film showing Australia at war. It is a very good film. Now, whether it be a film or a book, there must be some sort of preface, and, as the preface to this film, the producers selected a part of the film, which was taken on behalf of the United States War Office of Information, of this Parliament at work as a part of the series Know Your Allies. The part selected was a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin). The producers are keen business men, who, in order to cater for the needs of the Australian people, chose the best speech. If they had .chosen the poor speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) they would have to show the film to empty houses. The Opposition members emerged very badly from the debate on the motion of want of confidence.

The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) said that the Prime Minister had taken a mean advantage, but no man could truthfully say that the Prime Minister is capable of taking a mean advantage of any one., The right honorable gentleman is the fairest and most honest man that has ever graced the prime ministership of this country. The Prime Minister said that the manager of the company which made the film ran at the last general elections as an anti-Labour candidate. My guess is that he has, after seeing the performances of honorable gentlemen opposite last week, wiped his hands of the lot and has come over to our side. The Opposition has decided that the speech of the Prime Minister, as recorded in his film, is good propaganda for our side. I would welcome that gentleman as a candidate on our behalf at the forthcoming general elections in opposition to an honorable gentleman opposite, especially one of the “ cuckoos “. I ask honorable gentlemen to consider the source from which this motion originated. It originated from the most astute and cunning old politician this country has known. He is so cunning that he gives one the impression that he has been on earth before in a previous incarnation. I wish I had an interest in the picturetheatre business, because, after the advertisement that this film is receiving here, the theatres at which it is shown will be well patronized. In my opinion, the film is very good. It shows what Australia is capable of doing.

Honorable gentlemen opposite are foolish to follow their present course, because it will react against them. The public will see a display of some of the Opposition’s tactics when they see this film from which honorable gentlemen opposite would make a “ cut “. The Opposition would also like to cut out the scene in the jungle, in which an American soldier is shown talking to an Australian soldier about the fact that there were only a couple of Wirraway aircraft when the Labour party took office. That is true, and it shows that this country was absolutely defenceless. When in power, the Opposition denuded Australia of manpower by sending troops overseas. Aus- tralia was left absolutely helpless and hopeless by the Menzies-Fadden Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! We are discussing whether the privileges of this House are being impinged on by this film.

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. The motion is intended as a piece of political propaganda and to hold up the business of the Government. The sooner the Opposition allows Parliament to get down to business in order that this country’s welfare may bc preserved, and ceases to obstruct the Government, the better it will be for its members at the forthcoming general elections. If Opposition members do not get down to business immediately I’ envisage empty Opposition benches in the next Parliament. Most honorable gentlemen who now sit opposite will then either be in the Army or in the Civil Constructional Corps, where they rightly belong.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) has been about as far off the question before the Chair as one could be and still be allowed to speak. The issue is quite clear. Nothing has been guarded more jealously than have the privileges of Parliament. No departure from the Standing Orders is permitted except by leave of the House, which is given only with great discrimination and on explicit conditions. It is by leave of the Parliament that the press is present to report the proceedings. If a newspaper were grossly to abuse its privilege of being present, action would be taken against it. As a matter of fact, action was taken by the ex-Speaker and the President of the Senate within recent memory in respect of an incident which they considered was an infringement of the privileges of the Parliament.

The granting of permission to an individual or a company to ‘film the proceedings of the House is an innovation. When announcing to the House, one day last week, that approval was being sought to make a motion picture of the chamber in session, the then Speaker took the precaution of explaining clearly to honorable members the conditions that would attach to the granting of the request. Those conditions were that the picture was to be taken for the purpose of being exhibited abroad in the first place, and that it would not be shown in Australia within a period of four months. Why was that period of time selected ? It can be associated only with the impending general elections.

Mr Paterson:

– It was to coincide with a period during which the Government begged unionists to refrain from going on strike.

Mr McEWEN:

– That is true. No one imagined that that condition was imposed for any reason other than that during that period of four months the election would take place. Care was being exercised by the Chair to ensure that this privilege would not be exploited to the possible advantage or disadvantage of any person or section within this Parliament. Upon that explicit condition, approval was granted. Now, just as quickly as the film could be developed, it is being exhibited in Australia in violation of the condition which the House attached to the making of the film. Is it contended that nothing shall be done about it? That is the only suggestion which the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has advanced. , But tradition imposes on the Government the responsibility for safeguarding the privileges of the Parliament. After Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, i3 the leading custodian of those privileges. Yet the right honorable gentleman stated to-day that it is none of his business whether the undertaking given by a company to this chamber was broken. He cannot escape his responsibility so easily as that. I support the statement of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) that you, Mr. Speaker, should express your view upon this matter.

The circumstances in which the picture was taken, and the words recorded, are the most critical in party politics that one can imagine, namely, a motion of want of confidence lodged against a war-time government on the eve of an election. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) levelled a series of charges against the Government, and the Prime Minister replied to them. A record was taken of the words of the man who commands the greatest volume of publicity in this country through one of the most impressive mediums of publicity, namely, the “ talkie “ picture, and the film will be exhibited throughout Australia. The words of the Prime Minister . rebutting the charges of the Leader of the Opposition will be heard, but they will not be accompanied by the charges themselves. If this chamber tolerates that, we have reached the end of the tradition of fair play. If one newspaper were to publish the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and suppress the reply of the Prime Minister, such discrimination would not be condoned.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Particularly after the newspaper had promised not to print any reference to the matter.

Mr McEWEN:

– That would ‘be the counterpart of the incident now under examination. The House must decide, first, whether” the exhibition of this film, which was secured under conditions that forbade its screening for four months, shall be permitted, and, secondly, whether the Government shall avail itself of at least a fortuitous circumstance that permits its leader to reply to certain charges, unaccompanied by those charges themselves. The Prime. Minister declared that it was a great surprise to him when he learned that his words had been recorded. We accept that. It did not come as a surprise to me, because a microphone was suspended 3 feet above the table and within 1 foot of his mouth. But the right honorable gentleman did not know that his words were being recorded. All right ! I do not challenge it, although there will be some people who will do so. But I did expect that the words of the Leader of the Opposition were also being recorded, and that if the words of one speaker were to be used, the words of the other would not be ignored.

I still hope that this House will not be forced to vote upon the issue. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate issue upon which to divide. The trend of the debate, however, indicates that the vote will be on purely party lines, to determine whether the Government, with the assistance of the vote of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), will condone the circulation of the film in Australia during the period of the election.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It was obtained under false pretences.

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes, it was. If the House had known, it would have refused the company permission to make the film. The Government will gain a paltry victory indeed if it secures a favorable decision on this issue with the assistance of the honorable member for Henty, and sanctions the exhibition of blatant propaganda, secured by a trick, or at least as the result of a misapprehension. The Government will best protect itself by taking steps, even at this late stage, to see that the issue is not resolved by a vote on party lines. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether the undertaking given to your predecessor, under certain conditions, shall continue to be violated. At this stage I do not charge the company with the responsibility, because it may have its own story to tell. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) made an interesting disclosure, namely that, although the Prime Minister knew nothing of what was happening, his publicity officer knew all about it. The Opposition does not desire the whole of the picture to be withdrawn, but it does consider that this unfair part to which it has taken objection shall not be exhibited.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- wi reply - I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you propose to intervene in this debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not propose to intervene because the House has taken upon itself to decide the question.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The issue is simple, namely, whether this House adjudges the Cinesound Company guilty of contempt of Parliament. The press is permitted to record the proceedings of the Parliament subject to certain conditions. If they are not observed, the offending newspaper may be immediately excluded from attendance. Since I have been a member of this House, the representatives of newspapers have, on two occasions, been denied admittance, one for a year and another for eighteen months, because tho Parliament resolved that their actions had violated the conditions under which the pressmen were permitted to attend. There can be no question but that this company has produced this picture under false pretences, for the undertakings that were given to the exSpeaker, and, subsequently, .to the members of the House, have not been observed. The company undertook to take pictures of both sides of the House. If that undertaking had not been given strong objection would have been offered to the taking of any pictures. Personally, I am totally opposed to the taking of pictures, or the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament, except by means of a continuous film or a continuous broadcast, such as is provided of the proceedings of the Parliament of New Zealand. Pictures ct broadcasts under any other conditions must necessarily be partisan and cannot represent truly the proceedings of the Parliament. As this picture has been produced under false pretences and is one-sided, we shall undoubtedly commit a crime, not only against the Parliament, but also against democracy, of which Parliament is the custodian, if we allow il. to be shown throughout the country. Mr. Speaker is the custodian of the rights and privileges of the members of the House, and he is charged with the responsibility to observe parliamentary traditions and to abide by the Standing Orders made for the conduct of parliamentary proceedings. He is also responsible to the people of the country for the maintenance of the dignity of the Parliament, and is under an obligation, surely, to observe the undertakings of his predecessors in office. This is in accord with the long history of parliamentary practice in all British countries. The Speaker is universally expected to be an impartial judge of what is being done in the House, and to ensure an impartial observance of the precedents and traditions of Parliament. Your predecessor in office, Mr. Speaker, allowed certain things to be done after certain undertakings had been given. I submit that it is for you, sir, to ensure that the undertakings shall be observed. If we cannot look to you, sir, to protect our parliamentary institution, to whom can we look ? If you will not see that redress is assured for breaches of undertakings made in relation- to the Parliament, who will do so? This matter properly comes within your jurisdiction; it is not a matter for government action. Mr. Speaker is the only person who can really protect the rights and privileges of the Parliament. Speakers are expected to observe the undertakings and agreements of their predecessors in office, just as Ministers and governments are expected to do. When the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) assumed office he also assumed the responsibility of carrying out certain contracts that had already been made with the wheat-growers of this country. If he should be displaced from his office his successor would be expected to carry out those contracts. That is true of other Ministers, and it is true of governments as a whole.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honorable member is now wide of the question before the Chair.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– I am submitting, sir,thatour presiding officer is under the same obligation to observe the undertakings of his predecessors as Ministers are under to observe the undertakings of their predecessors. You, sir, are responsible to the House as a whole. The Speaker is expected, on his assumption of his high office, to divest himself entirely of all party bias and to protect our parliamentary institution to the utmost of his power. A parliamentary contract was made by your predecessor with this company. I submit that it is your responsibility to ensure that that contract is observed in its entirety. Only thus can the rights of the Parliament and the people be preserved. Parliament is the last stronghold of democracy. If, because of any thing we do, its functioning is impaired, or if its proceedings should cease to be governed in accordance with timehonoured parliamentary practice, or if the requirements of justice are not observed in its procedure, or if principle be subordinated to expediency in relation to it, a step will have been taken along the downward path to Nazi-ism,Fascism and the other “ isms “, against which the Allied Nations are waging the present war.

Question put -

That the company producing the talking film in which only one side of the House speaks is guilty of contempt of this Parliament.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. J. S.Rosevear.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 32

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 5.34 to 8 p.m.

page 593

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS (RECIPROCITY WITH NEW ZEALAND) BILL 1943

Motion (by Mr. Holloway) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for reciprocity in relation to invalid and old-age pensions between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Social Services · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give approval to a reciprocity agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand with regard to invalid and old-age pensions. This matter has been discussed by the Governments of both countries from time to time since 1913. In that year, the respective Prime Ministers reached an agreement, as a result of which the Government of New Zealand enacted the Old-age Pensions Reciprocity Act of New Zealand, but the Commonwealth Government failed to proceed with the matter. The subject was again considered in 1938, but no finality was reached. The Government recently reviewed the matter at the request of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and it was decided to introduce legislation simultaneously in the Parliaments of both countries to give effect to reciprocity.

The bill authorizes the execution of a reciprocity agreement in the form contained in the schedule, between the Commonwealth in respect of its old-age and invalid pensions on the one hand, and the Dominion of New Zealand in respect of its age and invalids’ benefit on the other hand. It provides that where a person resident in Australia applies for a Commonwealth invalid or old-age pension, his residence in New Zealand will be regarded as residence in Australia. It also provides that a person resident in Australia, who became permanently incapacitated for work or blind while residing in New Zealand will be regarded, for the purposes of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, as having become permanently incapacitated or blind in Australia.

No person will be qualified to receive a pension under the bill unless that person is qualified therefor under the more restrictive conditions of the laws of either the Commonwealth of Australia or the Dominion of New Zealand, whether as to residence or otherwise. The rate of pension granted in any case shall not exceed the maximum rate of pension payable under the law of the country which provides the lower maximum rate.

Provision is also made for the removal of the existing disqualification from pension benefit in Australia of aboriginal natives of New Zealand who are resident in Australia, and are otherwise qualified to receive the pension.

The agreement between the two countries may be terminated by the Government of either country upon six months’ notice being given.

The Government of New Zealand has always been in favour of reciprocity, and for many years Australians resident in the Dominion have been given certain benefits which have been denied by the Commonwealth to New Zealanders living in Australia. With the closer ties between the two countries resulting from the present war, and the exchange of official representatives, the Government believes that the time is opportune to take a practical step in establishing reciprocity in regard to pensions, in the interest of persons otherwise eligible, who change their place of residence. I feel sure that this measure will receive the approbation of honorable members of both sides of the House, and I ask that it be given a speedy passage. We have been trying since 1913 to bring about a closer relationship between the Commonwealth and the Dominion of New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand has already sent a High Commissioner to Australia, and the Commonwealth Government proposes later on to appoint a representative te New Zealand. Every one will agree that we should be bound by closer ties to our cousins in New Zealand.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– As the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Holloway) has stated, this matter of pensions reciprocity between Australia and New Zealand has been the subject of much discussion between the two dominions. I speak with some knowledge as one who was for some years Minister in charge of the pensions branch. Had it not been for the unreadiness to place our whole pensions legislation before the House for consideration, this matter of reciprocity with New Zealand would have been concluded long ago. The proposal now before the House is in consonance with the attitude of this Parliament when, in 1938, it adopted the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act, section 188 of which provides for a reciprocal arrangement very similar to the one embodied in the bill now. before us. At the International Labour Conference in Geneva in 1935, I had the privilege, as representative of Australia, to commit this country to the policy of international reciprocity though it was restricted then to contributory pensions, not to Treasury pensions such as are contemplated here.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– I congratulate the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Holloway) upon having brought this bill down. It is a long time since legislation of this kind has been placed before the Parliament, and I am glad the time can be found at the end of the session for its consideration. Now that a beginning has been made, we should try, by agreements of this kind, to draw the various parts of the Empire into closer unity. People who come here from Great Britain have to reside in the Commonwealth for a long time before they can qualify for an invalid or old-age pension. A very difficult case came under my notice a week or so ago. An Englishman who ha3 been living here for eighteen years broke his leg, and is now a permanent invalid. He will not be able to work again, yet he is not qualified to draw an invalid pension. I hope that in the next Parliament the Minister, or whoever may take his place, will continue the good work which has been begun in this bill.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- £ think that I may claim the credit for having revived the question of a reciprocal agreement with New Zealand in regard to invalid and old-age pensions when the House was last considering pensions legislation. At that time the appointment to Australia of a High Commissioner for New Zealand was pending, and I suggested that the Government might well take up with him when he arrived the making of such a reciprocal arrangement as we are now considering. I compliment the Government on the speed with which it has dealt with the matter. I suggest that we might also have a reciprocal agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom on the same subject. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), despite the approaching general elections, will see fit to negotiate with the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Australia in an endeavour to reach with his Government an agreement similar to that embodied in this bill. I remember that during the depression years many British residents in Australia returned to Great Britain, because the social legislation there gave them a better chance of living under depression conditions. It is possible that some New Zealanders also returned to their own country for the same reason. Such losses of population to Australia were most regrettable. If there were more time I should like to discuss with the Minister the possibility of making a reciprocal arrangement with New Zealand regarding other sections of our social legislation.

There might be reciprocity in regard to widows’ pensions and child endowment, and perhaps in regard to war pensions also, though I offer no opinion as to the practicability of the last suggestion. It is certainly true that New Zealand, which at one time in our history might easily have become a member of a confederation of Australasian States, has grown apart from us in the last 40 years. This proposed legislation, and the common danger which confronts us from a barbarian enemy a short distance from our shores, will cement the ties that bind us. I am reminded of the phrase used by Sir Henry Parkes at a dinner in Melbourne in 1890, when the States- were considering the subject of federation. He coined and used that lyrical phrase “ the crimson thread of kinship runs through us all “, on that famous occasion. What is true of us Australians is equally true of Australians and New Zealanders. I hope that this bill will be the forerunner of other similar measures.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- Some time ago I had to bring before the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Holloway) the position of a person who had migrated from New Zealand as a child, had become an invalid, and had been denied a pension in Australia for many years. The Minister was responsive, and one result was the introduction of this measure providing for reciprocity in relation to invalid and old-age pensions between Australia and New Zealand. In 1913 an agreement, providing for such reciprocity, was made between the Governments of the two dominions, but, for some reason, it was never given effect. Legislation was passed in New Zealand, but Australia failed to follow suit. Now, 30 years afterwards, we are legislating to provide a much-needed reform. There is some reason for stipulating conditions in connexion with pensions granted to New Zealanders in Australia. We must not offer inducements to persons to come here to take advantage of our social legislation, but we could probably adopt the principle of reciprocity with every country whose social legislation is substantially similar to ours. We are committed to guarantee all persons against the evils of want.

This is a step in that direction, and I commend the Minister for having introduced the bill.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I support this bill, which provides for reciprocity between Australia and New Zealand in relation to invalid and old-age pensions. This matter came before the Joint Committee on Social Security on several occasions, and, whilst I agree with what the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) said about the two dominions having reached but not completed an agreement for this reciprocity as far back as 1913, the honorable gentleman is wide of the mark when he suggests that the case he cited was responsible for this bill being brought down.

Mr Nairn:

– I did not say that.

Mr BARNARD:

– I could hardly accept that as being entirely true. Perhaps it had some influence on the Minister’s mind, as I am sure that the Minister is always influenced by the merits of representations rather than by the person who makes the representations, whether he be from this side or the other side of the chamber. The Joint Committee on Social Security saw the merit of the proposal that there should be reciprocity between the two dominions in respect of invalid and old-age pensions. The matter was discussed with the committee by Mr. Digby Smith, the Director of Social Services in New Zealand, and repr esentatives of the Department of Health in the Dominion, on their recent visit to Australia. They stressed the need for reciprocal pensions to form a part of our social legislation. Whilst others have laid claims- to having been responsible for, or to having influenced, the introduction of this measure, I think that the committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, played an important part. After the lapse of many years, we shall soon have this legislation on the statute-book. During that period governments have come and gone, but it has remained for the present Government to take this important step. Many of the pieces of social legislation of this country have been put on to the statute-book, either by a Labour government, or as the result of pressure by the Labour party. So it goes on. This legislation will not affect a very large number of people, but it will erase a blot on our pensions system and will bring Australia and New Zealand closer together.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.-^1 warmly support the measure. Is the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Holloway) able to give to the House an estimate of the anticipated annual expenditure as the result of the institution of reciprocal invalid and old-age pensions? It is only right when we embark on new expenditure of this kind that we should have some estimate of what it will cost. I am also concerned about paragraph 11 of the schedule to the bill, which provides that the agreement may be terminated by either Government, upon six months’ notice to the other Government. I should like to know whether the termination of the agreement by either Government would result in the automatic cessation of pensions. I take it that, as the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act stands to-day, former residents of the Mandated Territory of New Guinea living in Australia are not eligible to receive pensions benefit.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- In 1913, Mr. F. M. B. Fisher, a member of the Massey Government of New Zealand, visited Australia with the intention of securing an agreement for reciprocal invalid and old-age pensions. Such an agreement was made between the Commonwealth Labour Government led by Mr. Andrew Fisher and the Massey Government, and, at the instance of the Massey Government, legislation was passed in New Zealand; but the Fisher Government went out of office and nothing was done. The matter has been raised many times within my recollection, especially since the Labour party has been in power in New Zealand. The New Zealand Government has been very anxious to have this reciprocal legislation, and it has been discussed between the representatives of the two Governments. I have raised the matter on several occasions. The former Treasurer, Mr. Casey, said that the cost was too great for the Commonwealth Government to carry out the agreement. At that time it was oneway traffic, with more New Zealanders coming to Australia than the Australians going to New Zealand. In the last few years, however, many people have gone from Australia to settle in New Zealand. The enactment of this legislation will protect them. I think that this is an excellent step, and I suggest that it would be very desirable if we extended the principle of reciprocity, not merely to New Zealand, but also to all other countries that have pensions systems, namely, the provinces of Canada, the States of the United States of America, Great Britain and South Africa. A great many people came to Australia from Great Britain believing that they would retain their rights to pensions, only to find that they had lost them. Residence in Australia should be counted in favour of a pension in Great Britain, and residence in Great Britain should be counted in favour of a pension in Australia.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Social Services · ALP

– in reply - I thank the Opposition for having allowed us to go right ahead with this measure, the estimated cost of which will be £10,000 a year. We expect that the cost to New Zealand will be about the same, or a little more. Former residents of the Mandated Territories, now living in Australia, are not covered by the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. That does not mean that legislation will not be brought down at an early date to cover them. This legislation will be a further step towards making Australasia much more a fact rather than just a name, and that is the objective of the Labour party. The Joint Committee on Social Security did influence the Government in bringing this bill forward more quickly than might otherwise have been the case.

Mr Jolly:

– Will the payment of pensions under this legislation cease on the termination of the agreement?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I hope that there will not be any termination of the agreement, but, if there were we should have to review the situation. The termination of the agreement has not been anticipated, and nothing is definitely laid down to provide for such a contingency. I hope that in the event of a termination of the agreement the pensions payable under the legislation will continue while negotiations are taking place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– Clause 8 reads-

An aboriginal native of the Dominion resident in Australia shall not be disqualified from receiving an invalid or old-age pension under the Act by reason only of the fact that he is such an aboriginal native.

I do not know whether the New Zealand legislation contains provision forthe payment of a pension to an Australian aboriginal. When the original agreement was made between the two Governments, Australian aborigines were debarred from social services in Australia, but now that has been rectified. It may be, however, that the New Zealand legislation contains no specific provision for the payment of pensions to our aborigines who are living in New Zealand. If that be so the Government should immediately urge that the omission be rectified.

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

– The answer is that those whom we accept in Australia as being eligible for pensions will be accepted by the Government of New Zealand. We shall be accepting Maoris, whom we previously did not accept.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) was curious about what would happen in the event of a termination of the agreement of the two Governments under paragraph 11 of the schedule, but I assume that it would not follow that this Government would terminate the agreement even if New Zealand decided to withdraw, and that the Commonwealth Government would still pay pensions to New Zealanders living in Australia.

Mr Holloway:

– To do so would be an act of grace. If one party to a two-party agreement withdraws, the agreement lapses.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– I would not say that.

Mr Holloway:

– It would lapse, but that would not mean that we should not continue the payments.

Bill agreed to and reported from committee without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 598

INCOME TAX (WAR-TIME ARRANGEMENTS) BILL 1943

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Income Tax (War-time Arrangements) Act 1942.

page 598

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1943

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-42.

page 598

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (WAR-TIME) BILL 1943

Second Reading

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill, when originally introduced in the Senate, provided that all members of the fighting services shall, irrespective of age, enjoy the franchise. That provision was substantially amended by the Senate.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Does the Government propose to accept the amendment?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The Government realizes the futility of attempting to place this measure on the statute-book if the Senate refuses to accept that provision. Incidentally, that provision was the only one that could be regarded as controversial and affecting government policy. The Government, in accepting the bill, as amended by the Senate, merely presents to the House a measure that creates the machinery for enabling the votes of members of the fighting services to be taken. Sub-section 2 of proposed new section 6 provides that the following members of the forces shall be qualified to vote: -

  1. a member of the Forces who is not under the age of twenty-one years;
  2. a member of the Forces who is under the age of twenty-one years and is serving or has served outside Australia; or

  3. a discharged member of the Forces who is not enrolled as an elector of the Commonwealth and who -

    1. is not under the age of twenty-one years; or
    2. is under the age of twenty-one years and has served outside Australia.
Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has no objection to the bill, as amended by the Senate, and agrees to expedite its passage.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I hope that the Minister for Home Security (Mr. Lazzarini) will consider certain amendments to the bill for the purpose of doing justice to some members of the forces who are not covered by the measure as mutilated by the Senate. In its original form, the bill granted the franchise to all members of the forces, male and female, over the age of eighteen years who are defending Australia. The Senate amended the bill so as to provide that only a member of the forces who. is under 21 years of age and who is serving or has served outside of Australia, shall be given a vote. That gives rise to an anomalous position. For instance, members of the Royal Australian Air Force, under 21 years of age, who are flying aircraft from Darwin, Cairns and Townsville over enemy territory, and who are constantly exposed to danger, will be denied the right to vote. This bill does not include them because they are not serving, and have not served, outside Australia. The language of the bill is clear and definite and, in its present form, will debar these young men because the Tory party in the Senate decided that if they have not served in New Guinea they shall shall not be granted a vote. If we pass the bill in its present form, members of the Royal Australian Air Force, under 21 years of age, who are flying Catalinas from Townsville to Milne Bay day after day, will not be entitled to vote because they are not serving outside Australia. The determination as to whether they are serving outside Australia will surely be decided by the location of their headquarters, or the station to which they are posted. If they are posted at Townsville or Darwin, they will not have a vote.

Mr Lazzarini:

– They are entitled to vote. “ Outside Australia “ means the continent of Australia, not the territories.

Mr CALWELL:

– I understand from the conversations which I had with certain honorable senators, that the intention of the amendment was to ensure that no member of the forces who has not served outside the 3-mile limit, shall have a vote.

Mr Lazzarini:

– “ Inside the 3-mile limit” is within the continent of Australia.

Mr CALWELL:

– Crews of Catalina flying boats located at Townsville are posted, not outside the 3-mile limit, but in Australian territorial waters and therefore will not be entitled to a vote.

Mr Spender:

– That is not correct.

Mr CALWELL:

– Where they are serving is determined by the location of their head-quarters.

Mr Spender:

– It cannot be. Do not tell me that the man who flies an aircraft from Darwin to Timor is not serving outside Australia.

Mr CALWELL:

– I fear that we shall find, after the general elections, that these men have been denied a vote. We should draft an amendment that would place the position beyond doubt. The interpretation which I have given is a. perfectly reasonable one.

Some members of the ground staffs of the Royal Australian Air Force, and of the Australian Military Forces, who have served in Darwin for a long time, are still under the age of 21 years and are not entitled to a vote. They have borne the ordeal of bombing attacks by the Japanese, and by every moral criterion are entitled to a vote at the forthcoming general elections. To tell the truth, I was surprised that the Senate passed the bill at all, and so were many other people. In its present form the measure does a certain amount of justice, but not to every one. I contend that every one should be entitled to fair treatment in connexion with his service to Australia, and even at this late stage the Minister should consider challenging the Senate on the issue. At least such an act would expose those gentlemen in a way in which they do not wish to be exposed. They talk glibly about preference to returned soldiers and the rights of soldiers, but when the Government proposes to give to all members of the forces under a certain age a voice in the election of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, those gentlemen are unwilling to concede that right in any circumstances, because they fear the result. Eleven hundred men have enlisted from the Australian Capital Territory, and they will be voteless even though some of them are more than 21 years of age. Whether their service be rendered beyond our territorial limits or not, these men will be deprived of the opportunity to express themselves at the ballot-box. This grave anomaly should be rectified at the earliest possible moment. The people of the Australian Capital Territory are entitled to representation in this Parliament, and I hope the time is not far distant when they will be enfranchised.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member’s remarks are wide of the bill.

Mr CALWELL:

– The position to which I have referred is not due to any administrative act of this Government, but I hope that if the Government be returned the subject of my complaint will be remedied. Unfortunately, some of our service personnel who are under the age of 21 years will also be deprived of the vote; but, in the circumstances, we are not able to do anything effective about it at this stage. I urge, however, that the earliest possible opportunity be taken to enfranchise the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

Mi CONELAN . (Griffith) [8.45].- 1 support the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). I deeply regret that the Government has decided to accept the bill as amended by the Senate and I am prepared to support my objection by my vote.

Mr Spender:

– There is nothing to prevent the honorable gentleman from voting against the bill.

Mr CONELAN:

– I do not desire any comments from the Baron of Bardia. Unfortunately, many members of the Senate have long passed their zenith, and it is deplorable that at their time of life they should deny the franchise to the. flower of our manhood. The young men who are risking life and limb in our cause on overseas battlefields or in New Guinea, Papua, Darwin and elsewhere should be enfranchised, and the fact that they may not have reached 21 years of age should not be allowed to debar them from voting. They are taking, or will take, great risks as members of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, and whether they have been sent from their own districts to areas with head-quarters at Cairns, Cape

York, Darwin, Townsville or Port Moresby they should be enfranchised. We know very well that on some of our forward battle areas quite young men rush for their Spitfires immediately an enemy alarm is given.

Mr Marwick:

– Men under 21 years of age are not flying Spitfires.

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable gentleman must be well aware that boys sixteen years of age are to-day being enrolled in the Air Training Corps. Immediately they reach eighteen years of age they are drafted into the Air Force, and, before long, they may find themselves serving with a squadron in a battle area. Some of these young men fly as far afield as Timor, yet the old gentlemen of the Senate have denied many of them the right to vote. I hear an honorable member say something about senile decay. It is a reflection upon Parliament that the elderly members of the Senate should be able to exercise this veto on the desire of the Government. I strongly protest against their action. I consider that all the men and women who are prepared to risk life and limb for us should be enfranchised.

The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) interjecting,

Mr CONELAN:

– It is all very well for the Baron of Bardia to talk. Although he made himself a lieutenantcolonel while he was Minister for the Army, he is not justified in preventing the young men in our fighting services from voting. I also protest against the disfranchisement of thousands of adults who reside in the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr Spender:

– But the honorable member for Griffith would not know that!

Mr CONELAN:

– I know that if I wanted any one to defend* me the Baron of Bardia would be the last person I would brief.

Mr Spender:

– And he would be the last one who would wish to defend the honorable member.

Mr CONELAN:

– I am utterly ashamed that adults resident in the Australian Capital Territory and also many young men who have not yet reached the age of 21 years, but who are serving in the forces, should be denied a vote.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I ask the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Lazzarini) whether it is quite clear that the amendments to section 6 of the principal act proposed in clause 4 of this bill make it clear beyond all doubt that members of the fighting forces who are 21 years of age will be entitled to vote as electors of the constituency in which they normally reside, irrespective of where they are on polling day, and irrespective of whether they are enrolled.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Yes, that is quite clearly stated.

Mr BARNARD:

– I also wish to know whether it is clear beyond question that discharged members of the forces in Australia who are not enrolled will be permitted to vote in their constituencies.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Yes, that also is clearly stated in Part III. of the principal act as amended by this bill.

Mr BARNARD:

– I shall not now discuss the position of members of the services under 21 years of age, but I shall certainly express my view of the action of the Senate when I am addressing my constituents during the coming election campaign.

Another point to which I invite the attention of the Minister relates to the position of members of the Royal Australian Navy. During the last general elections, the men who served on the Australia were not given an opportunity to vote. One of my boys was on that ship and he had no opportunity to vote. I wish to know whether the officers of the Electoral Department have been instructed to take all possible steps to ensure that the members of all the fighting services, including those in the Royal Australian Navy, shall be given an opportunity to vote.

Mr Conelan:

– It was the “ Nats “ who made no provision for them to vote at the last general elections.

Mr BARNARD:

– We should not know “ Nats “ or any other political partisans in this matter. The elections should be conducted with complete impartiality, and the Electoral Department should be instructed to take every possible step to ensure that the members of the services, including those in the Navy, shall be allowed to vote. I urge that close attention be paid to the three points that I have mentioned.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barter · ALP

– It was only to be expected that the introduction of a bill of this description would cause some honorable gentlemen opposite to “ winge “ a bit. I can understand the desire of the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) to make his last speech as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament on this bill. The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) has raised questions in relation to voting by members of the services. Even if that honorable gentleman were in charge of the Government of this country, which Heaven forefend, he would find it impossible to arrange for every person in the services to vote. I well remember that my first vote at a Commonwealth elections was exercised in a trench at Bullecourt, in France. I remember, too, that many of my companions at that time, and in that particular area, could not vote because it was impossible to get ballot papers to them-. They were in forward positions, to which access could not be had by those in charge of the elections. I also know what happened in relation to the Australia.

Mr BARNARD:

– So do I.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I knew what was happening while it was happening; the honorable gentleman did not know for weeks afterwards. There will be ships on which members of the Royal Australian Navy are serving which cannot be contacted on election day or even about that period. I do not say anything in disparagement of this Government on that account.

Mr Barnard:

– My contention was that every member of the services should have the opportunity to vote.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I am discussing the opportunity to vote, and I say definitely that it would be impossible to get ballot papers to every small unit of the services, because some of them will be inaccessible and engaged in active operations. Does the honorable gentleman suggest that a deputation should be sent to Tokyo with a request that hostilities should cease on the day of the Australian general elections! I do not often agree, with the Minister for Home Security (Mr. Lazzarini), but on this ocasion I compliment him upon the sound judgment which he and the Government have displayed in having accepted this bill in the form in which it was sent to this House by the Senate. I hope that the Government will not retreat from that position.

In raising another matter, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) was hopelessly wrong in his deductions. He has been given the assurance of the Minister on that point. Any honorable member who reads the provision must arrive at the decision reached by the Minister, namely, that the 3-mile limit is the 3-mile limit, and so soon as a man on a ship of war, on a merchant ship attached to the Navy, or an aircraft attached to either the Army or the Navy, serves outside that limit, he comes within the qualifications to which the Government has agreed.

Mr Stacey:

– The Minister is right.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– This matter ought not to be debated at great length. It ought not to be the subject of party politics. It concerns merely the obtaining of a fair expression of the opinions of those who are considered by this Parliament to be qualified to record a vote. The Government has accepted the very wise limitation imposed by the Senate, and I trust that it will stick like glue to its present intention.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- When the press announced that the Cabinet had agreed to the bill as it had been amended by the Senate, it stated that the reason was that certain difficulties had presented themselves which prevented the adoption of any other stand. I want to know what those difficulties are.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I am not concerned, nor is the Government, as to what the press has said.

Mr MARTENS:

– I intend to express my views, whether or not that is agreeable to the Minister. This mention of difficulties, like the motion that was debated this afternoon, is all “ hooey “ and bluster. If the Government wishes the soldiers to have a vote in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which it introduced, there is no reason in the world to prevent their being given a vote. There are in the Commonwealth thousands of men who are not able to go overseas, not because of any disinclination on their part, but because the Government wished them to remain in this country; whether it was this Government or a previous government is beside the question. Many men enlisted to serve wherever they were sent. If they were not sent out of Australia, that is not their fault. The stand that I am now taking is not a new one. I said during the last war that a man who is fit to fight for his country should be regarded as fit to exercise the franchise. The man who, in the opinion of the Government, has sufficient intelligence and the requisite capacity to undertake a certain job, ought to be regarded as qualified to record a vote. I know of no reason why the privilege should be denied to those who have volunteered to fight on behalf of others who have remained behind because they are in reserved occupations or suffer from some physical disability. All through the last war, I argued along these lines, and I do so now. There is no reason why the Government should back down to the Senate in this matter. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) agrees with the Minister for Home Security (Mr. Lazzarini). What is wrong with the Minister? When I hear the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey) say that the Minister is right, I am convinced that there must be something radically wrong with the measure. I should like to know why the Government considers that the amendment of the Senate should be accepted. Some of the members of that chamber would not give the soldiers a vote, or anything else except a pick and shovel job, and not even that if they could avoid doing so. They do not want any soldier to have a vote. The bill provides that any man over the age of 21 years who serves outside Australia, even though he is not enrolled, shall have a vote. Why should he be more entitled to it than the man 21 years of age who is prepared to fight beyond the boundaries of this country, but is not required to do so? This backing down to the Senate is cowardly.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I entertain a doubt as to whether or not thb proposed new section 6 achieves what is agreed to be the object of it. I understand that that object is to give the vote to members of the forces who have served outside Australia in the narrow sense, namely,, outside the mainland of Australia and Tasmania. I am not convinced that it does that. The bill does not contain a definition of “Australia”, nor is there such a definition, as I understand the position, in the principal Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act. The language used is “served in Australia “. It appears to me to be quite possible that this legislation may have to be interpreted in the light of the corresponding provisions of the act - in which, in. 1939, this Parliament defined “Australia “ as including the territories of the Commonwealth. If “ Australia “ in the proposed new section includes the territories of the Commonwealth, a person will be denied a vote unless he has served, not only outside the continent. of Australia and the island of Tasmania, but also outside the territories of the Commonwealth.

Mr Spender:

– Is “ Australia “ defined in the Acts Interpretation Act?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– It is;, but of course there is some doubt as to what the definition means. By section 17 of the Acts Interpretation Act, Australia includes the whole of the Commonwealth; because it says “ the Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia “. Then there is a special provision which reads - “ Territory of the Commonwealth “ or “ Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth “ includes any territory governed by the Commonwealth under a mandate.

In the first place, the definition in the Acts Interpretation Act applies unless the contrary intention appears. In the second place, what the whole of the Commonwealth is, does not seem to be quite clear. Does it include the territories of the Commonwealth as well as the six States? Apart from that, the point that I make is that when we come to interpret the proposed new section 6, we may find that it has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Defence Act, because the words used are “ served in Australia “ ; that is to say, the language in the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act may have the same meaning as the corresponding phrase in the Defence Act, and in that act, since 1939, Australia has included the territories of the Commonwealth. I suggest to the Government that the matter be made perfectly clear by inserting in the proposed new section 6, a sub-section stating definitely that under that section Australia does not include the territories of the Commonwealth; otherwise there will be the danger of that section being so construed as to exclude from the vote any person who has not served outside Australia, including the territories of the Commonwealth; in other words, exclude from the vote any member of the Australian Military Forces who had served only in Australia .and its territories. The point may have some substance, and the difficulty could easily be removed by a simple amendment.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– m reply - In the first place, I express surprise that the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) should take so much notice of the interpretation placed by the press on the action of the Government. I thought that he was one of those who do not take much notice of the press. Whether or not he questions my bona fides, I am here as a member of the Government to give effect to a Cabinet decision. That decision is, that the bill in the form in which it has been amended by the Senate shall be accepted by the Government. There is only one reason for that acceptance, and the honorable member ought to know what it is. The Government has been forced to accept the position in which it has been placed, because its strength in the Senate is not sufficient to enable it to effect an alteration. Honorable members are humbugging themselves if they have other ideas. If this bill be not passed, and the machinery for the recording of votes by soldiers be not set up, no soldier will be able to vote. That is the plain, blunt fact so far as the Government is concerned.

The honorable members for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) and Griffith (Mr. Conelan) have raised the matter of votes for soldiers who have served outside Australia. The Electoral Department will prepare and carry out all the arrangements in connexion with the elections. Officers of that department have assured me that every man who has gone outside Australia - the territory of the Commonwealth, and the 3-mile territorial waters - to Timor, Rabaul, or anywhere else, whether he has flown or has (jone in a ship or by any other means, will have a vote.

Mr Conelan:

– Who is to decide the issue ?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The matter is decided in the bill. The honorable member does not gain anything by stubbornly saying that that is not the position. I tell him that it is.

Mr Conelan:

– It is not. The Minister is having his leg pulled.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I am telling the Chair, the House, and the country, that the airman who flies from Australia’s shores to a point beyond the 3-mile limit, is serving outside Australia so far as this legislation is concerned.

Mr Morgan:

– Who will give the ruling?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The Electoral Department, which will operate the act. I have no objection to the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), if he considers that it is necessary. Electoral officers have assured me that it is not; but if its insertion is desired, then so far as I am concerned - and I believe that I can speak for the Government - it may be inserted.

Another matter raised concerns those who have gone from Canberra. Mr. Speaker has rightly said that that has nothing to do with the bill. This measure is not a general amendment of the Electoral Act dealing with what may be classed as anomalies; it provides merely for the taking of the votes of certain members of the military forces. If the men whose case .has been stated were living in Canberra and had not been overseas, they would not have a vote. Those who reside in the Australian Capital Territory are subject to the ordinary electoral law, which has been in operation since the inception of federation.

Mention has been made of men who may be discharged from the forces a few days before the date of the election. The majority of those who have been taken off the roll since their enlistment or who had not enrolled because they were not of the age of 21 years at the time, but have since attained that age, and are discharged between now and the date of the elections, are provided for in the bill; they will be on an equality with soldiers in somewhat similar circumstances who are still on active service, in that they will be given a vote.

Mr Conelan:

– - What about the man of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years of age who comes back after having served in New Guinea?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– He will get a vote. So far as this bill is concerned, he will be regarded as having served outside Australia.

Mr Martens:

– What about Thursday Island ?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– That is a part of the Commonwealth of Australia. The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) referred to sailors at sea. The practice has always been for a ship at sea to be regarded as a polling place. Wherever possible, ships are provided with ballot-papers, and the seamen vote on the ship. Of course, it may happen that it would be physically impossible to get ballot-papers to a ship at sea. In such a case the men will not be able to vote, but I cannot see how this Government, or the electoral officers, can possibly arrange for them to vote in those circumstances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- Can the Minister say whether Australians training in Canada and the United Kingdom under the Empire Air Training Scheme will be entitled to vote, as were members of the first Australian Imperial Force during the last war? We have 10,000 members serving in the Air Force outside Australia.

Mr Lazzarini:

– They all are entitled to vote.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- If there is any doubt regarding the point which I raised in my second-reading speech, this is the clause in which the doubt may be resolved. I am not satisfied with the answer that the electoral officers’ will interpret the act in the way which the Government desires. They are not the final judges. It is possible that the matter may go before the High Court on an electoral petition. If the word “Australia “ as used in the bill includes the territories of Australia, then no soldier under 21 will receive a vote unless he has served outside Australia and the territories. Therefore, I suggest that, in order te- place the matter beyond doubt, it should be provided that “ Australia “ does not include any territory of the Commonwealth other than the Northern Territory.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) should be careful that his definition does not exclude Norfolk Island, which is the special territory of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). In my own case, his definition would exclude Kangaroo Island, which is outside the 3-mile limit.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

– I support the proposal of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn). However, I have been assured by the SolicitorGeneral that the word “Australia” means the mainland of Australia and Tasmania. That being so, I am prepared to accept the assurance.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

.- The SolicitorGeneral and the electoral officers have assured me that the Acts Interpretation Act specifically states that where the word “ Australia “ is used in an act it refers to the Commonwealth of Australia. It might create confusion if the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Bourke wore agreed to. Therefore, the Government cannot accept it.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- With all due deference to the opinions quoted by the Minister, I am not prepared to accept them as the final word on this subject. As I pointed out before, the final word might rest with the High Court on an electoral petition. The words “ serving in Australia “ as used in this clause may be interpreted in the light of the definition of “Australia “ in the Defence Act, which includes the territories. It is true that, in the Acts Interpretation Act, the definition of “ Australia “ is as has been stated, but that applies only where the contrary intention does not appear. I believe it would be wise for the Government to accept my proposal. I cannot see how its acceptance could create any difficulty. Therefore, I move -

That the following new paragraph be added to the clause: - “ (d) by inserting the following definition: - ‘In this Act, “Australia” docs not include any territory of the Commonwealth other than the Northern Territory ‘.”

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Members of the Forces entitled to vote).

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- Of all the members of this Parliament, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) should be the last to condemn a measure of this sort on party grounds. The honorable member would not, if I know his politics, give any soldier under 21 years a vote. For my part, I would give a vote to every one who is eighteen years of age and over whether in peace or in war. That, of course, would not suit the gentlemen in the Senate who postponed consideration of this bill in the hope of killing it. However, when they were faced with the prospect of an election, they were not game to persist in their original intention, and consequently they passed the bill in the form in which we now have it. It is quite clear that they intended to deal with it after the manner of party politics, but their courage oozed out when they thought that the denial of a vote to all soldiers between eighteen and 21 years of age would place their party or parties or series of parties in an unfavorable light in the eyes of the general public. I am sorry that the submissions of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens), the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) and myself were not accepted, because I should have liked to have put this issue with the Senate to the test. I am certain that honorable senators in Opposition are in such a frightened mood at the prospect of the elections that they would not dare to throw out this bill if the House amended it in the way in which it ought to be amended. I admit thatwe cannot do anything more now. I am intrigued at the fact that honorable members opposite, who were so perturbed this afternoon at being left out of the motion picture which may be exhibited throughout Australia, should be so dumb on the subject of votes for soldiers. The honorable member for Barker, who talked about votes for sailors, is as much at sea on this measure as he usually is on other measures. I regret that the honorable member, with others, should have frustrated our desire to place beyond all reasonable doubt the right of all members of the services between the ages of 18 and 21 years to vote at general elections.

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

.- Of all the regrettable incidents that have occurred recently in this Parliament, the action of the Senate in amending this bill in order to deprive members of the armed forces and women’s auxiliary services, between the ages of 18 and 21 years, except those who have been or are overseas, of a vote is the most regrettable. I am not surprised that there is an evergrowing clamor amongst the Australian people for the abolition of the Senate. Only a few months ago Parliament amended the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act in order to eliminate discrimination between soldiers who have served overseas and those who have served in Australia. Yet we see the very same discrimination inserted in this measure by the Opposition’s hostile majority in the Senate. In the armed services we have youths of from 18 to 21 years of age who have volunteered to serve anywhere in the world and other youths of the same age who are liable to serve anywhere beyond Australia to the limits of the 149th parallel in the east and the 110th parallel in the west and the equator in the north. Yet the Senate Opposition has said that the latter section of our youths shall not he eligible to vote at the next general elections.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Riordan).Order ! The honorable member must not reflect on action taken by the Senate.

Mr POLLARD:

– But I have done so already.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member shall not continue to do so.

Mr POLLARD:

– The action of the Senate is being endorsed now by this chamber owing to the power of the antiLabour forces. The deprivation of these young men of the right to help to decide the future destinies of this country in the political field by exercising the franchise, while they are called upon to defend the country is grotesque. The proposition before us is that a batman to an officer, like the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), can, if he is between the ages of IS and 21 years, qualify to vote at the next general elections by going to any place beyond the 3-mile limit, such as Kangaroo Island, but the lads at Geraldton, Darwin and Townsville and the other places which are regularly subjected to bombing raids will not be able so to qualify. When the parents of these youths read of the action of the Opposition there will be revulsion against the men responsible. In this war, as in the last war, some men who have gone overseas with the Forces have not incurred greater peril than I shall to-night when I walk from this building to my hotel. I resent the restriction and I hope that my resentment will be shared by the electors. It is absurd for the decrepit politicians in the Senate -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mir. POLLARD. - I regret that breach.

It is absurd that youths at battle stations in his country, who deserve the franchise, are not to have it. Those young men will not forget when they come of age those who were responsible for this dastardly action.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- I think that the usually kindly natured honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) has been unduly rough on some of his party colleagues in the Senate, for they very nearly have a majority in that chamber. However, I did not rise to introduce the olive branch into a little family quarrel like that. I rose merely to point out that, if the Government had brought down an electoral bill in the Senate extending the franchise to every youth in the community, I should have said that the Government was standing at any rate on a principle of some sort; but what the Government did was to try to “ cash in “ on a wave of patriotic sentiment regarding the Forces: The very people who did this voted on this side of the chamber - after the outbreak of war against the Australian Imperial Force leaving Australia. You and your col leagues, Mr. Chairman, voted, on this side, against the Militia being sent to New Guinea or Papua or to any of the islands. At this stage, for government supporters to talk about extending the right to vote to persons whom they would not have allowed to leave Australia in order to defend our own territories is one of the choicest and spiciest morsels of political hypocrisy I have ever heard. I have been at head-quarters during this war, and I have been subjected to no more danger in the duties that I have undertaken for the Army so far in Australia than the honorable member for Ballarat has been subjected to in this war.

Mr POLLARD:

– I have had more war service than the honorable gentleman, if he wants to argue on that score.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I am not arguing on’ that. All I say is that in Australia in this war I have been subjected to no more danger than the honorable member for Ballarat has been. I think we are agreed on that. Some honorable member is saying something about the Australian Imperial Force. I am in the Australian Imperial Force, but even so, I have not been exposed to any danger.. I am also a member of this Parliament. That is owing to a decision of my lords and masters. It will be their decision that I shall stay here, just as it will be the decision of the electors of Griffith that the Government Whip (Mr. Conelan) shall not be here after the next general elections.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to discuss the subject before the Chair.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– May I say that this choice piece of political hypocrisy extending the vote to all members of the forces and the women’s auxiliaries between the ages of 18 and 21 years was originally inserted in order that the Government might “ cash in “ on the votes of those who find themselves in uniform in Australia during this war.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a nice term to use.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Yes, and if it will be of any benefit to the honorable member in the Reid electorate during the forthcoming campaign I shall allow him to use it without infringing my copyright. Just recently I served at a certain head-quarters right alongside a woollen mill. That enables me to say that - all honorable members from Sydney electorates can use this - all the people under 21 years of age serving in those head-quarters are contributing no more towards the prosecution of this war in Australia than are the young men and women of equal age who are producing the khaki uniforms which the Army wears.

Mr Pollard:

– Youths on active service in Darwin are to be deprived of a vote.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The position of men in Darwin is no different from that of men in Townsville, Port Hedland, or Broome, or any other place which has been “attacked. The principle underlying the franchise should be that the persons who exercise it should be qualified by certain experience to cast an intelligent vote.

Mr Pollard:

– If there were an education test the honorable member would not be allowed to vote.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– That may be. I deprecate sincerely the introduction of an issue of this kind in time of war in order to discriminate between people who go into the forces and people, tens of thousands of them, who would willingly go into the forces if it were not for the fact that their employment in reserved occupations prevents them. .

Mr Morgan:

– Give them all a vote.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Frankly, I am opposed to reducing the voting age. The honorable member, may also use that in the Reid campaign. If the Government had not indulged in political hypocrisy, the bill would have granted the franchise to every person over the age of eighteen years. . But the Government saw fit to introduce the bill in another form. No honorable member of this chamber has a right to protest against the measure as amended by the Senate. If honorable senators had accepted the measure in its original form, I should have opposed it. We should not resort to issues of this sort in an endeavour to buy votes, because much bigger, deeper and better issues are awaiting decision. I am surprised that the honorable member for Ballarat, who does not address this chamber as frequently as his experience would justify him in doing, should have adopted the attitude that he did this evening-

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

.- I deprecate the statements of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron).

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The honorable member would.

Mr CONELAN:

– Naturally, because I am a democrat, and the honorable member is a fascist. He struts about this chamber in his uniform-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to direct his remarks to clause 4.

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable member for Barker. criticized the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) for advocating that all members of the services between the ages of eighteen and 21 years shall be given a vote. The honorable member is able to obtain leave from bis military duties whenever he desires for the purpose of attending to his parliamentary duties, and he draws military pay in addition to his parliamentary allowance. He is not even in the military forces.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable member for Barker is opposed to granting the franchise to young men who are prepared to sacrifice life and limb on his behalf and on our behalf. He will deny to them a voice in determining who shall govern this country in war-time. The Government has fallen down on its job in allowing the’ honorable member to attend sittings of this chamber. He should be attending to his duties in the security service. If the Parliament passes the bill in its present form, it will do a great wrong to the young men of the fighting services. I expected the honorable member for Barker to oppose the bill in its original form because he objects to any democratic principle; but I am greatly surprised to find that a Labour government is prepared to accept what the old men of the Senate dictate..

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must not reflect upon the Senate:

Mr CONELAN:

– The Government should not accept dictation from the Senate. It should exert every effort to grant a vote to young men and women of the services, and I appeal to the Minister to see that the necessary provision shall be made.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- If there is any cant, humbug, or hyprocrisy in this legislation, it is expressed in the attitude of the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must not reflect upon the action taken by the Senate.

Mr CALWELL:

– Some one has suggested that we should call it “ another place “, and others believe that it should be called “ the abattoirs “.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to discuss the clause.

Mr Spender:

– I bet that he does not.

Mr CALWELL:

– I have a dual purpose. I shall deal simultaneously with the clause and the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron).

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable membe’r must deal with the clause.

Mr CALWELL:

– The purpose of the Senate in amending the bill was to victimize certain members of the militia forces. The majority of honorable senators are strongly of opinion that the Australian Imperial Force and the Citizen Military Forces should be amalgamated. If they had been able to secure the passage of a bill introducing conscription for overseas service, they would have extended the franchise to service men and women under 21 years. Thwarted in their endeavours, these tories and reactionaries decided to deprive young militia men who may be at any time sent to New Guinea of the right to vote. They object to extending the franchise to those members of the forces who have not seen fit to enlist for military service in any part of the world, and, according to the law of the country, each individual has freedom of choice in that matter. Having - expressed his choice, a soldier should not be deprived of the right to vote. If any people have a right to a voice in the constitution of a new Parliament, surely they are the men and women who are defending this country. If a “ new order “ is to be ushered in during the post-war era, the next Parliament, which will be elected on the 21st August, will start preparations of the plans for it. As the result of the action of the tories in the Senate, many young soldiers will be denied a vote in the election of the new Parliament. The case for granting the franchise to all soldiers, regardless of whether they are members of the Australian Imperial Force or the Citizen Military Forces, or whether they are serving inside or outside Australia, is unanswerable. I urge the Minister to stage a conflict with the Senate on this issue, because I have not the slightest doubt that it will “ back down “. It will not dare to reject the bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Nomination of Candidates).

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– Proposed new section 26b provides that -

In addition to the authorized witnesses prescribed by section ninety-one b of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1940 all officers of His Majesty’s Naval, Military and Air Forces shall be authorized witnesses for the purposes of Part XII. of that Act.

Every honorable member has received from the Minister for Munitions (Mr. Makin) a very interesting document entitled “ Commonwealth of Australia - Ministry of Munitions - Statement by Minister for Munitions (The Honorable N. J. O. Makin) - for release to morning papers, Saturday, 19th June, 1943.” At the bottom of that statement, the following words appear : - “ Authorized by E. L. Burke, Public Relations Officer, Ministry of Munitions “. I should like to know whether that document has been signed in accordance with Commonwealth electoral law.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Barker is out of order.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I invite the Minister for Home Security (Mr. Lazzarini) to accept an amendment, to provide that a Commonwealth peace officer shall be an authorized witness for the purposes of the Electoral Act, because the number of witnesses is rather restricted. I shall not press this matter if my suggestion can be given effect by means of regulations. My experience of the general elections in Victoria recently demonstrated to me the difficulty of securing the services of authorized witnesses, and I am of opinion that Commonwealth peace officers, who are charged with the responsibility of guarding important factories and offices, should be included as authorized witnesses, as are members of State police forces.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

.- If this bill were a general amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-40, the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) would receive consideration. But the bill provides only for the votes of servicemen to be taken. All officers of His Majesty’s naval, military and air forces have been made “ authorized witnesses “ because they will be the appropriate persons to act in that capacity.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 609

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1943

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of customs under Customs Tariff Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · West Sydney · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The introduction of this bill is in accordance with the usual practice of providing for validation of the collection of duties of customs prior to a dissolution of Parliament. The measure relates to customs proposals before the House which have not been dealt with, and it is necessary in order to provide for the continuous collection of customs duties. No definite period of validation has been prescribed in this measure, as it is uncertain when a tariff debate can be arranged owing to the necessity to give precedence to business directly associated with the prosecution of the war. The business of Parliament in that respect willtherefore not be disturbed by the introductionof this measure. Honorable members will recollect that measures to validatethe collection of duties in relation to the schedules now before Parliament have been passed on three occasions. On other occasions when this procedure has been adopted members of the Opposition have referred to the necessity to discuss the customs proposals. I have to admit that I have given a limited undertaking that time would be provided for a general tariff debate, but the circumstances that have arisen in the last week or so, which will result shortly in the dissolution of this Parliament, make it impossible for me to adhere to that undertaking, and I am obliged to ask honorable members to agree, to the passage of this bill and the five other customs validation measures in order to protect the revenue of the country. In previous measures of this description, a time limit has been prescribed in order that honorable members might be assured that, within the stipulated period, a general tariff debate would occur or new validating measures introduced. During the last war Parliament agreed, to postpone a general tariff debate until after hostilities ceased. The measure that I am now submitting, and the cognate bills that will follow it provide in effect for a similar procedure. The reasons for the adoption of this course will be fairly obvious to honorable gentlemen. While practically the whole world is at war it would be wellhigh impossible satisfactorily to discuss tariff proposals involving trade transactions with other countries. The formulae which have hitherto been observed would not meet present conditions in any way. Moreover, it is necessary for us to devote our whole attention to the problems of war, which are entirely different from those of peace. I therefore ask honorable members to support the course that the Government is taking. I direct attention, however, to the important fact that the passage of the measures to which I am referring will not exclude a discussion, at some future date, of the duties of customs set out in the schedules to which these bills refer. Those rates of duty will need, ultimately, to be incorporated in our customs schedules. The passage of these bills will not therefore rule out, for all time, a general tariff debate. The schedules involved in these measures have been introduced over a considerable period dating from the time of the Menzies Government in 1939 and they have been validated on different occasions during the periods of office of three administrations. I hope that honorable gentlemen will accept my assurance that this action by the -Government is due to the pending dissolution of the Parliament, the necessity to protect the revenues during the period that the election takes place, and the impracticability, in a time of war, of discussing customs duties with any satisfactory results.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The Opposition concurs in the view that present conditions are entirely inappropriate to a general tariff debate. We appreciate the difficulties of the Government in relation to the schedules now before Parliament. We also realize that the passage of these bills will leave the way open for a general tariff debate on these schedules at some future time, though probably not till after the war. As the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Mr. Beasley) has said, economic conditions have entirely changed during the war period, not only in Australia but also in all the Allied countries. The circumstances of to-day make it impossible for us to consider, in any rational way, the various tariff items in these schedules. Preferences as between the Allied Nations that are to-day fighting side by side in this titanic struggle could not be fittingly debated at this stage. The Government has introduced an extraordinary measure, but these are extraordinary times and such times require extraordinaryaction. Usually validation bills cover a period of three months, but that course would not meet the circumstances of to-day and it is essential that the customs revenue shall be protected. I understand that in effect the passage of these bills will validate the duties forthe period of the war. The Opposition offers no objection to that procedure. The implications of the four freedoms and the proposed free access of the people of various countries to the raw materials of commerce postulate problems of great magnitude, and involve questions of free trade throughout the world which we cannot satisfactorily debate at present. Moreover, the problems involved in lend-lease arrangements are likely to affect tariff schedules vitally. The importation and manufacture of goods aregoverned to-day byconsidera tions far different from those of peacetime; consequently, the preservation of our industries and the maintenance of our markets cannot be discussed to-day as though normal conditions prevailed. These considerations made it inevitable for the Government to introduce these bills. Questions of preference as between the Allied Nations which are to-day fighting side by side must be put aside until conditions are more stable. For these reasons the Opposition will support this bill and the other five validating measures which, I understand, are to he introduced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 610

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION

page 610

BILL (No. 2) 1943

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of adjustments in duties of customs under Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BEASLEY:
Min ister for Supply and Shipping · West Sydney · ALP

. - by leave -I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure is incidental to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill. Its passage will ensure the continued operation of the exchange adjustment alterations that were made by the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals of the 5th March, 1942.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate:; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 610

CUSTOMS TARIFF (SPECIAL WAR DUTY) VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1943

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leavebe given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties under Customs Tariff (Special War Duty) Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The passage of this bill will ensure the continued collection of revenue under the Customs Tariff (Special War Duty) Proposals of the 5th March, 1942.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 611

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1943

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of customs under Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · West Sydney · ALP

. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The passage of this bill will ensure the continued collection of the duties imposed by the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals of the 5th March, 1942.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time..

page 611

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1943.

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of customs under Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · West Sydney · ALP

.. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the validation of the collection of duty imposed by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals of the 5th March, 1942.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 611

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1943

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of excise under Excise Tariff Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · West Sydney · ALP

– by leave -I move: -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The reason for this measure is similar to that given in respect of those that have preceded it-the protection of the revenue and the necessity to ensure collection of excise. The proposals which the bill seeks to validate are the excise tariff proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the 5th and 25th March, 1942, the 2nd September, 1942, and the 28th January, 1943.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 611

DAIRYING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1943

Motion (by Mr. Scully) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the granting of assistance to the dairying industry with the object of aiding the prosecution of the war, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the measure is to give effect to the decision of the Government to grant an increased subsidy to the dairying industry. Honorable members are aware of the previous decision of the Government, which was embodied in the Dairying Industry Assistance Act 1942. Under that act, a subsidy at the rate of £2,000,000 annually was granted, and the amount of £1,500,000 was appropriated in respect of the period from the 1st October, 1942, to the 30th June, 1943. In accordance with the recommendations of the Tariff Board, the amount so appropriated has been distributed under the direction of the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited. The recent decision of the Government was, that the subsidy should be increased from £2,000,000 per annum to £6,500,000 per annum, the increase to be made retrospective to the 1st April, 1943.

Honorable members will recall that the original subsidy was in the nature of a tentative arrangement only, pending the determination of production costs within the industry. These costs, in turn, could only be assessed on the basis of the wages paid to employees. In the original act, provision was made for an approach by the industry to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in regard to wage rates, and a consent award has now been determined which will operate as from the 1st July, 1943. It will be realized that wages constitute a material factor in production costs within this industry. On the other hand, however, the number of employees is relatively small. It has been estimated that not more than 10 per cent, of the dairy farmers of Australia employ labour. In this connexion, I point out that the determination of a wage rate, and the fixation of the production costs of various dairy products, will therefore benefit the industry considerably, but more particularly the groat bulk of the producers who do not employ labour.

The decision of the Government to subsidize the industry was based on two factors, the first of which has already been mentioned. The second one is that the subsidy, in effect, takes the place of a price increase to the consuming population of Australia. In the normal course, Australia has had a surplus of butter which has been exported to the United Kingdom under contract. The contract prices for both butter and cheese are considerably lower than, local consumption prices, and an equalization scheme has operated within the industry, by which returns to factories and therefore to producers have been equalized on the basis of the proportions of sales to the local market and for export. The present subsidy will materially assist the position in this regard.

In the representations submitted to the Government through the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner, it was claimed that an adequate return to the producers of Australia would have to be on the basis of a return to the producer of1s. 6d. per lb. for butter. It has been estimated that subsidy at the rate of £6,500,000 per annum will ensure a price of not less than1s. 5d. per lb. but that the average price will probably be between1s. 5d. and1s. 6d. per lb. It will be noted that the bill provides that the payment is not to be confined to dairy farmers whose milk is manufactured into butter or cheese, but has been extended to cover condensed milk, dried milk powder other than skim milk powder, and concentrated milk. Producers of the principal dairy products which are so urgently needed in time of war will, therefore, receive by way of the subsidy an adequate reward for their labours. Considerable thought and careful attention have been given to the amount necessary to cover the products mentioned, and I am confident that the annual amount which it is intended to make available to the industry by appropriation by this Parliament will suffice to cover all commitments.

It will be noted that the production year will cover the period from the 1st April to the 31st March. The subsidy of £6,500,000 a year will operate as from the 1st April, 1943, and it is intended that it shall cover production on an annual basis during the period from the 1st April, 1943, to the 30th June, 1944.

Payment will be made through the existing organization, i.e., the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited, which will be requested to make recommendations through the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner regarding the method in which the subsidy willbe allocated and distributed to the industry. Most honorable members are aware of the vitally important part which this committee plays in the affairs of the dairying industry of Australia, and it appears to the Government that it should appeal in the first instance to this body regarding the manner in which the funds appropriated by this Parliament should be distributed to its own industry.

The Commonwealth Prices Commissioner has been responsible for the negotiations with the industry regarding the payment of a subsidy in lieu of a price increase. In the normal way, it is suggested that recommendations regarding the distribution of the subsidy should be made to him, and through him to the Minister responsible for the payment of the moneys appropriated by Parliament.

There is a further provision covering the approach by the industry or by those engaged in the industry to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for an adjustment of wage rates and conditions of employment. Provision will be made by regulation under the act for the setting up of a tribunal to deal with disputes which may arise from time to time between principals and sharefarmers relative to the distribution of the subsidy. This is important, as it is considered that provision should be made by which principals and share-farmers shall receive equitable treatment. It is intended that the tribunal shall have the requisite power to call evidence, to examine witnesses on oath and investigate any documents, and so determine the relative merits of the dispute.

The bill provides for the promulgation of further regulations which will cover the machinery measures necessary in connexion with the distribution of the subsidy which, as previously mentioned, will be undertaken by the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited, in association with the equalization committees operating in South Australia and Western Australia.

I suggest to honorable members that they give consideration to the action which has already been taken by the Commonwealth Government to ration butter to the consuming population of Australia in order that additional quantities will be available for export to the United Kingdom. As honorable members are aware, the contract prices of butter and cheese to Great Britain are very much less than the prices approved by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner for local consumption. In normal times, this price disparity has been adjusted to producers by means of the equalization scheme, and this has continued since the original contract with the British Ministry of Food was entered into shortly after the outbreak of war in 1939.

The decision of the Commonwealth Government to grant the present subsidy was influenced by the fact that it was necessary to compensate the industry in some way for the higher production costs which have occurred. Various increases of prices for both butter and cheese have been secured for the industry, first by price rises for local consumption, and, secondly, by adjustments of the contract rates, but these have not been considered adequate in view of the steadily increasing costs of production in Australia. The present subsidy will not only adjust the position in respect of Australian production, but will also compensate the industry in respect of that portion of its production which is surplus to Australian requirements and is exported overseas; also that proportion of its production which, in the normal course, would have received the local consumption price but which, because of the institution of butter rationing, will now be exported to Great Britain. It will be seen, therefore, that the present subsidy serves a threefold purpose -

  1. It adjusts production costs.
  2. It recompenses the industry for the lower cost of its exportable surplus to the United Kingdom and at the same time meets the loss occasioned by rationing.
  3. It places the industry on a sound financial basis and should bring about that stimulus to production which is so urgently needed.

Honorable members will agree that it is our duty, not only to ensure that the civilian population in Australia receives an adequate supply of dairy produce but also that the people of the United Kingdom, who are rationed to the negligible amount of 2 oz. of butter per person per week, are assured that they will continue to receive that minimum quantity, and, if possible, an increased allowance. Australia has been asked to make every effort to ensure continuity of supplies to the United Kingdom. The present bill, which will help to achieve that objective, is commended to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fadden) adjourned.

page 614

INCOME TAX (WAR-TIME ARRANGEMENTS) BILL 1943

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and read a. first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to enable those officers, who were transferred from the State income tax departments to the Commonwealth under the Income Tax (War-time Arrangements) Act, to contribute to State superannuation funds for additional benefits if they receive additional remuneration while temporarily employed by the Commonwealth.

Honorable members will recall that, when the uniform taxation legislation was enacted, it was this Government’s intention that State officers, who were transferred to the Commonwealth under that legislation, would have preserved to them their existing and accruing rights as State officers. The Income Tax (Wartime Arrangements) Act 1942 provides for a. transferred officer to continue contributions to the superannuation fund of the State on the same basis .as he was contributing prior to his transfer to the service of the Commonwealth. Where the Government of the State makes any payment to the superannuation fund in respect of a transferred officer, the Commonwealth is required to reimburse the State for the amount contributed by it.

This provision in the act does not go far enough. Whilst it preserves an officer’s right to continue as a contributor to the fund, it does not entitle him to increase his contributions if he is promoted in the service of the Commonwealth. The basis upon which the superannuation funds are founded is that au officer may increase his contributions as his salary increases, so that an officer whose salary is increased while in the service of the Commonwealth would have had the right to contribute for additional benefits if he had not been transferred to the Commonwealth, and had received that increase of salary. It has been found that the act in its present form does not preserve this right to a transferred officer. It is proposed by this bill to provide that an officer may continue his contributions, or increase his contributions, in the same manner as he would have done if his transfer to the Commonwealth had not taken place.

Since the Income Tax (War-time Arrangements) Act came into operation, correspondence has passed between the Commonwealth and the States suggesting that officers who were transferred to the Commonwealth under the uniform taxation legislation should have this right. All States,” with the exception of Tasmania, have expressed agreement with the suggestion. It has been pointed out, however, that increased contributions made by an officer involve increased contributions from the States, and it is right and proper that any increase of the contributions of the State should be made by the Commonwealth, while the officers are employed in the service of the Commonwealth. The bill, therefore, contains a provision requiring the Commonwealth to undertake that responsibility.

The State of Tasmania, as I have already said, has not been prepared to adopt the suggestion, and I have no doubt that it has very good reasons therefor associated with the administration of its own service. The provisions of this bill have, therefore, been drafted in such a manner that the clause conferring this right on officers will not operate in respect of any State unless the Treasurer of the State notifies the Public Service Board that he agrees to its operation. This will leave the matter open to any State to agree to its operation at a later date if it so desires.

Some officers will, no doubt, be promoted to higher positions in the service of the State, while they are temporarily employed by the Commonwealth. The promotions may require or entitle them to contribute to the State funds for additional benefits. The act, in its present form, preserves the rights of officers in this connexion, but the relevant provisions may need some clarification if the act is amended to provide for the other matters I have referred to. The bill, therefore, seeks to re-express those provisions in order that there shall be no doubt.

As I have said, the bill seeks to preserve the superannuation rights of transferred officers, and to ensure that no officer shall be penalized by his transfer to the Commonwealth. The result of the passage of the bill will be that State officers who have been transferred to the Commonwealth will be treated in the same manner as other officers in the service of the Commonwealth are treated. The States will not be required to bear any additional expense, and the cost to the Commonwealth will be no greater than it would be if the officers had been recruited from other sources.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition agrees that it is desirable that this bill should be passed. The need for it arises out of the uniform taxation legislation under which certain State officers were transferred to the service of the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate ; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 615

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1943

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this bill is to give legislative authority forcertain slight extensions of the existing exemptions from sales tax. In some of these instances, the . Government has already authorized the Commissioner of Taxation to anticipate amendments of the law where it would have been clearly anomalous to insist upon payment of the tax. In those instances, the bill provides for retrospective operation of the exemptions.

The goods which it is now proposed to exempt include certain piping for use in agricultural industry, certain educational films, and imported goods, up to a value of £10 in any one year, brought or sent to Australia by or for members of the armed forces. So far as piping and films are concerned, these amendments are merely logical extensions of exemptions already allowed in the law in respect of such goods. The effect of the amendments upon the revenue is negligible.

A further proposal in the bill is to withdraw the exemption from sales tax in respect of imported newsprint. This exemption was included in the law at the inception of the sales tax in 1930. At that time, all supplies of newsprint were imported into the Commonwealth, and the exemption was accordingly limited to imported newsprint. In recent years, the manufacture of newsprint has developed in Australia, but there is no provision in the law for exemption of Australian-made newsprint. The principal use of newsprint is, of course, as raw material for newspapers, and there is no liability for sales tax in respect of any newsprint so used, because the sales tax law authorizes newspaper publishers to obtain their raw materials free of sales tax. Thus, the only Australianmade newsprint which is subject to tax is that which is used for wrapping paper, or for any purpose other than the manufacture of goods. It has been urged that it is anomalous to tax Australian-made paper so used, whilst imported newsprint goes free in all circumstances. It is proposed to place Australian-made newsprint and imported newsprint on the same footing by withdrawing the exemption from sales tax of the imported article. This will not affect the right of newspaper proprietors to obtain, free of tax, the newsprint required by them as material for their newspapers. They will be obliged to pay tax on their sales of residue paper for wrapping or other purposes.

The bill also provides for specific inclusion in the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1942 of certain goods which are clearly of the kind intended to be covered by the schedule, but do not actually come within the terms of any item at present in that schedule. The effect of the amendment is to increase the rate of tax from 121/2 per cent, to 25 per cent, on toilet preparations known as liquid hosiery, &c, and on goods sold as mottoes for decorative purposes. The change of ratewill be effective on and from the 1st July, 1943.

The only remaining purpose of the bill is to include in the law a provision on the usual lines authorizing the GovernorGeneral to make such regulations as may be necessary for giving effect to the act.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP

.- The Opposition has no objection to the expeditious passage of this bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 616

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1941-42

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting. Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, NewWorks, Buildings, &c, for the year ended the 30th June, 1942, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

Ordered to he printed and referred to Committee of Supply forthwith.

In Committee of Supply:

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

.- I move-

Supplementary Estimates 1941-42

That the following further sums be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1941-43, for the several services hereunder specified, viz: -

Supplementary Estimates for Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc., 1941-42.

That there be granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1941-42 for the purposes of Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, a further sum not exceeding £279,507.

These Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure relate to the financial year 1941-42. The total is £4,291,064. That sum was expended out of a general appropriation from Revenue of £6,000,000 for “ Advance to the Treasurer “ and it is necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of expenditure. The Estimates show details of how the money was expended by the various departments. The chief items in round figures were -

The Estimates brought down by the previous Government in September, 1941, provided for an appropriation from Revenue for war services of £ 68,000,000. The revised Estimates brought down by this Government a month later increased that sum to £82,147,000 and, when additional taxation was imposed, a further appropriation of £25,000,000 was made later in the year, making a total of £107,147,000.

This bill provides for a supplementary appropriation of £1,500,000 which brings the total appropriation for war services from Revenue in round figures to £108,650,000. The actual sum provided from Revenue for war services in 1941-42 was £108,625,000. The corresponding amount provided in the preceding year was £65,000,000.

It is the practice to withhold Supplementary Estimates until after the Auditor-General has presented his report on the accounts of the year under review. That report was presented to Parliament on the 19th March last, and is available to honorable members.

Further information that may be desired on any item will be given at a later stage.

The Supplementary Estimates of expenditure for additions, new works, &c, are also for the year 1941-42. The amountis £279,507. That sum was expended from the vote “ Advance to the Treasurer” and it is necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of expenditure. The original appropriation for new works was £3,831,000 and the actual expenditure was £3,305,344, or £525,656 less than the total appropriation. Individual items of appropriation were, however, exceeded and it is these excesses for which authority is now sought. The “ Supplementary Estimates” show details of these excesses. The chief items in round figures were -

Any further information that may be desired will be given at a later stage.

Progress reported.

page 617

HOUR OF MEETING:

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 2 p.m.

page 617

ADJOURNMENT

Royal Australian Air Force - Commissions and Promotions of Air Crew

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MaribyrnongMinister for Air · ALP

– The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) early to-day asked me whether I could inform the House whether finality has been reached in respect of the promotion of Australians trained under the Empire Air Scheme who are serving overseas, and, if so, what decision had been reached ? The policy governing the commissioning and promotion of air crew personnel of the Royal Australian Air Force, whether officers or airmen, is determined by the Empire Air Agreement to which the governments of the United Kingdom and the various dominions are parties. The original agreement expired on the 31st March, 1943, on which date it was renewed on somewhat altered terms, for a further period of two years.

Under theoriginal agreement all parties agreed that the commissions to be granted to members of the different aircrew categories should be limited to the following percentages: - (a) pilots and observers - 50 per cent., of which 331/3 per cent, could be granted on graduation and 162/3 per cent, after operational experience ; (b) wireless air-gunners - 20 percent., of which 10 per cent, could be granted on graduation and 10 per cent. after operational experience; (c) airgunners - 20 per cent., of which 5 per cent, could be granted on graduation and 15 per cent, after operational experience. In like manner, of those members not commissioned, certain percentages obtained for the non-commissioned ranks above sergeants as follows : (a) pilots and observers - 10 per cent, to be warrant officers and 25 per cent, to be flight sergeants after six months’ service in the next lower rank; (b) wireless air-gunners and air-gunners - 25 per cent, to be flight sergeants after six months’ service in the rank of sergeant.

As a result of developments which occurred and experience gained during the operation of the original agreement several alterations of major significance are now embodied in the new agreement signed on the 31st March, 1943. The effect of these alterations is as follows : -

Commissioning. - (a) The rules as to commissioning have been altered so as to abolish all percentage limitations on the numbers of pilots and observers who may be commissioned, and now every member of these categories may be commissioned, provided he is considered suitable according to normal Royal Australian Air Force standards. The former 20 per cent, limitation on the number of wireless air-gunners and air-gunners who may be commissioned will continue but with the most important proviso which enables any member so categorized to be commissioned should he be considered suitable according to Royal Air Force standards for commissioned rank. (5) A system of time promotion to the temporary rank of flight lieutenant has also been introduced for all air-crew officers under which pilot officers will be promoted to flying officer after six months and to flight lieutenant after a further eighteen months, subject, of course, only to their service being satisfactory, (c) It has also been provided that any airman who is not recommended by his commanding officer may apply for a commission and any officer or airman may likewise apply for promotion for which he has become eligible by lapse of time. All such applications must be referred to Overseas Head-quarters, Royal Australian Air Force, the air officer commanding of which will have the final authority to make a decision.

Time Promotions of NonCominissioned Officers. - A new system of time promotion for aircrew noncommissioned officers has also been introduced. Under this system all sergeants in all aircrew categories will automatically receive promotion to flight sergeant after six months, and to warrant officer after a further twelve months in the rank of flight sergeant, subject only to their service being satisfactory. Moreover, 10 per cent of flight sergeants may be promoted to warrant officer after nine months in the rank of flight sergeant and in addition special provision has been made for the rapid promotion to warrant officer of sergeants selected as captains of flying boats or four-engined aircraft.

It will therefore be appreciated that, under the new agreement, every noncommissioned member of aircrew is eligible to be commissioned, if he is suitable according to the standards of his own service; every non-commissioned officer will be promoted to warrantofficer automatically by time, subject only to satisfactory service; and every member commissioned will be promoted to the rank of flight lieutenant by time, again subject only to satisfactory service.

These new provisions, together with the fact that the final decision in each case will lie with Overseas Head-quarters, Royal Australian Air Force, London, have not only assured to aircrew personnel all avenues for advancement that can be reasonably expected, but also made such advancement agree with the’ conditions of their own service. The final decision rests with the Royal Australian Air Force authorities, who have been directed to ensure that every action is taken to arrange promotions in accordance with the new principles which have been adopted. This follows the representations made by the Commonwealth Government for the variation of the original agreement by the removal of the restrictive scales of commissions, and for the granting of higher non-commissioned officer ranks.

In addition, many avenues for higher promotions in commissioned rank are open for outstanding members, and provision has been made for officers of the Royal Australian Air Force to occupy higher staff and other posts in formations in which Royal Australian Air Force units are located. Staff officers of the Royal Australian Air Force Overseas Head-quarters will be located in the Royal Air Force commands, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, in which members of the Royal Australian Air Force are serving, in order to ensure that such members will be administered in accordance with the Royal Australian Air Force policy.

This alteration was effected as the result of representations made by the Commonwealth Government, through me, for the purpose of improving conditions for the promotion of members of the Royal Australian Air Force overseas. A considerable time has been occupied in reaching a settlement, and the complete details of the agreement were not available until quite recently. I stated some time ago that when I received the information I proposed to give honorable members the full particulars at the first opportunity. There has been a good deal of complaint, much of which has been illfounded; but at all events, the cause of many of the complaints has been remedied to a great degree by the introduction of the conditions in the new agreement. Members of the Royal Australian Air Force will now have better prospects of promotion. Those who are giving satisfactory service will be sure of receiving the rewards which are due to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 619

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Commonwealth purposes -

Colac, Victoria.

Ulverstone, Tasmania.

National Security Act -

National Security (Agricultural Machinery ) Regulations - Orders - Agricultural machinery(2).

National Security (Egg Industry) Regulations - Orders - Egg industry (4).

National Security (Emergency Control) Regulations - Orders - Military powers during emergency (2).

National Security (Emergency Supplies) Regulations - Rules - Queensland.

National Security (General) Regulations -

By-laws - Controlled area.

By-laws and Order - Controlled and protected area.

Orders -

Control of -

Canned vegetables.

Collapsible tubes.

Highways.

Prohibited places (4).

Prohibiting work on land.

Takingpossession of land, &c, (163).

Use of land (23).

Vegetable seeds.

Orders by State Premiers - Queens land, Western Australia.

Rules - National Security (Representation before Compensation Boards ) .

National Security (Internment Camps) Regulations -

Order - Internment camp.

Rules - Camp (7).

National Security (Land Transport)

Regul ations - Order - Western Australia (No. 5).

National Security (Man Power) Regulations - Order - Regulation of engagement of employees - Exemptions.

National Security (Stevedoring Industry) Regulations - Orders - Nos. 16-19.

National Security (Vegetable Seeds) Regulations.

Notice - Returns of vegetable seeds.

Order - Fixing date of regulations of sale of seeds.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1943, Nos. 160, 162, 163.

House adjourned at 11.2 p.m.

page 619

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Australian Army: Deferred Payof Deceased Soldiers

Mr Calwell:

l asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

Will he amend the appropriate regulations to provide that when a soldier is killed in action or dies on service, the full amount of his deferred pay will be paid to his nextofkin, particularly where such next-of-kin is his widow or his widowed mother?

Mr Forde:
ALP

– It is considered that the regulations in existence provide sufficient protection to the next-of-kin and that no alteration is necessary. Deferred pay forms part of the war service estate as defined in the War Service Estates Act 1942. The intention of the act is to dispose of the war service estate of any deceased member in accordance with the member’s expressed wishes, that is to say, in accordance with the terms of his will. If the member dies intestate, the next-of-kin automatically has rights to the estate under the regulations governing distribution in intestacy.

Public Service: Overtime

Mr McCall:

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

  1. Are some public servants required to work extensive overtime and receive no payment whatever for such services?
  2. Is it a fact that such officers frequently work over four hours per night and Saturday afternoons ?
  3. Is it a fact that such officers are required by direction of the Public Service Board to sign a certificate in order to receive 3s. tea money on nights for which no overtime is payable, as follows: - “That the performance of such duty rendered it necessary to obtain a meal away from home and that expenditure wasactually incurred in the purchase of a meal on the night specified ?
  4. Is it a practice in general commerce before tea money is payable to require employees to sign certificates that they had to purchase a meal away from home?
  5. What is the penalty under the Crimes Actfor untrue certification in a case such as this involving 3s.?
  6. Will the Government rectify this anomaly ?
Mr Lazzarini:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has furnished the following reply: -

  1. Under determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator, an officer in receipt of salary at a rateexceeding612 (standard) per annum is ineligible for the payment of overtime.
  2. This may frequently happen in present circumstances.
  3. Meal allowance is granted under the provisions of Public Service Regulation 08. Payment is made when the performance of extra duty necessitates the obtaining of a meal away from home.
  4. So far as is known, the necessity for obtaining a meal away from home is not a condition of the granting of tea money in general commerce.
  5. It is not the practice to express opinion on matters of law in reply to a question.
  6. As meal allowance is granted only in cases where the obtaining of a meal is necessitated it is not proposedto alter thepractice of requiring officers to certify that expenditure in the purchase ofa meal was incurred.

Britain’s War Effort.

Mr Curtin:
ALP

n. - On the 3rd March, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) drew my attention to a brochure entitled Fifty Facts About Britain’s War Effort, and asked that copies be prepared and distributed among members of the parliaments of Australia. After considering the right honorable gentleman’s suggestion, I came to the conclusion that the brochure should be distributed, not only to members of parliaments of Australia, but among the general public. The Minister for Information (Senator Ashley) arranged to have the facts and figures brought up to date, and the booklet will be distributed widely this week.

Aluminium.

Mr Paterson:

n asked the Minister for

Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

Has any progr ess been made in securing plant and equipment for the treatment of Australian bauxite for the purpose of producing aluminium from our own ore?

Mr Beasley:
ALP

– Plans associated with the production of aluminium are receiving the consideration of the Government.

Man-power.

Mr Holloway:
ALP

y. - On the 25th June, 1943, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) asked me the following question, without notice -

The man-power authorities have been interrogating members of metropolitan bowling clubs and have even found time to investigate the activities of a certain juvenile transport organization at Kandos. As these incidents suggest that the man-power authorities lack worthwhile objectives, will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service direct the attention of his officers to the fact that 1,000 men who were formerly engaged in munitions work in Sydney, are now drifting aimlessly somewhere?

I undertook to make inquiries into the statements of the honorable member. I am now able to inform him that steps have been taken in the past to check the identity cards of persons during normal working hours, with a view to ascertaining whether they are fully employed in the national effort, or are lawfully absent fromtheir employment. Checks were recently made in respect of certain bowling clubs during normal working hours, following a complaint that numbers of persons were congregating there instead of being at their place of employment. No investigations have been., or are being, -carried out and no action whatever has been taken by the M:an-power Directorate, in connexion with the activities of a -certain juvenile transport organization at Kandos. It is not true that 1,000 mcn previously employed in munitions work in Sydney are now drifting aimlessly. When work in any factory ceases or is curtailed, the employees concerned are placed on other war or essential work immediately.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 June 1943, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1943/19430630_reps_16_175/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant