Senate
22 August 1940

15th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (SenatortheHon. J. B. Hayes) took the chair at 11 a.m., and. read prayers.

page 585

QUESTION

AMMUNITION FOR RIFLE CLUBS

Senator UPPILL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Representations have been made to me by rifle clubs in South Australia, which complain that they are unable to get ammunition for their members. Can the Minister for the Army inform me when ammunition will be made available to such clubs?

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– As the honorable senator no doubt is aware, rifle clubs throughout Australia have for some time been unable to get ammunition either by purchase or by allotment. Although the output of small arms ammunition has increased considerably during the last twelve months, it is necessary to build up a reserve, and, until that has been done, I am afraid that further supplies cannot be made available to rifle clubs. It is hoped that at no distant date the reserves will be considered sufficient to enable the needs of rifle clubs to be supplied.

page 585

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

by leave - On behalf, and at the request, of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I desire to bring under the notice of the Senate the difficulty that has arisen from the expansion of the power to make regulations under the National Security Act. The committee, in its fourth report, drew attention to the principles it observed in considering the regulations.

They are as follows : -

  1. Regulations must be in accordance with the statute under which they are made;
  2. They should not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties ;
  3. They should not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than upon judicial decisions; and
  4. They should be concerned with administrative detail and should not amount to substantive legislation, which is more properly a matter for parliamentary enactment.

The volume and complexity of regulations referred to the committee are such that, under the principles outlined, it is impossible without further skilled assistance to give adequate consideration to the regulations. The committee has communicated with the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) with a view to some method being adopted which will facilitate the work of the committee, and he has indicated that he will have to have a Cabinet decision in regard to the proposals submitted by the committee. Meanwhile, the committee thought it desirable that the Senate should be apprised of the position.

page 585

QUESTION

POTATO CROP

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Will the Minister inform the Senate who prepared the information for the ‘Commerce’

Department as to the estimated potato crop for the year 1940?

  1. What was the estimate for each State?
Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

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

  1. The original estimates were based on information supplied by State Ministers of Agriculture at a meeting in Canberra in April. Later figures were supplied by the Departments of Agriculture in the various States, and the reports were confirmed by growers’ representatives on the Federal Potato Advisory Committee.
  2. The estimate for each State is -

page 586

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1940-41

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia-

Minister for the Army) [11.8].- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time. Supply Act (No. 1) 1940-41 covers a period of three months to the 30th September next. Supply is now sought for a further period of two months to the 30th November, 1940. This measure makes provision for an amount of £6,732,000 to meet expenditure under the following heads: -

The amounts included in the bill are based on the. rates of expenditure approved in the appropriation for 1939-40, except that in respect of defence, it is necessary to make increased provision to meet war conditions. Only in a few isolated items in connexion with which the expenditure is heavier in the earlier part of the year has the proportion of five-twelfths of last year’s provision been exceeded.

Honorable senators will notice that £1,000,000 has been provided under the heading “ Advance to the Treasurer With the amount of £4,000,000 already included in the first Supply Act, a total of £5,000,000 will now be available under this heading. It is necessary to finance from this vote all works except defence works, which were incomplete at the 30th June last, and to continue the payment of special grants to States. Appropriations for works and special grants to States are normally sought shortly after the presentation of the budget, and are thus available comparatively early in the financial year. This year these appropriations will not be obtained until a much later date than usual. Meanwhile, the expenditure must be borne by Treasurer’s Advance. It is essential, in case of emergency, that the Treasurer should have at his disposal a fund sufficient to meet any reasonable contingency that might arise. It is the invariable practice that information regarding the annual estimates of expenditure is given to Parliament when the budget is brought down. There are reasons why some tentative information should be given at this stage regarding war and defence expenditure for 1940-41. It should be understood that until the budget is brought down no final estimates can be given. All that is possible is an indication on the basis of such information as is now available. As honorable senators are aware, it is impossible to present a completely reliable forecast because of changing conditions, and it is difficult to estimate at this stage what the actual expenditure in respect of the munitions drive will be.

In the circumstances, a tentative estimate only can be submitted at £145,000,000 in Australia and £32,000,000 overseas, or a total of about ?177,000,000 in Australian currency. For the last financial year, 1939-40, the expenditure in Australia was approximately ?46,000,000, and overseas ?9,000,000, or a total of ?55,000,000. On the 1st July a cash balance of ?28,000,000 was in hand to meet defence and war expenditure. Loan appropriations already in existence are sufficient to meet the defence programme of armaments and works for some weeks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

The schedule.

Proposed vote - The Parliament, ?21,390- agreed to.

Prime Minister’s Department.

Proposed vote, ?92,240.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I wish to refer to the case of Captain T. P. Conway, which was the subject of a report and recommendation by a select committee of the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator James McLachlan). - I do not see any item provided in the schedule under which it would be appropriate to discuss that subject.

Senator McLeay:

– Perhaps the honorable senator could discuss it under the proposed vote for the Department of the Army.

Senator AMOUR:

– I certainly desire an opportunity to speak on the matter at some stage.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of External Affairs, ?2,970; Department of the Treasury, ?141,330; AttorneyGeneral’s Department, ?34,460; and Department of the Interior, ?108,590 - agreedto.

Departmentofcivil Aviation.

Proposed vote, ?79,500.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I wish to direct the attention of the committee to certain aspects of the proposed petrol rationing scheme.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorable senator should have made such remarks on the motion for the first reading of the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– One of the reasons that have been given for the introduction of petrol rationing is that large quantities of petrol are required for aviation purposes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It mightbe appropriate for the honorable senator to discuss that subject when the proposed vote for the Department of Supply and Development is under consideration.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I shall take the opportunity to do so at that stage.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Trade and Customs, ?111,690; Department of Health, ?22,310; Department of Commerce, ?80,170; Miscellaneous Services, ?26,640; War Services (1914-18), ?217,930; Department of Defence Coordination, ?21,980; and Department of the Navy, ?509,740- agreed to.

Department of the Army.

Proposed vote, ?589,260.

Senator AMOUR:
non-Communist · New South WalesLeader of the Australian Labour party

– I direct attention to the failure of the Government, so far, to give effect to a recommendation by a select committee of the Senate that Captain T. P. Conway should receive an ex gratia payment of ?100. The details of this case are not new to honorable senators. The select committee appointed to deal with it took a good deal of evidence and made a recommendation which the Senate adopted on the voices. Some time afterwards I met the Treasurer (Mr. Spender) as he was leaving a taxi-cab in Martinplace, Sydney, and he said to me, “ I am sorry in regard to that cheque for Conway. I have overlooked the matter. I shall send the cheque out this afternoon.” I sent Conway a telegram telling him that he could expect a cheque for ?100 the next day. That was twelve months ago, and the cheque has not yet been sent to him. Conway attempted to enlist in any capacity at the outbreak of the war, but the officials at Victoria Barracks refused to accept his services. When the call-up was made for the Australian Imperial Force he was one of the first to offer for service overseas. When his services in that capacity were not accepted he made an application to serve in connexion with the Canteen Fund, but again his offer was rejected. He was told that he could not be enrolled as he was more than 60 years of age. This man has had a record of service which, in my opinion, entitles him to better treatment than he has received from the Government. It is disgraceful that the decision of the Senate that he should be paid an amount of £100 in conformity with the terms of the report of the select committee has been ignored. Men who are prepared to do their utmost to assist in the nation’s war effort should not be treated in that way. Those who serve on the home front in order to maintain the forces overseas are rendering a very valuable service to the nation, and it is regrettable that persons anxious and qualified to serve in these capacities are denied the opportunity to do so. The Minister for the Army (Senator McBride) should use his influence with the Government to see that the recommended payment to Conway is made without further delay. I am confident that when the Treasurer spoke to me in Martin-place on this subject he intended to send the cheque forthwith. Apparently, influence was brought to bear in some direction to prevent that course from being taken. I am quite sure that Conway is carrying around with him, from day to day and from place to place, the telegram that I sent to him.

Senator McLeay:

– What does he think of the honorable senator?

Senator AMOUR:

– He thinks that I fooled him. Honorable senators should not be placed in such an invidious position. It may be good political propaganda to act in this way but I am certain that the people at large do not stand for it. The Minister for the Army should not leave the matter where it is. Certainly Conway and his friends do not intend to do so.

I wish now to refer to a letter sent on the 17th August by the Minister for the Army to the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) concerning the case of Lance-Corpora 1 H. W. Mulliner, of 55/53rd Battalion, who died at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney^ on the 12th February, 1940, as the result of injuries sustained on military duty, for I consider that a grave injustice has been clone. Lance-Corporal Mulliner was obliged, by reason of the provisions of an act of Parliament, and irrespective of his own desires in the matter, to enter camp for compulsory military training, with a group of young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty years. The Government called him up for service and it should accept responsibility for what happened to him while he was on duty. Lance-Corporal Mulliner’s parents were formerly in comfortable circumstances, as that term is understood among the working class, but they were very seriously hit by the depression. When their son left school he was unable to obtain any permanent employment and was working only intermittently up to the time when he was called up for military service. The letter sent by the Minister for the Army to Mr. Mulcahy stated -

This case has been made the subject of full inquiry since your representations were made, but information, obtained as a result of close investigation, does not indicate that the parents of the deceased soldier were substantially dependent upon his earnings. Inquiry lias, in fact, elicited the information that the deceased soldier, prior to taking up duty with the military forces, had no permanent employment, but did odd jobs which enabled him to make a small weekly payment to his mother towards his keep.

It was not Mulliner’s fault, but the fault of the system under which we live, that his previous employment had been intermittent. He was one of hundreds of thousands of young men for whom employment was not available, and, therefore, the Minister should not penalize the parents for the fact that their son was not able to obtain regular employment. The letter from the Minister continued -

The Defence Act does not authorize payment of compensation to the parents of a deceased member of the Militia Forces. My department, realizes, however, that the death of Lance-Corporal Mulliner would be a very serious blow to his parents, and the approval of the Treasurer has been sought and obtained for the making of a solatium payment of £50 which, it is felt, will be sufficient to cover any actual out-of-pocket expenses which may have been incurred by the parents, and which will, I hope, be accepted by them as a gesture of sympathy from the Commonwealth Government.

I do not blame the Minister for the Army for assessing at £50 the value of that young man’s life, for I believe that he signed what was placed before him without being fully aware of the contents of the letter. I do not believe that the Minister would be so callous as knowingly to send such a letter to an honorable member of this Parliament to be forwarded by him to the mother of a son who had lost his life while serving his country. If the value of £50 placed on the life of the young man was based on the fact that his employment had been intermittent, I suppose that no payment at all would have been agreed to if he had been totally unemployed before engaging in military duties. The value placed on this young man’s life stands out in contrast to the compensation paid under the New South Wales law for injuries received by workers in the performance of their duties. In that State as much as £80 is paid as compensation for the loss of a finger; the loss of two fingers entitles the injured worker to £150. This young man was taken from his home by the Government and placed in a new environment. While carrying out duties imposed on him by the Government he received injuries which resulted in his death. The Commonwealth is not entitled to say that, because the boy had been only intermittently employed previously, a payment of £50 to his parents to cover outofpocket expenses discharges its obligations. Old-age pensioners are entitled to possess £50 in order to meet their funeral expenses. The Minister should make it clear that the state of affairs revealed by this incident shall not continue. A soldier who loses his life while being trained for the defence of his country should be paid the same compensation as would be paid to any worker in a government department who loses his life as the result of injuries received while on duty.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to make some reference to the Conway case, which has already been mentioned this morning. There is now much more at stake than when this matter was last raised in this chamber. I knew Captain Conway very well for a number of years, and I know the history of his case. I think that he was badly treated, and is entitled to compensation for having been unjustly deprived of advancement in the Service. Now, the strength of his claim - and I believe that his claim was just all the time - is greater than ever. I did my part to bring about the appointment of the select committee which, after considering Conway’s case, came to certain conclusions and made a definite recommendation. If after a select committee appointed by the Senate makes a recommendation which is adopted unanimously by the Senate, that decision can be set aside by some departmental jugglery, we cannot deny that we are living under a form of fascism which is contrary to Australian sentiment, and will not be tolerated by the Opposition. What remedy is open to the Opposition I am unable to say, but the fact remains that the Senate decided that £100 should be paid to Conway. Have things come to such a pass that a contractual obligation entered into between an individual citizen and the Government can be set aside, not by any re-submission of the case to the Senate, or even to the select committee but merely because somebody will not give effect to it? If so, there is something radically wrong. The £100 should be paid to Captain Conway if justice is to be done and our democratic institutions vindicated. As I have said, I do not know what we can do about the matter; we cannot make a request or move an amendment. We can only express our strong disapproval of the stand taken by the Government. If after the appeal to the electors, a Labour government comes into power, Captain Conway will quickly be paid the £100 which this Senate decided should be paid to him.

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

– I was a member of the select committee which dealt with the Conway case. I have always had considerable sympathy with Captain Conway, for, as I have said before in this chamber, I believe that he is suffering from a sense of grievance which he has nursed for many years until it has reached undue proportions.

Senator Collings:

– His sense of grievance will be greater now than ever.

Senator ABBOTT:

– Evidence was placed before the select committee that, after a previous inquiry by General Bruche, an order was made that certain statements on Conway’s record should be expunged from the files; but instead of that instruction being carried out properly, all that was done was to rule a thin red line through the offending matter. The words which should have been entirely obliterated remained for every one who read the file to see, and were a constant reflection on Conway. The finding of the select committee did not, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) stated, amount to a contractual obligation. The committee recommended an ex gratia payment of £100 to Conway.

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– Was that not a contract ?

Senator ABBOTT:

– That recommendation did not place a legal obligation on any one. But there is another aspect of this case which the Leader of the Opposition appears to have missed. I have no doubt that Senator Amour sincerely believes what he told us this morning about his conversation with the Treasurer (Mr. Spender), but no such evidence came before the select committee. Assuming that the facts are as the honorable senator believes them to be, namely, that Mr. Spender gave to him a definite assurance that the cheque would be paid to Conway, and that the honorable senator therefore communicated that decision to Conway, I think that a new obligation rests on the Commonwealth Government to reconsider its decision to reject the recommendation for an ex gratia payment. If Mr. Spender corroborates the statement of Senator Amour, it Ls not right that the honorable senator should be placed in the false position in which the decision of the Government not to pay the money places him.

Senator ERASER (Western Australia) f 11.43]. - As a member of the select committee which, after an exhaustive inquiry, recommended the payment of £100 to Captain Conway, I am astonished that the Government has failed to give effect to the decision of the Senate, which endorsed the committee’s recommendation. I think that Senator Abbott will agree with me that every member of the select committee thought that if the Senate endorsed its recommendation, the

Government would make an ex gratia payment to Captain Conway. I did not have an opportunity to support the recommendation of the select committee when it was considered by the Senate, but I am convinced that a great wrong has been done to Captain Conway.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The select committee said that.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Taking all of the circumstances into account, Captain Conway is willing to accept an ex gratia payment of £100. The Government has no right to override the decision of the Senate in this matter. To-day, I heard for the first time that the Treasurer (Mr. Spender) had intimated to Senator Amour that the payment would be made. I had thought that the money had been paid to Captain Conway. I am definitely of the opinion that the claim is justified. On more than one occasion Captain Conway established his claim. He was wronged, not only because of the position in which he was placed, but also because of statements made in this Parliament and published in the press that he had not obtained his majority, whereas, in fact, he had. Those statements were very unfair. Let us consider for a moment the position of Captain Conway in relation to the present war. As Senator Amour said, Captain Conway, because of his military experience, should have been asked to make his services available for war work. Instead, however, when he volunteered his services they were refused, presumably because from time to time he had caused the Government and the Defence Department embarrassment and for that reason they did not want anything to do with him.

Senator Dein:

– That is not the reason.

Senator FRASER:

– Honorable senators may place their own interpretation upon the refusal by the military authorities to accept the services of Captain Conway, despite his valuable experience.

Senator McLeay:

– How old is Captain Conway?

Senator FRASER:

– I suppose he would be about 60.

Senator McLeay:

– He is more than 60.

Senator FRASER:

– In Western Australia, the defence authorities have appointed to administrative positions in the Army, Navy and Intelligence Departments men who have never served in the defence services, and it is noticeable that the people so appointed belong to a political party different from that to which I belong.

Senator McBride:

– Nonsense !

Senator FRASER:

– I defy contradiction of that statement. I shall give the names of some of these people. For instance, an administrative position was given to a Mr. Isaacson, who at one time was chairman of the Nationalist party in Western Australia. Then there is Major Parker, M.L.C., a barrister and solicitor, who has been appointed to the Intelligence Department. There are also many others whom I could name.

Senator Collett:

– All with military experience.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Has Gordon Hack had any military experience?

Senator Collett:

– He has not a military job.

Senator FRASER:

– I am surprised to hear the Minister say that. This man u in charge of the feeding of the troops, and holds the rank of captain; yet the Minister says that he has not a military job.

Senator McLeay:

– That statement is just as reliable as most of the honorable senator’s information.

Senator FRASER:

– I know that honorable senators opposite do not like to hear of these things, but on this occasion they have asked for what they are getting.

Senator McBRIDE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– We like to hear the truth.

Senator FRASER:

– I am telling the truth, and I think the Minister’s remark should be withdrawn. I am not alone in holding these opinions, because the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia in Western Australia has some interesting information with regard to the matter. Many capable soldiers who fought in the last war are unemployed to-day, whereas they could be doing useful jobs, and would be doing them were not so many positions filled by political appointees. I make that definite charge.

Senator McLeay:

– Will the honorable senator make those statements on the banks of the Swan river?

Senator FRASER:

– I am not endeavouring to make an election speech. The Leader of the Government asked for this and I am giving it to him. I repeat that many military positions could have been more capably filled by returned soldiers who to-day have no jobs, instead of by inexperienced men whose appointments have been made largely for political reasons.

Senator Collett:

– That is pure assumption.

Senator FRASER:

– It is not assumption.

Senator Collett:

– It is also presumption.

Senator FRASER:

– I am prepared to stand by whatever statements I make.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– I should like to point out to honorable senators that two of the gentlemen in Western Australia whom Senator Fraser has named as having been appointed to administrative positions for political reasons enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in 1914, and saw service throughout the last war. Major Parker was in the same brigade of artillery as I was in 1914. He was decorated with the Distinguished Service Order by the King, and was considered one of the best artillery officers in our brigade. Major Isaacson saw extensive service in Palestine with the Army Service Corps and other units. He enlisted in the ranks early in the war and rose to the rank of major; his promotion was earned in the field. We have no interest in political views when appointments to military positions in the various war departments are being considered, and I do not think that statements such as were made by Senator Fraser should be brought into a discussion of our defence administration. No doubt had I successfully applied for a position in the military organization, I should have been charged with having received a political appointment. Such reflections should not be made.

I have never met Captain Conway, but he has written to me on several occasions outlining his claim for some recognition by the Government. With others I have interviewed the Treasurer (Mr. Spender) with regard to the recommendation of the select committee of this chamber, and I had the impression that Mr. Spender was in favour of the payment recommended. But apart altogether from that, the fact remains that, after a protracted and impartial inquiry, members of this chamber made a recommendation which the Senate adopted, and I resent that recommendation being ignored. Even had the recommendation been wrong, recognition should have been given by the .Government to the decision of the Senate.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

– I had not intended to speak on this matter but for the remarks made by Senator Allan MacDonald with regard to defence appointments in Western Australia. I point out that Major Parker holds three jobs : he is a solicitor, a member of Parliament, and, in addition, now holds a military appointment. I agree with Senator Eraser that there are many unemployed ex-soldiers who could ably fill these jobs. In any case, why have not these gentlemen offered their services without remuneration? I have offered my services, in any part of Australia, and I do not see why others cannot do likewise.

Senator McLeay:

– How did the honorable senator get on?

Senator CLOTHIER:

– I have not yet received an . appointment. My services would have been accepted by now had it not been for the air accident in which the former Minister for the Army (Mr. Street) was killed. I think that I could do a job just as well as Major Parker or Major Isaacson. I repeat that the Government should give defence positions to qualified men who have no jobs at all at present. Reference to Hansard will show that in the State Parliament I consistently advocated, “ One man one job “.

Senator Collett:

– Can the honorable senator name two men who are better qualified to do the jobs now being carried out by the two gentlemen whose appointments were criticized by Senator Eraser?

Senator CLOTHIER:

– I could easily find two men.

Senator Collett:

– The honorable senator should not criticize the present holders of the posts unless he is in a position to name others better qualified.

Senator CLOTHIER:

– I do not agree. I do not suggest, as Senator Fraser did, that the appointments have been made purely for political purposes, but there are other men in Western Australia with the same political views as the two gentlemen now holding the positions who are more entitled to the jobs. I know one man who would be quite capable of holding a position, but he has not been given an opportunity to serve. I hope that in future the Government will appoint to military positions qualified men who at present have no jobs at all.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Commerce · Victoria · CP

– As a member of the select committee which investigated the case of Captain Conway, I consider that our recommendation should have been acted upon. My opinion is that Captain Conway should have been paid at least £500, and when the matter was discussed by the committee, I was one of those who agreed to recommend £100 as the minimum amount that should be paid. I could quite understand the Government raising an objection had the select committee recommended the payment of an exorbitant sum., but :it recommended only a paltry £.100. Now, the Government not only refuses to honour that recommendation, but also remains silent on the matter, and apparently does not consider the Senate worthy of receiving reasons for the ignoring of the recommendation. That is a very paltry attitude. I consider that the committee dealt very fairly with the Government, and in no way attempted to take undue advantage of the position by recommending an exorbitant sum. In these circumstances, it is fair to expect the Government to pay the amount recommended. If the Government considers that the select committee did something which it had no right to do, surely it is due to honorable senators that reasons for the Government’s, decision should be made known. If the Government persists in its refusal to pay the money, some explanation should be forthcoming. Any reasons advanced by the Government will be considered on their merits. It is possible that the Government has good reasons for its attitude, but, on the other hand, it may have no reason at all. I repeat that wc arc entitled to some information on the matter.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.- As chairman of the select committee, I was very disappointed that our recommendation was not given effect. I was also disappointed that no reason was given for ignoring our recommendation. Unofficially, I was informed that the reason for not making the payment was that were Captain Conway paid, every Tom, Dick and Harry with a small grievance would seek the appointment of a select committee in order to obtain some compensation.Theanswerwhich Igavetomyinformantswas.”Byall meansletushavetheseinquiriesand dealwiththemontheirmerits”.Itrust thatevenatthislatestageCabinetwill reconsideritsdecision,andwillpayto Captain Conway the sum recommended.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I am not greatly interested in the merits or demerits of this case, but I was impressed with the statement of Senator Collings that a certain decision had been reached by the Senate on the recommendation of a select committee and that that decision had been ignored by the Government. It seems to me that, if the Government had considered the case beforehand, it should not have appointed a committee to go into it further.

Senator McBride:

– The Government did not appoint the committee; it was appointed by the Senate.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Government had a majority in the Senate, and that,majorityagreedtotheappointment ofthecommittee.Idonotknowwhether thematterwenttoavote,butthe Government supporters agreed to the proposal, and they had a majority on the committee. Nevertheless, after the committee had made a certain recommendation, the Government brushed it aside. I regret that the Government has bungled the matter in this way.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for the Army · South Australia · UAP

.- The Conway case, which was raised by Senator Amour, is one of long standing. It has been brought up for consideration at various times during the regime of governments of varying political colours. Probably the most caustic expressions uttered against Captain Conway were those of a Labour Minister. I do not say that in any spiteful way, but merely to indicate that this matter has not been decided on party lines. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) has stated that, in his opinion, the Government was under contract to pay the amount recommended by the committee. The position is, of course, that the Senate, and not the Government, decided to appoint a committee to inquire into the case. The Government took no responsibility for any decision which the committee might reach. The committee examined all the papers, and obtained all the information that was available, but even then was unable to say that an injury had been done to this man, and that he was entitled to compensation.

Senator Collings:

– The committee did not unanimously come to that decision, but there was a section of it which believed that, and said so.

Senator McBRIDE:

– I am speaking of what the committee did. The committee, therefore, recommended to the Government that an ex gratia payment be made.

Senator Abbott:

– That is not quite accurate. The committee said that Conway might not have a legal claim against the Government, but that he had suffered some injury.

Senator McBRIDE:

– I am sorry if I have unwittingly misrepresented the position. I remind honorable senators, however, that the Government is handling not its own money, hut that of the taxpayers, and, therefore, cannot make payments without full justification.

Senator Collings:

– It all depends on whom it is given to !

Senator McBRIDE:

– That does not apply to this Government. Any payments made by the Government should be justifiable on legal grounds. When the recommendation of the committee came before the Government, further consideration was given to the case, and the evidence was reviewed. The Government recognized that there was no legal justification for paying this sum of £100, and it decided that, in the circumstances, the money should not be paid.

Senator Collings:

– Will the Minister give an undertaking that Conway’s case will be reconsidered by the Government?

Senator McBRIDE:

– I am not prepared to give that undertaking.

I come now to Mulliner’s case. I have had some acquaintance with this case, and I take full responsibility for what has been done. I have no desire to shelter behind anybody, or to evade responsibility for the sending of the letter referred to. Whilst we as individuals, or senators, or even members of the Cabinet, have undoubtedly every sympathy with Mulliner’s parents, the fact remains that they have no legal claim for compensation. We may say that the act is bad, and should be amended, but the Minister is restricted by the act and the legal powers conferred under it. Nothing in the Repatriation Act or in the Defence Act gives power to pay compensation in a case of this kind.

Senator Collings:

– There should be some elasticity in the act.

Senator McBRIDE:

– I do not propose to argue that point now. We all recognize that this is a very hard case, and that it does not seem right that a man who is injured while serving his country in the Militia should not be entitled to compensation, or that his next of kin should not be entitled to compensation in the event of his death. The law, however, is as I have stated, but the department recommended, as is frequently done in cases of this sort, that a solatium payment be made. It is entirely incorrect to suggest that such a payment is in the nature of compensation.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– Under the State compensation acts, a man would receive more compensation for the loss of his little finger than it is proposed to pay Mulliner’s parents.

Senator McBRIDE:

– That is so, but this is not a compensation payment; it is made to recoup the parents for the expenses incurred by them in connexion with this unfortunate incident. I agree with honorable senators that it might be advisable to review the act with a view to liberalizing its provisions.

Senator Fraser criticized the manner in which appointments were made to positions in the defence forces, and he did so in a way which showed that passion and prejudice, rather than reason, lay behind his utterances. It must be realized that, if we are to conduct the Department of the Army, or of the Navy, in a proper way, we must have qualified men in responsible positions. I can assure honorable senators that, in the appointment of men to these positions, no account is taken of their political affiliations. Such appointments are not made by the Government, but by other constituted bodies, and the Government carefully refrains from trying to exert any influence in respect of them. I hope that the statement of Senator Fraser does not represent the views of the party to which he belongs. The very fact that he suspects the use of political influence in defence appointments suggests that, were he in a position to do so, he would not hesitate to do the same.

Senator Ashley:

– The Minister has no right to say that.

Senator McBRIDE:

– Any man who would make the statement that Senator Fraser did is the very man who would use his power, if he possessed it, to do the very same thing, and it would be a bad day for this country if a practice of that kind were allowed to creep into the administration of public affairs. It is hardly necessary to assure honorable senators that politics are not taken into consideration in the making of appointments of this kind, but only the capacity of the man appointed to do the job.

Senator FRASER:
.Western Australia

– I assure the Minister for the Army (Senator McBride) that the opinions which I expressed are held, not only by myself, but also by the executives of responsible bodies, and have been freely published in the press under the name of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia in Western Australia. The league has complained of the appointment to military positions of men who already hold other employment, while other men just as qualified for the positions remain idle. Therefore, it is evident that these charges arc not a mere concoction of my own, and I repeat them notwithstanding what has been said by the Minister.

Senator Dein:

– That does not make them true.

Senator FRASER:

– I do not say that the Government should appoint men who are not qualified, but neither should it single out for preferment men who are already drawing salaries in other positions.

Senator Collett:

– Has the Labour party itself clean hands in this regard?

Senator FRASER:

– Two wrongs do not make a right. As a matter of fact, I am grateful for that interjection. The honorable senator will admit that whenever any one with Labour sympathies is appointed by a Labour government to a public position in Western Australia, the United Australia party press in that State never fails to draw attention to the appointee’s political affiliations and to hold up such appointments as evidence that Labour governments apply the principle of “spoils to the victor “. To ‘the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) I suggest that the sooner he discontinues his habit of making cheap gibes at the expense of honorable senators on this side, the better it will be for himself. He asked, for instance, what X did in the last war.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator FRASER:

– I merely take this opportunity to inform the Leader of the Senate that I shall have an effective reply to any cheap gibe which he may make at my expense.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– In defending the Government’s refusal to compensate Captain T. P. Conway, the Minister laid emphasis on the fact that a Labour Minister was responsible for the case in the first place. It is true that Mr. Chifley, when Minister for Defence, wrote the letter to Mr. George Buckland, an official of the Australian Workers Union, as the result of which General .Bruche held his inquiry. It was mainly on the basis of that letter that the select committee recommended an ex gratia payment of £100 to Conway. Usually an official file contains only a single copy of a document, but this particular file contained four copies of this letter, so that any one who perused the file could not miss it. That circumstance greatly influenced the select committee in coming to its conclusion that an injury had been done to Conway. The Minister says that the Government dealt with the matter fully. Why did the Treasurer (Mr. Spender) tell me that he would make this ex gratia payment of £100 to

Conway? The Minister for the Army (Senator McBride) said that nothing further could be done in respect of the Mulliner case. The inquiry into this case commenced in April. Under the National Security Act the Government may do practically anything, and it has ample power to deal sympathetically with the Mulliner case and other cases of trainees who have met their death in military camps, and to treat their relatives generously.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - Department of Air, £431,200- agreed to.

Department os Supply and Development.

Proposed vote, £21,000.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I wish to make a few observations concerning the Government’s proposals for the rationing of petrol.

Senator McLeay:

– On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit that, whilst it might be competent for the honorable senator to discuss the subject of petrol rationing in relation to a particular item, he will not be in. order in dealing generally with that subject.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before I can give a ruling on that point I shall require to hear what the honorable senator wishes to say.

Senator ASHLEY:

– In order to assist the Government by facilitating the passage of this measure I refrained from raising the subject on an earlier vote, when you, Mr. Chairman, informed me that I could discuss it when the proposed vote for the Department of Supply and Development was under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not intimate to the honorable senator that he could enter upon a broad discussion on the subject in committee.

Senator ASHLEY:

– As the Department of Supply and Development is charged with implementing the Government’s proposals for the rationing of petrol, I submit that I am in order in discussing that subject on this vote.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must relate his remarks to a particular item. I point out that he could have dealt with the subject generallyon the first reading. He will not be in order in doing so at this stage.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the discussions which you have allowed in respect of the Conway and Mulliner cases, I am in order in discussing the subject of petrol rationing at this stage.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Those cases were directly related to a particular item.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

.- Would not the item, “ General expenses, £2,000 “, include expenditure incurred in the distribution of forms to petrolusers in connexion with the proposed scheme to ration petrol?

Senator McLeay:

– - I shall secure that information forthe honorable senator.

Senator BROWN:

– I should like to know, also, whether those forms which were not returned are still usable. I received one of them, but I have not yet filled it in.

Senator McLeay:

– Those forms are still usable.

Senator BROWN:

– Has the Government decided to go ahead with petrol rationing? In view of its vacillation on the subject, we can only hope that it has decided to do so. The Minister for Supply and Development (Sir Frederick Stewart) announced that a certain decision had been arrived at, and considerable expense was incurred in the issue of forms to petrol users. Subsequently, however, the Government denied that it had come to the decision made public by the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in dealing generally with the subject of petrol rationing.

Senator BROWN:

– I am asking for certain information on the matter, and am simply prefacing my inquiry with a few general remarks in order to enable the Minister to furnish a clear reply. I should like to know whether, under the item “ General expenses, £2,000 “, any sum is being provided for the payment of members of the Liquid Fuel Control Board. Recently two additional members were appointed to that body, which has now come to a decision on the subject of petrol rationing.

Senator McLeay:

– No provision is being made under that item in respect of the Liquid Fuel Control Board.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - Department of Munitions. £91,080- agreed to.

War Services (1939-40).

Proposed vote, £681,980.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I should like to know whether the Government’s proposals for the rationing of petrol are connected in any way with advice it has received from the Advisory Committee on Financial and Economic Policy, to which the sum of £260 is allocated under this vote.

Senator McLeay:

– The duty of that committee is to advise the Government on financial policy.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I submit that I am entitled to discuss petrol rationing on this proposed vote.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may ask any questions, but he is not entitled to discuss it in a broad way.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I refuse to be gagged.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must withdraw that. I will not be accused by any one of gagging.

Senator ASHLEY:

– What else does it mean when you silence me on everything ? I am sorry if the truth offends.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable senator has any question to ask he may ask it.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Will I be in order in discussing the petrol-rationing scheme ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No!

Senator ASHLEY:

– Well, I shall take a later opportunity to do so.

Senator Brown:

– Was it on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Financial and Economic Policy that the Commonwealth Government devised the petrolrationing scheme?

Senator McLeay:

– No.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - Commonwealth Railways, £145,060 - agreed to.

Postmaster-General’s Department.

Proposed vote, £1,985,920.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

– Is any provision made under the heading of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for the erection of a post office at Inglewood?

Senator McLeay:

– No. Provision for new post offices is made under the Works Estimates.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes- - Northern Territory, £49,450; Australian Capital Territory, £58,080; Papua, £7,360; Norfolk Island, £670; Refunds of Revenue, £200,000; Advance to the Treasurer, £1,000,000- agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 597

TRADE UNIONS ADVISORY PANEL

Ministerial Statement

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

by leave - Speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate yesterday Senator Cameron made certain references to the formation of a trade unions advisory panel. Many of the honorable senator’s facts were correct, but the statement was notable for its omissions. In the first place the negotiations with the Australasian Council of Trade Unions were protracted owing in a great measure to the fact that the council itself had no very positive ideas to put before the Government. Eventually, after interviews and consultations, the council was able to present a scheme along the lines suggested by the honorable senator. The scheme was placed before the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) who, though realizing that it was a cumbersome piece of machinery, nevertheless was prepared to adopt it specifically on the assumption that it would have the full support of the trade union movement. It became apparent at this stage of the negotiations that this full support was not forthcoming and the Prime Minister received intimations that several key unions would be unwilling to join the panel in the proposed form.

Negotiations with the Australasian Council of Trade Unions had been based on the assumption that the panel would bc completely representative of all phases of trade unionism, and the Prime Minister’s information gave an entirely different aspect to the picture. However, this was not all. When the Australasian Council of Trade Unions put up its own proposal to its own State bodies, the States of New South Wales and Queensland rejected it. The Prime Minister was not unaware of the fact that all bodies affiliated with the Australasian Council of Trade Unions would be bound by a decision of the majority of the States, and he was not unaware of the fact that if Tasmania decided to accept the scheme it would be binding on all Australian unions affiliated with the Australasian Council of Trade Unions; but when an effort is made to secure the co-operation and advice of the trade union movement, it would be an amazing thing for the Government to go ahead with a scheme which did not have the support of certain key unions necessary to the successf ul carrying out of the war programme and, iu addition, did not have the support of two States, one of which was the major industrial State of the Commonwealth. Before the formation of the panel, and arising out of certain conversations with the Prime Minister, key unions formulated a scheme which was comprehensive and which would assist Australia to the maximum in the prosecution of the war effort. The agreement of Tasmania to the scheme of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions could surely not be held sufficient to justify the Government in abandoning the support of essential branches of the trade union movement.

The Prime Minister negotiated with the Australasian Council of Trade Unions over a long period. In these negotiations he has been very patient, and at all times the .basis of complete co-operation of the trade union movement was assumed. When this was not forthcoming the situation was entirely reversed. War was not going to stop while organizations settled their differences. Action was necessary and the Prime Minister acted with the support of major unions. Several invitations have been sent to the Australasian Council of Trade Unions to join the panel and to send two representatives, whereas the major unions represented on the panel have but. one representative each. In, view of the negotiations and the patient attitude adopted by the Prime Minister at all times, it is fantastic to maintain that he acted in any peremptory fashion or that lie ignored existing suggestions and organizations. At all subsequent times the Prime Minister has pressed the Australasian Council of Trade Unions to join the panel, and nothing would please him more than for the council to do so.

The honorable senator would probably be interested in the following statement made by Mr. Curtin on Tuesday in the House of Representatives - 1 say parenthetically that the Prime Minister’s difficulties in regard to the constitution of the panel are difficulties which any Prime Minister would experience’ in Australia, because, as everybody unows, there is no complete unified organization of labour in Australia. . . .

I say to the Trade Union Movement and to the Australasian Council of Trade Unions that with the panel now existing I am quite satisfied. It is composed of men who are representative spokesmen, quite competent adequately to represent the Trade Union Movement. I should be glad if the Australasian Council of Trade Unions as a sort of greater entity of unionism of Australia would go into the panel as it already exists.

If the Australasian Council of Trade Unions neglects to accept the appeals from the Prime Minister of the country and the Leader of the Opposition, I think I know what the judgment of the people of Australia will be.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- by leave - I wish to say something on behalf of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions, and especially Senator Cameron. The Minister is evidently not aware of the work that has been done by Senator Cameron over a long period of years in the interests of industrial peace in this country. In the position which he occupied before coming to the Senate, he was one of the outstandingly bitter opponents of direct action, and, more recently, he played the biggest part in the settlement of the coal strike at a time when the Government had failed to end what appeared to be the most serious hold-up of our war effort. With the honorable senator, I have been in numerous disputes. I know him in a a political sense, and I also know his attitude to Australia as an Australian, and I say that the hostility shown towards him during his speech yesterday was not warranted. Senator Cameron was a soldier in the last war. He is a man who has made his way in life with every possible handicap, a man of- outstanding capacity and at least as much sincerity as any other honorable senator. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) knew, when two States said that they would not join the panel, that that was not the last word. That was on the Friday. We knew that on the Monday Tasmania would agree and that the majority rule would prevail. The Prime Minister knew that, too, but he insisted on following a new course. Ministers must realize that unions cannot be got together in a week, or even a month. We have certain organizations such as State labour councils, on which the unions are represented ; they are milestones in the progress of the Labour movement. In this crisis the Labour movement has done yeoman service. It has even broken lifelong principles in order that the war effort might not be impaired. I speak to-day - Senator Cameron himself would not speak - in order to point out that there is no man, not even the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), who has done more effective, skilful, or loyal work in the interests of the working class of this country and of Australia itself than has Senator Cameron. Sitting suspended from J 845 to 2 p.m.

page 598

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 598

HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The proposal embodied in this bill to amend section 9 of the High Commissioner Act 1909-1937 provides for an alteration of procedure in connexion with, appointments to the staff of the High Commissioner’s Office, London, consequent on the decision to grant permanent status to certain, officers of the staff.

Section 9 of the act provides, inter alia, that the High Commissioner may appoint officers for the purpose of any duties in the execution of the act, and sub-section 3 of that section provides that every such appointment shall cease to have effect at the expiration of six months from the date of appointment, unless the the Governor-General shall in the meantime have confirmed the appointment. The section also provides that officers so appointed shall not be subject to the Commonwealth Public Service Act, but, subject to sub-section 3, shall be engaged for such periods, and shall be subject to such conditions, as are prescribed.

Honorable senators will be aware that, in 1937, security of tenure, together with rights of superannuation, furlough, and other benefits, were extended to officers of the High Commissioner’s staff whose duties were of a permanent nature. These privileges are not accorded to temporary employees in the High Commissioner’s Office. They are also not granted under tho Commonwealth Public Service Act to temporary employees in Australia.

Under sub-section 3 of section 9 of the act, it is necessary that action be taken to secure confirmation by the Governor-General of, not only appointments of a permanent nature, but also appointments of persons to perform work such as that of female office cleaners, floor polishers, window cleaners, &c. The occupants of such positions are, however, regarded as temporary employees, and confirmation by the Governor-General of their appointments is considered to be unnecessary. Moreover, it is considered that confirmation by the ‘GovernorGeneral of the appointment of persons engaged in a temporary capacity is likely to create a false impression an the minds of these appointees that such confirmation carries with it a degree of permanency which was never intended.

Actually, confirmation by the GovernorGeneral does not of itself grant permanency of tenure to any officer, whether employed on duties of a permanent or temporary nature. Before permanent status can be accorded an officer, it is necessary, under sub-section 6 of section 9 of the act, that the Minister, on the recommendation of the High Commissioner, shall direct by notice in the Commonwealth Gazette that that officer shall be deemed to be an “ employee “ within the meaning of section 4 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1934.

In order that there shall be no misunderstanding as to the particular officers of the High Commissioner’s staff to whom permanent status has been given, it is considered that the necessity for obtaining confirmation by the GovernorGeneral of appointments of persons in a temporary capacity should be dispensed with. It is proposed, however, that appointments of officers to the permanent staff in London shall still be confirmed by the Governor-General ; but it is thought that such a provision is not now necessary in the act, and could more conveniently be provided by regulation. Control over expenditure on temporary employment at Australia House would still he maintained, as the funds required for such purposes must be appropriated by the Parliament.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– The practice observed in connexion with appointments to the staff of the High Commissioner’s Office savours somewhat of delay and circumlocution, seeing that the appointment to temporary positions of employees such as cleaners and lift attendants cannot be confirmed until the matter has been referred to Canberra for the assent of the Governor-General. Therefore, the bill may be promptly passed as one that has been proved necessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (High Commissioner may appoint officers).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- Am I right in assuming that this clause will apply only to such employees as office cleaners? Can the Minister give any information as to the proportion of Australians on the staff at Australia House?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– The clause applies only to the temporary employees to which reference has been made. Speaking from memory, I should say that seventeen or eighteen Australians are employed on the staff at Australia House, or about 20 per cent, of the total number of employees.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Are there any permanent employees within the categories of officers mentioned?

Senator McLeay:

– No.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 600

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Six short bills validating tariff schedules which have been in operation for a considerable period are now to be submitted to honorable senators, but it is necessary to deal with each measure separately. The object of this measure is to ensure that the duties set out in the customs tariff resolutions of the 2nd and the 22nd May, and the 20th August, 1940, shall operate until the new Parliament assembles. The bill provides for their validation until the 21st February, 1941. It is not proposed, at this juncture, to discuss the tariff schedules item by item, but the new Parliament will have an opportunity to do that if it so desires.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– My remarks with regard to this bill will have application to the other short measures of a similar nature, with which we are about to deal. It would be most undesirable to dissolve the Parliament without ratifying the tariff measures introduced in the House of Representatives on the 2nd and the 22nd May, and the 20th August. If these validating measures were not passed, it would be possible for persons who have been paying the prescribed duties for a considerable time to take action against the Government for the refund of moneys so paid. That is an experience which befell a certain Government with which I was closely associated. The Opposition, therefore, will not delay the passage of these measures. Within six months of the meeting of the new Parliament they must come up for consideration in detail.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 600

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION

page 600

BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of

Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is incidental to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill and proposes to validate,until the 21st February, 1941, the exchange adjustment alterations made by the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals of the 22nd May, 1940.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 600

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION

page 600

BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of

Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the validation of the collection of the protective duty imposed on lifting jacks of Canadian origin by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals of the 22nd May, 1940. The period of validation is the same as for the customs tariff proposals, namely, until the 21st February,1941.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 601

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the 22nd May, 1940, provide for the imposition of a special duty on chewing gum and chewgum confectionery of New Zealand origin, and this bill seeks to validate the collection of duty thereunder until the 21st February, 1941.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 601

CUSTOMS TARIFF (SPECIAL WAR DUTY) VALIDATION BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now reada second time.

This bill is introduced for the purpose of validating, until the 21st February, 1941, the collection of the special war duty imposed by the proposals of the 2nd May, 1940. The special war duty was imposed for war-timerevenue purposes. It is not possible to debate the proposals at this stage, and it is necessary to validate collections made thereunder in order to safeguard the revenue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 601

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reaping.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The reasons for introducing this bill are similar to those stated in respect of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill. The excise tariff proposals covered by the bill are those introduced on the 2nd May, 1940, and the 20th August, 1940. The proposals of the 2nd May embody in- creased duties on petrol, and form a part of the Government’s budget proposals. Those of the 20th August give effect to the Government’s decision to grant protection to local producers of petrol and petrol substitutes from indigenous shale and coal. The period of validation is similar to that provided in the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, namely, six months.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 602

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion bv Senator MoBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia -

Minister for the Army) [2.36]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend one section of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act. It also deals -with the allocation of funds to the commission. As the law stands to-day, the commission receives 12s. out of each listeners’ licence-fee. That arrangement was entered into when the licence-fee was originally fixed at £1 4s., so that the commission received 50 per cent, of each fee. Since then, the fee has been reduced, but the commission still receives 12s. out of each fee. In 1933, there were approximately 469,000 listeners, and the commission’s revenue from that source was £250,000. At the present time, the total number of licensed listeners, irrespective of blind persons, who pay no fees, is 1,212,581, or nearly three times the number in 1933. The revenue received by the commission from listeners’ fees amounted last year to £700,000. According to the balance sheet issued last year, the total expenditure of the commission amounted to £613,641, leaving a surplus of receipts over expenditure of £106,493. Those arc the’ vital figures which we should keep in mind when considering this measure.

This bill provides that the amount which the commission is to receive from each listener’s fee shall be reduced by 2s. to 10s. This will reduce the revenue of the commission by £121,000. Allowing for the increased number of licences that will be issued this year, it is estimated that the commission would receive approximately £750,000 in revenue if its share of the licence-fees remained the same. The commission’s expenditure will, in all probability, be curtailed. For the year ended the 30th June, 1939, the amount expended by the commission on artists’ fees, programme expenses, &c., was £473,000. A considerable proportion of that sum was paid to imported artists, who received large fees, and in respect of whom other heavy expenditure was incurred. Under existing world conditions, the commission can no longer draw upon a wide field of artists from abroad.

The commission has accumulated a reserve capital of about £500,000. To its credit is the fact that a large part of that reserve has been re-investedin war loans; but for two reasons the Government cannot justify the commission’s continuing to collect 12s.from each listeners’ licencefee : first, the large increase of listeners ; and, secondly, because every other government department has been forced to pare its expenditure, in order to assist, in the national war effort.

It is impracticable to reduce the licence-fee until the legislation has been amended in order to reduce the amount allocated to the commission. I assure the Senate that it is the Government’s intention, in the near future, to reduce the fee; but that will have to be done by regulation, subsequent to the passage of this bill. The real effect of this amendment will be that, as from the 1st September next, the Australian Broadcasting Commission will receive l0d. instead of ls. a month from each licence-fee, which will reduce its total revenues, on the figures we have before us, by between £120,000 and £125,000 in the ensuing twelve months. That will leave the commission with sufficient revenue to meet expenditure equal to that which it incurred last year, and still have a surplus.

Some honorable senators may argue that there is. no justification for that surplus; but there is a sound reason why we should allow the Australian Broadcasting Commission to accumulate a small surplus. The commission has to provide the capital expenditure for the erection, equipment and organization of studios in the capital cities. The broadcasting stations themselves are provided by the Government through the Postal Department. It is considered that we should not do anything that would hamper the commission or prevent it from accumulating sufficient funds with which to meet future commitments in respect of the provision of suitably equipped studios that will provide the best possible service that can be given to the listening public. Honorable senators will realize that the commission will be deprived of about £120,000 which it would receive next year, if its allocation remained unaltered. This would have given it a surplus of about £200,000 at a time when the expenditure of other governmental activities was either curtailed or postponed. Some people may think that the money of which the commission is to be deprived will go to the Postal Department. The Postal Department is merely the collecting agency for the Treasury. Every penny expended by that department has to be allocated to it by this Parliament on the Estimates, strictly in acordance with the practice followed with all other departments. I feel sure that all honorable senators will appreciate the necessity for the passage of this bill.

Senator COLLINGS:
. Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– A very great deal might be said in this debate if we included in our survey this afternoon the whole of the operations of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but that is neither essential nor desirable. This is a purely financial measure, and we must agree that, in the existing circumstances, the Government is doing the right thing. At a time when the activities of all government departments are being very much circumscribed owing to the alleged shortage of finance, we could not allow the Broadcasting Commission to go unscathed. On other occasions 1 have been somewhat critical of the commission. In this chamber I have said some things about it that have caused a flutter in the dovecote and brought to me some measure of undesired and unenviable notoriety. I acknowledge that the commission is doing a great job, but I object to that body being allowed to accumulate a considerable surplus that is not being used to the best advantage in the present national emergency. I hope that, as the Minister said in his concluding remarks, this new allocation of the commission’s revenue from licencefees will not hamper its operations in any desirable channel. As was explained by the Minister, when the listeners’ licencefee was 24s. the commission received 12s., but in view of the fact that the licencefee has been reduced to £1 ls., it seems only reasonable that the amount paid to the commission should also be reduced. I believe that a definite assurance was given in the House of Representatives that after the passage of this bill the listeners’ licence-fee will be reduced to £1. From the standpoint of political decency, this measure should have been introduced twelve months ago, and it would not then appear as though the Government were holding out this measure as an electioneering bait. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber can view that aspect of the matter with perfect equanimity, because we know that we all shall be here when Parliament reassembles. In this instance the Government appears to be acting wisely, because there is no reason why an exceptionally large amount of money should be held in reserve. I am pleased to learn that some of the funds so held have been utilized in the interests of the nation.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I support the bill, the object of which I understand is to reduce the amount to be paid to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In view of the fact that a number of honorable senators have asked the Postmaster-General (Mr. Thorby) to waive or reduce the licence-fee now paid by old-age pensioners, it would have been preferable to have made that concession instead of allowing an unnecessarily large reserve to accumulate. I understand that it is also proposed to reduce the listeners’ licencefee from £1 ls. to £1. I suggest that the licence-fee could be still further reduced, and the fee paid by pensioners either waived or reduced substantially.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– The point raised by Senator Amour is worthy of support. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has been receiving more revenue than it actually requires. Recently a blind returned soldier asked me to make representations to the department on his behalf for a free listeners’ licence, and when I approached the Postmaster-General the concession was granted. Relief should be afforded, particularly to blind returned soldiers. Throughout Australia there is a strong conviction that the licence-fee could he reduced substantially without impairing the efficiency of the service. I trust that the suggestion made by Senator Amour will be considered seriously by the Government, and that relief in that direction will soon be afforded so that members of this Parliament will not be compelled to approach Ministers in an endeavour to obtain some relief in that respect. All blind persons in Australia should be granted a listeners’ licence free of charge.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · CP

– A large proportion of the surplus which the Australian Broadcasting Commission has accumulated should be used to encourage Australian talent. It appears to be the policy of the commission to give preference to overseas talent rather than to Australian artists. Some time last year I directed attention to the enormous volume of American literature which was being dumped in Australia, and suggested that the quantity should be reduced so that Australian writers would receive some encouragement. I was pleased to learn that subsequently the Government issued regulations which were of considerable assistance in that respect. It should be the policy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to encourage Australian singers as much as possible by subsidizing schools in which they could be trained, and in that way cultivate or encourage an Australian culture, which would be appreciated in Australia and also abroad. Australian artists should not be allowed to regard themselves as inferior to English or Italian artists. The latent talents which I am sure every healthy Australian possesses should be developed. Australian song and verse are appreciated overseas. Mr. J. J. Simons, who has conducted numerous overseas tours of the Young Australian League, has said that the Australian songs, sung by the Australian boys, particularly on their American tours, have been appreciated by American audiences. As ample money is available, expenditure should be ..incurred to encourage Australian artists whose work would be appreciated by Australian listeners. We hear too many stupid American songs. Beautiful operatic selections are always appreciated.

Senator Hebbebt Hays:

– Why say stupid American songs? It is all a matter of taste.

Senator CAMERON:

– I suppose that stupid songs would appeal to the honorable senator, but they do not appeal to me. Some of the songs I hear over the air are not in any way attractive, enlightening or invigorating and have no appeal to national sentiment. They may appeal to the primitive instincts which are so prominently displayed by some honorable senators opposite. I trust that the suggestion I have made will receive the sympathetic consideration of the commission.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia.

– I support the bill. I take this opportunity to refer to the frequency of the interruptions in overseas news relayed from 3AR Melbourne to Perth. These broadcasts which come to Western Australia over a landline between Melbourne and Perth arc continually interrupted by weird noises which I understand are caused by induction. Listeners hear all kinds of scrappy interstate telephone conversations, and quite a volume of Morse signals and other interruptions which are particularly irritating. When I asked whether these interruptions could be rectified I was informed that it is a technical matter; but there must be some way of overcoming the difficulty. Most persons are very anxious to hear the overseas news when it is relayed, and it is most unfortunate that so many interruptions occur. If something could be done mechanically to improve the service to Western Australia the department would be conferring a great benefit on the people of that State. Often, at the conclusion of an erratic broadcast, the announcer apologizes for the poor reception, briefly explaining that it is due to circumstances over which the Australian Broadcasting Commission has no control. It is known, however, that the circumstances are within the control of the technical branch of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. This defect should be rectified, because the majority of listeners cannot afford short-wave sets. When they await, perhaps hourly, news of the latest war developments, it is most irritating and disappointing to them to find that the broadcasts are spoiled by poor reception.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for the Army · UAP

in reply. - I appreciate the manner in which this measure has been accepted by honorable senators. The representations which have been made for a reduction of the listeners’ licence-fee to pensioners will be brought under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Thorby). A blind person is given a free licence, provided his application is supported by a medical certificate as to his disability. As I said in my second-reading speech, the commission will in the future be obliged, owing to conditions overseas, to rely to a greater degree upon the services of Australian artists. After all, it is the job of the commission to provide a service which will meet with the approval of listeners generally. It is not for us, therefore, to instruct it as to the kinds of programmes it should provide. Indeed, fromthe inception, of the commission, ample evidence has been available that it is best capable of judging what programmes are most popular with listeners. I agree entirely with Senator Cameron that we should encourage Australian artists. The commission is very eager to do so, and has gone out of its way to employ as many Australian artists as possible. The best evidence that the commission’s programmes are giving satisfaction to listeners is the fact that the number of listeners’ licences has increased from 369,945 in 1932, when the commission was established, to 1,212,581 at the present time. Those figures speak for themselves.

In reply to Senator Allan MacDonald, 1 am informed that the cause of the poor reception in Western Australia is well known to the Postmaster-General’s Department. It is due to the fact that the wires to Western Australia are not of sufficient quality to ensure perfect transmission. Not only has the department had this matter under consideration for a considerable time, but also it is eager to secure the money necessary to enable it to supplement the existing land lines. The cost is estimated at £200,000, but, so far, no money has been allocated for this purpose. I assure honorable senators that this matter will be attended to so soon as the necessary money is made available for the purpose.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 605

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills re ported : -

Gold Mining Encouragement Bill (No. 2) 1940.

Papua Bill 1940.

Sitting suspended from 3.8 to 4.3 p.m.

page 605

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for the Army · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is framed to provide benefits, payable from public funds, for Australian mariners employed in ships registered in Australia, and trading between a port of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth and any other port, those employed on a lighthouse tender or pilot ship of the Commonwealth or of a State, and also for pilots when on pilot duty.

The bill follows, in general principle, the present war-time legislation of the United Kingdom, but it has been considered advisable to modify certain of the provisions of the British measure in order to bring, them into line with Australian conditions, and particularly with the benefits under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. Under that act, the rate of pension is based on the soldier’s rate of pay, whereas under the British scheme the rank of the man determines his rate of pension.

The benefits provided fall under three headings -

  1. Pensions to the mariner or his dependants, or both where applicable, if the mariner is killed or incapacitated by war injury received in the course of his employment ;

    1. Allowances for detention payable to a mariner and bis dependants, if any, for the period of his detention if he is captured by the enemy; and
    2. Compensation to the mariner for effects which may be lost or damaged through enemy action.

Provision is made for the parts of the bill covering pensions and detention allowances being administered, under the Minister responsible for the act, by the Repatriation Commission’ which has the necessary machinery and staff of trained officers. The part relating to compensation for lost or damaged effects will, however, be administered by the Department of Commerce, through the superintendents at the Mercantile Marine Offices already established at the principal ports of the Commonwealth. By the arrangements thus to be made, the expense of setting up new machinery for the operation of all parts of the act will be obviated.

War injury is defined in clause 3 of the bill, and covers injuries arising out of offensive action by the enemy, and defensive measures against such action. It also includes any physical injury caused by. or in consequence of, capture by the enemy ; action taken, for example by gunfire, if a ship is threatened by a submarine or bomber and, in addition, an injury is covered if it is sustained during routine drills carried out in order to teach the crew the use of weapons. Pensions are allowable only when death or incapacity is the direct result of a war injury, this being one of the basic principles of the British scheme.

When the death of an Australian mariner is attributable to a war injury, a pension is payable to his widow, as shown in column 2 of the First Schedule, the rate of pension being governed by the

Tate of pay of the Australian mariner at the date of the injury which results in his death. The rates, which range from £2 7s. to £6 fortnightly, . are similar to those paid under the Repatriation Act. When the pension to the widow is less than £4 4s. a. fortnight, however, and there are dependent children, or when circumstances are such that an increase beyond the scheduled rate would be justified, provision is made for a pension at a rate not exceeding £4 4s. a fortnight being granted.

The allowance for dependent children under the age of sixteen years is 15s. a fortnight.

Dependants, as defined in clause 3, may in certain circumstances be paid pensions or allowances on proof of dependency, “ dependent “ meaning wholly or substantially dependent on the mariner’s earnings.

Pensions payable to the totally incapacitated mariner and his wife are also shown in the First Schedule, these also being the rates under the Repatriation Act. An allowance of 15s. a fortnight for each dependent child under sixteen years of age is made, as in the case of death.

Special provision has been made in clauses 19 and 20 for pensions or allowances to de facto wives, and separated wives and separated widows, subject to dependency.

Where there are other dependants such as parents, pensions are payable only when no pension is payable to the wife, separated wife, de facto wife or widow. These “ other dependants “ must prove, to the satisfaction of the commission, that they are without adequate means of support in order that a pension may be granted. This condition is similar to that in the Repatriation Act, as amended by the Financial Emergency Act, and appears also in the British scheme.

Provision is made in clause 24 that, in respect of pensions both for death and incapacity, in no case shall the pensions to the widow and other dependants, or to the incapacitated mariner and his dependants, exceed, in the aggregate, the rate of pay which the mariner received in his calling. An exception may be made, however, in the case of certain widows with dependent children or whose circumstances, in the opinion of the commission, justify an increase where the pensions in the aggregate are less than the rate of pay. Pensions in these cases may be increased to a total not exceeding £44s. a fortnight.

A mariner may suffer blindness or be so seriously injured as to need an attendant, and provision is made in the second schedule for such cases, the allowances being from 40s. to 80s. a fortnight. The commission may pay these allowances in addition to the pensions.

Part IV. of the bill, clauses 34-44, covers allowances payable in cases where the Australian mariner is captured and detained by the enemy, and his wages are mot payable during his period of detention. This provision is “ based on the British scheme now applicable to seamen on ships registered in the United Kingdom. Here again the rate of pay governs the amount of the allowance payable. The allowance rates are contained in the sixth schedule, and are referred to in clauses 36 to 38. The highest rate payable is for a mariner with a dependent wife, the next for a man with dependants other than a wife, and the lowest rate to one without dependants, or with children only.

The rate for children is the same as in the part of the bill dealing with pensions, viz., 15s. a fortnight.

Provision is made in clause 42, that the total allowance payable shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the fortnightly rate of pay of the Australian mariner. A portion of the total allowance payable is reserved for the mariner, to be paid to him on his release from detention; another portion is being reserved to be expended for his benefit during detention or for his dependants. The remainder, known as the “ available “ part of the allowance, may be paid to the seaman’s dependants in accordance with the directions of the commission. Should there be any of this “ available “ part unexpended during the period in respect of which the detention allowance is granted, it may be applied for the benefit of the detained mariner as the commission directs.

The conditions regarding dependency are the same as are provided in the pensions clauses of the bill, and in regard to a de facto wife fulfilment of the conditions of the definition in section 3 will be necessary before an allowance is granted. Provision is made in clause 55 for review by the commission of pensions and. allowances granted, as may become necessary.

With respect to the provision for compensation for war damage to effects, as with detention allowances, this is the first provision of its kind in Australian legislation, and is based on the British scheme. The provisions are contained in Part V. of the bill, clauses 45 to

  1. The maximum amounts payable are shown in the seventh schedule, compensation being payable when effects are lost, through action by the enemy, or are damaged. When effects are lost their value at the time of the loss will be the deciding factor in assessing compensation payable; when they are damaged, the amount by which their value has been depreciated.

The maximum amounts provided in the bill are to cover essentials only for the voyage. In times like the present, items such as valuable jewellery and clothing in excess of normal requirements should not be carried. If mariners bear this in mind, and leave unessential personal property ashore when proceeding on a voyage the amounts shown in the schedule should be ample to cover their losses.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– This” bill is a bulky document, with the contents of which it would be impossible to become acquainted at short notice. Such detailed acquaintance, however, is not essential to our purpose here this afternoon. The bill embodies a principle with which every member of the Opposition, and, I presume, every member of the Senate, is in entire agreement. Its appearance now is timely, and it provides no more than the men and their dependants are justly entitled to. In committee, it will be possible to scrutinize the individual clauses more closely, and, in the meantime, I assure the Minister in charge of the bill of the wholehearted support of the Opposition.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · CP

– This is a very comprehensive and contentious measure. It deals with matters that have been under discussion for some considerable time. I do not wish to appear, as sometimes it is said I am, an ultra critic; but I ask the Minister in charge of the bill (Senator McBride) how is it possible for honorable senators, in the short time at their disposal, to study and criticize it intelligently? I speak as one who has been closely connected with maritime organizations for many years. I know that they were in communication with the Government with reference to the introduction of this bill, and that they have been very much dissatisfied with their position, particularly since the outbreak of the war. It was hoped that the bill would have been introduced much earlier in the session. At this late hour the time is too limited for its proper scrutiny. No honorable senator can say that the provisions relating to compensation, for instance, are all that they should be. It is also impossible to compare this bill with the English act which provides for compensation in similar circumstances.

Senator Armstrong:

– It is based on the English act.

Senator CAMERON:

-It may be; I am not suggesting otherwise. But I protest against being expected to accept it on its face value. Can the Minister say that its provisions have been framed after consultation and agreement with the representatives of the maritime organizations concerned? If the honorable gentleman could give me that assurance I should feel much happier in supporting the bill than I can be at present.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorable senator had better do as he did last week - vole against the Governmnent and his leader.

Senator CAMERON:

– I do not wish to vote against the Government on this bill, which I agree should have been introduced long ago. The war has been in progress since September of last year. Therefore, the Government must have known that the additional risks to which seamen were exposed demanded consideration. Hitherto seamen have had no guarantee of compensation for their dependants in the event of injury or death as a consequence of war operations. It therefore ill becomes the leader of the Senate to make such a remark. If he were in my place, and if he were’ responsible, as I am, to an important section of the community that is vitally concerned in such a measure as this, I can well imagine the honorable gentleman taking much the same stand as I do now, but expressing himself in, perhaps, more forceful language. He is au fait with all the details of the bill. We are not, and we complain that we have not been given time to study it.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The principle of the bill is a good one.

Senator CAMERON:

– I admit that it is. I know also that, unless a measure sound in principle is administered sympathetically, it may not be so beneficial to those concerned as we would like it to be. I have had a fairly long experience in these matters, and I have learned not to take too much for granted. This bill should not have been held back until thedying hours of the session because, as I have shown, we are denied the requisite time to study it carefully, or confer with those to whom we are responsible. How can we express their views or advocate their claims unless we have had time to consult them ? Having said this, I agree with my leader, Senator Collings, and I am prepared to vote for the measure. I thought it necessary to state my attitude in the hope that, in future, other measures of a contentious nature may not be brought forward in the last hours of a session. It may be all -right to give rapid passage to bills whose purpose can be seen at a glance, as was the case with several proposals passed earlier in- the afternoon ; but I protest against the Senate being expected to deal with such a comprehensive bill as this without reasonable opportunity for its consideration. It is most undesirable that the Senate should be regarded as merely a rubber stamp for legislation that has been passed in the House of Representatives. If we acquiesced in that view we should not justify our existence. We should be given sufficient time to discuss every bill that comes before us.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– Most of us will agree with the protest made by Senator Cameron regarding the late introduction of such a comprehensive measure as this. I think, however, that the honorable gentleman might have offered some words of commendation to the Government for the presentation of the bill, although, as he has said, it should have been introduced earlier. Nor is it fair for the honorable senator to assume that it contains some objectionable features.

Senator Cameron:

– I am not assuming; I said that it might.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– The honorable senator is suspicious. It is fair to assume that the principles of this bill are the same as those of the British legislation on which it is founded, and, although Senator Cameron suspects that this bill will not meet the needs of those on whom it is intended to confer benefit, we should support it with the full knowledge that if its operation should disclose any weaknesses or injustices, the Government will at least give consideration to their removal. I should like the Minister to tell me in his reply whether this hill will apply to all seamen whose injury or death arises from war causes. Does it, for instance, apply to the crews of merchant vessels which are defensively armed and carry gun crews and are still carrying on trade on the Australian coast?

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– I welcome this bill, but I agree with the points made by Senator Cameron and I should like to be convinced that it does not conflict with the Seamen’s Compensation Act. I have not had the opportunity to ascertain that for myself. Another aspect is the effect this measure will have on marine insurance. I want to know whether, as the result of the Commonwealth Governments taking responsibility for paying compensation for death or injury of seamen in consequence of the war, marine insurance companies will reap any benefit and accordingly be expected to reduce premiums.

Senator ARMSTRONG (New South Wales) [4.311. - I give this bill my blessing and commend the Government for having brought it down. I am in possession of information that considerable time and energy have been devoted by the Maritime Council in consultation with the late Minister for the Army (Mr. Street) and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Archie Cameron) in the preparation of this measure and, whilst it is not a perfect piece of legislation, it suits the maritime workers, because they recognize that it is a basis upon which they can found efforts to get further benefits by amendment at a later stage. In the House of Representatives the Minister for the Navy told the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) that after the general elections he would be prepared to confer with him and the Maritime Council in order to effect improvements in this legislation. This bill provides a striking contrast to the .state of affairs disclosed in debates in this chamber and in the House of Representatives in the last day or two. Whilst this legislation confers great advantages on the maritime workers, dependants of militiamen killed while on military service apparently receive little or no compensation. I can answer Senator Herbert Hays by saying that this measure is all-embracing.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– As with all compensation laws, the schedules are the kernel of this bill. In the brief period that has been provided for examination, I have tried to reconcile the schedules with the schedules to the Seamen’s Compensation Act, with the passage of which I had something to do, in December, 193S. The Seamen’s Compensation Act provided a maximum compensation of £750 for injury. The maximum payment to an injured seaman under this legislation is £2 2s. a week. There are other compensatory payments to widows and dependants, but, generally speaking, and having regard to the danger which now exists at sea, but did not exist in 1938, this is a better measure than that which I introduced two years ago. The Government is to be congratulated upon its comprehensive scope. We have to remember that should any anomalies arise Parliament will have the- right to remove them. The Government has laid down a principle which did not exist during the last war, when the members of the mercantile marine considered that they had been unjustly treated. That disability has now been removed. The Government has taken steps to ensure that the members of the mercantile marine serving on vessels registered in Australia shall be entitled to the benefits provided in this legislation.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for the Army · South Australia · UAP

in reply - I appreciate the difficulties confronting honorable senators through not having had sufficient time to peruse this measure, but they will realize that whilst its introduction has been delayed, it would be unwise to hold up its passage. Consequently the

Government has brought it before Parliament so that should the necessity arise, compensation will be available to seamen. In October last the Government referred the subject matter of this measure to an inter-departmental committee, which was asked to draft a measure based upon the British legislation but, as I mentioned in my secondreading speech, to adapt it as far as practicable to Australian conditions, and to bring it as nearly parallel as possible to the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. That act deals with Avar injuries sustained by soldiers, whereas this bill relates to war injuries of sailors. Up to the present we have been extremely fortunate in that no seaman has suffered any injury which would have brought him under a measure such as this had one been in operation. The only sinking which has occurred in Australian waters was the Niagara, which was on the British and not on the Australian register, and although no lives were lost the seamen who lost their effects were compensated under British legislation. Knowing how wars develop the Government thought it desirable to place this legislation on the statute-book. As was stated by Senator Armstrong, the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Archie Cameron) informed honorable members in the House of Representatives that, after the elections, he will be willing to confer with interested persons and to discuss any matters they wish to bring before him in regard to this legislation. In answer to the points raised by Senator Herbert Hays I may explain that this bill covers seamen engaged on all ships, whether armed or unarmed, on the Australian register. It covers the seamen on all such ships whether engaged in the interstate, intrastate or overseas service. Any seaman serving on such vessels who is injured, or sustains any loss will be covered. Reference has been made by Senator Eraser and by Senator Allan MacDonald to the relation between this measure and the Seamen’s Compensation Act passed some time ago. The Seamen’s Compensation Act is based upon entirely different premises. It is to provide compensation for those engaged in a civil occupation, and this is a measure designed to meet injuries and loss due to war service. I believe that the measure brings seamen into line almost completely with soldiers.

Senator Fraser:

– A seaman injured on board a vessel may possibly receive compensation under one measure, whereas another seaman employed on the same vessel and injured through causes arising out of the war, will receive compensation under this measure.

Senator McBRIDE:

– That is so. The Government has been anxious to pass the bill at the earliest opportunity, and although its introduction has been somewhat delayed, honorable senators can rest assured that it goes a long way towards meeting the desires of the maritime unions. I cannot give Senator Cameron an assurance that such unions agree entirely with the whole of its provisions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In. committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Seamen’s Pensions and Allowances Committees ) .

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I should like the Minister (Senator McBride) to explain the manner in which the members of the Seamen’s Pensions and Allowances ‘Committees are to be elected.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for the Army · South Australia · UAP

– I am informed that such committees will consist of existing members of the Repatriation Boards, with the addition of a representative of the maritime interests.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Incapacity must be due to war injury).

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– Under the Repatriation Act as it stands at present, the onus of proof upon a claim being made for a pension on account of disability due to war service is laid on the Repatriation Commission and not on the applicant for the pension. Will that practice be followed under this legislation?

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for the Army · UAP

– I am informed that this bill does not contain a provision to place on the Repatriation Commission the onus of establishing that incapacity in respect of which a pension is claimed is not due to war injury, nor i3 it proposed to adopt that principle. The Repatriation Commission itself will decide whether or not the incapacity is clue to war injury and will assess the pension payable. No appeal is to be allowed against the decision of the commission.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– What I want to know is, whether the provision in the Repatriation Act, which lays on the Repatriation Commission the onus of proving that an injury was not due to war service, instead of laying on the individual concerned the onus of proving that it was so caused, is embodied in this legislation?

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia - Minister for the Army.) [4.50fl. - -No The commission itself will determine, on the evidence adduced, what liability exists under the act.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Pension after death of incapacitated Australian mariner).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- Subsequent to the last war, many returned soldiers developed ailments which the Repatriation ‘Commission would not admit were due to war service. That anomaly has been the cause of more trouble than any other provision of the Repatriation Act. Is it to be perpetuated under this act?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Are not the circumstances entirely different ?

Senator KEANE:

– No. I could mention half a dozen genuine cases of men who have developed ailments the direct result of war service, but the Repatriation Commission will not admit that that is so, and the unfortunate widow of a man who dies in such circumstances is unable to obtain a pension. It appears to me that that evil is being perpetuated under this legislation.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for the Army · South Australia · UAP

Senator Keane is perfectly right when he says that this measure is in line with the Repatriation Act; this clause is almost word for word a replica of the corresponding section in the act. I suggest to the honorable senator that anomalies are unlikely to arise during the currency of the war, as the majority of the ailments to which he has referred will manifest themselves later. Therefore, whilst admitting the point that he has made, I contend that it is not immediately important.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 (‘Claim for pension).

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I again urge the Minister to give attention to the point which I raised on a previous clause. I submit that if the provisions in thi9 measure relating to claims for pensions are not brought into line with those of the Repatriation Act, by placing the onus of proof on the commission, an anomalous position will arise.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I fail to see how the difficulties which arose under the Repatriation Act will arise, as Senator Fraser contends, under this legislation. The definition of “ war injury “ in this measure sets out injuries due to specific causes. No doubt can arise on this point, at least in the immediate future. Therefore, difficulties of the kind which arose under the Repatriation Act can hardly arise under this measure. In any case, should such a difficulty arise it could be overcome by a subsequent amendment. The definition of “war injury” in this bill gives a “ close up “, as it were, of what is likely to happen ; the cause of the injury, in respect of which a claim is made, can definitely be traced. Under the Repatriation Act, on the other hand, the main difficulty experienced was in the determining whether an applicant’s injury was due to war service or to some prior physical condition. The likelihood of this difficulty arising under this legislation, is so slight that I hardly think the point raised by Senator Fraser need be discussed at this stage.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for the Army · South Australia · UAP

– I appreciate the point raised by Senator Fraser, and I shall bring his submission under the notice of the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Archie Cameron). I repeat, however, that during the currency of the war, at any rate, it is hardly necessary to provide for the possibilities which he envisages. While the war is actually being carried on it will be possible to determine definitely whether an injury is due to war service. Should a seaman develop certain disabilities after the war doubt may arise as to their cause. Then, it may be necessary to make the provision which the honorable senator suggests. However, I shall draw the attention of the Minister for the Navy to the point raised by the honorable senator.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 59 agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 612

HOUE OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday next, at 3 p.nt.

page 612

QUESTION

AD JOURNMENT

Public Service: RETURNED Soldiers Temporarily Employed - Fixation op Basic Wage - ‘Cost of Mining Materials - Censorship Regulations - Australian Imperial Force Camps in Western Australia - Case of Captain T. P. Conway - Trade Union Advisory Panel.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I take this opportunity to reply to several questions that have been asked recently upon notice.

Yesterday Senator Brand asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister -

Will the Government consider amending section eighty-four of the Commonwealth Public Service Act so that returned soldiers temporarily employed on clerical duties may, after two years’ satisfactory service, become eligible for permanent status?

I am now able to furnish the following reply:-

This matter has been carefully considered from time to time, but in the interests of the efficiency of the Public Service, the appointment of any persons to clerical positions without passing an examination cannot be agreed to. Eligibility for appointment can be secured by the passing of one of a large number of examinations specified in the Commonwealth Public Service Regulations, and the standard required of returned soldiers is lower than that demanded of non-returned soldiers.

To-day Senator Cameron asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industry -

In view of the reported statement of Sir George Beeby, Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, on Monday, the 12th August, that in wage fixation the court has to rely on expedients, and that of Judge O’Mara, also of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, on the same date, that he did not know how to go about ascertaining the highest basic wage which industry could afford to pay, does the Government propose to take any action with respect to such statements, with the object of providing for the fixation of wage rates by the court on a more satisfactory basis? If not, why?

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

The matter brought under notice by the honorable senator will receive consideration.

The question is presumably based on the necessarily condensed report of the day’s proceedings which was contained in the daily press. I should :be happy to make available for the perusal of the honorable senator the full transcript of the discussion to which the question relates.

I desire only to add the following: -

So far as the investigation of questions arising before the court is concerned, the court is empowered, under the act, to inform its mind in such manner as it thinks fit. I doubt if it would be possible to confer on the court .wider powers of investigation than it now possesses.

As to whether the Parliament should lay down detailed principles for the guidance of the court in the exercise of its powers, I make only two comments. In the first place, the constitutional powers of the ‘Commonwealth in relation to industrial matters as set out in placitum (xxxv) of section 51 of the Constitution are, as the honorable senator knows, not plenary powers, and there is some doubt whether under those powers the Commonwealth Parliament may lay down definite principles for the guidance of the court. In the second place, a reply in detail to the honorable senator’s question would probably be outside the scope of the Standing Orders of the Senate in relation to questions. Broadly, however, I may say that the general principles acted on by the court in the past in considering the basic wage have been those enunciated by His Honour Mr. Justice Higgins in the Harvester case in 1007. His Honour laid down tlie principle that the standard for the basic wage should be the normal needs of the average employee regarded as a human being living in a civilized community, and supporting a household consisting of about five persons. I am in general agreement with this principle.

On the motion for tlie adjournment of the Senate yesterday, Senator Allan MacDonald invited attention to increases of the costs of certain mining materials. I have not had an opportunity to examine in detail the “list to which he referred, but I am convinced that the percentages he mentioned are not representative of the increases throughout the whole of Australia. There has, for example, been a fall of the price of jute, the present cost being less than 20 per cent, above pre-war costs. It is considered that the increase of the price of hessian would be of the same order, rather than the 150 per cent, suggested by the honorable senator. Most of the wire rope used in the mines is of Australian manufacture and the price of it, so far as I am aware, has not been increased The cost of special imported ropes may have increased by 33 per cent., but these would represent a small proportion of requirements. If the honorable senator will supply me with the full details of the comparative prices of the commodities he has mentioned and also the source of the quotations, I shall have an investigation made immediately.

Senator AMOUR:
[5.10].- The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings · New South Wales

in an apparent attempt to impugn the sincerity of my motives in indicating my intention to move, to-morrow, for the disallowance of the “press gag” regulations, selected the fact that for this Senate there will be no to-morrow. What Senator ‘Collings apparently overlooked is that there is still to-day.

My reason for delaying the moving of a motion for the disallowance of these regulations was that I had accepted the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Government that they would be withdrawn. It is now clear to me that the Ministry does not intend to honour its word. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are taking shelter behind the legal forms of the Parliament in order to evade any discussion of these regulations, and to prevent any expression of opinion upon them in the Parliament through parliamentary representatives.

To-day we leave this building, and this Parliament will shortly be dissolved. Many honorable gentlemen will have to face the people of Australia but even so, a great principle of our democratic form of government is being resisted to the last ditch by this Government. I take this opportunity to invite honorable senators to give full and deep consideration to the Fascist dictatorial powers that we are leaving vested in one man. We go away from this Parliament leaving in the hands of one man, Sir Keith Murdoch, powers which are comparable only with those of Goebbels, the propaganda merchant of Nazi Germany.

I desired to move for the disallowance of regulation 1S7 which deals with the control of the press, the radio, and the cinema, and because of the failure of the Prime Minister to honour his promise to repeal these drastic infringements of our democratic vehicles for the expression of thought. At the time the regulation was gazetted every newspaper throughout Australia violently protested against it. Whilst I do not suggest that newspapers always cover every phase of public opinion on major public questions, I think that we should preserve whatever freedom of expression still remains. It is because of this cardinal principle that I join with the other members of my party in expressing our condemnation of the Government’s reactionary proposal.

The Prime Minister was literally forced to heed the immediate public revulsion of this invasion of the very principles for which we are alleged to be fighting in this war. A public statement was made by the Prime Minister that the regulation would be reconsidered and drastically amended. A month has elapsed, and as faT as the public is aware, nothing has been done. With the imminent dissolution of the Parliament, and the consequent closing of all avenues of constitutional redress, we are forced to the conclusion that the Government’s real intention is to allow the regulation to remain as it is.

If this he the ease it is a distinct breach of an undertaking already given, and marks the Prime Minister as a man whose word on important pu’blic questions cannot he accepted.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - I cannot allow that remark to stand. The honorable senator must withdraw it, for he is not entitled to make reflections upon a member of the House of Representatives.

Senator AMOUR:

-In deference to your wishes, Mr. President, I withdraw the remark. My motion for disallowance was intended to be a challenge to the Government, and the refusal to accept the motion establishes beyond doubt that the Government’s intention, all along, has been to impose this infamous, reactionary and undemocratic Goebbels technique upon the Australian people, whose sons are to-day shedding their blood to retain the hardwon liberties that every true Australian has pledged himself to defend. If, on the other hand, the Government had genuinely accepted the public protest, it would have cleaned the slate and repealed this entire regulation. There has never been any need for this regulation in either an amended or any other form. The press has approached the problems of the defence of this country with the object of stirring up public interest and demanding that the failure of the Government to marshal Australia’s full resources for defence purposes shall be remedied. It could be said that in carrying out this national work the press has exercised a commendable restraint in so far as our weaknesses are concerned, in order that enemy agents may not be apprised of any detail that may be of value to them.

The regulation appears to be the outcome of a peeved condition of mind, and comes very strangely from the ex-man agingdirector of one of the Commonwealth’s largest newspapers, Sir Keith Murdoch. Stranger still is the fact that this powerful newspaper organization has hastened to disown its managing director and his Goebbel tactics. The regulation, moreover, constitutes a striking example of how executive power can be used behind the back of the Parliament. It also demonstrates that there are in this community many prominent public men who, while outwardly professing democratic principles, really believe in the vilest forms of Fascism.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for the Army · UAP

– To-day Senator Fraser asked me -

  1. Has a decision been reached by the

Government for decentralization of tbe Australian Imperial Force camps in Western. Australia?

  1. If so, what locations have been decided upon.

I am now able to inform him that the Australian Imperial Force in training in Western Australia is accommodated in two main camps. A proposed additional camp at Melville is now under consideration, but the Government does not intend further to decentralize the Australian Imperial Force Camps of Western Australia.

I take this opportunity to reply to a statement made in this chamber this morning by Senator Amour who seems to suffer from a complex that causes him to believe that people do not carry out their undertakings, or keep their word. The honorable senator said to-day that the Treasurer (Mr. Spender) had undertaken to send a cheque for £100 to Captain T. P. Conway. No such undertaking was given by that honorable gentleman. He said that Senator Amour met him one day in Martin-place and informed him that the committee set up by the Senate to consider the case had recommended an ex gratia payment of £100. The Treasurer replied that he had not received the recommendation, but when he did receive it, he would consider it thoroughly, and, if there were no objections, the payment would be made promptly. As a matter of fact at that time the recommendation had not been brought before the Government, and when it did finally come before the Cabinet, Ministers wisely decided’ not to make the payment.

Senator Amour has raised an objection to certain censorship regulations in which he apparently has a great interest, although he has not taken the trouble to inform his mind of their exact purport. He said that the regulations empowered the Government to prevent the press from publishing any information which the Government deemed to be undesirable. Nothing is farther from the truth. The fact is that the regulations give the Government power to compel the publication of corrections of misstatements made in the press. They do not empower the DirectorGeneral of Information to prevent the press from publishing news or expressing opinions. There is a press censorship in Australia, and most of the papers are self-censored. I am glad to say that in most cases Australian newspapers have adhered to the rules of that censorship. The power given under the regulations does not rest solely with the DirectorGeneral of Information. He can act only with the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), who is the Minister for Information.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · CP

– I should like to refer to the statement made by the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) with regard to the appointment of trade union advisory panels. At no time did the Australasian Council of Trade Unions guarantee the full support of the trade union movement. What we did say was that the majority of the trade unionists were behind the proposal, and that is the position to-day. But it is not the position with respect to the panel that the Government has appointed. What we were concerned about mainly was that we believed that should the panel operate in the manner proposed, precedents would be established and arrangements would be entered into, without consultation or agreement, which would affect other unions. Such a state of affairs would cause the. very disputes which we desire to avoid. I give one instance of what we had in mind. On Monday morning last a deputation, consisting mainly of representatives of workers at the Gordon-street brassworks in Footscray waited upon me, and stated that each shift at that factory had only two one-man buses, which were quite inadequate, and the overloading constituted a danger to passengers. I suggested that that was only a minor matter which should be brought under the notice of the management through the medium of the workers’ organization. In reply, members of the deputation asked, “What about the other organizations involved ?”, and I said that the men would have to do their best and see what arrangements could be made. The point is that these men were exasperated, because they believed that the management did not consider them. That is an example of a small disagreement which might easily develop into a big dispute. If there had been a panel of the character suggested by the Australasian Council of Trade Unions that matter would have been adjusted almost immediately. I communicated with representatives of the Tramways Board, who said that they could not do anything because they had not the facilities. I then communicated with the welfare officer, Mr. Westhoven, who said that he recognized the justice of the claim. The panel at present constituted cannot deal with matters such as these.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– The present panel will handle those matters very well indeed.

Senator CAMERON:

– The honorable senator is an optimist. Workers must not be made to feel that they are being entirely ignored; they must be given reasonable facilities for putting their claims forward, and if they believe that they have a legitimate grievance, their representations should be fully considered. To get the best results from the workers freer access to the authorities in control must be provided. That is not possible with the present panel, on which thousands of men in the factories have no representation through the medium of subsidiary panels. Therefore it will be found to be unworkable. Reference has been made to the attitude of Mr. Curtin, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. I have been closely in touch with all the negotiations that have taken place for the appointment of the panel.

Senator MCBRIDE:

– The proposals were turned down.

Senator Foll:

– And by Senator Cameron’s crowd.

Senator CAMERON:

– I say emphatically that they were broken down deliberately. Although, the Government’s plan may suit its convenience, it will not work out in practice, because the workers like to knowthat they will have an opportunity to elect representatives on the panels. In England during the last war the system of shop committees was adopted, and worked very satisfactorily. The men concerned appointed their own representatives, who dealt immediately with any disputes that arose, with the result that, essential works were carried on much more expeditiously and satisfactorily than would have been possible in other circumstances.Reports which have appeared in the press indicate that since this war broke out the same system has been adopted in both England and the United States of America. In all sincerity I say that if Ministers wish to get the best results from the men employed in Australian factories at a time like this, their wishes should be consulted in order that, they may feel that they are part of a great industrial organization for the purpose of meeting the nation’s requirements for war purposes. In reply to the statement made by the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) last night, I would say that Mr. Curtin is not so closely in touch as I am with all that happens and I believe that if he were fully informed of the situation, his views would be somewhat modified.

This morning I received an answer to one of five questions which I had asked of Ministers. I should like to have an assurance from the Leader of the Senate that, as soon as the answers to the four remaining questions are available they will be sent to me in Melbourne.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · UAP

- in reply. - I think it is very wrong for any honorable senator to make an attack on a private citizen who has not the right to defend himself in this chamber. No honorable senator should take advantage of his privileged position. I object to the statement made by Senator Amour disparaging an outstanding Australian citizen who, in this time of national peril, has placed his valuable services at the disposal of the Government. As Senator

McBride has pointed out, any statements published in the newspapers as coming from this gentleman have the full approval of the Minister for Information, who is the Prime Minister. I also regret that Senator Cameron should continue this controversy about the attitude of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions to the trade union advisory panel, and I repeat the offer of the Prime Minister to-day that he is still prepared to appoint representatives of that organization to the panel. The honorable senator has been closely associated with these negotiations for two months now. But while he has been bickering and talking so much about grievances and conditions, prominent unions that are prepared to do their part in this struggle have made a direct approach to the Prime Minister and intimated their willingness to help the Government. I appeal to the honorable senator not to stand on technical objections and hold up vital negotiations in the way that he holds up bills in the Senate, because while he is talking, the very lives of our boys who are in the air, on the sea, or in the desert depend on an uninterrupted flow of munitions. I urge the honorable senator not to allow his prejudices to prevent the organizations with which he is connected from co-operating with the Government in this most important work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 616

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

National Security Act - National Security (General) Regulations - Order - Use of land.

National Debt Sinking Fund Act - National Debt Commission- Seventeenth Annual Report, for year 1939-40.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at - Grosvenor Park. South Australia - for Defence purposes.

Papua Act -

Infirm and Destitute Natives’ Account -

Statement of transactions of Trustees, for year 1930-40.

Ordinance No. 3 of 1940 - Supply 1940-41.

page 617

GOWRIE

Governor-General

WHEREAS by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia it is provided that the Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, dissolve the House of Representatives : Now therefore I, Alexander Gore Arkwright, Baron Gowrie, the GovernorGeneral aforesaid, do by this my Proclamation, dissolve the House of Representatives as on the twenty-seventh day of August One thousand nine hundred and forty and I discharge Honourable Senators from attendance on that date and until the day appointed for the commencement of the next session of the Parliament. Given under my hand and the Seal of the Commonwealth this twentyseventh day of August in the year of our Lord One thousand (l.s.) nine hundred and forty and in the fourth year of His Majesty's reign. {:#subdebate-21-1} #### By Hie Excellency's Command, {: .page-start } page 617 {:#debate-22} ### ROBERT G. MENZIES {:#subdebate-22-0} #### Prime Minister Senate adjourned at 6.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 August 1940, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1940/19400822_senate_15_164/>.