Senate
10 April 1935

14^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
QUESTION
- WHEAT PRICES
QUESTION
- ACTS AND REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- TASMANIA AND MAINLAND
CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION BILL 1935
CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL 1935
CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1935
IMPORTATION OF SULPHUR,
WHEAT COMMISSION BILL 1935
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1935-1936
- Third Reading
KING’S JUBILEE
- Joint Address
- Mr. President and Mr. Speaker
- Isaac A. Isaacs,
- Governor-General
- Government House, Canberra. 10th April, 1935
CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1935
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION BILL 1935
CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION
BILL 1935
TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
- Apparel
- Bags, Baskets, Boxes, Cases, Trunks, Purses and Wallets
- Compressed or Agglomerated Corkboard; Compressed Cork Sheets
PORT AUGUSTA TO RED HILL RAILWAY BILL 1935
- Second Reading
IMMIGRATION BILL 1935
ASSENT TO BILLS
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Prohibited Newspapers - Sandy Bay Rifle Range - Valedictory Remarks

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J.Lynch) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1147

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1935, No. 25 - No. 26.

Land Tax Assessment; Act - List of Applications for Relief from Taxation dealt with during the year 1934.

Papua, - Annual Report for 1933-34.

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinance No. 5 of 1935 - Norfolk Island Penny Savings Batik.

Northern Territory - Report by the Administrator on the Administration of the Northern Territory for the year ended 30th June, 1934.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act- - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. - No. 4 of 1935 - Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia.

page 1147

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Public Telephone at Ainslie.

Senator DOOLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the PostmasterGeneral ascertain if it is possible to have a public telephone installed at Ainslie for the convenience of the residents of that district?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I shall be only too pleased to make the inquiry. A request for this convenience has not been made to me, nor has the matter come under my notice at any time.

page 1147

QUESTION

WHEAT PRICES

Senator BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

– On the 4th April, Senator E. B. Johnston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

What was the average price of wheat f.o.r. at principal Australian ports during the months of December, January, February, and March last ?

The Minister for Commerce has furnished the following information with regard to the average daily quotations during the periods mentioned: -

page 1147

QUESTION

ACTS AND REGULATIONS

Handbooks

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the practice of the Government departments to publish handbooks to the principal acts and regulations thereunder administered by them?
If so, what handbooks are in print?
Are copies available to members of this Parliament?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Acting Prime Minister has supplied, the following answer : -

It is not the practice of all departments to publish handbooks to the principal acts, and regulations published thereunder administered by them. Handbooks have, however, been published from time to time relating to certain taxation acts, and the Invalid and. Old-Age Pensions Act.

The SalesTax Handbook, a revised issue of which is now jn course of preparation, is available in the Parliamentary Library for reference by honorable senators and members.

A revised edition of the handbook on the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act also is being prepared, mid will shortly be available for issue.

page 1147

QUESTION

TASMANIA AND MAINLAND

Tele phonic Communication.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

When will the work of laying the telephone cable between the mainland and Tasmania be undertaken ?
When may we expect the work to be completed and ready for business?

Disallowance of Statutory Rule No. 19 ot? 1935.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That Statutory Rule No. 19 of 1935, amending the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations, be disallowed.

The recent publication in the Commonwealth Gazette of this statutory rule, placing sulphur on the list of prohibited imports, naturally caused a good deal of concern to be felt by primary producers throughout Australia. As every honorable senator knows, sulphur “is one of the most important constituents of superphosphate, and is also used for other purposes on farms and orchards. Superphosphate, in particular, and other artificial manures, play too important a. part in the economic life of Australia for the matter of their importation or exclusion to be left to the whim of any Minister. I believe that the administration of the present Government i3 sympathetic; but unless either the Senate or another place disallows this regulation, a less sympathetic government or Minister may, in the future, refuse to permit importations. I am opposed to the placing of any prohibition or restriction upon the importation of superphosphate, phosphatic rock, artificial fertilizers or sulphur, and disapprove of any action that may either increase the cost of production or prevent its being lowered. I contend that the permanent prohibition of the importation of sulphur, artificial manure, or phosphatic rock, would be altogether out of harmony with the policy adopted by successive Federal Governments. Such prohibitions were not imposed by either the Scullin Government or the last Government, and I do not expect such action to be taken by this Government.

Senator Barnes:

– There is a plentiful supply of fertilizer in Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Australia has gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure adequate supplies. Under the Nauru agreement, large quantities of rock phosphate have been imported from that territory. Imports have also been made from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. These have always been free of duty. Phosphatic rock is a constituent of superphosphate. Sulphur is another, and an equally important one. No restriction should be placed on the importation of either. Superphosphate is essential to all rural production.

Senator Barnes:

– Supplies of all the component parts are unlimited in this country.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am concerned not only with supplies, hut with prices. Every requisite for the manufacture of artificial manures should be admitted to this country at the lowest possible rate, from whatever country is willing to supply it. Last year Australia imported 7,480,378 cwt. of rock phosphate valued at £474,228. That rock phosphate was imported free of duty, and without restriction. During 1932-33, the imports were 9,569,006 cwt. valued at £583,995. In each of those years over one-third of the total imports was distributed in Western Australia. It will, therefore, be seen that anything which affects the price of superphosphate is of the utmost importance to that State. The official figures relating to the importation of sulphur into Aus tralia during 1932-33 and 1933-34 are shown in the following statement -

No prohibition that permanently restricts the supplies of sulphur or superphosphates would be acceptable to the farmers of Australia. Any provision which makes the importation of these commodities subject to the whim of the Minister for the time being must increase the price of this necessary commodity to the producers of Australia. At a time when this Parliament is voting large sums of money to assist rural industries, it would be illogical to take action which might increase permanently the cost of superphosphates to those whom . the Governmentis assisting in other directions. In the various associations of farmers and wheat-growers throughout Australia, earnest men are scrutinizing every avenue by which the cost of superphosphate might be reduced. If administered by an unsympathetic Ministry this regulation must prevent a reduction of the cost even if it does not increase it.

I have brought this subject forward this morning in the hope that the Minister will state the Government’s intentions to it. The only way by which the proposed prohibition or restriction of the importation of sulphur, and the consequent increase of the price of superphosphates, can be prevented is by a resolution in one House of the Parliament. I have brought the matter forward at this late stage in the session because, if not disallowed, the regulation becomes part of the law of the land, under which sulphur may be admitted only under licence from the Minister.

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

– I second the motion. Notwithstanding that I am of the opinion that, in the circumstances mentioned by Senator Johnston, the regulation should be disallowed, I do not wish to embarrass the Government. Although opposed to anything which might increase the cost of sulphur, and in turn, the cost of rural production, I am of the opinion that we can well allow imports to be regulated by the present Government under the licence system. There is, however, no guarantee that another Minister for Trade and Customs would not act differently.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– So far from this prohibition being injurious to the primary producers of this country, the underlying reason for the inclusion of sulphur in the list of prohibited articles was a desire to assist those producers. The Government will take steps to ensure that the prices of sulphur and superphosphates will not be increased. It is at present negotiating trade treaties with other countries and desires to be in a position to enter into bargaining arrangements with them. The subject is too delicate to discuss in detail at this stage. It is sufficient to say that with some countries Australia has an adverse trade balance, and with other countries a favorable trade balance. Included in the former list are countries from which sulphur is obtained, and the Government wishes to be in a position to exchange Australian products for their sulphur. I give the Senate the assurance, that until the treaty proposals have been placed before Parliament, there will be no interference with existing conditions. It would not be wise at this stage for me to say more than that. The Government will oppose the motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poll) adjourned.

page 1150

WHEAT COMMISSION BILL 1935

Second Beading.

Senator BRENNAN:
Acting Attorney-General · Victoria · UAP

– I - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is within the knowledge of honorable senators that on the 25th January, 1934, a royal commission was- appointed to inquire into and report upon the economic position of the industries of growing, handling and marketing wheat, manufacturing flour, and other commodities from wheat, and manufacturing, distributing and selling bread. The commission came into existence partly by reason of the exercise of the executive power vested in the Commonwealth, and partly because of the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act of 1902-1933,’ section 2 of which provides that-

Whenever the Governor-General by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Commonwealth issues a commission to any persons to make any inquiry, the president or chairman of the commission, or the sole commissioner as the case may be, may, by writing under his hand, summon any person to attend the commission at a time and place named in the summons, and then and there to give evidence and to produce any books, documents or writings in his custody or control material to the subject-matter of the inquiry.

In the recitals of tha Letters Patent reference is made to the legislative power of the Commonwealth with respect to taxation and bounties on. the production or export of goods, and it is stated that questions have arisen with respect to the payment of bounties for the assistance of wheat-growers and with respect to the effect of taxation under Commonwealth laws upon the industries of growing, handling and marketing wheat, manufacturing flour and other commodities from wheat and manufacturing, and distributing and selling bread. These recitals give an indication of the legislative powers of the Parliament under which the inquiry at present being made by the Royal Commission on the Wheat. Flour and Bread Industries is being conducted.

The powers of the Commonwealth Parliament in relation to royal commissions were considered some years ago by the Privy Council in the case of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company against the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. In view of the decision in that case it may happen that during the recess differences of opinion will arise as to the right of the commission to insist on evidence of a certain nature.

I do not propose to go into the details of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company case. Suffice it to say that the Privy Council indicated that if a specific act were passed by the ‘Commonwealth, authorizing an inquiry into a specific subject within the legislative power of the Parliament, such an act would be within the terms of the Constitution.

This bill seeks to facilitate the proceedings of the Royal Commission on theWheat, Flour and Bread Industries by providing that the commission shall haveall the powers, rights and privileges which are specified in the Royal Commission!?. Act, and that the provisions of that act shall have effect as though they were included in this measure and in terms made applicable to that commission.

The importance of the royal commission mentioned in this bill cannot be disputed. Its inquiries are directed to matters which directly affect, not only the wheat-farmers and associated industries, but also the consumers. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the powers of the commission should he strengthened in order to avoid the possibility of any party successfully challenging any request made by the commission for the supply of evidence or documents relating to the matters into which it is inquiring. This is not the first occasion upon which it has been proposed to facilitate the proceedings of a royal commission by a special act of Parliament. In 1914, the powers of the Meat Export Trade Commission were strengthened in a manner similar to that proposed in the bill. Similar action was taken in 1933 with respect to the Petrol Commission. With regard to the Petrol Commission Bill, it will be remembered that the passage of the bill alone had the effect of disposing the officers of certain companies to produce books and documents to the production of which they had previously objected. I think all honorable senators will agree that any royal commission appointed by the Governmentshould be invested with all powers necessary for the effective conduct of its inquiries. This is what is proposed in the bill now before the Senate in relation to the Wheat Commission. There is one other small amendment in the bill relating to the constitution of a quorum. Clause 3 provides that for the purpose of taking evidence any two members shall be sufficient to constitute a quorum, notwithstanding anything in the letters patent appointing the commission. Honorable senator may accept my assurance that all that is desired is that, during the parliamentary adjournment, the commission, which is an extremely, important body, should be vested with all the powers that it is possible to give it. Those powers, if required, will, no doubt, be used wisely by the commission, but they may never have to be exercised. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of the Senate.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I realize the great importance of this bill, and for that reason I shall not ask the Assistant Minister to agree to the adjournment of the debate. He stated just now that during the dying days of this session it was necessary for the Government to bring before the Senate many important measures. I am so concerned about getting into recess myself that I sympathize very much with the feelings of the Government, which, like an efficient boxer, is anxious to dodge the blows of the other fellow. The Government, in all probability, is wise from its view-point in rushing legislation into and through this chamber, giving us on this side no opportunity of considering it. I therefore say to the Government, “ Well, the country has blessed you, it has put you there, giving you a mandate to do this simple thing, and you are quite right to use your powers to do it. You are entitled to do it in this way, in regard to this bill and others that are to follow. So go ahead; I will not oppose your desire to give expression to the will of the people. I give you my blessing, and I hope that the bread I am throwing upon the waters may eventually come back to me.”

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Standing Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1151

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1935-1936

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from the 9th April (vide page 1045), on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– The Government in this bill is asking Parliament for authority to spend £6,704,400, giving details of the objects to which it is proposed to devote the money. Having given the measure the gravest possible’ consideration, I have tried to visualize what is in the distant future. The sum covered by the bill seems a ridiculously small one for the Government to ask for. Why is it not bold enough, having a mandate from the people, to ask Parliament for Supply, not for three months, but for three- years? Why does it, having a mandate for three years, bother to call the Senate together to ask for a paltry three months’ Supply? “When the three months have elapsed, the Government will still be in power, but on my side of the chamber there will be only the “Three Musketeers”. They will consist of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the Whip. The Government has, in my opinion, been merciful to what remains of my party, in asking for so little. It might have met with some obstruction in the House of Representatives if it had asked straight out for enough money to carry on till the next election, but it could easily have put such a bill through the Senate, in spite of all that could be done by my three comrades who will be left here to guard the trenches.I, therefore, give it my blessing, together with this £6,704,400.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Under ordinary circumstances I would offer no opposition to the passage of this bill; but as the Senate is to adjourn for five or six months without giving legislative enactment to the very important recommendations made to this Government by the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable senator appears to think that we are at the first-reading stage, and that he is at liberty to speak at large. The bill is now at the secondreading stage, and I submit, sir, that the honorable senator must confine his remarks to thesubject-matter of the bill.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - The point of order is sustained. The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Would I not be in order, Mr. President, in giving reasons for objecting to the passage of this bill while much of the work that should be done before the Parliament adjourns for a lengthy period is left unfinished?

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator can relate his remarks to any item in the bill, he may proceed.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Money has been provided for assistance to the wheat-growers, and money has been collected by the Commonwealth under the

– Since there is nothing in the bill covering the matter to which the honorable senator has referred, I cannot permit him to continue to discuss it. If I were to allow him to do so, then I could not object to other honorable senators adopting a similar course, and that would be contrary to the ruling I gave a few moments ago.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I have no desire, sir, to disregard your ruling. I shall avail myself of an opportunity, which I hope will occur on the adjournment, to bring the case of Captain Conway before the Senate.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I fear that, like Senator Johnston, I may experience some difficulty in bringing before the Senate at this stage a matter of importance to which I am anxious to refer, and that probably I should have dealt with it on the motion for the first reading of the bill. I desire, with all the vigour and earnestness at my command, to impress, not only on the Government, but also upon honorable senators generally, the paramount importance of the question of the defence of Australia. There is in the schedule to the bill an item, under “Defence,” relating to training, maintenance, repairs, &c, and this I hope will enable me to discuss the inadequacy of our defence preparations.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will be quite in order in discussing what, in his opinion, is the inadequacy of the proposed vote.

Senator SAMPSON:

– Notwithstanding our dreams and visions after the close of the Great War of 1914-18, notwithstanding all the talk at the time that it was “ a war to end war,” and that the nations thereafter would settle their differences, not by resort to arms, but by arbitration, we find that the nations of the world to-day are vieing with each other in their preparations for war. This vast and sparsely-settled country of ours is one of the richest prizes that any nation strong enough to take it could secure. The first duty of any government, no matter what its politics may be, is therefore” to prepare for its defence, so that the manhood of Australia may be able, should the occasion arise, to put up a fight, and not be led like sheep to the shambles, which is exactly what happens when an untrained mob - and that is practically all we have to rely on to-day - is engaged in warfare.

The press, in discussing our adverse trade balance recently, has suggested that the Government might think fit in the circumstances to reduce its estimates of expenditure. It is common knowledge that whenever there is a demand to cut down public expenditure, the defence vote is the first to be attacked. Owing possibly to war weariness and disillusionment, since the great war the advocacy of an adequate defence policy has not aroused any enthusiasm on the part of the majority of the people, and, consequently, those who preach the policy of preparedness for war and national self-reliance do not win many votes. The outlook today, however, is very black.

Casting back our minds to the early days of July, 1914, we recall that Europe appeared at the time to bo slumbering, and all seemed peaceful. Yet, before the end of that month, war was upon us. And war will come upon us just as suddenly again. I suggest to the Government and the Senate that in this connexion we should do some hard thinking, and very carefully consider the position in which Australia stands to-day. I have studied this subject very seriously from the days of my youth, when I was a citizen soldier, and have always given much thought to it. The world situation to-day is appalling. Our own position, in relation to the supply of trained, or partially trained men and reserves of partially trained men on which we might draw, is woeful. Such supplies are practically non-existent. It is open to very grave doubt whether the surviving members of the Australian Imperial Force would be of very much use in the event of another outbreak. The youngest of them to-day must be somewhere about 40 years of age, whereas the maximum age for our first draft, if war came, would be 35. The majority of our returned soldiers are well over that age, and because of their war service are not the men they were. They might be useful in the training of others, but it is doubtful whether, in the event of another world’ conflagration, we should be given an opportunity to train men. This is a matter of vital concern, and I appeal to the Senate to give it earnest considera tion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and several other members of the Government are at present on the other side of the world, and, therefore, although I have prepared a lot of matter on this subject for submission to the Senate, I shall have to defer its use until we reassemble.

The history of the world for the last 3,000 years shows that for every year of peace that has been enjoyed there have been 14 years of war. Notwithstanding the appalling loss of life and the magnitude of the expenditure which the last world conflagration involved, man, who is naturally a combative animal, has not yet learned his lesson. There are many people who preach the gospel that the best way to avoid war is to be absolutely unprepared for it - that war will not come if that policy be adopted. I entirely differ from that point of view, and I hope honorable senators will bear with me while I read some verses that expound a doctrine, which, in my opinion, we should adopt. The title of this poem, which was published in The Navy, is “ Peace with Honour “. It reads -

When dogs delight to bark and bite

As ‘tis their nature to,

The Combatant that wins the fight

Is not the one whose weight is light,

Whose teeth are small and few;

And when the nations come to grips,

As happens now and then,

The victor is the one who slips

Into the fray with lots of ships

And guns and planes and men.

Tis well to have one’s quarrel just,

But he who’d win the fray

Had best have arms in which to trust,

Or he may live to bite the dust

When trouble comes his way;

For might is right in battle grim,

And neither prayers nor pelf

Will make his chances aught but slim

Who calls on heaven to succour him,

But cannot help himself.

Then, since the hope of human hearts

Is oft to ashes turned,

And he who shuns the warlike arts

Is like to lose his ships and marts

And have his homestead burned;

Let us, who have no urge of greed

Orracial animus,

Sec that we have the arms we need

In case the neighbours should proceed

To take it out of us.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I rise to a point of order. Senator Sampson has not told us how many verses there are in this poem, and I submit that the reading of it is a waste of time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I take it that Senator Sampson desires to give poetic point to the view that he is expounding. No point of order is involved.

Senator SAMPSON:

– The poem continues -

The wise man works with might and main,

For peace, but also notes

That when he seeks that end to gain,

One fighting ship or aeroplane

Is worth a million throats.

Thewars we apprehend to-day

Will never be begun

If Britain, to the world can say, “Don’t you tough eggs start getting gay,

Or we shall dot you one”.

Those lines which I commend to honorable senators sum up the position. I feel that the strength of the British Empire is being reduced to such a perilous extent that it is only right to tell the people the truth. If we do I have not the slightest doubt that they will welcome the reintroduction of Part XII of the Defence Act which was most shamefully abandoned by a previous government.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I strongly object to the remarks of Senator Sampson that Part XII of the Defence Act was most shamefully abandoned by a previous government. As the statement was made, I think, without thought, I do not propose to refer to it further.

Under the Prime Minister’s Department, provision is made for the expenditure of £1,000 on gold-mining research.

An interesting article entitled, Debts, Unemployment, Gold and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, written by Dr. A. C. D. Rivett, appears in the quarterly bulletin of the journal of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, published in August last. In that article Dr. Rivett states -

Up to the present time the council has deliberately restricted its attention to the so called primary industries - actually plant and animal production. Its general aim can be stated, I suppose, as the production of greater quantity per unit of cost, whether calculated in terms of human labour, machinery or other agency.

It is pleasing to note that the council is now devoting its attention to other activities and that under this bill a sum is being voted to assist gold-mining research. Whilst some day we may not need gold in our economic system, to-day we must deal with realities. The article should be read by every Australian citizen as reasons are given why greater attention should be devoted to gold production. One paragraph reads -

In the Gluckstein Memorial Lecture for 1933, Dr. Herbert Levinstein, one of England’s leading industrial chemists, asks how a man of sound training and extensive experience on a manufacturing plant wouldhave faced the problem set before England at the time of the debt settlement with America … If we had arranged to pay our indemnity to America in bricks, in many ways a more useful commodity than gold, we should have found the stocks inadequate. Should we have pulled down our houses to supply the bricks? No, We should have opened up new brick fields wherever raw materials were to be found, and no doubt, at first ration the bricks that could be used for non-essential buildings in our own country. This is precisely the reverse of what was done by our politicians and those advising them, in the matter of sending gold. There was neither search for new raw materials, although they were available, nor was there any rationing. We tore down our financial structures to send the bricks.

Dr. Rivett contends that it would be preferable to exert more energy in producing gold in order to meet our commitments. He continues -

Already we hear, and more than hear of export quotas for Australian wheat and beef and butter to Britain.

The position in this respect is acute, and while Major Elliott is endeavouring to assist British primary producers theCommonwealth Government is also actively engaged in trying to increase the exports of those commodities to Great Britain. He further states -

If we did our level beet to pay England in foodstuffs, not merely the annual interest, but also the principal sums which we owe to her we could easily create a situation utterly intolerable to her … On the 30th June, 1932, we owed in London £554,528,000 sterling, and the annual interest bill was £26,301,000. With gold at £6 sterling per ounce we need 134 tons of it to pay the yearly bill, while 2,830 tons to liquidate the debt . . . We are not bending our energies to the . production of 134 tons of gold every year, let alone 2,830 tons over several years to clear us of our external obligation altogether.

Dr. Rivett, who states that our overseas commitments could be met with commodities other than wool, wheat, meat, butter, or eggs, continues -

As things are at present, there is no talk of restriction on gold importation. Gold may be, and is, one of the less useful of the chemical elements: but the world does not yet assess it on its worth to the chemist, or even to the pleasing appearance, overrated I am sure, which it presents to the eye. The time may come when neither as a medium of exchange nor as a store of value will it possess anything approaching its present prestige. With all that, however, I have nothing to do. My sole point is that gold is a product which England will readily take to-day at £6 sterling and more per ounce, while wheat and meat and butter are products which she is increasingly diffident about taking, even at depreciated prices . . . Our debt could be liquidated, as I have said, with 2,830 tons of gold. One ton of gold at £6 per ounce is the equivalent of 35,000 tons of wheat at 3s. per bushel, or 7.000 tons of beef at 3d. per lb., or 1,310 tons of wool at £20 per bale. To offer to pay the debt in these products would lead to chaos far exceeding that which followed the flood in Noah’s day. To pay in gold would mean only storage place in a London vault of 5,260 cubic feet; room for 8,200 petrol tins containing four gallons of gold apiece. The annual interest bill could be tucked away in 390 petrol tins. Is it fantastic to suggest an endeavour by us in Australia, with our huge reservoir of unused labour to try and dig our external debt out of the earth?

While I commend the Government for assisting gold production even to the limited extent proposed in the bill I feel that it has not concentrated its attention sufficiently upon such an important subject. Instead of endeavouring to increase the exports of wool, wheat, and meat, greater attention should be devoted to the production of gold. If payable deposits were discovered work would be provided for many who are now unemployed, settlement would increase and trade generally would be stimulated. Our overseas commitments must now be paid mainly with wool, wheat, meat and other products.

In answer to a question I asked the other day the Minister stated that the gold held by the Commonwealth Bank is now valued at only £1,400,000. During the recess the Government should devote closer attention to the subject . of gold production, so that additional employment may be provided and we may have some prospect of a revival of trade.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– It is, I think, desirable that some reply be made to the suggestion of Senator Sampson that the Government should reintroduce the system of compulsory military training. I have no objection to a certain amount of physical training, because I recognize the need for a sufficient force to maintain peace and good order in society; but I deprecate the implications associated with a return to the system of compulsory military training of the youth of Australia. I have no doubt that Senator Sampson raised this issue in order, that it should engage the attention of the people of this country, and from that point of view, I. suppose one cannot find fault with him. I recall that when the present Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) returned from the Imperial Conference in 1911. in company with the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. Andrew Fisher, the people of Australia were told something of what had happened at that gathering, and shortly afterwards the system of compulsory military training was instituted.

Senator Sampson:

– It was introduced before the Leader of the Senate went to England to attend that conference.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– My recollection is that it was inaugurated in 1912. I say this, because I had some work to do in connexion with the Victoria Barracks in Melbourne at about that time, and the scheme was then in its early stages.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It was initiated in 1911.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– That would follow the return of the right hon- orable gentleman from the Imperial Conference.

I hope that Senator Sampson’s action in bringing the matter before the Senate does not imply that he thinks we are on the verge of another world war. No sane person would welcome a recurrence of the conditions that existed from 1914 to 191S. I do not think that we shall have another world war for a generation or two at least. European nations, which have been responsible for most of the major armed disputes have, I should imagine, had enough of war for the next, 50 years. They are all just about ruined, and I feel sure that, if it came to a showdown, and if nations, like individuals, had to pay up for all that happens in a world war, they would be bankrupt. Even Great Britain, that financial Rock of Gibraltar for hundreds of years before the Great War, a nation with over £4,000,000,000 invested abroad, would be unable to meet its obligations. Even the United States of America, which reached a position of financial pre-eminence during the Great War, but which since has been involved in a devastatingeconomic war, is not in the mood to participate in another armed conflict. Nor would the Government of that country encourage the display of a war-like attitude by any European nation, because of its probable repercussion throughout the world.

The objectionable feature about the reference by Senator Sampson this morning to the need for the re-introduction of compulsory military training, is that the Government of Germany, Russia, Italy or France, may take the view that if a democratic nation like Australia deems it necessary to re-introduce compulsory military training for’ its youth, it believes that the war cloud is again appearing on the horizon, and is preparing to meet it.

Senator Collett:

– What about Switzerland

Senator J. V. MacDONALD.Switzerland is surrounded by nations in arms, and ever since the middle centuries has been exposed to the danger of armed conflict; therefore, to maintain its independence, successive governments have wisely prepared the citizens of that country to defend themselves.

Senator Collett:

– But Switzerland does not want war.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– No. Nevertheless, Switzerland shares with Belgium the reputation of having been one of the cockpits of Europe.

The PRESIDENT:

– I suggest that the honorable senator should confine his remarks to the sufficiency or otherwise of the Defence vote.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

- Senator Sampson dealt at some length with defence measures, and advocated the reintroduction of compulsory military training- We on this side take the view that, instead of spending more money on compulsory military training, we should give more attention to providing finance to ensure work for our unemployed.

Senator Sampson’s remarks will stimulate the interest of armament manufacturers in all countries. They realize that the development of a war psychology among the people of any nation means more business, and I imagine that they will especially welcome talk of this nature in Australia, which has never been regarded as a belligerent nation. We do not seek the conquest of other peoples, either for trade advantages or other purposes, nor are we hungry for more territory. For this reason, it is regrettable that Senator Sampson should have so strongly advocated the reintroduction of compulsory military training, in support of which he cited several verses of a poem, the effect of which is to arouse in the breasts of the people the martial spirit and glorify war. In my boyhood days we were told more about the horrors of war. I well remember a poem, “ The Little Drum,” which was then in the schoolbooks -

Yonder is a little drum,

Hanging on the wall.

Dusty wreaths and tattered flags,

Round about it fall.

A shepherd youth on Cheviot’s hills,

Watched the sheep whose skin -

A cunning workman wrought and gave

The little drum its din.

And such is Glory! Yes, and still

Will man the tempter follow,

Nor learn that glory, like its drum,

Is but a sound and hollow.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

- Senator Sampson quoted some verses which, with all respect, I submit were of greatlength. They reminded me »f the parody, running into 300 or 400 lines, based on the well-known couplet -

Man wants but little here below

Nor wants that little long.

Although I believe in defence. I think that Australia would do far better to provide work for its unemployed than to prepare for war, which can only result iD increased misery.

Senator RAE:
New South Waxes

.- When I heard Senator Sampson speaking I was more convinced than ever that most of those who have interested themselves in military service get an altogether erroneous idea of the necessity for spending large sums of money for what they describe as defence measures. I protest against the growth of armaments throughout the world. Some of the best authorities tell us that Europe to-day is more an armed camp than before the commencement of the Great War in 1914. Why should we in Australia join in the armaments race which, if continued, must ruin the world ? I have read a good deal on the subject of war and armaments - and I have not confined myself to one side of the subject - and I am convinced that the constant preaching of the doctrine of fear and the necessity for defence is largely responsible for the present armaments race. Each nation believes that it must increase its armaments because other nations are increasing theirs. Some of us have been termed disloyalists because we have supported the Anti-War Movement, but, instead, we should be commended for attempting to avert disaster by checking the war fever. If one nation alone were to take up the cause of peace to the extent of total and absolute disarmament, it might be in danger of attack by another nation, but a worldwide movement for peace is different. The Anti-War Movement seeks not only to prevent war in the immediate future, but also to force the alleged statesmen who now govern the world to agree to the simultaneous disarmament of all nations. Obviously,- if all nations resolved never again to go to war, the necessity for defence would disappear. Australia is joining in the armaments race.

Senator Sampson:

– Australia is running a bad race, and is in danger of being left at the post.

Senator RAE:

– -All nations say that. Each one is afraid of the others, and is seeking to secure itself by arming to the teeth. If that policy would be fatal for them, it would be equally fatal for us. To some extent, we are joining in this mad armament race, and if the Government receives the endorsement of the people for what it has done it will go still further, and the amount now expended on armaments will be but a fraction of what will have to be spent in the future. We are vir- tually placing ourselves under the heel of the financial ring which finances ware, and, on a minor scale, drifting into the same position as the other great powers that are frantically arming to-day. I believe that we are on the wrong track altogether. The best service that one can render in this or any other country is to join wholeheartedly in the world movement against war, so as to make impossible a recurrence of the world cataclysm we so recently experienced.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

. Some time ago, under the retrenchment, scheme adopted by the Government, the Postmaster-General abolished railway travelling post offices, a convenience which had been in existence in Tasmania for many years. The facilities offered by such post offices were much appreciated in the north-west coastal districts of Tasmania and other outlying parts of that State. The wayside railway stations are receiving offices; and formerly letters which were posted there were stamped and sorted in the train and subsequently delivered at stations further along the line. As the receiving offices are in ninny instances adjacent to the school, children returning from school collected the family mail ; thus many of the letters were posted and delivered on the same day. Since this service has been discontinued, many people have been inconvenienced, and letters posted in one town in Tasmania for delivery in an adjacent town are carried to a central post office, where they are sorted and placed into mail bags; they are despatched by a return train, and do not reach their destination in some instances until the following day. The trains on the northwest coast line run at infrequent intervals, and much inconvenience is caused to the residents of that area by the withdrawal of the travelling post office. The saving made by the department as a result of the suspension of these facilities cannot be very great. I ask the Postmaster-General to look into this matter, and to consider favorably the restoration to the very deserving outback people of the facilities that obtained before the retrenchment scheme was put into operation.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Th« whole subject of postal services is at present under review. I have a very soft spot in my heart for the people living in outlying districts who suffer grave disabilities in many respects, and I shall extend every consideration to their requests. Naturally, the cost of the restoration of such services will have to be considered, because we cannot restrict them to any particular district or State. If it is decided to revert to the former system . it will have to be applied generally. I remind honorable senators that the loss on country telephonic services, which has to be borne by users in the metropolitan areas, is something like £350,000 annually. The honorable senator can rest assured that the services in outlying districts are receiving the earnest consideration of the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Sum available for the purposes set forth in schedule).

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- In looking through the schedule, I find that no provision has been made for the repatriation of fallen senators.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Schedule.

Proposed votes - The Parliament, £40,460; The Prime Minister’s Department, £90,990; The Department of tho Treasury, £181,850; The AttorneyGeneral’s Department, £41,320; The Department of the Interior, £87,980 - agreed to.

Department of Defence.

Proposed vote, £1,049,950.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

. –It is essential that in building up our air defences money should be expended on the provision of landing grounds in the northern parts of Australia. Has any action been taken to establish an air base at Cooktown?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No such action has been taken, so far as I am aware.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Trade and Customs, £136,560; Department of Health, £26,630; Department of Commerce, £87,050; Miscellaneous Services, £146,370; War Services, £205,960- agreed to.

Commonwealth Railways.

Proposed vote, £125,380.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) whether this item includes any of the expenditure to be incurred in constructing a line from Red Hill to Port Augusta or whether that expenditure is provided for under a separate bill?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It is provided for in a separate bill.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– The Commonwealth railways use a good deal of petrol, and I ask the Leader of the Government whether the department obtains its supplies from the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, or elsewhere? .

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

[3.3]. - There is a general rule that all Commonwealth departments shall, as far as possible, obtain their supplies from the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited; but I cannot answer off-hand the honorable senator’s question.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– The Leader of the Government will recollect that an agreement was made by the Commonwealth with the Western Australian Government that on the completion of the transcontinental line from Port Augusta to “Kalgoorlie, the State Government would lay down a standard gauge line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle. This the Western Australian Government has never attempted- to do. I ask the Leader of the Government whether the agreement has’ lapsed or whether there is any prospect of its fulfilment by the State Government.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for External Affairs) [3.5]. - I am not aware that any agreement was entered into. A statement was made by a former Premier of Western Australia that a broad gauge line would be constructed between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle on the completion of the transcontinental line, but so far as I am aware no agreement was entered into between the two governments.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I am glad that this point has been raised. I have frequently heard the statement made that an agreement was entered into between the two governments, but although I was a member of the State Parliament at the time, and have an excellent memory, I cannot recollect any such agreement having been made. I welcome the statement of the Leader of the Senate, which I entirely confirm, that Western Australia did not enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth. It passed a bill to lay down a broadgauge line when the money was available, the meaning of the phrase “when the money is available “ being, I take it, that it should be made available by the Commonwealth free of charge or interest.

Proposedvote agreed to.

Postmaster-‘General’s Department.

Proposed vote, £2,379,080.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I direct the attention of the Postmaster-General (Senator McLachlan) to the fact that the citizens of Brisbane are still anxious for the provision of a hotter type of post office than they have at the present time. The matter has been brought before Minister after Minister, but without result. I invite the honorable senator to visit Brisbane, to inspect the surroundings of the Brisbane General Post Office, and to decide for himself whether a more adequate building should not be supplied. At Goulburn there is a post office which was erected as far back as 1880, yet its appearance compares more than favourably with the Brisbane General Post Office.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– This is not a works bill; the item provides only for payment of annual services.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Surely I am entitled to mention these matters. The Brisbane post office is a. wretched structure.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I shall be visiting Queensland during the winter and will inspect the post office there.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I am glad to hear that. I hope that, as a result of the inspection, the honorable senator will begin the erection of a new post office ‘building in Queen-street in keeping with the other imposing buildings.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Northern Territory.

– The honorable senator is again out of order. The subject which he is now discussing is also irrelevant.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Then, on behalf of the people of Canberra, I appeal to the Minister not to be guided by the opinions of officials of the “ big brass hat “ brigade who are able to exercise more power than they should owing to the frequent changes of Ministers. The request is reasonable, and I trust that further consideration will be given to it.” It is a. matter-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I again remind the honorable senator that the subject he is discussing is irrelevant to the bill.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Papua.

Proposed vote, £14,770.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

.- Will the Minister (Senator Pearce) explain the item “ grant of equivalent of customs duty (but not including primage) on Papuan rubber imported into Australia, £3,745”.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

[3.21]. - A duty is imposed on rubber imported into Australia, and to assist the Papuan rubber industry, a refund of duty is made to the Administrator of Papua, who passes it on to the planters. That is done to give them preference in the Australian market.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Norfolk Island, £750 ; Refunds of Revenue, £500,000; and Advance to Treasurer £1,500,000 - agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Sir George

Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– When the bill was in committee, I endeavoured to obtain some information concerning the provision of additional parks and gardens in Canberra, but as the Minister (Senator Pearce) did not reply I propose to take this opportunity to discuss it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. When the bill was in committee I directed the attention of the Chairman (Senator Herbert Hays) to the fact that the honorable senator was not entitled to discuss additional parks and gardens in Canberra as the bill only provides for the appropriation of certain specified sums for wages and salaries. Although the Chairman of Committees ruled that the honorable senator was not in order, he is again raising the subject. Earlier in the week, the honorable senator submitted some questions to the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) concerning additional parks in Canberra, and, on behalf of the Minister, I replied. The honorable senator having taken exception to the reply, wishes to discuss the subject on this bill, which is an ordinary Supply Bill, and not a Works and Buildings Bill. As the Chairman had ruled that the honorable senator was not in order in discussing the subject, I considered that, had I replied, I, too, would have been out of order.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) states, this bill provides for the payment of salaries and wages, and does not appropriate money for the provision of parks and gardens. I therefore rule that the honorable senator is not entitled to discuss the subject on this bill.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Then I shall raise it on the adjournment.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That would be an appropriate time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time

page 1165

KING’S JUBILEE

Joint Address

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I have to report that, in accordance with the requirements of the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker and I presented to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral the Joint Address to His Majesty the King agreed to by both Houses of the Parliament on the 4th April, 1935. Upon receiving the Address, His Excellency was pleased to reply in the following terms: -

Mr. President and Mr. Speaker

This is not an ordinary occasion. In the special circumstances, seeing that the Prime Minister is at this moment in England in connexion with the King’s Jubilee and representing the Government, the Parliament and the people of the Commonwealth, I suggest that it would be a more solemn and significant way of presenting the Address of Parliament to His Majesty if the Prime Minister handed it to the King himself.

If, on behalf of the Parliament, you agree to that course, I have no hesitation in supporting it, and in that event would leave the transmission of the Address to the Prime Minister in your hands.

Isaac A. Isaacs,

Governor-General

Government House, Canberra. 10th April, 1935

On behalf of the Parliament, Mr. Speaker and I have agreed to the suggestion of His Excellency the Governor-General, and have taken the necessary steps to give effect to it.

page 1165

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1935

Second Reading

Validation, and Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Validation - are of a cognate character, I suggest that, in order to save time, all three should be debated on the motion for the second reading of the first one.

The PRESIDENT:

– It has been the practice in this Senate for some considerable time, when bills of a cognate character are presented, for the Minister and honorable senators to debate all of them on the motion for the second-reading of the first bill. That practice may be followed on this occasion.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill is to validate the collections of duty under the tariff proposals of the 6th December, 1934, until the 30th November, 1935.

Section 226 of the Customs Act 1901-1930 reads-

No proceeding whether against an officer or otherwise for anything done for the protection of the revenue in relation to any tariff or tariff alteration proposed in Parliament shall except as mentioned under the next section be commenced before the close of the session in which such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed.

Under this section it was necessary that the tariff proposals should either be ratified or validated during the session in which the tariff alterations were proposed. For some years there has been only one session in a parliament. Thus section 226 did not operate if a tariff was passed during the life of the Parliament.

In 1934 the following words were added to the section: - “ or before the expiration of six months after such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed, whichever first happens.

The new section became operative as from the 1st January, 1935. The effect of the additional words is that, unless the proposals are passed by both Houses of Parliament within six months of their introduction, importers who have paid duty at rates higher than those provided by the existing Customs Tariff can issue writs for the recovery of the extra duty paid at the higher rate, and the department would have no legal defence. It is obvious that steps must be taken to protect the revenue. This course would not have been necessary but for the absence from Australia of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), who is on a most important mission to the United Kingdom. The Government considers that it is quite in order to ask the Senate to validate the collection under the schedule until sufficient time can be given by both Houses to debate fully the proposals.

The Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Validation Bill ensures that the amendments proposed to be made to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act 1933-1934 by the exchange adjustment proposals of the 6th December, 1934, shall continue to operate until the 30th November, 1935, that is, for the same period as the ordinary customs tariff proposals are being validated. The amendments proposed to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act 1933-1934 were necessitated by the amendments proposed by customs tariff proposals of the 6th December, 1934. Consequently, whatever action is being taken in connexion with the ordinary customs tariff proposals should be taken in connexion with the exchange adjustment proposals.

The Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Validation Bill validates the collections of duty on certain Canadian products until the 30th November, 1935, that is, for the same period as the customs tariff proposals of the 6th December, 1934, are being validated. The CanadianAustralian trade agreement provides that certain margins of preference shall be retained. Owing to thetariff alterations proposed on the 6th December, 1934, it is necessary to amend some rates specified in the Canadian-Australian trade agreement. Whilst the tariff proposalsare operating it is imperative, in order that our agreement with Canada shall not be broken, to maintain the duties now operating against Canada. The customs tariff proposals are being validated up to the 30th November, 1935. Consequently, the Canadian preference proposals should also be validated up to that date.

I suggest that we need not, at this stage, discuss the contents of the schedules to which reference has been made. The

Prime Minister is at present in Great Britain on a most important mission -which has a direct bearing upon the margins of preference given to Great Britain under our tariff proposals. The attitude of the Government may be affected by the success or failure of that mission. It may be necessary to modify certain tariff proposals in order to conduct negotiations with the Governments of other countries with the object of securing a market overseas for our primary products.

It is regrettable that we have thus early to depart from the provisions of the act as amended recently. All I need say in defence of this course, is that an extraordinary set of circumstances has arisen threatening the economic fabric of the Commonwealth, and unless we take measures to safeguard the interests of our primary producers we may find ourselves in a very grave position. The only criticism that can be offered is that, on the first occasion when a tariff schedule had been brought down since the amendment of the law, we have to depart from the principles there laid down, but I put it to the Leader of the Opposition that in the circumstances which I have mentioned this course is inevitable.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I do not intend to ask for the adjournment of the debate or to delay the passage of these bills. The Government desires to cancel, its responsibility to the country in respect of the validation of tariff schedules within the time limit imposed by a recent amendment of the act, and to get into recess as quickly as possible. The Commonwealth has been, for many years, definitely committed to the protectionist policy in order to encourage the development and expansion of Australian industries. The evasion by the Government of its obligation to validate the tariff schedules brought down some months ago is a serious matter. “When Senator Colebatch adorned this chamber he was very insistent that all tariff schedules should be validated within three months. I informed him that if he would extend the term to six months, I would support an amendment of the act to that effect. The act was so amended, and it now requires all tariff schedules to be passed by Parliament within six months of their being tabled. The schedules covered by these bills were laid on the table several months ago, but Parliament has not had an opportunity to discuss them. Within the last few weeks other schedules were introduced in the House of Representatives, and the purpose of these bills ia to validate collections under them. I want to know why the Government will not allow its tariff schedule to run the gauntlet of discussion in this Parliament. I realize that it would prove to be an apple of discord among the supporters of the Government, for, unlike honorable senators on this side who stand foursquare for Australian industries, honorable senators opposite are divided in their opinions. The Government is endeavouring to escape behind a smoke screen. It knows that when the Senate meets again after the recess the ranks of the Opposition will be thinned, and that there will not be many on this side to join the discontents among the followers of the Government. I am reminded of the tariff fight which has continued for more than 30 years. In the early days of the federation a number of great Australians made it possible for a man to earn a decent living in this country. The greatest statesmen of that time were protectionists. I know that Sir George Reid and others were free traders, but, the industries of this country have been built up by following a policy not of free trade, but of protection. I remember the great battle fought by the Melbourne Age in the interests of the secondary industries of Australia. Notwithstanding that it knows that the progress of this country is due largely to the industries which have been built up here under a protective tariff, the present Government asks us to validate a schedule containing about 180 alterations of customs duties. Some of those alterations of duty may affect vitally a number of Australian industries, but we are not allowed to discuss them. We are on the eve of a recess of six months, or even longer. The Scullin Government has been criticized freely in regard to its tariff policy, but that Government provided for the validation of tariff schedules within six months of their being laid before Parliament

This tariff schedule has been in operation for several months, and if validated, will continue in operation for several months more before Parliament can discuss it. The manufacturers of Australia know . that I have always stood four-square for protecting the industries of Australia. When I was a Minister in the Scullin Government their representatives crowded about me in the corridors of this building but now, like grasshoppers, they disappear at my approach. What has happened? Has some sinister influence been at work? Is it true that the Government has acted at the dictation of some outside authority - possibly Soviet Russia - to the detriment of Australian manufacturing industries? Why cannot the information on which the Government acted see the light of day? I suspect insidious propaganda, because I am convinced that the tariff schedule of the present Government, which this bill seeks to validate, constitutes a menace to the industries of this country. I cannot see how we can hope to develop Australia unless we foster its industries. The fiscal policy of the present Government enables goods made in other countries by cheap labour to be sold in our warehouses and shops, while Australian men and women walk the streets looking for jobs. It is wrong. Why, in the name of Heaven, cannot our young men and young women find work in the land of their birth? The reason is the encouragement given to the importation of goods made in foreign countries. Only this week we dealt with legislation to amend our immigration laws with the object of making it easier to keep undesirable people out of this country. What sense is there in keeping them out if we allow goods made by them to come in and cause unemployment among our own people? Why not be consistent, and allow not only these products of cheap labour to enter our country, but also those slaves of industry who manufacture them? For Heaven’s sake let us be honest ! The Government has not been fair to Australian industries. Australia has a protectionist Prime Minister, but the Acting Prime Minister is a free trader. Between them they have -let Australia down. I am reminded of the story of the old man and his son who were travelling with an ass. Between them they let the ass fall into the water, and it was drowned. Had the Government allowed its tariff schedule to run the gauntlet of discussion in Parliament it could, at least, have said that it had received a mandate to alter the duties, and, unquestionably, its proposals would have been passed since the Government has a majority in both Houses. The only reason why the Government is afraid to submit its proposals to Parliament is that it knows that they are not in the best interests of Australia. I shall vote against the bill, as will the members of my party.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I regret that the Government has decided practically to validate the whole of the tariff, but my reasons for objecting to its action are unlike those advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes). I was one of those who, with members of the present Ministry, including the PostmasterGeneral (Senator McLachlan), fought hard to secure an alteration of the Customs Act to provide that tariff schedules must be dealt with by the Parliament within six months of the date when they were laid on the table. The Postmaster-General was one of the champions in the fight, and, fortunately, the necessary amending legislation was passed. Previously, tariff schedules bad been introduced and allowed to operate for eighteen months or two years, without ratification by either branch of the legislature. When the Customs Act was altered in this respect, I commended the Government on the fact that a good deal had been done to ensure to the Senate power over tariff legislation. The benefits of that act compelled the Government to bring down this measure. I do not know the reason for the Government’s haste to go into recess. I do not agree to tariff proposals being put into operation until they have been considered in detail and ratified by the Parliament. I am sorry that it appears to be necessary to give the Government a blank cheque on this occasion; but I hope that it will not again make such a request in connexion with tariff schedules.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I endorsed the action of the Government in presenting a revised schedule last year covering certain goods imported into Australia. It provided for a considerable reduction of rates of duty as compared with those imposed under the notorious schedule introduced some years ago by another Ministry. The Government with which Senator Barnes was associated increased duties, and in many cases doubled them; it also imposed prohibitions.

Senator Barnes:

– We had you “in the gun”, and we were getting a little bit back for the country.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am glad to find that, on recommendations of the Tariff Board, certain reductions of duty have been effected. I take it .that I may refer to the schedule, because the tariff and the schedule are virtually one and the same thing. I shall bring under the notice of the Senate one or two important reductions that have been made.

Senator Daly:

– I ask you, Mr. President, to give a ruling as to whether an honorable senator may discuss the schedule item by item., since this bill merely validates the collection of duties. The Senate may not on this bill make a request with regard to the schedule; we must either accept the bill or reject it. If we are to discuss the schedule item by item, there are several items to which I desire to direct the attention of the Government.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. lynch). - I uphold the point of order. If one honorable senator were permitted to refer to individual items m which he is particularly interested, the same liberty would have to be extended to all ; apart from that, the Standing Orders are distinctly against the practice. The object of the bill is merely to validate the collection of duties.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays). - The point raised by the honorable senator was practically decided by the President a few moments ago. The honorable senator may refer in a general way to the tariff schedule in order to show why in his opinion the collection of these duties should or should not be validated but he is not entitled to discuss the tariff in detail.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not attempting to discuss the tariff in detail nor have I referred to any specific duty. The Leader of the Opposition was allowed to indulge in generalities, and I . think I should be permitted to reply to him. I understand quite as well as Senator Daly does the meaning of the word “ collection”. If I had referred directly to any item in the tariff schedule, I could have understood a point of order being raised, but I did not, nor did I intend to do so. I am aware that the Senate is anxious to complete the business before it. I shall therefore content myself with the statement that I approve very heartily of the action taken by , this Government last year, which has enabled the Minister to-day to bring down this bill. I support the second reading.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– It is to be regretted that it should have been necessary so soon after the original alteration was made to bring down this bill, but I do not think that anything else could have been done in the circumstances.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– That is the position.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– In view of the circumstance that trade treaties are being negotiated, and that we were similarly affected in our attitude On the sulphur question this morning, I do not think that any action could be taken in this matter other than to postpone the ratification of the tariff as proposed. I hope, however, that the Government does not intend to take this as an excuse for proposing similar extensions in the future. While I support this measure because the circumstances are abnormal, I shall by no means be prepared necessarily to support a further extension. This bill simply provides that a specific schedule shall be extended for a specific time and there is no intention, to alter the original proviso generally. I shall therefore support it.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Compressed or Agglomerated Corkboard; Compressed Cork Sheets

Question of necessity for a bounty on Sheepskins fellmongered in Australia, also other methods of resuscitating the Fellmongering industry in Australia.

Sitting suspended from 4.37 to 5.30 p.m.

page 1171

PORT AUGUSTA TO RED HILL RAILWAY BILL 1935

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MCLACHLAN (South Australia - ^Postmaster-General [5.32] . - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill seeks the necessary approval to give effect to the decision of the Government to proceed with the construction of a standard gauge railway line from Port Augusta to Red Hill. The work of constructing the railway and the adjustment from Red Hill into the Adelaide Central Railway Station were approved by the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia under an agreement dated the 18th September, 1925. That agreement was ratified by both the Federal and State Parliaments, the Commonwealth Act being the Railways (South Australia Agreement) Act 1926, and the State Act the North-South Railway Agreement Act 1926. The agreement provided for the building of a railway by the Commonwealth from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs. That railway was completed and opened for traffic on the 2nd August, 1929. The agreement provided further for the construction by the Commonwealth of a railway from Port Augusta to Red Hill and for the provision of a third rail on the existing 5-ft. 3-in. gauge line from Red Hill to the Central Railway Station at Adelaide, also at the expense of the Commonwealth - so as to give a continuous railway on a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge from Kalgoorlie to Adelaide.

It will be remembered that in 1930 an act was passed by this Parliament providing for the construction of the railway from Port Augusta to Red Hill. Under the act the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner was empowered to construct that railway, but, as certain doubts were entertained as to whether the consent of the State of South Australia to the construction was still in force, the date of the commencement of the act of 1930 was deferred pending the removal of these doubts.

Legal advice has been obtained to the effect that the consent of the State is in full force; consequently, it is proposed, in this bill, to repeal section 2 of the original act which related to the date of commencement of that act. Clause 3 of the bill provides that the cost of the railway, inclusive of rollingstock, is not to exceed £789,250. In the act of 1930 the amount was £735,000 but the cost of rolling-stock was excluded from this amount.

The repeal of section 11 is also provided for. That section deals with the appropriation of moneys for the construction of the railway. In its place a new section is proposed which authorizes the payment out of the proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of any loan act of all moneys necessary for (a) the payment of the cost of the railway up to and including the time of the opening of the railway for traffic; and (b) the purchase of rolling stock.

Such, briefly, is the purport of the measure. If any honorable senator desires further information with regard to any particular clause, I shall be happy to supply it in committee.

Honorable senators are probably aware broadly of the position of the railway system of South Australia. In 1927, being anxious to make unnecessary the laying of a third rail between Red Hill and Adelaide involving, as I thought, some engineering difficulties and certain traffic dangers, and with a view, also, to save both Commonwealth and State taxpayers a considerable sum of money, I suggested that the Commonwealth should offer to purchase the Red Hill to Salisbury portion of the line with the right to alter the gauge to 4-ft. 8^-in. That proposal, however, was not acceptable and for reasons which I need not mention, it was abandoned for the time being.

In 1930, the Scullin Government passed the measure which this bill amends. There was opposition to the proposal that the Commonwealth should invade State territory for the purpose of constructing this line. Those doubts were of a legal character and we contend that they have been resolved. I still believe that the purchase, by the Commonwealth, of the Red Hill to Salisbury section, at the amount of its cost to South Australia, might prove to be the best method of meeting the situation. That railway cost the State approximately £960,600 and involves an outlay for interest of £42,000 yearly.

On Friday a conference took place between the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) and the Acting-Premier of South Australia, and the Minister for Railways and Works in that State.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The present route from Port Augusta to Adelaide is circuitous with steep grades and sharp curves, taking practically a round of the clock to traverse, though the actual direct distance over level country is rather less than that between Albury and Melbourne, which “Victorian trains cover to-day in four and a half hours. A State railway on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge already traverses more than half the distance between Adelaide and Port Augusta on the direct route, and under the agreement referred to, the Commonwealth has the right to have a third rail laid on. this track, and to build a new standard gauge line across the remaining gap of 82 miles, so that transcontinental sleeper trains may run right into Adelaide. The time saved in this way, together with adjustments to the Western Australian time-table, and a speeding up on the transcontinental line would enable a whole day to be saved between Western Australia and the Eastern States. The agreement provides for a number of ancillary things concerning which I need not trouble honorable senators at this stage. I may, however, state that there is no desire on the part of the Commonwealth to interfere with the rights of South Australia in any way. That was made plain at the conference on Friday last. The present proposal has been brought forward in the honest belief that it will mean a saving to taxpayers.

Senator Daly:

– That is a sane belief, too.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I share the honorable senator’s view. The State Government contends that the existing line fromRed Hill to Adelaide shows a profit over running costs, but not including interest, of approximately £28,000, and that the Commonwealth has no right to compel it to put in the third rail from Red Hill to Adelaide. A fortiori it might contend that we have no right to construct a direct line between Port Augusta and Red Hill on the proposed Commonwealth route. It is not willing to sell the Salisbury to Red Hill section to the Commonwealth for conversion, and is not willing to co-operate under the agreement.

Some years ago the Commonwealth Public Works Committee made an examination of the route, and in its report criticized somewhat scathingly the transcontinental railway service, particularly to the breaks of gauge between Terowie and Port Augusta.

We feel that something should be done to straighten out the difficulties. But we do not wish to do anything contrary to the views of the State Government. We believe that the agreement is still valid, and we desire to obtain the fullest cooperation of the State in the settlement of this difficulty, rather than a reluctant acceptance of a legal agreement.

In view of the objection to the proposal for a third rail into the Adelaide railway station, and the State Government’s opposition to the proposed purchase of the Salisbury-Red Hill section, we are prepared to offer what is hoped will prove a satisfactory solution of the present disagreement. We propose that the Commonwealth should extend its standard gauge line from Port Augusta southwards only so far as Port Prie, a distance of 56 miles, and that the South Australian Government should extend its 5 ft. 3 in. gauge railway now ending at Red Hill, northwards so far as Port Pirie, a distance of approximately 26 miles, thus making Port Pirie the break of gauge station. If the portion of the Melbourne-Adelaide train reserved for Western Australian passengers were run through to Port Pirie, passengers could then transfer to the Commonwealth transcontinental line train there, instead of at Port Augusta, and on the eastward journey passengers would on leaving the transcontinental line train at Port Pirie, step right into the Melbourne train.

The Commonwealth earnestly hopes that the South Australian Government will accept this modified proposal, for the double purpose of transforming the worst section of the East- West line into one of the best, and for the provision of employment during the coining winter. In order that no time may be lost, the Commonwealth proposes to commence the construction of the new line from the Port Augusta end, under the authority of the existing agreement. Meanwhile, we are prepared to enter into a new agreement with South Australia on the lines suggested, and even though some months must elapse before such a new agreement amending the present agreement could be ratified, South Australia would still have ample time to complete the small section of the line between Red Hill and Port Pirie by the time the Commonwealth reached the latter point.

To save delay and avoid disappointment to men looking for employment, I ask the House to pass the bill in its present form, accepting the assurance of the Government of its willingness to amend promptly both,the bill and the agreement on the lines indicated if it can secure the co-operation of the South Australian Government.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Does the Government intend to build this railway if the South Australian Government persists in its attitude to the agreement?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– We contend that we have its full consent already, and we intend to proceed with the construction of the railway from Port Augusta to Port Pirie. In the meantime, if South Australia does not agree to the proposal, the Government will ask the State Government to fulfill its obligations under the old agreement. This disagreement may result in litigation, a contingency which I hope may be avoided.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Did not the Prime Minister promise that the railway would not be built if the Government of South Australia did not renew its assent to the agreement?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– No. We have examined the statement made by the Prime Minister, and find that all he said was that the South Australian Government would be again consulted. That consultation has taken place. There was a conference on Friday last in Melbourne with the Acting Premier of South Australia and the . Minister for Railways and Works in that State. Men of common sense should.be able to settle this difficulty without litigation. I hope that the Commonwealth and the States will come together in the interests of the travelling public, and of the good name of the railways of Australia. I have heard from overseas travellers, and those who visit the gold-fields and inland districts, more criticism of the section of railway between Port Augusta and Terowie than of any other line in Australia.

Senator Daly:

– Is it not a fact that this work is part of the scheme to build the north-south line?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– -I do not wish to enter into a disoussion of that subject now. My desire is to do justice to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth and of the State. I can say definitely that, if the Commonwealth purchases the Salisbury to Red Hill line from the State, there will be an actual, not merely a bookkeeping, saving of £43,000 in the interest burden now borne by the State.

Senator Sampson:

– Would not that burden fall upon the Commonwealth?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Unless this proposal is accepted, the loss to the State will be duplicated by the loss to the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- ‘ Some years ago the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works visited South Australia, and inquired into the construction of this railway, and as a result of its investigation, recommended ‘ that the line be built. The Minister should approach the State Government and urge it to discontinue its parish-pump outlook, and view this matter from a national stand-point In the event of war, the present breaks of gauge would cause vital delays. The more direct route is much to be preferred to the present tortuous and tedious journey.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– The introduction of this bill raises a vast number of considerations, concerning which I am sure the Minister could have given us more particulars had time permitted. I realize that we are within a few hours of recess, and therefore I shall be as brief as possible. Before I proceed to discuss the bill itself, I should like the Minister to say whether, if the alternative scheme mentioned by him is undertaken, the Federal Government will bear the coat of the construction by the State Government of the line from Port Pirie to Red Hill.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– It would be constructed at the cost of the State. The estimated cost would probably be about £100,000.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I should say the cost would be nearer £250,000.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– There is only one engineering difficulty - the spanning of the Broughton River.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– The desirability or otherwise of constructing the line referred to in this measure has been discussed for many years. In my opinion the alternative proposal is preferable to that embodied in this measure; but, as it is purely problematical, it cannot properly be discussed now. The fact which we have to face is that, despite conferences between the Commonwealth and the State over many months, it has been found impossible hitherto to devise any scheme to which both governments will assent. We cannot assume, therefore, that this last-moment proposal will be accepted by the State, and for that reason I shall proceed to deal with the bill.

Senator Barnes:

– Has the honorable senator read the report of the Public Works Committee?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I cannot say that I have read it in detail, although I have probably been acquainted with its contents. I do not suppose that any honorable senator has read all that has been written on this subject during the last fifteen years. There have been many reports on this proposal., among them being one by a committee, presided over by Sir William Goodman, which condemns the scheme. The first argument advanced in support of the bill is that the construction of this railway would conduce greatly to the comfort of passengers, many of whom are oversea visitors and big commercial men in Australia. There can be no question that the breaks of gauge at Port Augusta and Terowie are most inconvenient. Of all the portions of the trans-Australian railway system which have not yet been standardized on the 4-ft.81/2-in. gauge, the section between Port. Augusta and Terowie is probably the most in need of conversion. I think that all honorable senators will admit that, in respect of the comfort of passengers, and rapidity of transport, the construction of the new line would effect a great improvement. That argument in favour of the bill is well based.

– Conditions change almost from day to day.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– The third argument advanced in favour of the line is that it will provide employment for many persons who are now out of work. Of course, every member of this chamber has the utmost sympathy with the unemployed, but we should consider how to provide the largest amount of employment. In the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, delivered on the 17th February, 1932, the following passage occurred : -

It is impossible, at the present time, to proceed with large programmes of public works. The great majority of wage-earners must necessarily bc dependent upon private industry, whether, primary or secondary, for their livelihood. My advisers therefore, regard it as of cardinal importance that all possible steps should be taken to stimulate private industry, and all proposed legislation should bc viewed in the light of this consideration.

I claim that the problem is substantially the same now as it was then, and I do not hesitate to say that more employment and more fruitful results would be obtained by reducing taxation and allowing private individuals to give more work, than for this line of railway to be constructed by a government department. I am in favour of the encouragement of private enterprise, because I believe that that method is more profitable to the community and affords a greater amount of employment.

I invite the attention of honorable senators to the fact that, since the construction by the Commonwealth of the Grafton-Kyogle line, heavy loss has been experienced by the Queensland railways on the old line through Wallangarra. The Commonwealth line has succeeded at the expense of the State railway, but the community is saddled with the extra cost of operating the two lines which serve substantially the same country.

Senator Sampson:

– The estimates of the cost of the Kyogle line were all at sea.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– They were of a most fragmentary nature. It cannot be said that my opposition to this bill is prompted by the desire to restrict employment. I was, and still am, in favour of the completion of Parliament House, Adelaide, which would mean an expenditure of about £250,000, and would benefit the unemployed. Yet, at n recant meeting of the Australian Labour party, a motion was carried, by a very small majority, in opposition to that proposal. If the line were standardized on the Quorn-Terowie route, much employment would be provided. This line would prove of great convenience, and it would be more valuable from the defence point of view. Strategically, the inner -route would be the safer, and would have to be used if the other were destroyed.

Sometimes when 1 hear men in high places talking of spending scores of millions on reconditioning the railways - railways already groaning under excessive capital accounts - I have a desperate sense that our leaders arc stumbling along with brains benumbed by habit . . . Instead of building railways, we should be building aerodromes and equipping them on the most efficient plans known. Our preparations for civil progress will at the same time give us defensive strength, for an air-using Australia, well furnished with aerodromes along her habitable coast, would be well nigh impregnable.

A year or two ago I read in a book entitled, The New Russia, eight talks broadcast by well-known men, including Sir Bernard Pares, H. G. Wells, and H. R. Knickerbocker. Speaking on transport in Russia, Mr. Frank Owen said -

Here is a land which covers a sixth of the land surface, of the world, which stretches in an unbroken line from the Baltic to the Yellow Sea, from the Arctic Circle almost to the mountain frontier of India … It possesses only 77,000 kilometres of railway, and even the Five-year Plan will only add another 8,000.

Seventy-seven thousand kilometres is about 50,000 miles. Mr. Owen went on to say -

But if the railways remain a severe handicap to their progress, they have made huge strides in the very latest development of travel - the air services . . . Russia is a land in many ways ideally suited to flying, a land so vast that flying is the only way in which the barrier of space can be overcome.

In its vast spaces, Russia is very similar to the land in which we live -

Her other modes of transport, railways, motors, ships, will bo accelerated and extended in the next few years. But in the real sense of conquering distance, Russia will miss out a complete stage of development and go direct into the transport realm of the future, into the air.

Will our 5-ft. 3-in gauge lines in Victoria and the rest of those in South Australia ever be unified?

Senator Sampson:

– No.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– In my previous view, I always inclined towards the construction of this particular portion of railway from Port Augusta to Adelaide. I realized the discomforts of the present arrangement, and was one of those who believed that general unification was a good thing. 1 was not in Parliament when the act of 1930 was passed, but I have expressed this view and have held it up till quite a recent day. I heard that there was a chance of some unification, and I thought that this was definitely the best point from which to start.

But at least three things have happened since the beginning of this year that have made me very much alter my views with regard to this proposal at the present time. The first of these is the general European situation, which does not justify any considerable and unnecessary spending of our money in the position in which we now are. The second is the heavy fall in wool prices and the prices of our primary products generally, which has become accentuated, and clarified as the summer has gone on. The third is the hostility of the State Government. Fourthly, I cannot sec how we can pass a bill like this, with an alternative to it, when the bill itself may and will be used as a lever to force, the State to accept one or other of these alternatives. As to the first alternative, the State, through its government, has stated its opposition to it. There is an alternative, but the Slate may not approve of it. In any case, I see no prospect of the State being able to raise £250,000 which, apparently, it will be expected to raise, for building, not a railway that it desires itself, but one which the Commonwealth desires to construct. It cannot afford to do that.

The Postmaster-General (Senator McLachlan) knows that South Australia budgeted for a deficit of something over £900,000 last year, and, speaking from memory, I think the estimated deficit for this year is something between £600,000 and £650,000. How can a State that has had to cut radically, that was hit by the depression at an earlier stage than any other State - and, despite its difficulties, has made a tremendous effort to balance its budget - be expected to put up an extra £250,000 to provide for a scheme which I believe it would prefer to that which, has been laid down but which, after all, is a Commonmon wealth scheme? My opinion is that when this proposal is put up to the State Government it will say that this is the scheme which it prefers, but that it cannot borrow the money to give effect to it and will not be able to do so for some years.

Senator Barnes:

– If the Commonwealth Government found the money, would it not then be an Australian line?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I think it would be, as the honorable senator suggests, an Australian line, but also a State line. If the alternative, is put to the State, then the Commonwealth, giving the State the alternative, ought to pay for it just as it would pay for the original proposal. I welcome this because for one reason I think it would cost nearly £500,000 less than the other proposal would do. It would also leave only the one break at Port Pirie, instead of two, and the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge would be entirely eliminated. Another point is that Commonwealth control would remain at Port Pirie instead of going to Adelaide. I would welcome it, because the loss which the State would incur would be less than if the proposal embodied in the bill were adopted. That is to say, the traffic which now moves down the eastern line through Quorn and Peterborough would, under this proposal, remain on the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge line to Terowie, where it would be transferred to the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge.

I regret having detained the Senate at such length. If I have put the case inadequately, it is because I have endeavoured to condense my remarks. I have given what I consider valid arguments against committing ourselves to expenditure which I do not think is justified at present, and which could be more suitably and more economically distributed by private enterprise. At the same time, we should not encourage hostility between the Commonwealth and the State concerned. All through the negotiations South Australia has acted in a friendly manne., and it should not be forced into a position of open hostility in connexion with a project which I know the Commonwealth Government intends should benefit the Commonwealth and the State concerned. In these circumstances I have no alternative but to oppose the bill in its present form.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– When the ‘original bill providing for the construction of a railway from Port Augusta to Red Hill was before the Senate on the 16th December, 1930, I gave the measure my wholehearted support, because, according to the preamble, the line was to be built only if South Australia gave its consent - a consent required under the Constitution. On that occasion Senator Rae said -

Did not Western Australia promise to convert to the standard gauge the railway between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle?

I replied-

The Parliament of that State passed a measure authorizing that conversion. Since then, it has passed resolutions urging the Federal Government to carry out the work, so that there should be no break of gauge between Port Augusta and Fremantle.

Both Houses of the Western Australian Parliament urged the Commonwealth Government to provide the money, and to construct a broad-gauge railway, not only from Port Augusta to Red Hill, but also from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle. When Senator Rae said that the State Government should undertake that work, I replied -

It passed a measure authorizing the work, but in view of the serious effect of federation on Western Australia, the people of that State feel that the financing of the conversion of the gauges is entirely a federal responsibility. I trust tha.t we may regard this bill as an earnest of the Government’s intention to undertake that work.

After referring at some length to the work, I concluded -

I trust that this legislation will be the forerunner of another measure, wider which the Commonwealth will consent to undertake the conversion to the standard gauge of the existing railway f.rom Kalgoorlie to Fremantle, and thus provide a line without any break of gauge from Red Hill to Fremantle. This is a national responsibility. Both Houses of the Western Australian Parliament have passed a resolution asking the Federal Parliament to do its duty in this respect, and I sincerely trust that this important work will be proceeded with in the near future.

– The publication of the statement is no guarantee that it was made.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If the promise was made by Mr. Lyons, the

Ministiy should not proceed with the proposal.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The bill would not have been introduced if Mr. Lyons had given that promise.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have a copy of the original bill for the construction of the railway from Port Augusta to Red Hill. The preamble reads -

And whereas by the said act of the State of South Australia that State consented to the construction and carrying out by the Commonwealth of the railways and railway works and operations which the Commonwealth by the said agreement undertook to construct and carry out subject to the condition that, if the construction of the said railway from Port Augusta to Bed Hill referred to in the said agreement were not commenced by the Commonwealth within such period (being not less than three years from the date of the commencement of the said act of the State of South Australia) as was notified to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth by the Premier of the said State within twelve months of the said commencement, the said consent should as regards the said railway be null and void.

Senator SirGeorge Pearce:

– The notification by the State Premier was never made.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– When Parliament passed the bill in December, 1930, it accepted the condition that consent by the State was conditional on the commencement, by the Commonwealth, of the work within the period mentioned. Even if the Premier of South Australia did not notify consent, I should strongly object to the Commonwealth Government oppressing one of the weaker States because of some technical omission on its part.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Even although Western Australia was in favour of the line?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I should never, on a technical point, enforce the acceptance by any State of an undertaking that was not approved by the government of that State. Under the Constitution the Commonwealth is empowered to carry out railway construction works and railway extensions in any State with the consent of that State. I should have to be quite satisfied that such consent was unreservedly given before I could vote for any work being put in hand by the Commonwealth Government.

The preamble to the bill of 1930 states further -

And whereas the Premier of the said State did not within twelve months of the said commencement notify any period as the period within which the construction and carrying out of the said railway should be commenced:

And whereas by reason of the fact that the Premier of the said State did not within the said period of twelve months notify the said Prime Minister as aforesaid, doubts have arisen as to whether the consent of the said State to the construction of the said railway by the Commonwealth is still in full force and effect, and it is expedient that those doubts be removed before the commencement of this act.

That preamble suggested the existence of a doubt as to whether the consent of the State had been given to the proposed federal work.

Senator Sampson:

– This bill says that there is no doubt on that point.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am endeavouring to make clear the view held by South Australia at that time.

I listened carefully to the interesting and informative speech delivered by the Postmaster-General (Senator McLachlan) when moving the second reading, and I did not hear him say anything about the approval of the State having been now obtainable to this legislation. The preamble to the 1930 bill goes on to state -

And whereas it is desirable that the construction of the said railway should be authorized by the Parliament.

Then follow the usual clauses of a bill, giving legislative effect to the intention of the Government.

I have received from the Minister of Railways in South Australia an interesting statement setting out the views of the Government of that State. This document was, I understand, compiled by the Premier. It confirms my previous view that South Australia is not now willing to give its assent to the construction of this line. I desire to see the work proceeded with as soon as possible. I should also like to see the Government put in hand another important railway proposal - a standard gauge line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle - the construction of which has the approval of both Houses of the Western Australian Parliament. If South Australia is not prepared to consent to this arrangement for the construction of a Commonwealth line from Red Hill to Port Augusta, it is the obvious duty of this Government to proceed with construction at the other end. There will be no occasion for Ministers, to get intoa flurry if the scheme, covered by this bill is not accepted. The Government has a large sum of money at its disposal, and, apparently, it is anxious to spend it in standardizing; railway gauges throughout the Commonwealth. It could not put it to a better use than by expending it on a standard gauge line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle, thus making it possible for persons to travel in comfort and without break of gauge from Fremantle to the eastern States. The sooner that the Commonwealth Government realizes the importance of this national undertaking the better. It should get on with the job and justify its existence.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– Since the introduction of the bill this afternoon, I have felt a desire to pinch myself to make certain that I was not dreaming, and that visions were not about. This bill is one of the most amazing proposals that has been brought before the Senate for some considerabletime. One wonders if Ministers are somany Rip Van Winkles, and have been asleep for the last ten or fifteen years, or whether they are suffering from some obsession. Having regard to the developments that have taken place in recent years in means of transport, I am amazed that the Government should bring down a bill for railway construction in this year of grace. Railways, like stage coaches, have had their day. They must now make way for other methods’ of transport. I am also amazed at the introduction of this proposal for another reason - the unsatisfactory financial position of the Commonwealth. Every State is facing tremendous deficits, and is likely to be facing them for several years. Although Commonwealth finance are supposed to be buoyant, the surplus this year is no guarantee of continued prosperity.

The estimated cost of the railway provided for in this bill is about £750,000. I am amazed that the Government should endeavour to force on a reluctant State additional expenditure of approximately £250,000 for the construction of its section under this proposal. It has been argued that the railway will be a convenience to the travelling public. That is true, but I submit that it is a luxury which we cannot afford. I tremble when I think of the troublous times that are ahead of this country unless come extradordinary improvement takes place in our overseas markets. In any case, we must expect grave difficulties for at least two or three years. This certainly is no time for tha Commonwealth to undertake light-heartedly the expenditure of such a large sum of money for what is, after all, a luxury.

I come now to another reason advanced by the Minister, namely, that this line would be of value as a means of defence. I do not propose to start a discussion on the pros and cons of this proposal from a defence point of view; I merely say that the defence value of the railway would be doubtful. The military mind is largely conservative, and instead of thinking of the last war and the lessons which it taught, military authorities, for the most part, are thinking of the wars that preceded it. In my opinion, we -shall not, in future wars, as in the last war, see “cannon fodder” being transported in trains. Incidentally, we need not worry about that in this country, for we have no army to transport. What is the use of talking about railways for the -carriage of troops to defend this country when we have no troops? If the expenditure of three-quarters of a million pounds on this railway is intended as a means of defence, then I say, “forget it, spend the money on aeroplanes, civil aviation, the training of pilots, and you will get some value for your money “.

The Minister also urged that the construction of this line would provide employment. I do not deny that; but I submit that the same amount of money could be spent to better purpose and provide more employment. In this age of invention, railways are gradually passing out of use. Were it not for the legislation which has been passed by some of the States of Australia, the railways of this country would be in a much worse financial position than they are now. Motor transport is penalized in every way by the legislation of the States, whilst the heavy duty on petrol imposed by the Commonwealth is a serious handicap. The day of the mechanized vehicle is only dawning. In my opinion, the day of the railway will soon pass, except for certain classes of freight over long distances. Yet, here we are, at this critical time in our history, lightheartedly considering the expenditure of three quarters of a million pounds, and trying to force a reluctant State to incur additional heavy expenditure. I am amazed that this bill has been introduced. In no circumstances could I vote for it. Without meaning to be offensive, 1 say that I consider that in. this enlighened age it is a piece of unutterable folly.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

– I am impelled to vote against the second reading. It appears to mefrom what the Minister said when introducing the measure that we are being called upon to consent to the ratification of an agreement which is not to be carried out. Alternative propositions have been put up, neither of which, I understand, has the consent of the South Australian Government. I came into this Senate as a State representative. My object has always been to preserve the sovereignty of the States. I have objected and shall continue to object to any infringement of State powers by the Commonwealth, without the consent of the State.

The preamble of the bill contains the following statement which I regard as unnecessary : -

And whereas all such doubts have now been removed and there is now no doubt that the consent of the said State to the construction of the said railway by the Commonwealth is still in full force and effect.

I have no doubt that that is the legal opinion given to this Government. But recently some of the legal opinions given to this Government have not stood the test of the High Court and other judicial bodies. The legal views by which the South Australian Government is guided are diametrically opposed to those upon which the Commonwealth relies. I suggest, therefore, that the phraseology of the bill would be improved if the passage I have read were omitted. If the South Australian people wished to have this railway constructed, and were prepared to build it or allow the Commonwealth to build it, I should vote for the bill. But I shall not support a measure which may be used to coerce the State Government into doing something which the

South Australian people do not want. It has been said that the State act passed on the 26th February, 1926, ceased to be binding upon the State before the Commonwealth Act of 1930 was passed.

Senator Daly:

– Is not that merely a technical defence?

Senator GRANT:

– I cannot say. Wehave two sets of conflicting legal opinions. Under the Constitution the Commonwealth cannot construct railways or extend railways in any State without theconsent of that State. In this case theSouth Australian Government has not: consented. For that reason only I intend to oppose the second reading of the bill, and I shall not be satisfied to support such a measure until I know that it has the consent of the South Australian: Government.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I assure Senator Grant that the South Australian Government under its own legislation specifically consented to the construction of this line and, in plain terms, approved of this agreement which we now seek to carry into force.

Senator Grant:

– With certain reservations.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Section 3 of the South Australian act reads -

The State hereby consents to the construction and carrying out by the Commonwealth: of the railways and railway works and operations which the Commonwealth undertakes by the agreement to construct and carry out: Provided that if the construction of therailway from Port Augusta to Red Hill referred to in the agreement is not commenced: by the Commonwealth within such period (being not less than three years from the dateof the commencement of this act) as is notified to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth by the Premier of the State, within twelve months after the said commencement,, the consent given by this section shall, as regards such railway, be null and void.

It has been suggested that the consent has lapsed because this undertaking was not carried out within three years. I invite honorable senators to mark the conditions. In the first place the period within which work was to be undertaken was to be not less than three years, and “ within such period as notified to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth by the Premier of the State “. The Premier of the State had to give that notification within twelve months. Reliance is- placed upon the fact that this undertaking has not been carried out within three years or within the period of notice, but the obligation to give notice was placed on the Premier of South Australia by his own State legislation. The doubt in the mind of the last Government in this regard was created by an opinion of the then Crown Solicitor of South Australia.

I come now to the bill passed by this Parliament in 1930. A great deal of -stress was laid by Senators Johnston and Grant upon the point that some doubt as to our authority in this regard was expressed in that legislation. I point out, however, that what we are proposing in this bill could have been done by executive act. If the Government had not desired to give this Parliament an opportunity to -discuss the whole question it could have advised His Excellency the GovernorGeneral to issue a proclamation under section 2 of the act of 1930, and that act, with its appropriation power, would have come into operation.

Senator Sampson:

– The honorable senator, with all his temerity, would not have been game to do that.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– As to that, I may say that I went to South Australia in the role of peacemaker with the object of getting the Commonwealth and the State out of what promised at the time to be a law suit. My own opinion is that there will be no litigation. One honorable senator, who is a Scot, said this evening that the Commonwealth Government ought to pay for the alternative. I have a hazy idea that that is what is in mind.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– It is in ray mind all right, but I have not communicated with the State government about it.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Quite so, hut these things, are, so to speak, sometimes picked up in the air. Senator Johnston alluded to a statement which he said was made by the Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons. If the right honorable gentleman had made any such statement as that attributed to him this bill would not have been introduced. Mr. Lyons said the State would be consulted. It has been consulted on three different occasions; a wealth of correspondence has taken place between the Commonwealth and the State. There has been no default on the part of the Commonwealth. I suggest to honorable senators that we have to look upon this as a sort of tidying-up provision. If we examine the long and tedious route followed between Adelaide and Port Augusta we shall see that this bill provides a very important link between the eastern States and our more distant friends of Western Australia, some of whom complain of their tremendous isolation.

The one point raised during this debate that has appealed to me is that this is an extravagant proposal. If I thought it was, I should not advocate it. I believe that if we could have brought about the purchase of the line from Bed Hill to Adelaide it would have resulted, in a saving to the State as well as to the Commonwealth. It has been said that this proposal runs counter to the policy of the Government to endeavour to stimulate private enterprise. It is true that that is, and has always been, the policy of the Government, and was so expressed in the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of the Parliament. But a further policy was enunciated on the hustings - the policy that we should assist the States in their unemployment position. It is pursuant to that policy that we have thought again of carrying out this work Which, at all events, will result in some sort of asset to Australia.

Senator Sampson:

– Like the rest of the railways it will probably be not an asset, but a liability.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– But the total liability in respect of the railways will be reduced by this undertaking. Senator Sampson and Senator DuncanHughes suggested that there should be no extension of our railway system - that we should cut it out; but since we have these railways we should try to make the best of them. I believe that the almost impossible budgetary position of the States is due largely to the loss, mismanagement and lack of business methods in the control of our railways. But as Senator Sir George Pearce has said, this means cohesion rather than a loosening out, and should be undertaken, regardless of whether the Commonwealth or the State body politic will reap the benefit. It might just as well be argued that, as Postmaster- General, I should not construct any more telegraph and telephone lines, because a few years hence they may be useless.

The quotation made by Senator Grant has not convinced me. If I were convinced that it would not be economic to carry out this work I should not support it. This proposal may be modified, or the State may accept the alternative. I have donemy best to reconcile conflicting interests, and have suffered the usual fate of the man who interferes between man and wife. My actions have been criticized by some of the newspapers of South Australia. That, however, does not deter me from doing what I believe to be in the interest of taxpayers. It has been objected that South Australia will be forced to agree to this proposal. But is it the desire of the Senate that the Commonwealth should go cap-in-hand to the State because of the doubts expressed? If the consent is not there - if the State is right in its contention - there is a tribunal which will decide the matter. But God forbid that we should ever reach such a position. I am convinced that if it were a transaction between two business men it would be quickly settled.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– ‘Would the honorable senator auggest a. reference to arbitration?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I, personally, would be quite willing to arbitrate, but the Government has to determine the policy that shall be adopted. We are on the best possible terms with South Australia, but we have to be careful to preserve our own rights. All our efforts have been made without prejudice. Listening to some honorable senators who have spoken one would imagine that we were forcing this proposal upon the State, whereas the actual position is that we are only asking the State to carry out its obligation.- We are prepared in that connexion to meet it in the way I have been authorized by the Acting Prime Minister to indicate to the Senate this evening. We are not proposing to coerce the State. The State Government has agreed to the scheme. If there are legal doubts there is a means of settling them. There is no desire what ever to force the State to do anything, nor do I suggest that the State is in any way hostile to us. A certain section of the public is always ready in connexion with railway proposals to adopt a point of view that suits their own particular district. When I think of the men outback in the west country, and of what stock have to endure while travelling from the west or the far north to the Adelaide abattoirs - cattle coming from Oodnadatta and sometimes far beyond that point - I feel more than ever convinced that this scheme should be carried out. We do not wish to be ungenerous to South Australia. When in 1927 I made this offer in the bill, I proposed to recompense the State for portion of whatever it might lose in this regard.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– The position in regard to transport of stock would remain precisely as it is, under the honorable senator’s transport scheme.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– In one respect it would, but all the stock coming west from Kalgoorlie would be carried to Port Pirie at all events on the one gauge of line. At the present time they are carried to Port Augusta on a broadgauge line; they are then de-trucked and transferred to the narrow-gauge line as far as Terowie, where they are again transferred from a narrow to a broad gauge railway. With this scheme carried into effect there will be only one break of gauge for the stock that is carried. I tried to persuade the State to sell to the Commonwealth the line from Red Hill to Adelaide. That would relieve the State of a liability of £43,000. a year. When that offer was made in 1927, we suggested an agreement similar to those which exist between certain American companies.

Senator Brennan:

– This bill really authorizes the raising of the money.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– That is so.

Senator Grant:

– Will the Minister explain what is meant by the words in the preamble, “ and whereas all such doubts have now been removed, &c”? Are those words necessary in a bill of this description ?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– They have been inserted on the advice of counsel. If a proclamation were not issued or some provision made such as is contained in this bill, certain points could have been used against the Government in the event of litigation. I know that the Government of South Australia is too sensible to engage in litigation over a matter of this kind. This Government feels that it is doing the right thing in the interest of the taxpayers who, in the end, have to provide the money.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 12

NOES: 4

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1189

IMMIGRATION BILL 1935

Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with an amendment.

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

Clause 3 -

Section seven of the principal act is amended -

House of Representatives message -

Omit paragraph (b).

Senator BRENNAN:
Acting Attorney-General · Victoria · UAP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Prosecutions under this act, as I said last night, have mainly been under section 7. But there are other sections. Under section 5 the law provides that the mere averment by the prosecutor is taken as proof until it is disproved by the personal evidence of the defendant. The averment provision had always been taken by the court and by the administration, to apply to both sections 5 and 7, but the decision of the High Court in Sydney this week was that it did not apply to section 7 but did apply to section 5. The Government, therefore, brought in a proposal to make the averment clause apply to prosecutions under section 7. That has met with a good deal of opposition in this chamber, and also in the House of Representatives, imperilling the prospects of passing other and more important parts of the bill. The Government has accepted an amendment, the effect of which is that in prosecutions under section 7we shall not be able to rely on the averment section ; we shall have to prove out case.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [9.3]. - It gives me great satisfaction to know that something has been accomplished as the result, of our protest in this chamber yesterday. I know we cannot assume that what we said softened the hearts of Ministers and their supporters, because we have just been told that the Government surrendered in the House of Representatives because of the fear that, if it did not give way, the bill would be lost. Nevertheless, we are thankful for small mercies. I understand, from what I heard of the debate in the other chamber, that the Government intends next session to bring in a compre-, hensive measure, and my fear is that it may attempt to take away the concession which it is now making. What we ask for is mere elementary justice, namely, that the person deemed to be a prohibited immigrant shall be informed of the charge against him so that he may have an opportunity to refute it. I was surprised at the reactionary nature of the speeches delivered by some members of the House of Representatives yesterday. Senator Foll, in this chamber, was just as reactionary. We should not seek to close our doors to the culture of the world simply because some people in this country think we are more enlightened than some of those who seek admittance.

I am glad that we have been able to accomplish something, and I remind the Government that whenever we have an opportunity we shall ask for a good deal more.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1190

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported -

Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No.1) 1935.

Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 9) 1935.

Sales Tax Bill (No. 9) 1935.

Wheat Growers Relief Bill 1935.

page 1190

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives with messages intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate : -

Navigation Bill 1935.

Dairy Produce Bill 1935.

Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1935.

Spirits Bill 1935.

page 1190

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

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

Sitting suspended from 9.15 to 10.12 p.m.

page 1190

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) agreed to -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till 11 a.m. to-morrow.

page 1190

ADJOURNMENT

Prohibited Newspapers - Sandy Bay Rifle Range - Valedictory Remarks

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. - I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

This morning Senator Rae asked the following questions: -

What was the nature of the charge against a newspaper named The United Bushworker which caused it to be denied transmission through the post?
On what date did the objectionable matter appear ?
Is any offence committed by a newspaper, which precludes its transmission through the post office, held to be a reason for a perpetual disqualification of such publication?
If not, by what means can a journal that has been subject to such ban be restored?
Is the journal The Soviet To-day permanently banned from transmission through the post, and, if so, what specific offence is responsible for such action?

I then promised the honorable senator that the information would be obtained and a reply given later. I am now in a position to give the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: - 1 and 2. As the publication in question is deemed to be issued by, on behalf of or in the interests of an unlawful association, its transmission through the post is prohibited under section 30e of the Crimes Act. If a publication is issued on behalf of an unlawful association the prohibition contained in section 30e applies to all numbers of that publication even though some numbers may not contain seditious matter. 3 to 5. On 4th March, 1935, the National Secretary of the Friends of the Soviet Union wrote to the Postmaster-General threatening litigation regarding the prohibition of the transmission of The Soviet To-day through the post. I do not propose to furnish any information in answer to a question that will assist an organization in its threatened litigation, beyond stating that the publication is undoubtedly within the application of section 30e of the Crimes Act.

Senator Rae:

– Will the Minister be good enough to say when the Friends of the Soviet Union was declared to be an unlawful association?

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The file in connexion with this matter is not now in my keeping, and I am unable to enlarge upon the reply already given.

Senator Grant also asked this morning

Whether the Minister can inform the Senate the reason for the delay in the removal of the Sandy Bay rifle range at Hobart to a much more suitable location at Glenorchy?

In view of the projected early rising of the Senate, immediate steps were taken to obtain a reply to the honorable senator’s question. The information, as supplied by the Minister for Defence, is as follows : -

No site for a rifle range as suitable as Sand; Bay has been suggested. The department informed the Hobart City Council on9th July, 1934, of the final conditions under which a transfer of the range from Sandy Bay to a siteat Glenorchy would be agreed to. The councilhas informed the department that it agrees generally to the conditions laid down by the department, but it is at present unable to finance the scheme as it has been ascertained that the estimates of the value of the existing range submitted by the originators of the proposal have been excessive. The matter is now in abeyance pending further action by the Hobart City Council.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– “Whatever my political opinions, and however greatly they may differ from those held by my colleague from South Australia, the PostmasterGeneral (Senator McLachlan), the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), the Acting Attorney-General (Senator Brennan), and the Government ‘Whip (Senator Foll), I desire, before retiring for a while from public life as a member of the Senate, to express my appreciation of the extreme courtesy that they have always extended to me, both as a Minister and as a private senator. I cannot hope that when those of us who now retire from the Senate again return to this chamber the present Ministers will still be on the ministerial bench, but whether there or on the Opposition side, I trust that the same good feeling that has always existed between us will continue in our future associations. I should also like to include you, Mr. President, in my expression of appreciation, particularly as I have been able only to-day to convince you that in one respect at least I was right. You, sir, have been most generous in your, treatment of the Opposition, and I thank you for the courtesy that you have extended to me personally. I cannot say too much of the courtesy and efficiency of the Clerk of the Senate (Mr. Monahan) and the Clerk Assistant (Mr. Broinowski). I hope that the Senate will always be privileged to have a staff as efficient as that which it now has. I leave this chamber with feelings of goodwill towards all honorable senators.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

.- On behalf of the officers of the Senate, who are not . permitted to reply for themselves, I thank Senator Daly for his expression of thanks. I trust that I shall have an opportunity to-morrow to make appreciative reference to those honorable senators whose term expires at the end of June. Speaking for the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), the Acting Attorney-General (Senator Brennan) and the Government “Whip (Senator Foll), as well as for myself, I thank Senator Daly for his generous expressions.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I have received the following telegram from Senator Sir Harry Lawson : -

Regret inability attend this week. May 1 senda farewell message of regard, goodwill and thanks to senators, officers and attendants.

I thank Senator Daly for his complimentary references to myself, and assure him that whatever knowledge I now have of the Standing Orders is largely due to the stimulus given to me by the honorable senator himself. In order to answer the honorable senator’s frequent inquiry “ Under which standing order do you rule”? I determined to become thoroughly familiar with the Standing Orders. If I have acquired more than a passing knowledge of them, I have to thank Senator Daly. To-morrow, I shall take the opportunity to refer to the departure from our midst of a number of honorable senators who will not meet with us when we reassemble afterJune next.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 April 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1935/19350410_senate_14_146/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 April 1935

PAPERS

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator DOOLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

WHEAT PRICES

Senator BRENNAN:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

ACTS AND REGULATIONS

Senator COLLETT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

TASMANIA AND MAINLAND

Senator HERBERT HAYS:TASMANIA

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION BILL 1935

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL 1935

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1935

IMPORTATION OF SULPHUR,

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator Barnes:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Barnes:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator BADMAN:South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

WHEAT COMMISSION BILL 1935

Senator BRENNAN:Acting Attorney-General · Victoria · UAP

Senator BARNES:Victoria

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1935-1936

Senator BARNES:Victoria

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator SirGeorge Pearce:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator E ‘B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Barnes:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator DOOLEY:New South Wales

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DOOLEY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator SAMPSON:Tasmania

Senate
10 April 1935

Senator DOOLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BRENNAN:
Acting Attorney-General · Victoria · UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator E ‘B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator RAE:
New South Waxes

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Herbert Hays:
TASMANIA

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia · UAP

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932