Senate
6 May 1948

18th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1948

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1459

QUESTION

PALESTINE. ,

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Fuel read the announcement by the British Foreign Minister, Mr. Bevin, that Britain would not enforce any settlement in Palestine against the Jews or the Arabs after the British mandate in that country had ended? As the British mandate will cease on the 15th May, is there not a likelihood of a grave deterioration of the position in Palestine after that date? As the Parliament will not reassemble until June next, will the Minister make a statement on the position before the Senate rises?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 have not seen the statement referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am not prepared to agree that the Parliament should reassemble because of some disputation in Palestine or any other country. I do not think the Palestine dispute is a matter of concern to us at the moment, and I am quite confident that the Government of the United Kingdom is capable of watching events in Palestine.

page 1459

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Supply and Development aware that the Controller of Supplies in South Australia, Mr. Lilywhite, has reached the retiring age, but is being retained in the service whilst three other employees, Messrs. Bird, Galvin and Kilgour, who also have reached the retiring age, have received notices of the termination of their employment? Can the Minister say why the retirement of these three officers is being enforced whilst Mr. Lilywhite’s services are being retained ?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall ascertain whether the information presented by the honorable senator is correct, and furnish him with a reply to his question as soon as possible.

page 1459

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Senator COOPER:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been drawn to the reported announcement in the Canadian Parliament that the International Wheat Agreement- would necessitate some revision of the AngloCanadian Wheat Agreement? If so, will the Minister ascertain whether the report is correct, and what effect, if any, this will have upon Australia’s dealings in wheat?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I undertake to obtain from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture the .information sought by the Leader of the Opposition.

page 1459

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel confirm press reports that a reduction of the petrol ration of many private and business consumers is likely after the 1st June? If so, will the Minister, before reaching a decision, consider the special needs of country residents, particularly those engaged in rural production and other essential work?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am not responsible for reports that appear in the press, nor am I prepared to accept them as being authentic. Many approaches have been made to me by press representatives in regard to the petrol position. I have informed them, and I inform the Senate now, that a survey is to be made of the requirements of consumers holding combined business and pleasure licences - that is, priorities 3 to 6 - to determine whether any petrol can be saved by reducing consumption in this category. That survey will commence on the 1st June. If we find that these consumers are drawing allowances in excess of their needs, their ration will be reduced, but that does not necessarily mean that there will be a general reduction of the petrol ration.

page 1459

QUESTION

RENT CONTROL

Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP

– On the 9th April, Senator Critchley, asked the following question: -

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing aware that recently an attempt was made in the Legislative Council of South Australia, an anti-Labour body,by a member of that body who boasts of his conservatism, to introduce a measure designed to increase rents by approximately 15 per cent.? In the event of the Government’s proposals for control of rents and prices being defeated at the forthcoming referendum, has the Government or the Parliament the power to prevent independent action of the kind I have indicated being taken by the States?

The Minister for Works and Housing has informed me that he is aware of the recent attempt in the Legislative Council of South Australia to obtain a 15 per cent increase of rents. The defeat of this move is largely attributable to the fact that the Minister for Works and Housing has power under the’ Commonwealth Rent Control Regulations to apply those regulations to South Australia, if the law in force in the State does not sufficiently carry out the objects of the regulations. In answer to the second part of the honorable senator’s question, the Commonwealth Government will take the necessary action to prevent rent increases in South Australia so long as it has power to do so. If the referendum is not carried this power will be in jeopardy.

page 1460

QUESTION

BROAD CAS TING

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator COOPER:

– Has the PostmasterGeneral received from the Australian Broadcasting Commission a report on the treatment accorded to the Leader of the Australian Country party, Mr. Fadden, on Tuesday night, when, broadcasting on the rents and prices referendum, he was allowed to commence his speech at a microphone which was not working, with the result that the first eight minutes of the right honorable gentleman’s speech was not heard in several States? Will the PostmasterGeneral furnish an explanation of this incident before the Senate rises?

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– This matter was reported to me from other sources, and I have requested information in regard to it. When that is available I shall supply it to the Leader of the Opposition.

page 1460

QUESTION

APPLES

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture endeavour to induce his colleague to permit the sale of apples out of orchards in Tasmania at 3s. 6d. a case - the price at which the orchardists buy their own apples back - in order to save the terrific waste that is now occurring in that State?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who, I am sure, will provide a satisfactory reply.

page 1460

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Supplies for Men’s Suits

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs been drawn to a statement by Mr. T. Grimley at a recent conference of the Demobilized Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Association, and reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of the 3rd May, that while Australians could not buy a suit worth a third of the price asked, in Hong Kong Australian suiting materials could be bought by the roll ? If so, in view of the acute shortage of suiting materials, and the high prices asked for imported ready-made suits, will the Minister investigate the export of such materials and take whatever action is necessary to meet the requirements of Australians in respect of suits ?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The export of materials from this country is a matter for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. I understand, however, that the percentage of worsted material exported from this country is about 5.1 per cent of the production. I have not seen the statement in the Brisbane Courier-Mail referred to, but I shall bring the matter to the notice of my colleague and request that he furnish the honorable senator with a reply as soon as possible.

page 1460

QUESTION

HOUSING

Alleged Black Market in Cement.

Senator COOPER:

– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs read in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald a statement by Mr. Hollway, Premier of Victoria, that New South Wales cement is being sold on the black market in Victoria at up to £20 a ton, whereas the fixed price is £5 a ton? Is it a fact that New South Wales coal is used in connexion with the manufacture of this cement, although 1 ton of coal in Victoria would suffice for the making of 2^ tons of cement for the legitimate market? What action is the Government taking to prevent the disposal of cement on the black market in Victoria ?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I have not seen the press statement referred to by the honorable senator. It does seem extraordinary that £20 a ton should be paid for cement when the fixed price is approximately £5 a ton. I understand that the control of the allocution and distribution of building materials is vested in the State authorities. If £20 a ton is charged for cement on the black market, that indicates the inability of the States to control commodity prices. There is something wrong-

Senator Cooper:

– Price control is a Commonwealth matter.

Senator COURTICE:

– Yes, but the control of cement is entirely a matter for the State authorities. Cement could be easily traced, and if the control is being administered properly, it should be a comparatively easy matter to establish to whom cement was allocated. I shall refer the matter to the appropriate Minister with a request that he take it up with Mr. Hollway and endeavour to find out what is behind the statement. In my opinion it is fantastic, but under State control anything can happen.

page 1461

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER REPORTS

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform the .Senate whether it is possible to institute punitive proceedings against any section of the press which is responsible for publishing inaccuracies? This question is prompted by the fact that inaccurate statements in the press provide material on which members of the Opposition ask questions.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– I am not aware of the existence of any Commonwealth law which would enable punitive action to be taken in the circumstances mentioned by the honorable senator. The position regarding inaccurate statements is generally that a person may lie, so longas he does not bring another person intoridicule, hatred, or contempt. Should, individuals or classes of individuals,, claim to have been affected, they havetheir remedy in an. action for slander or libel, according to whetherthe word is spoken or written. In respect of newspapers, it would beaction for libel. When, however, it is a matter of an individual commencing a libel action against a wealthy organization, such as the press of thiscountry, he is naturally hesitant,, realizing that he may incur heavycosts, not only in the first juristion, but even up to the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council. Should the press .make inaccurate statements, or statements which reflect upon an individual, it enjoys what amounts to practical’ immunity from attack. It is a matterwhich has to be left to the decision of theindividual affected. I point out that,, in proceedings of that nature, the fact that a statement is inaccurate, that it wasdirected at a particular individual, and’ that it had the construction which heplaced upon it - as being adverse to Msown reputation - must be proved. I shall study again the provisions of the law in the federal jurisdiction, and if’ further information is elicited, I shall: communicate it to the honorable senator..

page 1461

QUESTION

MEAT

Prices - Rationing

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs noticed thereport which appeared in the Sydneypress to-day that the price of beef had’ been increased to 2s. 8d. per lb. in Sydney ? Will the Minister inform the Senatewhether it is proposed to establish a limit beyond which the price of beef shall not be permitted to rise in Sydney, and whether that price limit will apply toother States also?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– There has been, an over-all increase of -Jd. per lb. in theprice of beef, although the price for somespecial cuts has been increased beyond that amount. It was as a result of discussions that took place between thePrime Minister, the Prices Commissioner,, representatives of the meat industry andi myself, in an endeavour to arrive at a fair price, that the controls on the prices of lamb were removed. It was thought that that would enable the industry to arrive at prices which would be satisfactory to all concerned. Having regard to the price that has to be paid to the wholesalers for the stock, it is thought that the prices charged are fair. I can assure the honorable senator that these matters are not dealt with lightly. On the contrary, they are investigated ‘very thoroughly. The recent rain has enabled stock holders to retain their stock until they wish to send them to market, and that is another reason why higher prices have to be paid to procure an adequate supply of beef for the people.

Senator AYLETT:

– Has the Minister . noticed in the press that, following an announcement of the increase in the price of beef, sales of -beef on the hoof have been made at increased prices ? When the retail price of beef from the butchers’ shops to members of the consuming public was fixed, was this aspect taken into consideration?

Senator COURTICE:

– I thought I had indicated that every feature of the meat industry had been carefully considered. For some time past, consignments of meat have been shipped to Tasmania by air at very great cost in order to keep supplies at such a level as would enable retailers to sell at the prices determined by the commissioner. We have no way of fixing prices of stock on the hoof. The problem is one of supply and demand. The retailers must be able to charge ceiling prices that will enable them to carry on in business. I am not pleading a special case for them, but I know positively that some of the large butchering firms have suffered severe financial losses during the last six months. They have made very strong representations over a long period for an examination of the industry and an adjustment of prices. I assure the honorable senator that the Government regards meat prices very seriously and is anxious to keep them at levels within reach of everybody. No increase is granted by the Prices Commissioner unless it is absolutely warranted.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– In the United States of America, 1,000,000 workers are on strike in protest against soaring prices. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture make a special appeal to the beef and mutton producers of Australia to play their part in holding down the prices of meat?

Senator COURTICE:

– I assure the honorable senator that the subject of prices generally is viewed very seriously by this Government and by the Prices Branch. Every effort will be made to stabilize Australia’s economy and to ensure that prices shall not get out of hand. The control which the Government excercises at present in regard to prices will be seriously curtailed if the result of the forthcoming referendum is unfavorable to a continuance of that con- *trol. The Government regards the control of prices as a matter of vital importance, and it believes that if it is to safeguard the interests of the community it must continue to exercise that control.

Senator AYLETT:

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether the Government has power to prevent hotelkeepers and others from purchasing livestock and slaughtering it for use in their establishments without supplying coupons? Is he aware that that action is being taken almost every day as a means of evading the rationing regulations and is a reason why butchers cannot supply meat to hotelkeepers and others?

Senator COURTICE:

– The administration of food rationing is a matter which concerns every one. In regard to meat, I know that the Rationing Commission is doing its utmost to enforce the law, and that the searchlight of public opinion has been constantly directed upon it. Whether that control is functioning satisfactorily I do not know; I sincerely hope that it is. I am not aware of any power which the Government possesses to prevent the slaughtering of stock for meat by hotelkeepers and others provided that the slaughtering operations do not infringe local laws. The real purpose of the Government’s continued efforts to enforce rationing is to make available the maximum quantity of food for export to Great Britain. If Senator Aylett will bring to my notice details of any cases of infringement of the rationing regulations which have occurred in Tasmania or in any other State, I shall request the Rationing Commission to investigate them.

page 1463

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator LARGE:

– On Wednesday of last week I asked the Minister for Trade mid Customs to inquire into the accuracy of a statement that between 350 and 400 tons of sugar had been despatched by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited to Sydney breweries. As the breweries were not issuing any beer, I asked the Minister to ascertain the purpose for which that sugar was required. Is the honorable gentleman yet able to give me the information I seek?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I have a report on this matter in my office. I have made thorough inquiries and I have been informed by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited that no sugar was supplied by it to the breweries during the period mentioned by the honorable senator. During the month of April, only one-third of the quantity of sugar usually consumed in the production of beer and cordials was used. I shall provide the honorable senator with details of the report which I have received.

page 1463

QUESTION

FRESH FRUIT

Condition of Export Shipments

Senator AYLETT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it is a fact, as reported in the press, that 25 per cent, of a large shipment of pears was rotten on arrival in Great Britain. If so, was the condition of the shipment due to the state of the fruit at the time when it left Tasmania or to the conditions of handling in transit? What steps are being taken to ensure that deterioration of this kind shall not occur in future?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I shall refer the question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who, I am sure, will provide a reply at an early date.

page 1463

QUESTION

MINERAL AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Senator COOPER:

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Fuel whether the Government has taken any action since

World War II. to conduct national surveys of Australia’s mineral resources and farm production. If so, is the Minister in a position to disclose the results of such surveys? If not, will he discuss with the Prime Minister the desirability of undertaking surveys and advise me of any decision reached in the matter?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Government has been active in regard to the surveying of mineral resources and, if the honorable senator wishes, I shall make a statement to the Senate about the progress of this work when Parliament reassembles after the forthcoming recess. I shall refer the honorable senator’s inquiry about a survey of farm production to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and ascertain whether he can supply an answer.

page 1463

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– As temporary officers of the Public Service are not required to take an oath of allegiance, will the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate what steps are taken to ensure that Communists andothers holding subversive views are not employed in Commonwealth departments? Will the Minister consider the introduction of measures to compel temporary officers of the Public Service to take an oath of allegiance?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– I was not aware that temporary officers are exempted from the obligation to affirm their allegiance to the Crown. I do not know whether the Government contemplates taking any steps in that matter. With regard to the admission of Communists as temporary officers of the Public Service, the security service of the Attorney-General’s Department makes adequate inquiries regarding the background, antecedents, and status of all persons admitted to the Service. During my brief period as Acting AttorneyGeneral, I became completely convinced of the efficiency of the Commonwealth Investigation Service and I think the honorable senator need have no fear that anybody with ideas that are subversive of our best interests will be allowed to enter the Public Service.

page 1464

QUESTION

PRICES CONTROL

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– As the continued increase of the prices of the necessaries of life is causing grave hardship to many in the community, will the Minister for Trade and Customs take action to prevent further increases by pegging the prices of all goods on and after a date to be determined?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– It would be an easy matter for the Government to control the cost of living if that could be achieved by adopting such a suggestion. However, the cost of living in this country is affected, not only by fluctuations of the local costs of production, but also by increases of the prices of goods imported from abroad. Australia imports goods to the value of many millions of pounds annually, and as the prices of those goods increase overseas so local costs rise. Honorable senators will realize, therefore, that it is impossible to peg prices permanently. Because of improved social conditions to-day, such as the 40-hour week and the higher basic wage, costs have gone up in every industry, and naturally the cost of living tends to increase. Nevertheless, the Government has prevented unwarranted increases of prices. That has been accomplished through the Prices Branch, which controls the price of nearly all goods offered for sale to the public. That branch will not authorize an increase of the price of any article until the manufacturer or vendor of the article satisfies it that the cost of production has risen sufficiently to warrant an increase. Every case is dealt with on its merits. That the steps taken by the Government have been effective in controlling and restricting increases of the cost of living is proved by the extraordinary rise of “the cost of living in other countries where prices control has not been so effective.

page 1464

QUESTION

TIMBER

Senator AYLETT:

– In view of the fact that increases of from 100 to 200 per cent, have occurred in the prices of timber, which cannot be justified, will the Minister for Trade and Customs prepare and table in the Senate a statement showing the increases which have occurred since the prices were pegged and the reasons why they were approved?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I can assure the honorable senator that the price of timber is not a matter which has escaped the attention of the Prices Branch, and I shall be pleased to furnish the information desired.

page 1464

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Membership of Trade Unions

Senator COOPER:

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether it is a fact that the Government desires all migrants to become members of trade unions ? If so, has the Government taken into consideration that suggestions of that kind, (particularly when they have official support, tend to give the impression in Great Britain and elsewhere that intending migrants will be subjected to interference with their freedom of action? Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by spokesmen for the Melbourne Trades Hall that migrants should not be brought to Australia unless they undertake to join a trade union on arrival?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am not aware of any such view having been expressed by the Melbourne Trades Hall, nor do I know that the Government is anxious that migrants shall join, trade unions. However, the conditions enjoyed by workers in this country are undoubtedly far superior to those which obtain in other parts of the world. Those conditions have been obtained because of the struggle waged by the trade unions of this country over many years. Therefore, I cannot see anything wrong with the view which has been attributed to the Government; indeed, I consider that the failure of migrants to join trade unions in Australia might become a cause of industrial trouble.

page 1464

QUESTION

COAL

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, upon notice -

  1. What was the total production of coal in each State of the Commonwealth in 1941, 1945, 194G and 1947?
  2. How many industrial disputes occurred in the industry in each of those years, and how many working days were lost?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

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

Figures are not obtainable for actual days all causes, including accidents, safety measures but hereunder are man days lost, calculated &c. - on the number of days pits were closed for We do not differentiate between black and brown coal mining figures but the figures for Victoria and South Australia are probably brown coal. {: .page-start } page 1465 {:#debate-19} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-19-0} #### IMMIGRATION {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, *upon notice -* >What proportion of payments for .the maintenance of child migrants is paid by (a) State, and (6) Federal authorities? {: #subdebate-19-0-s1 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP -- The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers: - >In regard to British child migrants, the respective State authorities pay 3s. 6d. per week per child up to the age of fourteen years, for the maintenance of such children, and continue to pay this amount up to the age of sixteen years, providing that the child is still at school. These contributions are paid subject to the Commonwealth continuing its policy of paying child endowment of 7s. 6d. per week per child and the United Kingdom Government continuing its contributions at the rate of os. English currency, i.e., 6s. 3d. Australian currency, per week. > >With regard to foreign child migrants, the same maintenance payments and child endowment as for British children are contributed by the States and Commonwealth respectively, to voluntary organizations which maintain such European migrant children. No contribution towards the upkeep of European child migrants is made by the United Kingdom Government. {: .page-start } page 1465 {:#debate-20} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-20-0} #### HOUSING {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, *upon notice -* >In view of the Minister's recent announcement that small flats and homes were to be made available at a nominal rental to war widows, will lie consider the extension of such a housing scheme to civilian widows, particularly those in necessitous circumstances? {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP -- The Minister for "Works and Housing has supplied the following answers: - >The housing of particular sections of the community, apart from servicemen, exservicemen and their dependants, is primarily a responsibility of the States. Under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, State housing authorities are providing housing for low income groups, arid the rebate provisions of the agreement permit, depending on family income, rentals as low as 8s. per week. In accordance with principles concurred in by Commonwealth and State governments, the State housing authorities are allocating their houses on a basis of need to families, including widows, in urgent need of accommodation. When the more pressing demands of such groups have been met, consideration will be given to the needs of widows mid similarly placed persons. {: #subdebate-20-0-s2 .speaker-JZH} ##### Senator AMOUR:
through Senator Large asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that rebates are allowed under the Housing Agreement between the Commonwealth and States in cases where a tenant's income does not equal the nominal payment of the economic rent? 1. If so, is it a fact that, where these rebates are allowed, the tenants are required to forward every six months to the State authority which collects the rent a declaration as to their income, and that, during the time that this declaration is being examined, the full economic rent is charged to the tenant? 2. If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, will the Minister adopt a suggestion that the rent collector for the State authority be sufficient reference for such authority in determining the financial position of the tenant? {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- The Minister for Works and Housing has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is a fact that under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, rebates are allowable to tenants, if the economic rent of the dwelling exceeds a reasonable proportion of the tenant's family income. At the basic wage this proportion is one-fifth of the family income, but it increases or decreases as the family income exceeds or is less than the basic wage. 1. It is also a fact that under clause 11 (3) of the agreement rebates are granted for periods not exceeding six months at the expiration of which it is open to the tenant to seek a fresh rebate for the ensuing six months. 2. Whilst detailed administration of rental rebates is in the hands of the States, I feel that the suggestion put forward is worthy pf consideration and the matter will be taken up with the appropriate State housing authorities. {: .page-start } page 1466 {:#debate-21} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-21-0} #### WAR NEUROSIS {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's .attention been drawn to an article in *Smith's Weekly,* dated 1st May, 1948, in which it is stated that returned soldiers, whose nerves have broken under the strain of war, are being subjected to straitjacket treatment in insane asylums? 1. Is it a fact that, in New South Wales alone, 900 ex-servicemen are confined in State asylums? 2. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the position in each State and, if the statement is correct, will he take appropriate remedial action ? {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
ALP -- The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. There are 241 ex-servicemen in mental hospitals in New South Wales whose mental condition is regarded by the Repatriation Commission as related to their war service. 2. The repatriation patients in mental institutions in each State are: New South Wales, 241; Victoria, 227; Queensland, 72; South Australia, 45; Western Australia, 53; Tasmania, 12; total, 650. Insane patients, cannot be held in custodial treatment except under State law, therefore the arrangements of the mental hospitals department in each State have to be used. Special accommodation has been provided for repatriation patients in each State except Tasmania where the numbers do not justify such a course, though plans are in hand. There is adequate supervision of the care of patients by repatriation medical officers who are satisfied that the State mental hospitals departments afford .the patients adequate treatment. One of the most modern mental hospitals was opened by the State Governor in Queensland in January last, which cost £127,000, and of the 88 beds in three wards. 58 of them are in single rooms. {: .page-start } page 1466 {:#debate-22} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-22-0} #### SHIPPING Tasmania^ Steamers Proprietary Limited {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-KQF} ##### Senator LAMP:
through .Senator Aylett asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that Tasmanian Steamers Proprietary Limited receives a subsidy from the Commonwealth Government to run ships between Melbourne and Tasmanian ports? 1. If so, what are the terms of the subsidy and what amount is paid to Tasmanian Steamers Proprietary Limited ? {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
ALP -- The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. See No. 1. {: .page-start } page 1467 {:#debate-23} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-23-0} #### LAND SALES CONTROL {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD:
through Senator Large asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What steps has the Land Sales Control Board taken to ascertain the value of land owned by the Council of Newcastle and known as the Mayfield West sub-division? 1. Was this land reported on by a competent land valuer and assessed as of no value as a residential site? 2. Did the council press for another valuation ? 4.Is it a fact that it is proposed to sell this land, giving preference to ex-servicemen, at prices varying from £170 to £300 a block? 3. Has the Land Sales Control Board given consent to sales at these prices? 4. Will the Minister have inquiries made and inform the Senate of all the facts of this case? {: #subdebate-23-0-s1 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
ALP -- The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: - >The procedure followed was that laid down for the sale of land in sub-division, viz., a valuation was submitted by a valuer nominated by the delegate and this valuation after scrutiny and report by the valuation section of the Treasury was accepted. The first valuer nominated by the delegate declined to value the land on the basis of a residential area as he considered it to be more suitable for industrial purposes. Several months after the original application was lodged the council pressed for the appointment of another valuer in order to expedite the sale of the land and the request was agreed to. The council requested the delegate to advise at what prices he would issue consent. These prices do not. except in a few cases, exceed £300, and consent to the sale of the land has now been issued. {: .page-start } page 1467 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### REPATRIATION Springbank Hospital {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY:
through SenatorFinlay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that visiting hours to wards 1, 2 and 3 at the Repatriation Genera] Hospital, Springbank, South Australia, have been reduced from sixteen hours to six and a half hours weekly? 1. If so (a) will the Minister give the reasons for making such a drastic reduction in these particular wards which are occupied by tuberculous patients, and (6) will the Minister cause investigations tobe made with a view to ensuring a more reasonable period of visiting time, commensurate with what has been taken away, in order that dissatisfaction now existing among the patients will end. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
ALP -- -The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There has been a standardization of visiting hours in the chest divisions in all repatriation hospitals to six and a half hours weekly. 2. (a) The limiting of visiting hours was decided on the advice of specialists. Rest, especially rest of the lungs, is a most important factor in the treatment of tuberculosis. It is well known to all well versed in the treatment of patients suffering from this disease that, after conclusion of visiting hours, the temperatures of many patients are elevated, indicating absorption of toxins from foci of the disease. The hours at present allotted for visitors are in excess of those normally permitted in many overseas institutions in regard to tuberculous patients and are therefore relatively liberal *(b)* As the visiting hours were standardized at their present level on the advice of specialists in the interests of the patients, I consider further investigation is not necessary. {: .page-start } page 1467 {:#debate-25} ### TARIFF BOARDREPORTS {: #debate-25-s0 .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE:
ALP -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : - >Alkalis, chlorine and chlorine products. > >Moulders' chaplets or studs and moulders' pipe nails (or chaplet nails). > >Kit bag frames. > >Acetylene black (Interim). Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 1467 {:#debate-26} ### SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1948 Bill received from the House of Bepresentatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Armstrong)** read a first time. Secondreading. {: #debate-26-s0 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. When the present Supply and Development Act was before the Senate in 1939, it was thought that it need operate for only a limited period - five years was the estimate - and that although there was danger of war, peace and reason would be established in the world. Unfortunately, we have had a war in the nine years that have gone by, and the era of peace and reason is not yet in sight. We shall, however, continue to work for it. *g* So- far as this favoured land is concerned - and it has been favoured in many respects - the quality of our people has been proved in war, and we have done well in the provision of munitions and other war equipment, but we need more people and more industrial resources for provisioning in time of wai if we are to defend ourselves effectively^ If we cannot create great armies, we must develop our resources and help with food and equipment those who will help us with armies and fighting machines. It became evident during World War I., and was strongly emphasized during World War II., that modern warfare demands not only well-led and well-equipped fighting services, but also the mobilization of the whole of the scientific and industrial resources of a country under efficient leadership and with the best possible equipment. In the United Kingdom, these services which are so essential to the armed forces are provided by the Ministry of Supply, and in the United States of America by the Munitions Board set up recently under the National Security Act 1947. The Government has decided that there must be a complementary body in Australia and has reinstituted the Department of Supply and Development. In the exercise of its function of supply, the department will be concerned primarily with the procurement and manufacture of supplies and munitions for the armed services, but also, within its resources, it will cater for the needs of all Commonwealth departments in respect of both supply and manufacturing. For example, because of its extensive knowledge of engineering technique and large manufacturing establishments, the department is the Commonwealth's principal authority for aircraft and mechanical engineering, and thus it can supervise shipbuilding for the Department of Shipping and Fuel, and aircraft production for the Department of Civil Aviation. As the operator of large explosives and chemical factories, it is an authority on chemical engineering, and so it will investigate the production of synthetic fuels and chemicals from coal and oil and manufacture them. if necessary. An important function to be exercised in conjunction with the United Kingdom Ministry of Supply and the Australian armed services,, is research in regard to and development of the weapons and other equipment needed in modern warfare, much of which is scientific. Australia has the spacious areas requisite for the setting up of experimental stations and firing areas, and in addition the large scientific laboratories and testing stations set up before and during the recent war, are a valuable contribution to .the co-operation now being developed with overseas authorities concerned with defence. In Australia, the functions required by the defence authorities in respect of scientific research, design and development, the provision of laboratories and the conduct of experimental and testing stations, will be administered by the Department of Supply and Development. A chief executive officer will be appointed to undertake the responsibility of organizing the scientific requirements of the department. So far, I have been speaking about the special needs of the armed services, and I have" said also .that in war-time the whole of the resources of the country must be mobilized. If we are to plan for a successful defence against aggression, we must develop our industrial resources to the utmost degree practicable in parallel with the immigration policy being developed vigorously by the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Calwell).** Fortunately, as the recent war has shown, the greater part of the industrial development needed in time of war can be provided from ordinary peace-time industries, the expansion of which can be of value to the community. It is necessary, however, that in the development of industry there shall be co-ordination of war-time needs and the operation of supply and demand in a- peacefully disposed people. The Department of Supply and Development, because of its knowledge of the needs of war and its study of the means of provid-ing them, will be the appropriate authority to effect that co-ordination. It will not be a waste of effort if the intentions of the Government are effectively implemented. On the contrary, there will be a progressive increase of the scientific knowledge and technical skill of the people concerned with industry, and in the productive capacity of the country. The fact that numbers of scientists and technicians will be employed primarily upon matters relating to defence, cannot fail to be reflected throughout the industrial world, not only because of their impact upon their fellows in industry generally, but also because many of them will be working upon research and development which ultimately should benefit civilian life. It must be recollected, for example, that atomic energy can be developed for the benefit of mankind notwithstanding the horrors of its introduction. The laboratories of the former Department of Munitions were established and expanded for defence purposes, but to-day they are rendering valuable assistance to industry ; the Government factories are making components for agricultural tractors, microscopes for university students, and are rolling brass sheet for industry. A great number of the numerous concerns engaged during the war upon munitions production are to-day employing considerably more persons upon a much wider range of articles than in 1939, and to that degree, therefore, something was gained by the war. A wise administration of the new Department of Supply and Development can contribute greatly to the progress of secondary industry, and such are the intentions of the bill before the Senate and the act it is designed to amend. The principal change to be made in the act is the substitution of the expression " war *materiel "* for " munitions " wherever the latter occurs. The expression has a much wider meaning than "munitions and is so used in the United Kingdom and United States forces, whilst the dictionaries, led by the *Oxford English Dictionary,* define it as everything used in war except the personnel.^ I have already stated that modern warfare calls for the whole resources of a country unfortunately engaged in war, and it is the intention of the amendment of the act that the responsibility for provision of the needs of warfare, except man-power, shall be placed upon the Department of Supply and Development.^ The general organization of the department contemplates boards responsible for the management and administration of four main groups of undertakings, namely, munitions production, including arms and! ammunition factories ; aircraft production! factories; long-range weapons research and experimental establishments; and ship construction and repairs.- There will also be branches concerned with the procurement of supplies from industry for the services including a contract board, mineral resources development including, geophysical and geological surveys, storesand transport services for the Commonwealth departments, and scientific research and technical advice for defencepurposes and for assistance to industry generally. An essential feature of the departmental organization will be close co-operation with the Department of Defence and with the Service Departments. To achieve this, the example of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America will be followed in that there will be an integration of serving technically qualified officers of the three services in those portions of the Department of Supply and Development which are concerned with the supply of war *materiel.* By this means, it will be ensured that there will be nothing lacking in any direction to meet the requirements of the armed services. The most important new development in warfare in recent years has been the group of offensive weapons known as " long-range weapons " or " guided missiles ". The value of these weapons as a means of defence against aggression would be lost if details were to be discussed, but it is widely known that they are the product of intensive scientific study and of high precision in manufacturing and that they can be designed to travel long distances. Experience has taught us that if we possess the means in kind to retaliate against an aggressor he will think twice about wanton attacks. We had an instance of that in the nonutilization of gas warfare in the World War II. The Government is therefore giving considerable attention to research and development and appropriate provision is made in the bill. In the development of long-range weapons, and other classes of projectiles, testing and experimental stations are required, some of them extending over large areas of country. The Senate is aware of the extent of the firing range now being established in Central Australia. Provision is to be made in the act to ensure the safety of the public in connexion with the operations of the range, and to acknowledge liability for the payment of compensation should accidents unfortunately happen. Provision is also being made for secrecy on the part of persons employed upon the operations, for the steps necessary to prevent entry of unauthorized persons upon secret defence undertakings, and for the search of suspected persons in such areas, particularly for dangerous inflammable materials or explosives substances, which in some circumstances could have widespread and tragic effects. Provision is made in the bill for continuity of service in respect of the technical staff and employees transferred from other departments during the war or engaged specially under the National Security Regulations so that any rights and privileges that they may have acquired as a result of their service under the Commonwealth will be continued. Opportunity is also being taken to amend the act so that those salaried employees formerly exempt from the operation of the Public Service Act will be transferred to the Commonwealth Public Service and be governed by the Public Service Act. This will obviate the difficulties of administration which have resulted from similar categories of officers serving under differing acts and regulations and will promote uniformity in remuneration and conditions. It will also considerably widen the field for promotion of officers "and afford greater flexibility in the utilization of capable men. Tradesmen and other skilled and unskilled employees in government factories and similar undertakings will continue to be subject to the industrial awards and determinations appropriate to their occupations. Debate (on motion by. **Senator Cooper)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1470 {:#debate-27} ### SUPERANNUATION BILL 1948 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Ashley)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP -- I move- >That the hill be now read a second time. The main purposes of this bill are: (1) to grant pensions to 24 officers of the Permanent Military Forces retired from the forces before they reached their appropriate retiring ages; (2) to delete that part of the Superannuation Act which concerns contributors attached to the Permanent Military and Air Forces; (3) to extend to ex-State officers the 25 per cent increase in superannuation pensions; (4) to remove an anomaly in the 1947 amending act in regard to medical examination prior to contribution for additional units of pension. To meet the urgent needs of the service, 24 officers of the Permanent Military Forces were retired before they had attained the retiring ages fixed for their ranks. As the Superannuation Act, underwhich the officers contributed, did not provide for pensions in such circumstances, the present bill provides for an appropriate pension based on the number of units for which the officer contributed and his age at the date of his retirement. The names of the officers concerned and the pensions payable to them are shown in the schedule to the bill. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill makes provision for pension benefits for members of the defence forces who retire after that bill becomes law. Part IVa. of the Superannuation Act, which deals with contributors attached to the Permanent Military and Air Forces, will become unnecessary and is being repealed. The 1947 amending Superannuation Act provided for an increase of 25 per cent in superannuation pensions in force when that act commenced, but excluded pen sions which were payable in respect of State pension rights transferred to the Superannuation Board under sections 57 and 58 of the Superannuation Act. These State pension rights were preserved to ex-State employees by section 84 of the Constitution. The majority of employees so entitled were transferred from the Western Australian State Service, where their right to pension had been determined by the Superannuation Act 1871. These pensions are payable without contribution by the employees and are on a more liberal basis than those under the Superannuation Act. In an act recently passed by the Western Australian Parliament, the pensions payable under the 1.871 act were increased by 25 per cent, as from the 1st February, 1948, provided that the pension, together with the increase, does not exceed £360 per annum. The Government considers that the pension payable to ex-State officers should now be similarly increased. The bill,] therefore, contains a provision for' this increase from the 1st February, 194S, of pensions payable under sections 57 and 58 of the Superannuation Act, and for one-half of the amount in respect of widows. The 1947 act increased from 16 to 26 the maximum number of pension units for which employees may contribute. Employees who were contributing for the maximum of sixteen units when the 1947 act commenced were permitted to elect to contribute for additional units, according to their salary groups, without medical examination. Some employees, however, who had been eligible to contribute for sixteen units were not doing so and the 1947 act provided that these employees, if eligible on a salary basis to contribute for units in excess- of sixteen, and if they so desired to contribute, must submit to a medical examination. The requirements for medical examination in these cases place the employees at a disadvantage compared with the employees who were contributing for the full sixteen units, because neither class of employee had had a previous opportunity to contribute for units in excess of sixteen. The bill, therefore, provides for the deletion of the requirement for medical examination in respect of elections for units above sixteen by employees who, though qualified on a salary basis when the 1947 Superannuation Act commenced, were not contributing for the maximum of sixteen units. Both, classes of employees will thus be placed on the same footing. A medical examination will still be required in respect of the number of units below sixteen for which employees had previously declined to contribute. A minor amendment provides for a definition of salary insofar as it relates to members of the forces as from the 1st July, 1947, the date from which the new pay codes for the Army and the Air Force commenced. A machinery amendment is included to give the Superannuation Board power to authorize the secretary to the board to determine such matters as the board may specify. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of honorable senatoi'9. Debate (on motion by **Senator** Cooper) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1471 {:#debate-28} ### TRANSFERRED OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES BILL 1948 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Ashley)** read a first time.. {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP -- I move - >That the hill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short bill is to grant an allowance to persons in receipt of or entitled to a pension under section 84 of the Constitution. That section preserved to any former State officer transferred with his department to the Commonwealth all his existing rights and privileges and entitled him to retire on a pension which would be permitted by the law of the State if his service with the Commonwealth were a continuation of his service with the State. The majority of officers and pensioners at present concerned in this measure were transferred to the Commonwealth service from the State of Western Australia. Their right to pension arises from the Western Australian Superannuation Act, 1871. These pensions are on a more liberal basis than those under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act and are payable without contribution by the officers. The Western Australian Parliament recently passed legislation increasing by 95 per cent., as from the 1st February, 1948, pensions payable under the 1871 act, which, together with the 25 per cent, increase, did mot exceed £360 per annum. The bill provides for the granting of an annual allowance on a similar basis to persons transferred from all States of the Commonwealth and in receipt of or entitled to a pension under section 84 of the Constitution. The provision will operate from the 1st February last. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **'Senator Cooper)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1472 {:#debate-29} ### ACOUSTIC LABORATORIES BILL 1948 Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. {: .page-start } page 1472 {:#debate-30} ### REPRESENTATION BILL 1948 {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 5th May *(vide* page 1394), on motion by **Senator McKenna)** - >That the bill be now read » second time. Upon which **Senator Cooper** had moved by way of amendment - >That all the words after " That " be left out. with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - "the consideration of the bill be postponed to permit the submission to the people by referendum of constitutional alteration to eliminate from seel ion twenty-four the provision whereby the number of members of the House of Representatives is determined by the number of senators ". {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-K6N} ##### Senator CLOTHIER:
"Western Australia -- In continuance of my remarks last night, I am convinced that the Government is taking a step in the right direction. Provision is made in the. Constitution for an increase of the numerical strength of the Parliament, if conditions warrant it, and I contend that as the population of Australia has nearly doubled since federation, the numbers of the members of both Houses of the Parliament should be increased accordingly. In my view, that is necessary, in order that various sections of the community may be adequately represented. In other Parliaments, notably that of Canada, the representatives of the electors are more numerous than in Australia. Under these proposals the number of members in the House of Representatives will be increased from 74 to 121, as follows: - New South Wales from 28 to 47; Victoria from 20 to 30; Queensland from 10 to 18; South Australia from 6 to 10; and Western Australia from 5 to 8 members. There will not be any increase in the representation for Tasmania. As I see it, the interests of Tasmania will be more adequately protected than at present by having ten senators instead of six. Although we continue to hear remarks suggesting that the abolition of the Senate is desirable, I am convinced that this will not eventuate, and that in due course the rights of the people of Australia will be more adequately safeguarded by a numerically larger Senate. On the average, each member of the House of Representatives has to care for the needs of electors who are represented in the State Parliaments by six or seven members. The average numbers of electors represented by each .State member are, New South Wales, 12,632; Victoria, 13,657; Queensland, 16,748; South Australia, 7,148; Western Australia, 3,756; and Tasmania, 3,290; as compared with from 60,000 to 80,000 in the case of each member of the House of Representatives. Many members of that branch of the legislature complain that they- are unable adequately to represent their constituents, notwithstanding that they represent pocket boroughs. Each individual senator, however, represents the whole of the electors of his State. I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this legislation. It will provide more adequate representation of the people and will lead to greater satisfaction among electors and members of the Parliament alike. Under the existing electoral system it is possible for 49 per cent, of the voters to be unrepresented in the Senate. This legislation will cure that evil. The Government has taken a step in the right direction by using constitutional means for the enlargement of the membership of the Parliament. With the increase of the numerical strength of the Senate, the standard of our debates will improve, although it has been my experience that the debates in this chamber have always been on a higher plane than those in the House of Representatives. Members of the other branch of the legislature are prone to treat the Senate as an inferior body. They should give credit where it is clue. As a staunch supporter of friendly societies it has always been my aim to encourage others, believing that encouragement makes for the performance of a better task. We should not praise the work of a man only after he dies. Proportional representation means that all citizens, whether they be members of a. majority or a minority group will be fairly represented in this chamber. {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP -- In view of the" volume of new business before the Senate, I shall be a good deal more brief than I otherwise would be in my reply to this debate. The series of bills before the Senate raise three issues. The first is : Is the representation of the electors in this Parliament adequate? In my second-reading speech I proved beyond any possibility of doubt that that representation is wholly inadequate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! The Minister must confine his remarks to the amendment. He may reply to the second-reading debate only after the amendment has been disposed of. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP -- I assure the Senate that I am not anxious to make three speeches, even though that right may be conferred upon me by the Standing Orders. I had thought that we were taking the three bills together ; but, in view of the ruling of the Chair, I shall confine my remarks at this stage solely to the amendment. The amendment, which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** and supported by the other members of the Opposition parties, is intended to postpone the consideration of these measures. It seeks to have a referendum of the people, with the object of preserving the numbers in the Senate at their present level. In dealing with these measures, three possible courses were open to honorable senators opposite. First, they could have opposed the measures outright. They were not disposed to do that for a number of reasons, but principally because they knew that these proposals were absolutely necessary. They realized that by giving more adequate and more even representation throughout Australia two grave defects in the present system would be cured, and that by the adoption of a system of proportional representation very grave injustices would be remedied. They knew, too, that their own leaders in the Liberal party and the Australian Country party had, in their policy speeches at the last election, undertaken to investigate the electoral position and to consider measures that would achieve this very purpose. In short, both parties were committed wholly to the principle of the measures now before the Senate. They knew, too, that generally the press of this country supported these reforms. Their second course was to have approved of the measures. I regret that honorable, senators opposite did not see fit to takethat frank and generous, course. Itappears, however, that they were not ableto bring themselves to give credit to theGovernment for a reform which they had admitted frankly and publicly was highly desirable. By their conduct in relation to this necessary and desirable reform honorable senators have somewhat undermined the high esteem in which they had hitherto been held by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. If they were not prepared either to approve or to oppose the measure, only one course was left to them. They had to find a way around either of these two courses, and they chose the very weak and obvious course of seeking to postpone action by urging that a referendum be held. They also presented every conceivable obstacle, including the accommodation problem to the passing of these measures. On that point, I assure them that no difficulty will be experienced in accommodating the enlarged membership of the Senate and the House of Representatives within the precincts of this building. Their desire to postpone or to avoid action is typical of the conduct that has characterized the Opposition parties down the years. It was their desire to postpone action, in the face of the greatest emergency which confronted this country, which resulted in their being thrown out of office ignominiously by their own supporters in 1941 and the reins of government being handed over to Labour, which had a minority in the House of Representatives and lacked a majority in the Senate. The same incapacity to act, which pervades the Opposition parties like a disease, was recognized by the people not only in 1943, when they returned a very strong Labour Government, but also in 1946, when they returned another, and almost equally strong, Labour Government. Since honorable senators have been embarking upon prophecy, let me say that I believe that the people will repeat that judgment in 1949. The position taken by members of the Opposition is plain. They regard these measures as effecting a very good purpose, but they say to us : " Let us not do this now ; let us do it some other time ". I Say that they are pathetic, not only in the paucity of their population in this chamber, but also in their performance. I say further that the greatest blessing any country can have is a strong government - one that is -strong enough in numbers to take hold of the reins of government and really rule. The greatest tragedy in countries like France and, until recently, Italy, has been that there have been no parties strong enough to take charge of those countries and restore them economically. One of the greatest blessings of this country is that since 1941 - certainly since 1943 - there has been in power a government with a strong majority in the House qf Representatives and a very strong majority in the Senate able to act with confidence and to embark upon a progressive course. If ever Labour is to be defeated, I hope that it will be well defeated. I hope that this country will always have a government with adequate numbers to govern firmly, and well, and, of course, with the strength of character necessary to press on with reforms and the development of the nation. The Opposition, having looked at the three alternatives before it - approval, opposition and procrastination - has chosen the weakest of the three courses. It will learn in a moment that choosing the weak course has placed it in a very bad and awkward position. That fact emerges from a consideration of the proposal implicit in the motion to hold a referendum upon the point raised by the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite urge that the membership of the Senate should not be increased. I point out, in the first place, that, as the Constitution stands at present, it is completely obligatory upon the Parliament to enlarge the Senate simultaneously with any enlargement of the House of Representatives. I agree with **Senator Clothier** that it would be completely futile for the Parliament to go to the people with the suggestion that there should not be a proportionate increase of the membership of the Senate. The people would never, in any circumstances, weaken the position of the Senate in the Federal legislature. My learned friend, **Senator O'Sullivan,** knows very well that, when a draftsman approaches a legal document, his duty is to provide for all foreseeable possibilities - not to bother about probabilities, but to make provision to meet any possible contingency that may arise. That, with the limited vision that their times permitted, is exactly what the founders of federation did. They applied themselves to their task in the light of the circumstances of their day, and they looked further ahead than the honorable senator is able to see even to-day. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! Is the Minister speaking to the amendment ? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I am dealing strictly with the proposal implicit in the amendment, namely, that the number of members of the Senate should not be increased. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, who have assumed the mantle and the title of guardians of the States, have admitted, through **Senator O'Sullivan,** that they see no danger in the proposal that the number of members of the Senate should not be increased. *As* I have said, the founders of federation did see a danger, and they provided very particularly for it in section 57 of the Constitution. Section 24, which provides that the House of Representatives shall be approximately twice ,the numerical strength of the Senate, must be read in conjunction with section 57. That section provides that, if 'the two chambers disagree twice under various conditions, there may be a double dissolution. But it carries the matter one stage further than that and provides that, if the same deadlock occurs after a double dissolution, then the Senate and the House of .Representatives must sit and vote together to clear the deadlock and determine the matter. If honorable senators opposite can see no threat to the position of the States in the federal legislature in a joint meeting of only 36 senators with 121 members of the House of Representatives, compared with a situation in which there would be 60 senators and 121 members of the House of Representatives, then I shall be surprised indeed. They must recognize that the States will be in a very much better position if the ratio of two .to one between the House of Representatives and the Senate is preserved. It is clear to me that members of the Opposition either did not know the import of their proposal - as their statements suggest - or planned it as a subtle and very strong attack upon the position of the States in the federal legislative scheme. I submit that, now that they do know the possible effect of their proposal, only one course lies open to them unless they are convinced that the position of the States should be weakened. That course is to withdraw the amendment. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- Section 7 of the Constitution contemplates the possibility of a reduction of the number of senators. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- That is so, "but it also preserves the provision that the number of members of the House of Representatives shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- They are completely unrelated, though. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- They are very firmly related in the proportion of two to one. The proposal in the amendment is that that ratio should be altered to the detriment of the States. I point out that that i3 a deliberate attack upon the States now that the honorable senator knows the reason why the founders of the Constitution designed that procedure - to protect the .States at a joint sitting of- the two Houses. I warn the Opposition that, if it persists with this amendment, the electors will be reminded that it deliberately tried to weaken the position of the States in this Parliament. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- But the Minister knows that, under this legislation, the Government's majority in the lower house will be more than the combination of the Senate. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- - The position is that the present ratio of two to one between the House of Representatives and the Senate will be preserved under the Government's proposals. The proposal deliberately submitted by the Opposition would reduce the ratio to the detriment of the States' House. In other words, the Opposition says, "Increase the numbers in the House of Representatives, but do not increase the numbers of the States' representatives ". {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- Quite so. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- The honorable senator does not need to have a particularly keen intellect in order to realize that that would operate to the detriment of the States. I repeat that if members of the Opposition persist with this amendment in the light of the information that they now have, they can expect that the electors will be reminded, often and strongly, of the stand that they have taken. A further question was asked, "Why not have a double dissolution ? " Again, I point out to the Opposition that, as the Constitution stands, such a proposal is completely impossible, except pursuant to the provisions of section 57. A double dissolution can happen only after a deadlock has occurred between the two chambers and there have been two disagreements. The Governor-General then decrees a double dissolution. The Constitution does not contain any other provision which would enable a double dissolution to take place. The Attorney-General **(Dr. Evatt)** referred to this proposal as a " constitutional monstrosity ". I have no hesitation in saying that it is more than that; it is a constitutional impossibility. **Senator O'Sullivan** lectured us at some length on the decline of the prestige of the Senate. He deplored the fact that, occasionally, a Minister gave a smart answer to a question. He said that all the questions which members of the Opposition asked were framed with tact and courtesy, and should be answered in the same manner. I say immediately that so far as courtesy is concerned, not one Minister is outdone by any honorable senator, including members of . the Opposition. The purpose of questions is to elicit information on matters of public and national importance. So long as questions are based on unauthenticated press reports; so long as questions are framed so as to secure some small party political advantage; so long as smart questions are asked, there will be smart answers. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether the present provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, whereby the distribution commissioners are free to allow a margin of 20 per cent either above or below the quota, would be altered. I assure him that the bill does not contain any provision which will have that effect. The section dealing with that matter remains unaltered, and it will be quite competent for the commissioners to have regard to all the facts that are prescribed by section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That requires the commissioners to give due consideration to community or diversity of interest, means of communication, physical features, existing boundaries of divisions and sub-divisions, and State electoral boundaries. Members of the Opposition protested that the Government had not warned the people at the last general election of its intention to introduce these measures. They claimed, too, that Tasmania should have greater representation than is proposed in the bill. Each of those matters has been covered so fully by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, that I do not propose to *traverse* that ground. **Senator O'Sullivan** made an appeal to the' Senate. He said, " Let us look to the future". I emphasize the word "'look", and point out that the political parties which now constitute the Opposition in this Parliament, and their predecessors for nearly 25 years, except for the brief term of the Scullin Administration, looked, and looked and looked. The motto of this Government is not, " Let us look to the future ", but, " Let us do something about it ". **Senator Finlay** gave a brief review of the highlights of the Government's activities during World War II., and in the difficult period of post-war reconstruction. I do not have to adduce any further argument to convince the Australian people that, above all else, this is a government of action. I conclude with the comment that these bills are really a great step along the road on which this Government is marching - on and on, and ever on to justice, democracy and Australian nationhood. Question put - >That the words proposed to be left out **(Senator Cooper's amendment)** be left out. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - 'Senator T. M. Nicholls.) AYES: 3 NOES: 20 Majority . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Question put - That the hill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. M. Nicholls.) AYES: 19 NOES: 3 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland .-The purpose of clause 2 is to bring the measure into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent. When the Opposition proposed to amend the bill it did so in all sincerity, and, notwithstanding the remarks made by the Minister for Health **(Senator McKenna)** in the course of. his reply, I believe that the Government's proposals should have been referred to a constitutional convention. Although this measure includes provisions which will affect the people of this country for many years to come, it is being pressed with the greatest haste. When the Constitution was framed, competent authorities devoted months to a careful examination of the whole subject, but these changes are to be effected after only very brief consideration. The measure, which will affect all States, is not of any real urgency, and it should have been investigated by competent authorities, instead of being rushed through in the hurlyburly of politics. Although members of the Opposition believe that the membership of the House of Representatives should be increased they do not f avour an increase of the membership of the Senate, and because of that point of view we had some difficulty in framing our amendment. However, our proposal was not given very much consideration; indeed, the whole bill was hastily considered, both in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. Whilst it is true that all members of the Opposition in this chamber have spoken on the measure, all the honorable senators opposite have not done so. I offer no excuses for having submitted my amendment, although members of the Opposition knew beforehand that it would not be accepted because the Government is obviously determined to have this legislation enacted with a minimum of delay. {: #debate-30-s1 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Queensland .-Even at this late stage I urge the Senate to give further consideration to the date cif commencement of this measure. As was pointed out here and in the House of Representatives, if this bill is implemented as is now contemplated, there is every prospect that after the next genera] election the wishes of the Australian electors will be frustrated. That being so, the bill as it now stands has within it the germ of a fraud On the electors. In- all probability after the next general election what is now the Opposition in the House Of Representatives will be returned with a substantial majority. Even on the basis of a landslide against the Government with its non-retiring senators plus the Labour senators who must be returned at the next election, the Government will have a majority in this chamber. Australia will then be presented with the spectacle of an overwhelming majority in favour of the new Government in the Lower House being faced with a hostile Senate, not elected at that timet Being largely over three years old, it will not be properly representative of the wish of the Australian electors as expressed in the ballot-box. The Minister foi- Health **(Senator McKenna)** referred to my suggestion that there should be a double dissolution as impossible, but I do not think that he grasped completely the point I was trying to make. Although the Constitution in its present form makes no provision for a double dissolution in the circumstances I have in mind, there is nothing whatever in it to prevent an amendment from being made. I should like the Minister, when he replies, to deal specifically with that point. There is nothing to prevent the Constitution from being altered so as to provide for a double dissolution in the circumstances to which I have referred. That alteration wOuld, of course, have to be approved by the people at a referendum, but there is no reason why it should not be done. If at the time of the next general election the whole of the Senate faced the electorate, no possible fraud could be perpetrated upon the people because, under a system of proportional representation, as the people voted so their representatives would appear here in the Senate. That representation would bc in conformity with the representation in the House of Representatives and expressive of the then wish of the people. It is absurd to say that that cannot be done. It was said that the Legislative Council in Queensland could not be abolished, but the Privy Council held that it was quite constitutional for it to abolish itself, and, by an act passed by both Houses of Parliament, it was abolished. It is idle to suggest that the Constitution cannot be amended in the way I have indicated so that the whole of the Senate shall face the electors at the next general election. {: #debate-30-s2 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP -- In replying to the comments made by **Senator Cooper** regarding the speed with which this measure is being debated, I point out, first, that the debate in the House of Representatives was in no way curtailed, and it is not being curtailed in this chamber. There is ample opportunity for honorable senators to debate this bill for as long as they wish tq do so. The closure will not be applied by the Government. It will be realized that the Government could not move in this matter until after the census of the 30th June, 1947, was taken and its results were known. This is the first opportunity available to the Government to effect these much-needed reforms. Secondly, I point out that a great deal of work requires to be done - the appointment of electoral commissioners, the survey of the various areas, the reallocation of boundaries, the approval by the Parliament after objections have been heard by the commissioners, the setting up of new divisional electoral offices, the determination of new sub-divisions, the preparation of electoral rolls and the provision of accommodation and offices. That must be done between now and the next appeal to the people. This is the first opportunity to give effect to these reforms, and much ground must be covered to enable the new and improved procedure to operate at the next general election. I did not like **'Senator O'Sullivan's** reference to a germ of fraud in these measures. I repeat that it is con stitutionally impossible at present for a double dissolution to take place otherwise than pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution. It is true that the people of this country can alter theConstitution by referendum in any way that they see fit to do so. What strikes me as unusual and peculiar about this utterance by the honorable senator is that, although he claims that a referendum should be held to decide whether the Constitution should be altered to provide for a double dissolution to take place in circumstances other than those contemplated by section 57 of the Constitution, there is no mention of that in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper).** It was obviously an afterthought that occurred to honorable senators opposite when they realized that the procedure envisaged by section 57 is the only procedure by which, as the Constitution now stands, there can be a double dissolution. In adverting to the possibility of there being a government of another political colour in the near future, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition upon his acceptance of the proposition that I put forward earlier this afternoon. On this occasion he is having regard to possibilities and not to probabilities. {: #debate-30-s3 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -- The charge that the Government has shown undue haste in connexion with this bill is quite unwarranted. In my opinion the Government's action in introducing long overdue reforms has shown up the Opposition in such a bad light that it opposes each measure on the weakest of pretexts to hide its own sins of omission. This bill should have been introduced 25 years ago, and it is probable that a similar one will be necessary 25 years hence. It is proof of Labour's sincerity that we are taking steps as soon as possible to right a wrong that was tolerated by the Opposition when it had a majority of 30 in the Senate but which is considered by us to be undemocratic. In his policy speech the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives **(Mr. Menzies)** said - I point out to you that an effective democracy requires that Parliament should be fully representative; that members should not be so immersed in matters of detail as to be unable to devote full consideration to major matters of policy, and there should be the widest possible choice of Ministers who have to accept the ultimate responsibility of administration. Democracy is not a static state of society; it is continually developing and extending. It is a living experiment, and a continual adaptation of ourselves and our form of government to our environment and to the needs of to-day and to-morrow with due respect to the lessons of yesterday. {: #debate-30-s4 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- I appreciate the remarks made by the Minister in charge of the bill in explanation of the different matters that were brought to his notice, particularly as they strengthened the case for this matter being considered by a constitutional convention. It is admitted that there is a great deal of work to be done. The requisite arrangements involve a considerable amount of work before the general election is held next year. Electorates must be redistributed, and various other tasks necessary for the implementation of this legislation must be completed. The Minister, apparently, is afraid that sufficient time for that purpose will not be available before the next general election. That view supports the contention of the Opposition that more thought should be given to this proposal before this admittedly major change is effected. This change will be unalterable for many years to come. **Senator O'Byrne** said that the Government regarded the present representation of parties in the Senate, which now consists of 33 'ministerial supporters and only three opposition senators, as undemocratic. My colleague, **Senator O'Sullivan,** has pointed out that under the system now proposed the Labour party will be assured of a majority in the Senate following the next general election. I go farther and say that should a non-Labour government be returned at the general election next year it will not be possible for it to obtain a majority in the Senate until the 1st July, 1953, at the earliest. That is my reply to **Senator O'Byrne.** These proposals will ensure control of the Senate by Labour for one full term and a portion of the term of the following Parliament. That cannot be said to be democratic. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to. Clause 5 (Election of senators). {: #debate-30-s5 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- This clause is rather involved. I should like the Minister for Health **(Senator McKenna)** to explain the distinction between casual, long casual and short casual vacancies. Whilst a casual vacancy is defined in clause 3, I cannot find any definition of a long casual vacancy. Can the Minister give to the committee a little more infor- . mation on those points in language that can be readily understood ? {: #debate-30-s6 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP -- I appreciate the difficulty of any honorable senator in interpreting what has been condensed so ably by the Parliamentary Draftsman in this clause. A great deal of ground is covered in it, and until one works out all the permutations and changes possible under it, one does not realize how effectively the draftsman has achieved a great deal in a little space. I hope that no casual vacancy will occur between now and the next general election on either side of the chamber. Looking around the chamber I should say that it is highly probable, that there will be no change whatsoever; but the draftsman has had to provide for the possibility, that either a short casual vacancy or a long casual vacancy will occur. A short casual vacancy is one in respect of a term that in any event would have expired at the 30th June following the next general election, or in less technical language where the senator whose office has become vacant would have had less than three years to run; and a long casual vacancy is one where the occupant of the office, had he continued in it, would have had more than three years to run. I have not put the position quite expertly, but broadly I believe that I have conveyed the information that the honorable senator desires. Those vacancies are treated differently. Whoever, other than a sitting senator, heads the poll will take the short casual vacancy. That does not mean the appointment of an additional senator. He will take a term of six years and will also take the short casual vacancy. That .is a reward for being " first past the post ". {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- That will happen only in 1949? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- It will only happen if in the term of the eighteen senators due to retire in 1950 one of them drops out between now and the next general election. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- It could only happen then? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Yes; that is, a short casual vacancy. With regard to a long casual vacancy, which is denned in the Senate Elections Act, a further senator, other than the seven in contemplation at the next election would have to be elected. If there is a long casual vacancy, instead of seven being elected there will be eight and the last man on the list will take the long casual vacancy. With regard to the apportionment of the seven seats that will be vacant at the next Senate elections I suggest that the principle is easy to follow if one keeps in mind that any candidate, whether a sitting senator, or otherwise, who comes within the first five places will have a term of at least six years. Some of them, being non-sitting senators, will be elected for six years plus about six months. The whole scheme has been designed on the fairest principle, as the Opposition will acknowledge, that those who are most approved by the electors will be elected for the longest possible term. There are three kinds of terms available, namely, six years plus six months, six years in the case of periodical vacancies, and three years plus a short period of time. The scheme preferred by the Government is that those who are most approved by the electors will get the longest terms and those who are least favoured by the electors will get the shortest terms. The Government might well have found a good legal argument for providing, instead, that all sitting senators who are reelected at the next general election should be re-elected foi- a term of six years, but it believes that in ordinary, common fairness the will of the electors should prevail over legal argument and that successful candidates should take preferment in the order of their election. 1 hope that answers the honorable senator. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- The three sitting senators would probably, but not necessarily, be elected for six years. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- That is highly probable; it is certainly possible, but it is not necessary. Of course, a sitting senator returned will fill one of the periodical vacancies. He will continue his present tenure and commence a new tenure from the 1st July, 1950. The remaining four will have six-year terms or three-year terms, according to whether they come high or low in the list. It may be that sitting senators will be returned for only three years if they are sixth or seventh, or the least favoured by the electors. Clause agreed to. Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to. Preamble and Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1480 {:#debate-31} ### COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1948 {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 30th April *(vide* page 1311), on motion by **Senator McKenna** - >That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the -affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Scrutiny of votes in .Senate elections). {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- This highly involved clause which seeks to amend section 135 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act sets out the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate under the proportional representation system. Proposed new sub-section 5 *(d)* provides - >Where the number of first preference votes received by a candidate is equal to the quota, the whole of the ballot-papers containing those votes shall be set aside as finally dealt with. I presume that those votes do not again enter into calculations. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- That is so. It applies only when the votes are exactly equal to the quota. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Paragraph v of proposed new sub-section 5 (e), sets out the manner in which surplus votes of each elected candidate shall be transferred to the continuing candidates. Itreads - >Hitch Divisional Returning Officer shall then, in respect of each continuing candidate, forthwith take at random, from the parcel containing the ballot-papers of the elected candidate which bear the next available preference for that continuing candidate, the number of ballot-papers directed by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer and transfer those ballotpapers to the continuing candidate. When this action has been completed in respect of all the continuing candidates, the Divisional Returning Officer shall notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer of the total number of votes then received by each continuing candidate insofar as his Division is concerned. I should like an explanation of that provision, because it appears to me that such an important matter as the election of the Senate should be conducted other than at random. I may be overstressing the words " at random " hut, it does not seem satisfactory to do things at random. Paragraph vi of proposed new sub-section 5 (e) provides - >The ballot-papers containing the first preference votes of the elected candidate which have not been transferred (that is, the ballotpapers containing the number of votes equal to the quota) shall be put aside as finally dealt with. I presume that the explanation of that provision is the same as that given in respect of paragraph *d,* namely, that those votes do not again enter into the calculations. I am principally concerned with the provisions contained in proposed new sub-section 8 - >If on any count two or more candidates have an equal number of votes, and one of them has to be excluded, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall decide which shall be excluded. If, at the time of their election, two or more candidates have an equal number of votes, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall decide the order of election of those candidates and the order of the transfer of their surplus votes. If in the final count for filling the last vacancy, two candidates have an equal number of votes, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall decide by his casting vote which candidate shall be elected. Except as provided in this sub-section, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall not vote at the election. So far as I know that is an entire departure from any existing method of determining which candidate shall win in the event of a tie. Our standing orders provide that in the event of equal voting for the election of the President or the Chairman of Committees the successful candidate shall be determined by the drawing of lots. That is, to my mind, preferable to casting the responsibility for deciding who shall be elected upon one person, even though he is a trusted member of the Public Service. A tie could conceivably result between a Liberal candidate and a Labour candidate, and the Commonwealth Electoral Officer would have the responsibility of deciding who should be elected. That is a grave responsibility for him to bear. {: .speaker-KAJ} ##### Senator Ward: -- Does the honorable senator suggest that they should toss apenny ? {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Well, our standing orders provide for the drawing of lots in the event of a tie between candidates for the position of President or Chairman of Committees. A toss of a penny to- settle a matter would be final. All that the unsuccessful candidate could feel would be disappointment. There would be no possibility of his harbouring resentment, but, in my experience,, when one person has the responsibility of making such a decision, the one against whom he decides feels bitter about it and suspects that the man who decidesagainst him is biased in favour of his opponent. In the filling of the last vacancy, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer's decision would be of even greater importance. In respect of other vacancies, his decision might put one candidateahead of another, but, when only onevacancy remained, his decision would determine which of the candidates withan equal number of votes should takehis place in the Senate. Thisis a departure from the general principles of the Commonwealth Electoral' Act in relation to such matters, and I do not think that it is a suitable method: to adopt at such an important election- {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania -- At first glance I am not favorably impressed by this provision. It should' be possible to find some other method which would not leave the final decisionto a Commonwealth Electoral Officer.' There will be at least five or six candidates- in each State at every Senate election. At the next election there may be as many as twenty or 30. Beyond doubt there will be at least seven. If there were, say, eight candidates in the field and six of the seven vacancies were filled, the remaining two candidates having secured an equal number of votes, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer would have to decide which should take his place in the Parliament. That is my interpretation of the clause, although I am open to correction upon it. It should be possible to devise some other method whereby it would not be necessary for the Commonwealth Electoral Officers to have what is virtually a second vote at the elections. For instance, it would be quite a simple matter to ascertain, from the preferences of the candidate first elected, which of the two tying senators was more favoured. {: .speaker-KAJ} ##### Senator Ward: -- Commonwealth Electoral Officers do not have an ordinary vote at elections. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- If it is considered unwise to permit them to vote at elections, I cannot see any justification for permitting them to exercise a casting vote to determine which of two candidates shall be elected to the Senate. {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- That is why he is ' not given an ordinary vote. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- In that case, every Commonwealth Electoral Officer in Australia has been disfranchised in the past. It is shocking that some of our most trusted civil servants should be deprived of a vote in this way. Apparently a Commonwealth Electoral Officer only has a vote in the event of a tie between two candidates, and this probably has never happened in the history of the Senate. If there is sufficient reason for depriving an electoral officer of his vote at elections, why give him a casting vote in the event of a tie between two candidates? I repeat that an examination of the preferences of the first candidate elected would be the fairest method of determining this matter. It might reveal a majority of 500 preference votes for one of the two candidates who had secured an equal number of votes. To give the Commonwealth Electoral Officer a casting vote on such an occasion might mean ho would over-ride the wishes of 500 electors. For this reason I doubt the wisdom of this clause. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Queensland -- I wish to make certain observations in regard to paragraph v of proposed new sub-section 5. This provides that each divisional returning officer shall " in respect of each continuing candidate, forthwith take at random, from the parcel containing the ballot papers of the elected candidate . ." As honorable senators are aware, there are parts of every State in which there is a preponderance of voters favouring one party or another. In Queensland, for instance, whilst I can expect a substantial vote in certain localities, there are other districts in which I know that my support will be far less. This principle of taking ballot-papers at random, introduces at the very best an element of chance, and, at the worst, it offers scope for malpractices or unfairness, because " at random " could mean that ballotpapers would be taken from a district which favoured a particular candidate. I take it that the ballot-papers would all be marked with the names of the various districts. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- They will not be taken out of their division. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- That is the point on which I wished to be clear; but why not take in all the- votes or make some provision to eliminate the element of chance and the possibility of malpractice or prejudice? Another point is that owing to the introduction of the system of proportional representation, it is possible that there will be a multiplicity of candidates and that with compulsory voting and compulsory marking of the whole ballot-paper, the possibility of an informal vote will be accentuated. Will the Minister give consideration to an amendment providing that a vote shall be formal if a ballot-paper is marked up to the number of vacancies to be filled? If, for instance, there were seven vacancies, it should be sufficient for a voter to mark seven preferences instead of possibly 25 or 30, according to the number of candidates standing for election. {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania1 · ALP .- I shall deal first with proposed new sub-section 8, which provides that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall have a casting vote in the event of a tie between two candidates. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** referred to this provision as a departure from the usual practice. The position is exactly the reverse. This principle has been embodied in the Commonwealth Electoral Act for as long as I can remember. It is because of the high judicial position of Commonwealth electoral officers that they are absolved from taking part in elections. Therefore, no new principle is involved. The provision is in the present Commonwealth Electoral Act, and has been there for decades; and, so far as I am aware, it is in the electoral legislation of all the States. There is only about one chance in a million of a tie occurring at 'any stage- of the counting. I agree that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer might be placed in a very embarrassing position if he were called upon to decide which of perhaps two or three candidates should take his place in the Parliament; but if he were a wise man, he would refrain from exercising his right to select one candidate, and would, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, toss a coin or draw lots. I say, however, that should the time come for him to exercise a vote, it is quite fair that he should do so. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator Aylett: -- He is debarred all along the line. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP -- There is only one situation to resolve. It is proposed that he shall resort to some' device of lot or chance so that he, personally, will not have to accept the opprobium of saying to one man, " I decide against you " ; or, to the other, " I allot you the honour of representing your Stale in the legislature ". The chance is extraordinarily remote, and the proposed procedure has been followed throughout the years. If the officer is wise he will choose to resolve the issue by chance. If those are the only circumstances in which he is to get a vote, I can see nothing unfair in the proposal. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: asked whether a vote would be treated as formal if an elector voted for candidates only up to the number of vacancies. The answer is that it would not be formal. The elector will be required to vote for all the candidates, which is the method in operation now. I agree that this method, under the new conditions that will prevail, may result in an even greater number of informal votes being cast. Nevertheless, it is better to take the risk of that evil than to endure the evil of exhausted votes by which the will of the people is not truly recorded. The intelligent members of the community will understand the procedure well enough, but I am afraid that there will always be some who will fail to understand the system, and who, as a consequence, will cast informal votes. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- The percentage of informal votes is at present very large. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Yes, and that is a sad commentary upon the level of intelligence of the community. However, it should not be forgotten that many votes are deliberately made informal, and this cannot be attributed to lack of intelligence. In such matters, it does not do to generalize. I can understand the objection to the words " at random ", because they carry the suggestion of something very "chancy". However, that expression was chosen because of the deficiency of the language. We could not find a better term. It is intended to convey the idea that the selection shall not be made according to any prepared procedure. It might have been better to have used the words " without any rule ", rather than the words " at random ". As hitherto, the first candidate to be elected will probably have received sufficient votes to make three or four quotas. The surplus will probably be about three quotas, representing the votes which ultimately would have to be transferred. In order to decide which votes shall be transferred each divisional returning officer - and I think there are eighteen in Queensland - will go through all the votes cast in his division, and will notify the central office of the manner in which the voters indicated their preference. The central office will then determine the number which is to go to each continuing candidate. Each electoral officer will tell the divisional officer what number of votes he holds for each candidate. The, instead of allocating all the fractional votes to him, the divisional officer will take the equivalent number of votes selected at random from the bottom, the middle or the top of the pile. There will be a colossal number of votes. There will be block votes, and party votes, and there will be votes cast on no party lines. In the bundle of votes for the next candidate enjoying no preference there will probably be several quotas. Instead of transferring the fractional value of those votes, the procedure is to take the number of votes equivalent to the fraction of the total. That will be done in each division by the electoral officers in the presence of scrutineers, and it will be done in areas in which political leanings differ. An investigation of similar procedure in Tasmania as far back as 1913 shows that exactly the same result is achieved by this method as if all the votes were distributed according to their fractional value. If that be true in Tasmania, where the total number of votes cast is comparatively small, the result should be even more accurate when we have to deal with the vast number of votes which will be cast in a Senate election. The conclusions which I have just stated were endorsed by a royal commission which inquired into the matter in England, and also by a highly qualified committee which examined the position in Tasmania. The system has been accepted by the Proportional Representation .Society in England, and mathematicians have confirmed the fact that practically no difference results whether the one system or the other be followed. {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- The difference would be less than 1 per cent. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Yes, less than 1 per cent. An examination of the figures shows a variation of only about 2 per cent, from the party line, due to the exercise of individual preference or prejudice, and it is safe to assume that the same proportion will be observed throughout the whole of the second preferences. This tendency will not be affected by the method of taking votes at random in various localities. The system will save the trouble and expense of bringing all the votes together, which would require the employment of a big staff. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania -- I cannot entirely accept the Minister's explanation, or agree with his conclusions, even though he said that they had been confirmed by results obtained over a number of years. That does not prove that what he proposes to do is right. In my opinion, it is altogether wrong that a man occupying a high position of trust should enjoy only a million in one chance of ever having a vote in an election. Even though the system may have been in operation for a quarter of a century, it is still not democratic. We now have a chance to introduce a method of electing the . Senate which will allow the will of the people to prevail, whilst assuring the representation of minorities. I maintain that the preferential system of voting should be persisted in, even when voting results in a tie. I know one electoral officer to whom I would not be prepared to trust my fate, or the fate of any of my colleagues. If the decision were to rest upon his casting vote, I know where we should find ourselves. I am not suggesting for a moment that I shall ever be in a position where he will decide my fate by his casting vote. Our main reason for advancing this proposal is our desire for a system more in keeping with democracy than the old system, which we claim was undemocratic in that many of the people had no representation because the men for whom they voted were defeated. In the event of a tie, the preferences of the first candidate to be elected, not the casting vote of one man, should decide the issue. I consider the proposed new sub-section could have been drafted in a much better way to ensure a more democratic system of electing senators. {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP .- When I said this procedure had gone on for a very considerable period I did not, for a moment, advance that as a reason for its continuance. I was replying to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** that this was a departure from the existing method. I was not using its mere antiquity as a justification for its continuance. I believe, however, that the provision made is reasonable and is unlikely to be invoked, whilst the element of chance would, I think, appeal to the sporting instincts of Australians and their desire to avoid embarrassment on the part of the electoral officer, I regret that ray view, and that of the Government, is at variance with the view of the honorable senator. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Amendment of .Senate Elections Act). {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- Proposed new sub-section 2 of section 9 of the Senate Elections Act provides - >Where a long casual vacancy is to be filled, the vacancy shall, subject to this section, be filled by the continuing candidate who, next after the periodical vacancies have been filled in accordance with section. One hundred and thiry-five of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act* 1918-1943, first receives, at the scrutiny conducted in accordance with that section, a number of votes equal to or greater than the quota determined under that section, and if more long casual vacancies than one are to be filled they shall be filled successively in the same way. I take it the method of filling a vacancy in the future is to be taken out of the hands of the State parliaments. {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- After the last- experience, I hope that it will be. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- It cannot be. Section 15 of the Constitution lays down how a casual vacancy shall he filled. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- The procedure set out in the bill is difficult to follow. {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social .Services · Tasmania · ALP '. - It is not an easy matter to appreciate the sequence of a clause like this. The Commonwealth Electoral Act, in its earlier provisions, never contemplated a situation where there would be an increase of the number of senators. That is the reason for this clause. It provided for retirement, death, and sundry other conditions, but it did not provide for an increase of the number of senators. What is to happen in 1949 was not contemplated. This clause has been included to cover a position not already covered in the existing Commonwealth Electoral Act. At the next .Senate election, although there will be seven vacancies, only three of them will be periodical vacancies. When the very last man fills a long casual vacancy, as he should, this clause says that the whole seven shall, for the purpose of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, be deemed to be periodical vacancies. If that provision was not made, an occasion might arise when ' a man who was high on the list would have to fill the short-term vacancy, amd a man with fewer votes might, be elected for the' longer term. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- This is to cover the 1949 election only? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Yes. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment-, report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1485 {:#debate-32} ### PRINTING COMMITTEE {: #debate-32-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- I present the third report of the Printing Committee. Report - *by leave* - adopted. *Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 1485 {:#debate-33} ### SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 194S {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed *(vide* page 1470). {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- At first sight this bill, which was introduced into the Senate just before the suspension of the sitting, appears to have its genesis in a desire on the part of the Government to re-organize a department which was established in 1939. The original legislation was introduced into the Parliament by **Mr. R.** G. Casey, who was then a member of the Menzies Government, to give effect to that Government's policy of making adequate pre'parations for the defence of this country. If honorable senators will take their minds back to that period they will recall that we were on the brink of another world war. In order to prepare the country against the contingency of war it was necessary for the government of the day to provide for defence purposes an amount which, if my memory serves me aright, was three times that provided for defence in the preceding year. Prior to the introduction of that legislation the whole of the organization of matters pertaining to defence was the responsibility of the Defence Department. A realization of the magnitude of the part played by this country during the war shows how impossible it would have been for one department to organize and administer all the measures necessary to be taken for the development of not only our defence system but also our war potential. Prior to the war the activities of the Defence Department were directed mainly to the organization of the three arms of the services and of munitions supply. These activities are now administered by seven or eight departments and five Ministers, the Defence Department being left almost solely in charge of general defence matters and defence policy. The original legislation provided for the taking by the new department of a census of the material resources of Australia. It was intended that the department should deal principally with war *materiel* with the exception of man-power. When we recall the enormous potential that was rapidly developed for the supply of arms, munitions and war *materiel* it will be seen how far-sighted was the government at that time in divorcing the administration of man-power matters from those relating to the supply of war *materiel.* The great value of the initial legislation is well known to all honorable senators. The activities of the department covered n multitude of matters and, as was to be expected, "they increased extensively. Included in the departmental organization was a very efficient costing section which has been instrumental in saving many millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money during and since the war. The benefits accruing from the principal act have evidently, proved to be so great that the Government now proposes to continue the operation of the measure indefinitely. Originally, it was intended to operate for five years. Later the act was amended to provide that it should continue to operate until it was terminated by proclamation. The Opposition agrees that it is necessary in time of peace to prepare for war. Not only must man-power be trained but also an effective war potential must be developed so that we shall not be caught unawares. Above all it is necessary that an adequate fully trained defence force should be available to take the initial shock of war. We must not only train our manpower but we must also prepare to equip our forces fully. New weapons and types of equipment are constantly being brought into production and scientist* are improving them from month tomonth. It is important that we should test them and be in readiness to placethe most efficient types into mass production at short notice. Stocks of modern weapons cannot be acquired or manufactured overnight. Almost every item of war equipment is specialized to-day, and I believe that the degree of specialization will be increased in the future. Requirements for the production of arms and munitions are constantly changing. Any country that wants to be in the race in the event of hostilities must be prepared without warning to transfer production in its factories from a peace-time basisto a war-time basis. We must be ready to defend ourselves against, attacks by fast aircraft carrying bombs, by guided missiles, by rocket bombs and even by new types of weapons that may be brought to perfection within a very short period. There can be no doubt that victory in the next war will be gained quickly. The victors will be those nations which are prepared for war and ready to bring their industries into operation on a full war-time scale whenever necessary. In order to meet the demands of total war, every resource must be mobilized. I commend the Government for preparing a plan of defence for this purpose. However, this measure proposes to effect certain amendments to the principal act which require some explanation. The principal change will be effected by the substitution of the words " war *materiel "* for the word " munitions ". In his second-reading speech, the Minister made this comment - >The principal change to be made in the act is the substitution of the expression " war *materiel "* for " munitions " wherever the latter occurs. The expression has a much wider meaning than " munitions ", and is so used in the United Kingdom and United States forces, whilst the dictionaries, led by the *Oxford English Dictionary,* define it as everything used in war except the personnel. I have already stated that modern warfare calls for the whole resources of a country unfortunately engaged in war, and it is the intention of the amendment of the act that the responsibility for provision of the needs of warfare, except man-power, shall be placed upon the Department of Supply and Development. That is all right as far as it goes. I believe that everything must be cast into the melting pot in order to meet the needs of modern warfare. However, there is no limit to the meaning of the expression " war *materiel* ". I hope that the Minister will endeavour to give a satisfactory explanation for this change. Australia survived World War II. victoriously with the help of its allies. Our civilians and our armed forces made magnificent efforts, in which they were aided by the far-sighted enactments of governments which preceded the first Curtin Government. There seemed to be no need, even during the worst period of World War II., to substitute the expression wai1 *materiel "* for " munitions " in the act. I do not believe that any Government supporter would claim that the Government at that time was hampered in any way by the restricted meaning of " munitions ". It was able to secure the maximum possible co-operation from the nation's great industries, such as those conducted by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. It had no reason for complaint about the assistance given by them to the war effort. The Minister also referred in his speech to the undertakings that will come within the scope of the activities of the Department of Supply and Development as the result of the passage of this bill. He said - The general organization of the department contemplates boards responsible for the management and administration of the following four main groups of undertakings, namely, munitions production, including arms and munitions factories; aircraft production factories; long range weapons research and experimental establishments; and ship construction and repairs. There will also be branches concerned with the procurement of supplies from industry for the services, including a contract board, mineral resources development including' geophysical and geological surveys, stores and transport services for the Commonwealth departments, and scientific research and technical advice for defence purposes and for assistance, to industry generally. Those designations cover every industry in Australia. Whilst such drastic changes as were indicated by the Minister may be necessary during a period of war, there is no necessity for the Government to have power to take control of all such undertakings in time of peace. The purpose of this measure assumes special significance in the light of legislation that has been passed by the Parliament during the current session. The Government has openly avowed its determination to nationalize Australian industry. The prime example of this policy is its legislation for the nationalization of banking. The Government has also attempted to nationalize airlines in Australia, and Ministers have informed honorable senators and members of the House of Representatives of their intention to proceed with the Labour party's policy of nationalization. I may be a little suspicious, but the substitution of " *materiel " ,* which embraces the manufactures of nearly all industries controlled by private enterprise, for " munitions ", which covers only the equipment required for the conduct of a war, compels me to conclude that the bill has some dangerous features. I do not see any necessity for this alteration. All the power which the Government requires is already provided in the principal act. Admittedly, with the advance of science and the rapid development of new weapons of warfare, some provision must be made to meet the changing circumstances, but my principal objection is that this bill will give to the Government power to carry out more easily its socialist policy, to which it is pledged to give effect. The most important feature of this bill is that which deals with long-range weapons and guided missiles. I was gratified with the references in the Minister's second-reading speech to this subject. He stated - The most important new development in warfare in recent years has been the group of offensive weapons known as " long-range weapons" or "guided missiles". The value of these weapons as a means of defence against aggression would be lost if details were to be discussed, but it is widely known that they are the product of intensive scientific study and of high precision in manufacturing and *that* they can be designed to travel long distances. Experience has taught us that if we possess the means in kind to retaliate against an aggressor, as witness the non-utilization of gas warfare in the recent war, he will think twice about wanton attacks. The Government is therefore giving considerable attention to questions of research and development, and provision is accordingly made in this bill. Every facility, should be provided for experiments in this branch of modern warfare. I agree with the statement of the Minister that if we are prepared and potential aggressors are aware of our strength, they will think twice before they make an attack on this country. The fact that we are making preparations for defence and experimenting with scientific weapons of warfare will be known to other countries, and that knowledge in itself will give to us a greater security than we should otherwise possess. Absolute secrecy must be preserved regarding scientific discoveries and the results of tests. In central Australia, the Government is preparing a range for testing guided weapons. I am gratified to learn that the bill contains special provisions to ensure that these vitally important technical processes and tests shall be kept absolutely secret. Every effort should be made to prevent the betrayal of these secrets to any potential enemies. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, I have had little time to examine the bill closely, but I have indicated some of the advantages and dangers of the measure. One great danger may arise from the alteration of the word "muniitons " to " war *materiel ".* Apparently the Government is taking advantage of the fact that its defence preparations may enable it to take over industries from private enterprise and pursue its socialist programme to the detriment of the people of Australia. {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- The introduction of this bill was essential. As the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** stated, we found that it was necessary in war-time to mobilize all the forces of this country. Under the provisions of the Supply and Development Act, we were able to develop industries, and the wide powers which the Defence Act conferred upon the Government enabled us to operate them. Now, in the transition period from war to peace, there are certain matters which must receive attention, and this bill has been introduced to enable the great organization which was established in war-time to be continued in a period of peace. The bill has other purposes. It offers encouragement to members of staffs who have occupied highly technical and skilled positions in the service of the Commonwealth for the production of arms and equipment. They will have every opportunity to improve their efficiency, which the Government recognizes, and their services will be retained for the benefit of the nation. If Australia is to advance as we all hope and believe that it will do, its development must be of a planned scientific, industrial and economic character. Members of the Opposition contend that the defence of the country should' be maintained at the highest peak of efficiency, and it is difficult to reconcile their professions with their opposition to thismeasure. They seem to regard it as their duty to oppose all progressive legislation introduced by the Government. In opposing those measures they adopt oneof two lines of approach. The first is to admit that a certain reform should beeffected, or that progress should be ma dein some new direction, but to oppose an-? immediate change on the ground that the time is not opportune to effect such a-, change. That attitude might be' summed up in the sentence: "We agree that something should be done, but not just now ", and in that respect they arelike the condemned man who is about to be hanged. However, members of the Australian Labour party are not prepared to allow the country to bedestroyed. Our recollection of the disorganization and unpreparedness which characterized our defences in 1939 is too» vivid. In the light of the experiencewhich we gained at that time we knowthat if we are to retain the sound organization which was established in 1942, and expanded during the war, we must continue the operation of the present controls. An important aspect of that organization is the construction and repair of ships and the development of a substantial maritime service. Former Labouradministrations sought to achieve that, and we all remember the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers and its unhappy fate' at the hands of an anti-Labour government. Had that line been operating at the outbreak of the recent war Australia would have been in a much less vulnerable position than it was, and even to-day we should be reaping the benefit of itsoperation. In planning for the future, we must bear in mind the contingencies of peace as well as the dangers of war. Wemust create an efficient maritime fleet. with the necessary ancillary services, such as dry docks, if our commerce is to develop as it should do. Thebill provides for the repeal of section 28 of the principal act, which provides for the duration of the measure, and proposes to insert a number of additional provisions. As I have said, the whole purpose of the bill is to continue the efficient establishment created in wartime. In that way, we shall have at least the nucleus of an organization for supplies and for thedevelopment of the potentialities of this country. The Opposition objects to this proposal and has raised the old bogy of nationalization. History teaches us that nations which relied for centuries on mercenaries for protection found that in modern times it was necessary to create national armies and organizations to defend their realms. If industry is unable to provide this nation with the material to defend itself in time of war, and to advance its prosperity in time of peace, then the Government must accept the responsibility of (providing the necessary organization. To that end the Government seeks authority to co-ordinate the activities of private enterprise so that the nation's requirements may be fulfilled. At the same time, I emphasize that Labour's policy is not aimed at preparation for war, but at mobilizing the nation's resources for peaceful development. By the employment of scientists and research workers, and the proper co-ordination of the nation's enterprises, we hope to place this country in the forefront of the progressive nations of the world. Honorable senators who have studied the bill will realize that the Government proposes to achieve that by co-operating with our great allies, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Finally, I appeal to members of the Opposition to approach this measure from a national viewpoint, rather than from a party political one, and if they will do that I am confident that they will support it. {: #subdebate-33-0-s2 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Queensland . - This measure, which at first glance appeared to provide for a harmless legislative amendment, proves, on close scrutiny, to be very heavily loaded. Any effort of the Government to prepare Australia against the emergency of war must be highly commended. During World War II. the Department of Munitions undoubtedly did an excellent job, but the Government is now seeking wider and even more devastating powers than it exercised during the darkest days of the war. When the principal act was passed it was emphasized that it was a purely emergency measure, and its operation was to cease after a date to be proclaimed. However, the present proposal containsa marked element of permanency, and although members of the Opposition will readily support any measure designed to lay the foundations of a sound defence against war, they object most strongly to an attempt to obtain tremendous powers by a seemingly innocuous measure. Should this bill be enacted, the Government will have power to do almost anything. Even during the darkest days of war, the Government could not take action under the present act unless the Governor-General declared the supply of a particular " munition " to be essential to the national defence. Administration of the principal act, which is now proposed to be amended, was the responsibility of the Department of Munitions. That power was to be exercised only for a limited period, and " munitions " was defined to mean - Armaments, arms and ammunition, and includes such equipment, machines, commodities, materials, supplies or stores of any kind, as are, in the opinion of the GovernorGeneral, necessary for the purposes of defence. This bill seeks to delete the word " munitions " and to substitute for it the words " war *materiel ".* Clause 5 (d) reads - " war *materiel "* means armaments, weapons (including long-range weapons), ammunition, engines, magazines, aircraft, vehicles, merchant ships and other marine craft, equipment, supplies, baggage and other things needed in war and includes any goods, components, parts, accessories or "plant necessary for, or incidental to, the testing, development, production, or supply of. any of those things. In time of war, there is practically no commodity within human conception that would not come within the terms of that definition. If it is the intention of the Government to embark upon a programme of commercial and industrial activity, I urge it to hesitate and to consider the millions of pounds that were lost to the taxpayers when the Queensland Government conducted a series of commercial and industrial undertakings. Although the Labour party has been in power in that State for 30 of the last 33 years, the Queensland Government, having profited by the experience of its predecessors, has not attempted again to engage in such enterprises. I urge the Government carefully to consider the calamitous fate of those undertakings. There is a small provision in clause 6 that has tremendous implications. Sub-clause 1 (e) of that clause seeks to amend section 5 of the principal act by omitting sub-section 2 and inserting in its stead another sub-section, part of which reads - (2.) The Governor-General may from time to time . . . {: type="a" start="1"} 0. *b* ) determine the extent to which, or the conditions upon which, any matter may be administered by the department. That is a very wide provision, and I ask the Minister in charge of the bill to indicate in his reply what. is intended. If the Government has no particular plan in mind, why does it need such a wide power? What is contemplated? It is unwise to insert in a bill a provision so devastatingly wide as this, and it must be regarded with the greatest suspicion. There is no limitation either of the duration of the measure or of the activities upon which the Government, within the terms of the bill, may embark. I hope that the Minister will explain in detail what is contemplated. The scope of the principal act was limited to commodities and occasions deemed by the Governor-General to be necessary for defence. Any power that is necessary for the defence of Australia will gladly be given, but in a time of peace I do not like to grant to the Government wide and vague powers such as those stated in the bill. As a Queenslander, **Mr. President,** you will be familiar with the wide terms of the Sugar Acquisition Act that was passed by the Queensland Parliament when the Ryan-Theodore Government was in power. The terms of that act were so wide that the night trotting at Woolloongabba, a suburb of Brisbane, was regulated and controlled under it. That should be a warning to honorable senators who support this measure. I repeat that the words sought to be inserted in the principal act by this subclause are - >The Governor-General may from time to time . . . > >determine the extent to which, or the conditions upon which, any matter may be administered by the department. If the Minister concerned decided, in his absolutely unfettered discretion, that a particular commodity or circumstance was needed in war, he could take administrative action through his department. I leave with the Senate the memory of night trotting being controlled under an act dealing with the acquisition of sugar. {: #subdebate-33-0-s3 .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator LARGE:
New South Wales . - Honorable senators opposite have shown by their speeches that they are exactly like their predecessors. At the outbreak of World War I. the British Government was unfortunately shackled by the influence exerted by the interests represented by members of the Opposition. On the day that war waa declared in 1914 private employers ceased to exist in Germany, but Great Britain and the Allies generally were handicapped because their industries were run by private enterprise. It was not until the middle of 1916, when the British Government began to taken control of the industries that were essential to the war effort, that the Allies " took a trick " at all. As greater control of industry was exercised by the British Government the successes of the Allies increased, culminating in their victory in 1918. Honorable senators opposite seem to have learned nothing from those events. At the outset of World War II., the Government appreciating the lessons of the 1914-18 war, determined that it would not leave essential industries in the hands of private enterprise, and it therefore assumed control of them. Members of the Opposition, however, twittered like birds about what they called the tampering with or encroaching upon privateenterprise by government institutions. Experience shows that when the acid test is applied, private enterprise invariably fails. This bill has been introduced in order to ensure that in the event of war Australia will not again be " caught on one leg ". As I listened to the speech of **Senator Cooper,** I could not help but feel that I was being taken back to the time when people believed that the earth was flat. At that time, people were, Shylocklike, concerned only with their private interests and had no regard for the welfare of the countries in which they lived. It seems to me that that spirit still lives in the doctrines of the members of the Opposition. I commend the bill to the Senate. It is intended to ensure that Australia will be prepared to meet any -emergency that may arise. There are no more vociferous advocates of preparedness than members of the antiLabour parties in this Parliament, but when preparations are made they find fault with them. They commend the responsible Minister in some ways, but at the same time they say he should not do what is proposed, and suggest that he should leave it to them because they could do it 90 much better. That seems to be their attitude. They have never been a constructive Opposition ; and when they were in office they were not a constructive Government. Everything that has been worth while in the interests of the people of this country has emanated from Labour sources either directly in legislation passed by a Labour government or in provisions wrung by Labour Oppositions from conservativeminded governments. I have been impelled to participate in this debate because of the nausea that assailed me when I heard honorable senators opposite arguing along the same lines as their prototypes argued 60 years ago. The members of the present Opposition parties do not appear to have grown up. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-KPC} ##### Senator KATZ:
Victoria .- The object of this measure is to protect not only the industries of Australia, but also the lives of the people of the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** damned the bill with faint praise. His only complaint was that it might in some way injure private enterprise. This legislation demonstrates that the present Government is not only protecting in peace the interests of those employed in industry and of every citizen generally, but is also preparing against possible aggression. The present is the most opportune time to implement a measure of this description. The bill has not been introduced because of circumstances which actually exist, but because our experience in the recent war. revealed the necessity to make preparations of this kind in order to protect the nation. **Senator O'Sullivan's** main complaint related to the definitions in the bill, particularly the definition of " war *materiel ".* He wanted to know the Government's reason for altering the definitions set out in the principal act by omitting the word " munitions " and inserting in its stead the words "war *materiel".* Surely he is aware, as our experience in the recent war in New Guinea and the Pacific Islands generally revealed, that equipment, such as, bulldozers, played equally as important a part in our operations as did the actual munitions of war. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- My point was that any material may be declared necessary for the purposes of defence. {: .speaker-KPC} ##### Senator KATZ: -- In time of war we cannot talk of peace ; but in time of peace we can prepare against future aggression. The definition of " war *materiel* " includes " long range weapons ". I venture to say that the British Empire as a whole will gain greater benefits from the experiments now being carried out on the guided weapons range in central Australia, than from any other defence experiments being carried out elsewhere. The definition also includes " aircraft ". Whenever honorable senators opposite may be passing through to Melbourne I shall be pleased to endeavour to obtain the permission of the Minister for Supply and Development **(Senator Armstrong)** to show them over the experimental station of the Department of Aircraft Production. They will be pleased to learn that as the result of tests made at that station the department has evolved a better machine than the original imported Lincoln bombers. Under this legislation the Government will be concerned with the manufacture of implements of war. Who is more fitted than the Government to do that? That task could not be entrusted to private enterprise. I do not propose to deal with the failures of private enterprise when the British Government relied upon it for the supply of war *materiel.* The 'Government is the only authority qualified ' to control every aspect of production for defence purposes. .The bill also covers shipbuilding and dry docking. All of us are aware of the great handicap we laboured under because this country lacked proper docking facilities for the repair and overhaul of larger classes of vessels during the recent war. Under this measure the Government will ensure the provision of adequate docking facilities. The bill also provides for the declaration of prohibited areas. That responsibility could not be handed over to private enterprise. I support the measure because it is designed to protect the interests of the nation. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania -- Because the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act will expire in the near future, and also because the Commonwealth's defence power is inadequate in peace-time to enable the Government to undertake work which it deems to be indispensable if this country is to prepare adequately against possible aggression, this legislation is fully justified. **Senator O'Sullivan** strongly objected to the bill because he said it conferred " devastating powers " upon the Government. During his speech I interjected, "What are you afraid of?", but the honorable senator did not answer me. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- My answer now is "the Government's typical abuse of power ". {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- The honorable senator merely indulges in generalities. Instead of saying exactly what he is afraid of he makes general statements, no doubt as a " try on " in an endeavour to mislead the people. He said that the bill would confer upon the Government greater powers than it asked for even during the recent war. That statement, of course, is absurd, because during the war the Government exercised whatever power it deemed to be essential for the more effective prosecution of the war and no section of the community dared to deny it any such power. During the war the Government had absolute power. My learned friend is trying to hoodwink the electors when he says that the powers proposed to be taken by the Government under the bill are too wide. The world is so disturbed that there may be a flare u,p in any corner of it at any moment. Democratic governments have been overthrown and dictators installed. The circumstances to-day are like those that bred the recent war. Does the honorable gentleman wish us to revert to the state of unpreparedness that we were in when World War II. broke out and cost us thousands of irreplaceable lives and maimed many other thousands? The Government must be unrestricted in preparing our defences. The nation that is prepared is the best able to defend itself and is the least likely to be attacked. Who is better equipped than is the Government to prepare our defences. Would the honorable gentleman suggest that preparations for our defences should be handed over to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited or some other private firm? Should we say to such firms, " Will you guarantee to prepare for our defence? " {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- This country would have been in a bad way but for the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited in the years that followed 1939. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I agree, but the honorable member will, I am sure, agree that that company was given every facility to obtain all its needs to produce what we needed from it during the emergency. Everything possible was done by the Government to help it. We are grateful for the way in which it responded. Nevertheless, it was not prepared for the war when it broke out. It is imperative that we must not be caught napping again. Has any private company prepared for the mass production of war *materiel* should war break out again? I have not heard of any. So the responsibility rests with the Government to go ahead with the establishment of industries to produce war *materiel.* We can no longer rely on countries overseas for our requirements in the event of war. We must be self-sufficient. Recently the Minister for Supply and Development visited Tasmania in reference to the establishment of the aluminium industry. Do. honorable senators opposite suggest that his powers in establishing that industry should be so limited that every step he takes in its establishment and development shall be prefaced by an amendment of the Supply and Development Act? Where is there danger in giving to a democratically elected government the powers provided for in this legislation? No government would dare to abuse the powers reposed in it, for, if it did, it would be summarily dealt with by the electors at the next general election, as has been the case with every government that has been false to its trust. One government in particular that did try to abuse those powers was swept out of office - and it was not a Labour govern^ ment either. Every country that values the lives of its citizens has the duty of providing in time of peace against being caught unawares by an outbreak of waa-. The Minister for Supply and Development is a young and resourceful man. He has been abroad and will shortly go abroad again on affairs of State. The experience that he gained as a Minister in the war and on his last visit overseas will be fortified by the experience that he will gain on his next visit. He has all the qualifications to form a judgment on what is needed. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- We are not criticizing the Minister for Supply and Development; our criticism is directed against the bill. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I know that, but honorable senators opposite have not given one instance of where the bill is wrong. All that **Senator O'Sullivan** did was to make a. sweeping statement that the " devastating powers " provided in the bill were too broad. My learned friend is new to politics, and, accordingly I forgive many of his mistakes, but I impress upon him that a government that is to achieve anything must have sufficiently wide powers to do so. I did not hear complaints from the Opposition during the war when this country was in dire peril and the Curtin Government conscripted men for service in the armed forces and in the Civil Constructional Corps in order to ward off that peril. They did not say then that the. powers it exercised were too sweeping. Proof that the Government does not want power for the mere sake of exercising it is provided by the fact that, as soon aspossible after hostilities ceased, it shed many of the powers that it had used in the protection of the country during the hostilities. Sections of the commercial community would welcome the re-imposition of some of the controls that the Government has relinquished. The truth of thematter is that the Government will exercise power only in the interests of thewelfare and security of Australia. {: #subdebate-33-0-s6 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- I rise- to support the bill,, the purpose of which is to co-ordinate the activities of the nation for both its defence and its development. It is necessary torecall to mind the days of nine years ago, when the nation suddenly found itself" plunged without preparation into thewhirlpool of war, and it was necessary to co-ordinate the men and women of Australia into a giganticwar effort. When Australia was attacked late in 1941 and early in 1942 it found itself with a new government, not because of' the express wish of the people,, but because those who had been elected to govern the country in 1941 were unableto carry on the task owing to internecinebickering. A minority government assumed control of this country, and wasimmediately faced with the stupendous - task of gearing the entire nation for an all-in war effort. We heard no criticism then of the powers assumed by the Government for the control of munitions - and war *materiels.* In Western Australia, almost overnight, men and materialsbecame available for munitions projects, and I should like here and now to pay a tribute, particularly to the women warworkers who came from factories, offices and homes to work round the clock in a new and tiring sphere of industry - the manufacture of munitions. During 1942" and 1943, I visited many factories throughout the Commonwealth and I was truly amazed at the work that was being done by young girls and olderwomen who never before had engaged in industry. Not only did they work during the day, but also they did their share of shift work at all hours of the night in order that their menfolk, who- were going- into battle, should be properly equipped. We have seen great tragedies overtake this continent because of the unpreparedness of our defences, and the lack of munitions. It is to ensure that these tragedies shall not be repeated and that we shall be kept as long as possible from the nightmare of another world war, that this measure has been introduced. The Government has decided wisely to exploit to the fullest our resources for the defence and development of this country. It seems rather a negation of democracy to hear elected representatives of the people of this country decrying in this chamber the fact that these powers are being sought by the National Parliament to which Australian citizens have entrusted the task of defending Australia. Who is better qualified to safeguard the welfare of this nation than those who have been elected by the people to represent them in the Parliament? Surely we pride ourselves on. the fact that Australia is a democracy; and one of the first functions of any democracy is to extend to all the people that it embraces, a full measure of protection. Without the powers sought in this measure the Government will not be able to protect the people of the Commonwealth. These powers, of course, are not new. We are part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the Mother Country has shown us the way. Our great ally in World War II., the United States of America, has also taken this step. We are merely following the example set by those two great countries. Opposition senators claim that this hill envisages the expansion of State enterprise. Criticism has been made of certain State enterprises in Queensland which were not successful; but no mention has been made of an outstanding example of a successful State enterprise. I instance the State shipping service of Western Australia. In this island continent, shipping is of paramount importance. During the perilous days of the war, the lack of adequate shipping was a real danger. As my colleague from Western Australia, **Senator Cooke,** has already said, one of the greatest losses ever sustained by this Commonwealth was occasioned by the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, a government enterprise which was practically given away by an anti-Labour government, and for which we have not yet been paid. Some of the vessels of that fleet, notably *Jervis Bay,* played a vital part in the World War II. There is an urgent necessity for an increase of Australian shipping. More vessels are needed particularly on the coast of Western- Australia, because some portions of that State can only be reached by sea. To provide adequate services to Wyndham, Broome, Derby, and other northern ports of Western Australia, more vessels are urgently required, particularly for the carrying of cargoes. When the State Government established its own line of steamers, the first result was an immediate decrease of freight charges by one-third of the former rates. Passenger fares, too, were reduced. Not long ago I made a trip through the northern part of Western Australia, and found ample evidence that the State shipping service is not just another shipping company but really an important institution in the life of the people of that far flung part of the continent. As I have said, no mention of this successful undertaking was made tonight by the critics of State enterprises in voicing their opposition to this bill which envisages the building of ships not only for the coastal trade, but also for the inter-island trade which is so necessary to the peace-time development of this country. One of the most noteworthy features of the modern age is the manner in which science has allied itself to the war machine. It is regrettable indeed - and the women of the world deplore this fact greatly - that the scientific advancement of mankind has led humanity into channels of destruction when there is so much that could be done for the uplift of civilization by the association of science with great humanitarian ideals. However we must be realists, and take the world as we find it. In the last decade the march of science has far outstripped the ability of mankind to keep up with it. The warfare of to-day is not even that of the World War I. There have been many developments since those days, particularly in the field of atomic warfare, and we shudder at the prospect of a third world conflict. In Australia to-day, we are setting up research centres to study not only atomic warfare, but also the harnessing of atomic energy for the benefit of mankind. This is being done through scientific laboratories all over the Commonwealth. I draw the attention of honorable senators to what the Government has already been able to achieve in another field of scientific endeavour. I refer to the Commonwealth health laboratories situated in Melbourne. As the " result of the work of these institutions, sufferers from various diseases in all parts of the Commonwealth have derived great benefit. I mention this because usually one hears so much deprecatory talk of government enterprises that one might be led to believe that such undertakings were always a failure. There is a great future for the people of this Commonwealth in the extension of 'the activities of these laboratories and other similar institutions. Earlier to-night I had no intention of speaking to this measure and I should not have done so had it not been for the remarks of members of the Opposition who have endeavoured to find something sinister in the bill. There is nothing sinister about it. All the cards are on the table. It simply means that all the defence activities of the Commonwealth are being brought under one ministry so that the people of Australia through their representatives in this Parliament will have control over the destiny of this country with which is indissolubly linked its defence and industrial development. {: #subdebate-33-0-s7 .speaker-JXC} ##### Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania -- I cannot understand why any one who has the defence of this country at heart should oppose this measure. Its purpose is to give a wider application to the Supply and Development Act, which, in turn, has a vital bearing upon the security of Australia by preserving the knowledge, equipment, research activities and the personnel so painstakingly established during the war. Honorable senators opposite have expressed the fear that this is another step towards the usurpation by the Government of more power. They quibble over the use of a word - whether it should be " munitions " or " *materiel "* During' the recent war, it took a long time to place medical and scientific services upon a proper footing, and we should now see that advantage is taken of the knowledge then gained. Otherwise, we shall fall behind in the international race, as was made clear to us by the mission of British scientists, headed by Lieutenant-General Evetts, which visited this 'country to advise on defence matters. I do not now propose to give a dissertation upon guided missiles, radar, jet propulsion, and the search for uranium and other essential metals, the importance of which is obvious. Members of the Opposition profess to see in this bill another attempt by the Government to usurp power which does not properly belong to it. I remind honorable senators that there must be authority if we are to achieve anything, lt is of no use to draft men into the Army, to train them and to equip them with arms, uniforms, &c, unless we establish also an organization for command. I come now to the subject of shipbuilding. Clause 16 of the bill provides for - the building, repair and maintenance of merchant ships and the building, extension, operation, repair and maintenance of shipyards, dry-docking and repair facilities for merchant ships; We, in Tasmania, recognize the im.portance of transport, particularly sea transport. I have seen some of the ships built under the direction of the Australian Shipbuilding Board. I have worked on *River Fitzroy* and *River Clarence,* and I have travelled on *River Murray.* I have been on board the " D " class ships, including *Dubbo, Dalby, Delungra* and *Delamere.* I was also on board *Barragun,* one of the finest and best equipped ships to be built under Commonwealth supervision, on its voyage to Hobart, and I know it to be one of the finest ships of its class. There is no reason why we should not develop in Australia our own Newcastle-on-Tyne There is no reason why Whyalla should not become another Belfast. Sea transport is necessary to our development, and one of the most important provisions of this bill is that which is designed to keep in existence the war-time organization for shipbuilding. Another important provision is that under which it is proposed to keep skilled staffs together. I had the privilege to go through the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation factory at Fisherman's Bend, where Mustangs and aircraft of other types are being manufactured for the Royal Australian Air Force, and I have seen what is being done to equip our forces for bacterial warfare. I congratulate the Government upon having brought this bill before the Parliament because it is an important landmark in the defence of our country. {: #subdebate-33-0-s8 .speaker-KVB} ##### Senator MORROW:
Tasmania -- I deplore the necessity for this bill, but we must recognize that, whilst the capitalist system lasts, there will be wars. It is terrible to think that we must prepare for another blood-bath, which, unhappily, may come sooner than we think. However, we do not want to be caught in the same position as that in which we were placed when the Menzies Government was in power during the last war. It drew a line across the map of Australia known as " the Brisbane line ", and said that all those who lived to the north of it might have to migrate south. That actually happened. I had relatives in the north, and they were instructed to prepare to travel south. That happened because there was in power a government which left the defence of the country to private enterprise. **Senator Cooper** declared that the Government was determined to apply its policy of nationalization, and he referred to the banking legislation. He knows that under the Constitution the Commonwealth Government may nationalize certain enterprises only, including banking and insurance, and that it may take certain other steps under the defence power. The Government is the proper authority to organize the defence of the country. We know that some of the leaders of private enterprise find it to their interest to provoke war' hysteria, and create the impression that war is inevitable, their purpose being to make profits. The intention of the Government is to produce war *materiel,* not for profit, but for use, if need be. There -would be no profits for private industry if the Government were in complete control of all defence projects. When the country was in danger the leaders of private enterprise were quite prepared to hand over control of their factories to the Government. They said to the Government, " We are prepared to work with and for you". In England, the railways were handed over to the Government, as was the control of shipping. It was recognized that the Government can direct industry more efficiently than can private enterprise, because it is not concerned with profit. Practically all goods produced for peace-time purposes are required' in time of war for the defence of the country. We have been asked why we want to change the word " munitions " to "war *materiel".* To-day, even household articles are embraced by the name *materiel* for almost everything that is produced to-day is connected with war. Therefore the Government should have the right to produce all of those requirements. Opposition senators have also suggested that government enterprises are not being run efficiently. But who would say the railways, roads, education and postal facilities- {: .speaker-KPC} ##### Senator Katz: -- Are the railways run efficiently? {: .speaker-KVB} ##### Senator MORROW: -- Yes, far more efficiently than they were under the private enterprises which handed them over to the Government. Those who surrendered authority in these matters doubtless thought that they would get great concessions from the Government. Private enterprise could not adequately provide water supply and hospital services for the people. **Senator O'Sullivan** stated that we should be very careful because the Queensland Government applied certain provisions of the Sugar Acquisition Bill to the control of trotting. He knows very well that no such bill would get through the Australian Parliament. In a time of war the Commonwealth Government has far greater authority than in times of peace. We do want to co-ordinate all of the industries which would provide the necessaries for war. I deplore the necessity for such a bill, but unfortunately the people of this country do not realize that while the present system persists, there will always be wars. We therefore have to be prepared, and I believe that this bill will assist in the preparation and co-ordination of the factories. {: #subdebate-33-0-s9 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP -- *in reply* - Generally speaking, I am pleased with the reception that the Senate has accorded this bill, and that the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper),** when tracing the history of legislature, went back to its introduction by **Mr. R.** G. Casey. I think that is as good a point to start from as any other. In 1939 **Mr. Casey** introduced a supply and development bill which, I believe, was fundamentally the same as the one now under debate. Because the preparation of that bill was not as carefully planned as it might have been, the responsibilities thrust upon the then Department of Supply and Development proved too much for that department, which was subsequently, in war-time, broken up into two very large departments - the Department of Munitions, which was given the responsibility of producing the actual munitions of warfare, and the Department of Supply, upon which devolved the general responsibility of procurement of all other necessaries for war, such as clothing and food. In general terms, those departments had to provide numerous articles to enable the war to be successfully waged. Sufficient time was not, however, given to the officer in charge of that original department, between 1939 and its subdivision, to organize the manpower, and accumulate the experience necessary to carry out the functions envisaged by the "Government when it introduced the original Supply and Development Bill. I endorse what **Senator Morrow** has said, that the Australian Government has learned very much from its experience in the last war. As honorable senators are well aware, a great deal has happened in the years since 1939. A war descended upon the world and its horrors are still fresh in our minds. The lessons they taught are such that they cannot be ignored. The bill before this chamber aims to co-ordinate in one department, and under one ministerial head, all of the problems which would be associated -with supply in the event of any future war, bearing in mind that adequate preparation in time of peace is the greatest Insurance that any nation can have against war. Looking back over what happened in 1939-40, when the present Opposition parties were in power, I have often thought that their greatest problem was that they started their preparations too late. It was truly said by **Mr. Winston** Churchill, several weeks ago, that, in the first year of a war, production is nil, in the second year it is merely a trickle, in the third year it starts to move, and in the following year it develops into a flood. That is because, in the English-speaking nations, we have always been unprepared when war has broken out. Although **Mr. Churchill's** statement is true of what has happened in the past, we hope that it may not prove correct in the future. Because of that fact, we now plan to lay a firm foundation to meet any future problems. Should international relationships deteriorate! - and we pray that they will not - we hope that, as a result of the planning we are now undertaking, it will not be a question of waiting for years before full-scale production can be achieved by this nation. By streamlined administration, we hope, in an emergency, to be able to move forward immediately in top gear, and at full speed. I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** received this bill so generously. I believe that in his mind, as he said himself, he is certain that this is a good bill, and that its provisions are necessary. I suppose it was reasonable for me to expect that somewhere towards the tail-end of his remarks he would refer to his fear that this is an "undercover" means by which the Government intends to introduce socialism into this country. **Senator O'Sullivan,** with his remarkable aptitude for phrasing, and his brilliant memory, reminded the Senate that, under the Sugar Acquisition Act, night trotting was prohibited at Wollongabba. By authority of the same act, I suppose such events could also be run. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- Those are the hidden powers 1- am afraid of. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- I can assure the honorable senator that it is- most im-probable that night trotting events will be introduced on the banks of the Molonglo River. We sincerely hope tha' , in making adequate preparations, they will not be found necessary. I wish this aspect to be clearly understood; we have asked for, and shall receive, very wide powers under this bill. There will be no question about that. The lessons we learned during the war proved that total war is indeed all that that term connotes. It seems to embrace almost every section of the community. We have endeavoured to establish in the Department of Supply and Development an organization which will be capable of handling all aspects of preparation for war. It may seem strange that the department should enter into so many fields, but when we consider the wide ramifications of modern warfare we can readily understand how necessary it is to have trained geologists and geophysicists working in Canberra and Melbourne and in the fields throughout Australia testing the earth's surface and all that lies beneath it, specialists in radioactive minerals, oil, and even gold. From the geological and geophysical aspect alone our success in a future war might well depend upon a lucky strike in this country. Indeed, a war might be prevented or won as the result of scientific discoveries made in this country. Incidentally, a chief geologist has been appointed to the British Ministry of Supply. A great deal of his work will be in connexion with the exploration of the use of radio-active minerals. With the coming of the scientific age the old concepts of war and preparedness for war have changed. Unfortunately, in the past, this country has been poorly equipped in respect of the scientific aspects of defence. The Government now proposes to appoint a chief scientist to co-ordinate scientific effort on a defence level. His first task will be to recruit young men with sufficient scientific attainments to unable them to undertake the work of defence scientists. A very wide field is thus envisaged. Having regard to our small population, only by the development of scientific warfare to the greatest possible degree shall we be able to hold our own against superior numbers. The Government has provided for military purposes sums never before equalled in the history of the Commonwealth. The defence plan envisages the expenditure of £250,000,000 over a five-year period by the services and in research and development. For scientific purposes it has earmarked £32,500,000 to be expended during the next five years. This measure has been brought before the Parliament in order that that programme may be carried out in full. The efforts of highranking officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force will be integrated with those of the officers of the Department of Supply and Development so that there shall be the closest liaison between those who use the materials of war and those who supply them. The necessity for the closest liaison between the users of weapons and those who make them was one of the lessons learned during the war. In endeavouring to make a case against ' this bill, the Leader of the Oppositionreferred to the proposed substitution in section 4 of the principal act of the words " war *materiel* " for the word " munitions ". The honorable senator contended that the term " munitions " was sufficient to cover all the requirements of war. He must know very well that the term " munitions " does not cover a fraction of the requirements of modern war. The honorable senator also said that the inclusion of the word " vehicles " in the definition of " war *materiel* " was rather strange. Although unthinking people may be apt to regard a vehicle as something which merely moves along on wheels, the vehicles contemplated ;n the definition are part and parcel of the guided weapons project. They do not move along on wheels, they fly through the air. If we attempt to make vehicles under our power to make munitions we may be on dangerous legal grounds. The same doubt applies to aircraft and equipment associated with aircraft. Honorable senators opposite must realize that the term " munitions " has a very restricted application, having regard to the multiplicity of the requirements of modern warfare. In this bill the Government proposes to widen the definition so that in its preparations for the defence of this country it shall have the widest powers to administer and control everything likely to be required for the conduct of a war. For that purpose the term " war *materiel* " is being substituted for the word " munitions ". It seems that the only objection to the bill on the part of the Leader of the Opposition is a fear that it may open the way to socialism. But everything we do opens the way to socialism. If we walk out of the door of this building we open the way to the world, though we may intend to go only to Sydney. We do not go to all the places to which we open the door, nor do we desire to do so. Following the example set by Great Britain and the United States of America, and profiting by the experience learned during the war, we propose to do everything possible to provide the best defence machinery as a form of war insurance. **Senator O'Sullivan** suggested that this bill is " heavily loaded ". That term is strange to me. I have already said that the powers proposed to be vested in the Government by this measure are very wide. No attempt has been made to hide that fact. It is true that they are very wide; but the Government believes them to be essential in the light of the lessons learned during the war. The honorable senator then protested that the powers exercised by the Government during the war were not as great as those it now seeks in this measure. He surely must know that during the war the Government assumed and freely exercised unlimited powers under the National Security Act. Finally, the honorable senator queried the provisions of clause 6, which empowers the Governor-General from time to time to add to or vary the matters to be administered by the department, and to determine the extent to which, or the conditions upon which, any matter may be administered by the department. In the division of powers between the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and myself certain activities were transferred to the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and certain activities were transferred to me; but there has been such an extraordinary advance in the scientific approach to warfare that no one knows from day to day what discoveries may be made in the geological or the geophysical field which may necessitate a change in the powers and functions to be exercised by the Department of Supply and Development. I think I have dealt with all of the objections raised by members of the Opposition. However, if honorable senators require any further information I 9hall be happy to supply it during the committee discussions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Title). {: #subdebate-33-0-s10 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland .- This is the clause that provides for the substitution of the term " war *materiel "* for " munitions " in the principal act. My colleagues and I, who number only three as against 33 supporters of the Government, have strongly criticized this provision, and everything that we have said on the subject has been fully justified. The Minister, in his speech in reply to the second-reading debate, admitted that, the bill will give wide powers to the Government. We do not criticize the granting of wider power9 to the Government nor do we criticize the general purpose of the bill; in fact, we commend the Government for introducing a measure which will enable the nation to be prepared for total war should the necessity arise. Supporters of the Government have declared that, if they have the opportunity, they will nationalize -many of our major industries. That is the ground on which our suspicions about the real objects of this bill are mainly based. I appreciate the informative reply given by the Minister.' Our criticism of the measure was justified by the very fact that it elicited so much extra information. If this small opposition remained silent in the Senate, it would receive scant consideration and much important information would be withheld from it by the Government. Our job in this Parliament is to be critical of the Government's activities, to secure what information we can, and, from such information, to decide what attitude to adopt towards legislation when it is being dealt with in committee. In his reply the Minister gave us, and incidentally the people of Australia, much more information than was contained in his opening speech. For that reason alone, the critical remarks of Opposition senators were well justified. SenatorARMSTRONG(New 'South Wales - Minister forSupply and Development)[9.54]. - I have not the slightest objection to the Opposition's criticism. Onthe contrary, I appreciate it,asI believe the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** is aware. With reference to the substitution of "war *materiel "* for " munitions ", theOpposition should not lose sight of the fact that the word *"materiel"* isprefaced by the word "war".,which imposes certain restrictions. It its an interesting fact that, in the legislationenacted an the United States of America, the word" *materiel"* is used without qualification. A restriction is imposedby the use of "war " in this measure, and that clearly indicates the intention of the Government. {: #subdebate-33-0-s11 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- I maintain that "munitions " would have been quite adequate in the circumstances. Reference to *Webster's International Dictionary* discloses that "munition " means "whatever materials are used in war for defence or for offence ". I maintain therefore that the original wording of the act would meet the requirements of the Government. {: #subdebate-33-0-s12 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP -- - If the Leaderof the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** has quoted a correct definition of " munitions ", then obviously the use of that word in the act confers upon the Government the same powers and the same wide coverage as will be conferred upon it when the term " war *materiel "* is substituted. The Opposition has no objection to the use of the word " munitions ", yet it objects to the use of the words " war *materiel "* although, in the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, both terms mean the same thing. In view of this, it appears that we are on the same track. I appreciate the helpful remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5 - >Section four of the PrincipalAct is amended - > >by adding at the end thereof the following definition: - " ' war *materiel '* means armaments, weapons (including long range weapons), ammunition,engines, magazines, aircraft, vehicles, merchant ships and other marine craft, equipment, supplies,baggage and otherthings weeded in warandincludes any goods, components, parts, accessoriesor plant necessary for, or incidental to, the testing, development, production or supply of any of thosethings". {: #subdebate-33-0-s13 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Queensland -- -'The Minister has not givenus an adequate reason for such a wide departure from the definition contained in the principal actas is proposed in this clause. I have no objection to changing the word " munitions " to " war *materiel "* because I considerthat that is quite inconsequential. However, the original definition in the act states - " munitions " means armaments, arms and ammunition, and includessuch equipment, machines,commodities, materials, supplies or stores of any kind,as are, in the opinion of the Governor-General, necessary for the purposes of defence. Iam happy to have this definition widened in order to suit the convenience of the Minister and to widen the application of the act, but I urge that the words " needed in war " be deleted from the definition in paragraph, *d* , and that the Minister content himself with the definition which I have just quoted. It is confined to commodities and articles " necessary for the purposes of defence ". If the Minister is serious and sincere - and I have no doubt that he is - and if this is merely a precautionary measure in order that we shall be equipped to meet any contingency - & very wise precaution - the definition of " war *materiel* " ought to fee confined strictly to the purposes of defence as contemplated in the principal act I shall be quite happy if the Minister will accept my suggestion that the words " needed in war " in paragraph *d* be replaced by the words " necessary for the purposes of defence ". Clause agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Information). {: #subdebate-33-0-s14 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Queensland -- Section 6 of the principal act states - (1.) Where, in the opinion of the GovernorGeneral, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of the defence of the Commonwealth. that information should be obtained in relation to industrial, commercial or other undertakings, or with respect to any goods . . . The word " undertakings " is used in that section. As a matter of interpretation, it would have a very restricted meaning and would be quite *properly* confined to the legitimate purpose of the section. The word " activities " has an infinitely wider meaning. Its interpretation could be extended even to include the ramblings of a child, or a game of football. It covers every conceivable form of human motion. I suggest that section 6 of the act be restricted to commercial undertakings, not extended to the activities generally of mankind. {: #subdebate-33-0-s15 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP -- In clause 5, an undertaking is defined as a factory or works, but we have also asked for the supply of information, if necessary, concerning any industrial undertaking, and, therefore, we have been obliged to use the word ' activities " which, I agree with **Senator O'Sullivan,** has a wider application. Clause agreed to. Glauses 8 to 17 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1501 {:#debate-34} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-34-0} #### NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M Motion (by **Senator Ashley)** put - >That Standing Order C8 be suspended for this sitting, to enable new business to be commenced after 10.30 p.m. {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1501 {:#debate-35} ### SUPERANNUATION BILL 194S {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1471). {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- The Opposition supports this bill. The main purposes of this legislation are - (1) to grant pensions to 24 officers of the Permanent Military Forces retired from the forces before they reached their appropriate retiring ages; (2) to delete that part of the Superannuation Act which concerns contributors attached to the Permanent Military and Air Forces; (3) to extend to ex-State officers the 25 per cent, increase in superannuation pensions;: (4) to remove an anomaly in the 1947 amending act in regard to medical examination prior to contribution for additional units of pension. I agree with the proposal to grant pensions to the 24 officers of the permanent military forces who retired before they had attained the retiring ages fixed for their respective ranks. The Superannuation Act underwhich these officers contributed did not-, provide for pensions in such circumstances. When I read the schedule of" the bill, I noticed the names of somemost distinguished officers who served' with the Australian Military Forces. The State pension rights of former State employees are preserved by section 84 of the Australian Constitution. The majority of the employees concerned were transferred from the Western Australian State service, where their right to a pension had been determined by the Superannuation Act of 1871. As pensions under the Western Australia act were increased by 25 per cent, last February, it is only reasonable that former State employees should be granted a- similar increase. The Superannuation Act of 1947 increased the maximum number of units of pension, for which employees may contribute, from sixteen to 26. Employees who were contributing for the maximum number of sixteen units when the act of 1947 commenced were permitted to elect to contribute for additional units, according to their salary groups, without a medical examination. However, some employees who had been eligible to contribute for sixteen units were not doing so, and the act of 1947 provided that those employees, if eligible on a salary basis to contribute for units in excess of sixteen and if they desired to contribute, must submit to ' a medical examination. The obligation to undergo a medical examination in these cases places the employees at a disadvantage compared with the employees who were contributing for the maximum of sixteen units, because neither class of employee had had previous opportunity to .contribute for units in excess of sixteen. The Opposition agrees with these proproposals, and will not delay the passage of the bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1502 {:#debate-36} ### TRANSFERRED OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES BILL 1948 {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1472). {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland .- This is mainly a machinery measure which provides for the adjustment of the pensions payable to officers who transferred to the Commonwealth from the Western Australian Public Service. The Parliament of that State recently enacted legislation to increase by 25 per cent, as from the 1st January, 1948, pensions payable to retired public servants under an act of 1871. However, such increase was not to apply to those receiving pensions in excess of £360 per annum. Many years ago a number of officers, who were principally engaged in the customs and lighthouse service, transferred from the Service of Western Australia to the Commonwealth Public Service. Few of them are still alive, but those who have survived are receiving very inadequate pensions. However, I direct the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel **(Senator Ashley)** to the position of officers who transferred to the Commonwealth Service, and because of their ability qualified for an annual pension of more than £360 per annum. No provision is made for them in this measure, although they are affected by increases of the cost of living just as much as are officers in receipt of smaller pensions. Will the Minister undertake to consider their case? {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales' · ALP -- *in reply* - I appreciate the reception given to the bill by honorable senators opposite, and I assure the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** that the officers to whom he has referred will receive from the Commonwealth similar treatment to that which they would have received had they remained in the service of the State. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1502 {:#debate-37} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS Motion (by **Senator Ashley)** - *by leave* - agreed to - >That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. {: .page-start } page 1502 {:#debate-38} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Senator Ashley)** agreed to - >That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Tuesday, the 15th June, at 3 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1502 {:#debate-39} ### ADJOURNMENT Ais Travel fob Members of the Armed Forces - Housing - Prices Control - Fishermen's Gear - Shipping : SS. " Duntroon ". Motion (by **Senator Ashley)** proposed - >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-KQF} ##### Senator LAMP:
Tasmania .- As honorable senators are aware members of the armed forces who proceed on leave are issued with vouchers to cover the cost of transport from their barracks to their homes. Members of the Navy and Air Force who reside in Tasmania receive vouchers for an amount of £3 17s. for steamship travel from Melbourne to Launceston. Some time ago I attended a deputation to the Government asking that they be permitted to utilize their vouchers in part payment of air travel to Tasmania from Victoria by TransAustralia Airlines. I think that their request is a most reasonable one, more particularly as they are prepared to pay the difference between the fares for air travel and sea transport, and they would patronize a government airline. The Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Riordan)** agreed that the proposal was a reasonable one, 'and said that the Department of the Navy would not offer any objection. However, some time later the Minister informed us by letter that the Treasury could not permit . the concession. The matter was then mentioned to the Minister for Air **(Mr. Drakeford),** who also was most courteous and concurred in our request. However, the Treasury still refused to sanction the concession. We then interviewed **Mr. Watt,** acting secretary to the Treasury, who stated that that department could not agree to the concession because the steamship company which operates between Victoria and Tasmania receives a subsidy from the Commonwealth, and. the Government would have to make good any loss of traffic which the steamship company suffered. Following the interview with **Mr. Watt** I asked a question upon notice of the Minister representing the Treasurer, in the following terms : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that Tasmanian Steamers Proprietary Limited receives a subsidy from the Government to run steamers between Melbourne and Tasmanian ports? 1. If so, what are the terms of the subsidy, and what amount is paid to Tasmanian Steamers Proprietary Limited? The answer supplied to the first' question was " No ", and the answer to the second one was " See answer to No. 1 ". I now appeal to the Minister for Fuel and Shipping to investigate the matter out and inform me of the result. {: #debate-39-s1 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP -- Earlier to-day **Senator Finlay** asked the following questions, *upon notice,* of the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many homes have been completed, how many are in course of erection and how many is it proposed to build under the Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement on the rental rebate system ? 1. How many such homes have been erected in South Australia under this scheme, and *how many* is it proposed to erect in that State? 2. What factors are taken into account in arriving at the economic rent of such houses? 3. What is the floor rental of houses erected under this scheme? 4. What method is adopted in allocating such homes to the people? A lengthy answer has been supplied by the Minister for Works and Housing, and, with the concurrence of the Senate, I shall incorporate the information in *Hansard -* {: type="A" start="I"} 0. The following table sets out the number of dwellings under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement which have been completed or under construction as at .list March, 1948: - No limit has been set on the number of dwellings to be provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The Commonwealth Government has consistently urged the States to build up to the limit of their capacity, having regard to the availability of men and materials. 2.. South Australia, although a signatory to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, has not yet elected to operate under it. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Economic rents of houses erected under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement are calculated in conformity with a formula prescribed in the agreement. The factors taken into account are (o) interest and sinking fund payments on capital costs, (o) maintenance, (c) rates and taxes, (<Z) insurance, and (e) provision for vacancies, defaults and costs of administration. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The lowest rent payable by a tenant of a Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement dwelling is 8s. a week. The agreement clause 11 (1.) provides for a system of rental rebates to tenants. The basic principle of this system is that families whose income equals the basic wage need not pay more than one-fifth of that income in rent, regardless of the economic rent of the dwelling. As the family income rises above or falls below the basic wage, so does the rebate diminish or increase. Rebates are limited to such an amount as will not reduce the rent payable below 8s. a week. 1. In accordance with clause 3 (2.) of the agreement, the administration of the scheme is in the hands of the State housing authorities. These authorities are required to allocate dwellings on the basis of need. By arrangement the States are required to allocate not less than 50 per cent, to ex-service personnel and their dependants. In most States such allocations have exceeded 50 per cent, and in some States have been as high as 70 per cent. On the 30th April, **Senator Cooke** asked whether the Governments of Victoria and South Australia had indicated that they were not prepared to re-enact complementary legislation which would permit the continuance of prices control by the Commonwealth, and whether any indication had been given by the Government of Western Australia in regard to the repeal, after December, 1948, of the existing State act, which permits the Commonwealth to provide this very necessary protection. The Minister for Trade and Customs has asked me to inform the honorable senator that the Legislative Council in Victoria defeated an 'attempt by the State Government to extend the operation of the State Economic Stability Act beyond the 31st December, 1947. A similar act in South Australia expired on the 31st December, 1947, and there has been no attempt to replace it. There is an Economic Stability Act in Western Australia operative to the 31st December, 1948, but nothing is known of any intention to replace it after that date. **Senator Cooper** has asked the following questions, *upon notice,* of the Minister for Trade and Customs : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact, as stated in the Melbourne *Argus* of the 11th March, 1948, that the Prices Commissioner intended to review prices of "luxury clothing", particularly for women ? 1. If so, has such review yet been completed, and what action does the Government intend to take? 2. Is it a fact that clothing costs have risen 96.1 per cent since before the war? 3. If not, what is the figure? In the temporary absence of the Minister, I now inform the honorable senator that the answers to his questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The prices of all clothing, luxury and otherwise, are under constant review, and must remain under close observation while cost changes are occurring. 3 and 4. The increase in clothing prices since the war, as recorded by the Commonwealth Statistician, is 9S.7 per cent. The increase would be very much greater but for the subsidy policy introduced by the Government On the 28th April, **Senator Finlay** asked a question regarding the difficulty being experienced by fishermen in procuring various types of fishing gear. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has now advised me that fish netting is in short supply in all States, due mainly to the fact that we must now depend on the United Kingdom for all our requirements. Pre-war, 50 per cent was obtained from Japan. The United Kingdom is unable to increase supplies at present as it is committed to assist in the rehabilitation of European fisheries, where the gear is urgently needed to provide food for the starving populations. No fish netting is manufactured in Australia at present, but considerable information has been given to prospective manufacturers. All fishermen are using substitutes for Manila rope, and, although not as good as the Manila, the substitutes such as sisal are giving reasonable satisfaction. It is not possible to indicate when adequate supplies of gear will be available, but quantities are coming through regularly. It is suggested that fishermen should keep in touch with suppliers, not only in their own States but also in other States, where their requirements may be met. {: #debate-39-s2 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP -- *in reply* - I shall bring the matter of concessions to ex-servicemen travellers between Melbourne and Tasmania, referred to by **Senator Lamp,** to the notice of the Treasurer and obtain the information desired. Earlier to-day, **Senator Murray** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following questions, *upon notice : -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister seen the recent press reports that the liner *Duntroon,* which was about to be re-employed in the interstate passenger trade, is now to be used to withdraw British Commonwealth Occupation Forces personnel in Japan to Australia? 1. Has the Minister received from the committee of investigation which has visited Japan a recommendation that the Australian forces be withdrawn? The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. *Duntroon is* being employed on routine trooping as from mid-June, 1948, instead of H.M.A.S. *Kanimbla,* which vessel has been diverted to the United Kingdom for transporting the Australian crew of the new Royal Australian Navy carrier. 1. No. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1504 {:#debate-40} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department - Commerce and Agriculture - A.. K. **Major.** Parliamentary Reporting Staff - A. B. K. Miller,R. A. A. Paynter. Papua-New . Guinea Provisional Administration Act- Ordinance - 1948 - No.5 - Commissions of Inquiry (Papua). Senate adjourned at 10.24 p.m. to Tuesday, the 15th June, at3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 May 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19480506_senate_18_197/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant