Senate
8 March 1951

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- APPLES AND PEARS
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
QUESTION
- ALUMINIUM
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- CORTISONE AND ACTH
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- TIN
QUESTION
- RAIL TRANSPORT
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL AFFAIR’S
QUESTION
- ARMED FORCES
QUESTION
- LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU
QUESTION
- QUESTION’S
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH RUSSIA
QUESTION
- DIESEL OIL
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
JAPANESE PEACE TREATY
QUESTION
- PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS-
QUESTION
- PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS
NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1950
- Second Reading
NATIONAL SERVICE IN THE DEFENCE FORCE
- Special Report of Select Committee
QUESTION
- SERVICE CHIEFS SNUB SENATE,
NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1950
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Senator W. Morrow
PAPERS

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 96

QUESTION

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the importance of the coal industry to Australia, will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport make more frequent statements in this chamber in order to keep honorable senators informed of the activities of the Joint Coal Board and of what steps the Government is taking to open new mines and to renovate old mines in New South Wales ?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I appreciate the importance of that question and I indicate to the honorable senator that the Joint ‘Coal Board proposes .to open ten new open=cut mines this year. Some of the big owners are extending .their plant very considerably. If things go according to plan, it will mean that by the end of this year, since the Joint ‘Coal Board was established, open-cut mines will have increased in number from 8 to 28. The target set is 5,00.0,000 tons of coal from open-cut mines, .and it is expected that .that output will he reached : within two years. At present, machinery to the value of £5,000,00.0 has ‘been -imported, whilst £1,000,000 worth is on order .and has yet to come. One important overseas contractor has signed up and is bringing his own plant. The Coal Board is about to sign up with a British contractor who is in a big way, and negotiations are also proceeding with a contractor from the United States of America. In view of the > importance of this subject, I hope next week to make a statement upon it setting forth in greater detail what has been done to increase production. The results have been encouraging.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Since tests have proved that big deposits of coal exist in the vicinity of Moorlands, South Australia, which is adjacent to the River Murray, and in view of the urgent and ever-increasing demand for coal, will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport -indicate whether the Government is prepared to assist the Government of South Australia in every possible way in the development, by gasification process or by any other means, of the coal-fields, in order that the coal may be made available for the nation?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I have noticed reports in connexion with the coal deposits referred to, and I know that the Premier of South Australia is taking an active interest in the matter. Whether or not the Commonwealth can render assistance in the development of the deposits is a matter that I shall discuss with the Premier, and I shall let the honorable senator have a written reply in due course.

page 98

QUESTION

CORTISONE AND ACTH

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN.Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether supplies of cortisone and ACTH are available to persons needing those drugs? If not, has any action been taken to ensure their equitable distribution within Australia? Has the Government done anything to relieve users of the drugs from the payment of duty on them ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– Thanks to the courtesy of the honorable senator, I had an idea that this question would be asked, and I am in a position to give a full answer to it. I am sure that not only honorable senators, but also the public generally, will be interested in the answer. There is not enough cortisone in Australia to meet all demands. America is the only source of supply, and insufficient quantities of cortisone are being received from that country. Dollar funds are being provided for the purchase of all. that is avail able. In order to ensure that the limited supplies of cortisone are used to the best advantage I have conferred with my colleague, the Minister for Health, and as a result steps are being taken, with the cooperation of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, to arrange for the distribution of the drug to patients whose medical practitioners issue a certificate that the drug is needed and, in respect of whom, the college considers the drug should be supplied, having due regard to the limited quantity available, and the condition and need of the patients. Arrangements to ensure the most effective use of cortisone have not yet been completed, but I hope that, within a very short time, the scheme will be operating smoothly. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians requires medical practitioners who receive cortisone to forward clinical reports of the cases, and in this way medical evidence will accumulate as to its efficacy and undesirable side reactions, if any. I may add that, some time ago, I arranged for cortisone to be admitted free of duty, and for refunds to be made in any cases where duty had been previously paid. The other drug mentioned by the honorable senator is ACTH. I am given to understand that this hormone stimulates the adrenal glands to produce substances allied to cortisone. If there are coherent deficiencies of these glands in any patient, such hormone stimulation may not be effective, and it will be necessary to administer cortisone itself. Adequate supplies of ACTH are available from the United Kingdom, and it is admitted free of duty.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to the extravagant claim made in advertisements by those who are trading in cortisone? Will he have those claims investigated in order to learn what truth is in them, and also what is the real effect of cortisone on sufferers from arthritis?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice, of the Minister for Health, who will furnish a reply as soon as possible.

page 98

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that employees of the Postal Department are suffering severe inconvenience by not being afforded housing facilities when they are transferred from metropolitan to country areas? Does he appreciate the fact that many married employees with families are unable to accept transfers in such circumstances, and that, as a result, they suffer loss of promotion and salary which would normally be their due? Is the Minister aware that private firms and combines are carrying out extensive programmes for their employees in country areas in order to hold their staffs? Will the Minister cause full investigations to be made into the subject of departmental housing in Western Australia with a view to instituting a house-building programme for employees of the Postal Department thereby removing the grave dissatisfaction that exists in the ranks of postal workers?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I am not aware of the matters to which the honorable senator has referred. If he will place his question on the notice-paper, I shall ask the Postmaster-General to make a thorough investigation and to furnish an answer to his questions as soon as possible.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral indicate what degree of priority will be given to the work of reconditioning or rebuilding the post office at Black Rock, Victoria? Reports that I have received indicate that conditions at Black Rock are appalling from the point of view of both the public and the staff.

Senator COOPER:

– I cannot inform the honorable senator at the moment of the degree of priority that will be given to the reconditioning of the post office at Black Rock, but I shall be happy to bring his remarks to the attention of the PostmasterGeneral, and I shall obtain a considered reply for him as soon as possible.

page 99

QUESTION

TIN

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– In view of the world need of metals, particularly of tin, will the Minister representing the Minister for National Development 1 request his colleague to consider the possibility of investing the large profits that are derived from the Commonwealth-owned and operated Dorset tin dredging project in Tasmania in the development of water facilities for tin sluicing in the Gladstone, Pioneer and Derby districts of Tasmania, which are rich tin-bearing areas but are not being developed because of the lack of water for sluicing operations?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall refer the honorable senator’s request to the Minister for National Development and ask that a reply be furnished as soon as possible.

page 99

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it a fact that, owing to the extraordinary prosperity that now exists in Australia as the result of the excellent administration of the present Government, many persons who wish to travel to Perth at Easter have been unable to obtain berths on the EastWest railway? If that is so, will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport inform the Senate what steps he has taken to satisfy the transport needs of such persons?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– It is regrettable that all those who are eager to go to Perth this year will have difficulty in obtaining seats on the East- West railway. For the benefit of honorable senators generally, particularly of those from South Australia and Western Australia, I may add that after the Prime Minister had succeeded in obtaining the dollar loan we were able to approve of a plan for the purchase of rolling-stock for the East-West and North-South railways to the value of £4,500,000.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That will not improve matters, either.

Senator McLEAY:

– The honorable senator is beyond redemption. I appreciate the importance of the east-west railway service to Western Australia. Honorable senators will be pleased to know that the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, Mr. Hannaberry, has just completed a very successful mission to the United States of America. The success of his mission may be gauged by the fact that although he left Australia only in September, on Friday of last week there arrived in Sydney a complete shipload of railway rolling-stock for the

East,West railway. The delivery to Australia: of that rolling stock within five months- of the commissioner’s visit overseas must be a record. The shipment includes four extra, carriages, three airconditioned, diesel cars, and a quantity of spare parts. Fortunately, the ship that brought the rolling- stock from the United States of America was able also to carry from Sydney two “ MacArthur “ type locomotives which, with the new rolling stock, will, I hope, be in service before Easter. That would considerably ease the congestion that may occur at that time. I assure honorable senators that the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner is fully seised of the importance of this work. We hope that the first of the diesel electric locomotives will arrive in Australia about August. Until now, the Budd air-conditioned cars have not been in use outside of America. They are not luxury cars, but, with due. consideration to economy,, they are the best available in the world to-day, and’ I hope that those members of the Parliament who travel by rail will appreciate the comfort that they offer. Reports indicate that, when the new locomotives and rolling stock are in Service, the time of the journey from the eastern States to Perth will be shortened by a day. In addition, the use of diesel electric locomotives will overcome the coal and water problems on the east-west line. I am pleased to be able to inform honorable senators that’ travellers to the beautiful city of Perth at Easter- time may expect to enjoy the comfort of the new rolling’ stock:

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Whilst Western Australians generally will greatly appreciate the improvements’ to the eastwest railway service to which the Minister’ has referred, I should’ like to know whether anything is to be done to provide residents- along that’ line, with better trans. port and, shopping, facilities. The vans on the “ Tea and Sugar “ train have been in. use since 1918. They are antiquated, and the butcher’s shop- lacks an adequate freezing chamber. There is. an urgent need for new vans on this train upon which people living along the Nullabor Plain have to depend’ for- their supplies*, and I should like to know whether that phase of, the east-west railway, service is being given some, attention..

Senator McLEAY:

– I inspected the east-west line last Easter, and made- a point of examining the accommodation and facilities- that were- available to residents along the line. I give full credit to the- Labour Minister who was responsible for the administration of that railway for the improvements that were effected at the various hot and isolatedcentres along the line during his. term of office. I refer particularly, to housing-.. I appreciate the point that has been raised by Senator Tangney, and- I assure- her that- anything that the Government can do to speed up the improvements to which she has; referred will’ be done. The northsouth line requires attention. The best locomotive on that line was- built before I was born and was last reconditioned im 1906; Orders for diesel electric locomotives for that line have been placed: in G.reat Britain.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister say whether the diesel locomotives and rolling-stock will operate in addition to those at present in use? Will he also say how long it is estimated that the- newrail cars will take to complete the journey, and. whether they will provide for passengers similar facilities- to those available on the present rolling-stock?

Senator McLEAY:

– The four carriages and the three diesel rail cars that I mentioned’ previously will operate in addition to the existing rolling-stock

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– In view of the large accumulation of cargo at Melbourne that is awaiting, shipment to Launceston, will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport make available a “ D “’ class ship to move cargo to Launceston and to shift from that port some of the 2,000,000 superficial feet of timber that is awaiting shipment to Melbourne?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I shall communicate’ with the traffic’ committee, which is. endeavouring to relieve the present, congestion of cargo1 in our ports. I realize that air transport is the only alternative form of transport available for Tasmania, and that, even air transport cannot move all the classes of freight awaiting shipment. However, 1 shall ascertain the position and inform the honorable senator of the result of my inquiries.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Is the Minister for Fuel, Transport and Shipping awarethat the slow turn-round of ships is duenot always to industrial disputes among, the waterside workers but. often, to faulty loading in European ports, cargoes, con: signed, to the eastern States of Australia, frequently being placed on top o£ cargoes, consigned to- Western Australian and South Australian ports ? As the result of this practice cargoes for the eastern States have to be unloaded and stored, and- subsequently reloaded after the Western. Australian cargo has been discharged. On some occasions the time spent in ports is three times as great as’ would be the case if proper loading were carried out in European, ports. In order to eliminate this waste of time will the Minister take such action as: he can to see that correct, loading of ships according to geographical destination of cargoes is taken cognizance of by ships? officers?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– As my colleague^ the. Minister for Fuel, Shipping- and Transport, has been called away to answer a long-d’istance telephone call, I suggest that the honorable senator place her question on the notice-paper ?

page 101

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIR’S

Senator ASHLEY:

– Will, the Leader of the. Government, arrange to make available to the. Senate information concerning the prospect of war and the suggested time-table for Australian defence- preparations that were furnished to the House of Representatives, by. the Prime Minister yesterday? If not, will the Minister say whether the Senate is to be denied all knowledge of international affairs? I point out that such a denial would be in keeping- with the present Government’s attitude of maintaining silence on all- important matters under the pretext that the furnishing of information in reply to questions asked in the Senate unnecessarily reveals government policy. One recent example of that attitude was the Government’s refusal to make any statement” concerning the projected sale to private shipping interests of the ships owned by the Commonwealth of Australia.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– It is not,, and never has been, the intention of the Government to deny anything to the Opposition. On the contrary, the Government has- been, denied much by the Opposition. The- Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that within the last two. da*sI approached him and offered to. acquiesce in the suspension of the sitting of this chamber for a short period in order to- give- to- honorable senators who were interested an opportunity to listen to, and benefit from, the very eloquent address- on international affairs which the Prime Minister made last night. The Leader of the Opposition is quite aware of. the. contents of the statement made- by theright honorable gentleman. Furthermore, I point out that it is not customary lor such a statement, to be repeated by a-

Minister in this chamber. It is the Prime Minister’s prerogative, not mine, to give a comparable illustration. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that in the Mother of Parliaments it is not customary, and indeed was not customary even in the days of the war when Mr. Churchill made his stirring addresses to the House of ‘Commons, for his opposite number in the House of Lords to repeat his words parrot fashion. Personally, I cannot see that any good purpose would be served by my repeating parrot fashion in this chamber the stirring message that was delivered personally by the Prime Minister as head of the Government. I am quite sure that if the Leader of the Opposition is particularly interested in specific features of the address he will have ample opportunity to peruse the report of the speech in the Ilansard “ flats “.

page 102

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– The Minister for Trade and Customs was prevented yesterday from reading a reply that he had received to a question that I had previously asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I should be glad if he would now read the answer to the Senate.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I suggested yesterday that the somewhat lengthy reply should be incorporated in Hansard, and I think that leave was refused because of a misunderstanding. I consider that 1 should be wasting the time of the Senate if I were to read the answer now; therefore, I again ask .that leave be given for it to be incorporated in Hansard. [Leave not granted.] This refusal to grant leave is typical of the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to waste the time of the Senate. However, I do not mind reading the answer. Senator Morrow asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following questions : -

How many males in each State have volunteered for service in the Defence Forces?
How many of these volunteers in each State have been (a) medically examined; (6) accepted for service; and (c) rejected as medically ot physically unfit?

It was assumed that the questions related to the period following the commencement of the recruiting campaign, and the following answers have been compiled on that assumption: -

Nonas. - (1) The differences between the figures shown for the Army and Air under

and (2) (a) and between the figures for the three services under (2) (a) and the total pf (2) (6) and (2) (c) are due to the following factors whore applicable: -
1. Some personnel who apply for enlistment are rejected for various reasons before reaching the stage of being medically boarded.
2. In some cases candidates fail to report when called forward for interview and medical examination.
3. Some applicants withdraw their applications after having been passed medically fit but before attestation, whilst others do not proceed with enlistment beyond their submission of an application for enlistment.
4. Some applicants for enlistment are rejected by the Services as unsuitable for reasons other than medical or physical unfitness.
The information shown in regard to recruitment for the Citizen Military Forces comprises the only recruiting figures available to A Tiny Head-quarters in respect to such forces.

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Army whether it would not be advisable to instruct the Australian Director-General of Recruiting to encourage local authorities, returned soldiers’ organizations, and/or citizens’ committees to organize “ welcome home “ functions to soldiers returning from the Korean war ? From what I am able to gather, soldiers return to Australia, but are not tendered a public reception, which must be not only a discouragement to them, but also a deterrent to general recruiting. During the last world war,- soldiers were welcomed home and opportunities were provided for their friends and the public generally to honour them at public functions.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The suggestion is an appropriate one, and I shall bring it to the notice of my colleague, who will see whether it can be given effect.

page 103

QUESTION

LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU

Senator WRIGHT:

– Some time ago 1. asked the Attorney-General whether he would review the operation of legal service bureaux and inform me of the intention of the Government in connexion there-, with. I should be glad if the Minister would now supply me with any information that he has on this matter?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– Anticipating that a question on this subject would be asked from one side of the chamber or the other, I have had a statement prepared. It reads as follows: -

Several very misleading and inaccurate statements have been made recently about the reorganization which is being effected at my direction in the Legal Service Bureaux which form part of my Department. I am glad of the opportunity to state the position correctly. It is not true to say that the services provided by the bureaux are to be reduced by 50 per cent. I know that the services of the bureaux which were established by my predecessor in office during the war have been greatly appreciated by servicemen and their dependants. They need have not the slightest fear of losing these services.

When the present Government took office, Ministers brought under review, as the electors had promised, the functions and organization of their departments. The bureaux were established by the Attorney-General in 194-2 for the purpose of furnishing legal advice to members of the Forces, discharged members of the Forces, and their dependants. By section 105 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1045, Parliament expressly directed that the bureaux should continue in existence. Five years having elapsed since the end of hostilities, the main emphasis of the work of the bureaux had shifted. It was obviously never intended that the bureaux should provide for all servicemen and their dependants, at the taxpayers’ expense, the services of a solicitor over the whole range of legal problems of civil life, both in their business and in their private affairs. But I found that, unless the bureaux were simply to drift into something very like this position, a clear line would have to be drawn.

After full consideration, I issued a general directive to the bureaux, which I shall quote. I do not think that any one who knows the problems of the rehabilitation and reestablishment of servicemen will think that I drew the line narrowly. My aim was to maintain all the essential services which the bureaux had been providing in the interests of servicemen and their dependants. My directive was as follows: -

in what may be described as rehabili tation or re-establishment matters generally (including tenancy and moratorium matters, though now arising under State law) the bureaux are authorized (subject to the next succeeding paragraphs) to do for their clients whatever would be customary among solicitors in the centre concerned;

where the matter upon which advice sought involved a claim or grievance against a Commonwealth department or other authority, the bureaux -will take particulars .and place the matter before the authority concerned with a request for .appropriate action.; (.c) ;in,other classes of matters the bureaux are authorized to advise as to their clients’ legal rights, but if the question arises of taking proceedings or other steps in the assertion or enforcement of any such rights, they are to advise their clients to obtain the assistance of private solicitors.;

where a matter in which bureau advice has been sought is to be taken over or taken up by a private solicitor, ‘and the client has no solicitor of his own and does not desire to choose a solicitor for himself, the bureaux will, if .so requested, place him in contact with an ex-service solicitor who is willing to act for him, if possible at some concession in respect of fees. In adopting a procedure for referring clients to solicitors the bureaux will proceed in consultation with the professional organization concerned, and will endeavour to spread fairly and regularly among private solicitors who are ex, servicemen the professional work resulting from bureaux advice; and

in briefing counsel for a client similar principles will be observed. The bureaux will not brief counsel at .the expense of .the Commonwealth .except in cases of substantial financial need, and with the .approval of the secretary of the department.

Action is being taken in accordance with this directive. It has also been found possible to re-organize the staffing of the bureaux, and to effect economies by arranging for some of the inquiry and clerical functions of the bureaux to be taken over by other branches of my department. A small reduction has been made in the legal ‘staff, and the more efficient officers, who have served the bureaux faithfully and well in a temporary capacity, have been given permanent positions.

I ‘make special -mention of .the fair rents section of the bureau in Sydney, about which some misunderstanding exists. Hitherto, the bureau has given to its clients services of two kinds - both legal advice as to their rights and representation before the fair rents boards. I understand that in Sydney this latter function is not usually performed by solicitors. I have had under consideration a suggestion that it is no longer necessary for the bureau to provide representation before the Fair Bents Board in Sydney and that the provision of this service involves some duplication with State instrumentalities. I shall look further into this matter, to make sure that no hardship to servicemen would be involved. But it should be clearly understood that in any event the giving of legal advice on rents will continue.

shortage of diesel. oil in. New South W ales, largely. Drought about, by a breakdown, of: the refining plant in that State. However, an assurance has been received that ships are on the way, and it is considered that, that temporary shortage will be overcome shortly. The shortage was brought about because of the fear of a general strike and because, of excessive purchasing of fuel for various requirements. I assure the honorable senator that the Government is closely watching that position.

page 105

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator ARNOLD:

– In view of the conflicting statements- that have appeared in the1 press in- recent months, is the Minister’ representing the Minister for Health able to make a statement to the Senate- regarding the Government’s national health proposals? If not, is there any way in which members of the Senate may obtain- accurate information regarding- the ‘Government’s intention ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The honorable senator is wrong in suggesting that no statement has been made about the Government’s national health policy. Statements on this subject have been made on various occasions, the latest one being made towards the- end of the last sessional period. There are various phases of the Government’s national health scheme, which is being put into effect in stages. The first, stage was. the free issue of lifesaving, drugs. Then, just, before; last Christmas, legislation was passed: by the Parliament authorizing the- distribution of free milk to school children. For that scheme the co-operation of the States was needed. It has also been arranged to provide free medical treatment and free medicine for aged and. invalid pensioners and service pensioners. Other phases of the national health scheme are being considered, and will- be put into effect as soon as possible. If the honorable senator wishes, I shall ask the Minister for Health to make a further statement on the subject.

page 105

JAPANESE PEACE TREATY

Senator- GRANT. - ! desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister, for

External Affairs a question about- the discussions’ that took place recently between Mr. John Foster Dulles,, the Aus, tralian Minister1 for External Affairs, and a New Zealand Minister on the subject of a treaty of peace with Japan. The Minister for External Affairs,, we have been informed, is about to resign his position because of ill health. The Government, in its wisdom, proposes to promote him to a more important job,, where, apparently, his health does not matter. Is it the intention of the Minister for External Affairs to make- an interim report to Parliament on what took place during the discussions with Mr. Dulles, or does he intend to leave Australia without making any report at all?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I shall direct the attention of the Minister for External Affairs to the honorable senator’s request that an interim report be made by him, and in due course I shall, acquaint the honorable senator with the result of my representations.

page 105

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Whilst free medical attention is- . available for aged and invalid pensioners, I understand that up to yesterday, free medicine was not available to them, except for what has been described as- life-saving drugs. Can the Minister say when the free medicine scheme for age and invalid pensioners was put- into- operation ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The scheme has been in operation since the- beginning, of this year..

Senator AYLETT:

– Pensioners are still unable- to get free medicine.

Senator COOPER:

– I have been informed by the Minister- for Health that pensioners are issued with cards which entitle them to receive free medical treatment: I shall’ disucss the matter with the Minister for Health, and arrange for the issue of a full report setting forth exactly which is the present position.

page 105

QUESTION

QUESTIONS-

The PRESIDENT:

– It is the practice, when a Minister asks that further questions be placed on the notice-paper, for honorable senators to accede to that request. However, there is no definite rule on the matter, and seeing that the honorable senator’s question is probably the last that will be asked to-day, he may proceed to ask it.

page 106

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The honorable senator’s question could well have been directed to either the Minister for Social Services or the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health rather than to me. It is, however, perfectly easy for me to answer it. No incorrect information has at any time been given to honorable senators by representatives of the Government in reply to questions.

page 106

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th March (vide page 49), on motion by Senator SPICER -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– As it appears to be inevitable that national service training will come into operation in Australia, and as the world is now in a very disturbed state, it is the duty of the members of this Parliament to ensure that the citizen rights of those who are called up for military training shall be protected and that the compulsory military training system shall not be exploited in any way. It is useless for honorable senators opposite to claim that the Australian Labour party has no interest in the defence of Australia and of the democracies. Labour, by its actions, has proved its sincerity in this matter. Such a claim cannot be made by the Liberal party on its past record, if the international situation is as grave as the Government would have us believe it to be - and I do not at this stage question the timeliness of the recent warnings of the Prime Minister - responsibility for the Government’s tardiness in calling up the youth of Australia for military training cannot be laid at the door of the Australian Labour party.

Senator Maher:

– The Labour party stopped us from doing so.

Senator AYLETT:

Senator AYLETT:

– I said “ a western State “.

Senator McCallum:

– Senator Mattner understands .defence. He has a better war record than has any one else in this chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! Senator Aylett has -the call. ‘Other honorable senators will have an opportunity to address -the Senate at a later ‘stage.

Senator AYLETT:

– Apparently Western Australians in this ‘chamber would disown Senator Mattner. That is not my fault. It is true that Senator Mattner comes -from ‘South Australia, : but apparently the Western Australians would not have him as their colleague. I do not question Senator Mattner’s .qualifies as a soldier; I am merely questioning his intelligence as a member of the Senate when he makes statements as stupid as those that .he has made by interjection to-day. He has accused me of being disinterested in the defence of Australia.

Sena-tor .Mattner. - I repeat it.

Senator AYLETT:

– When the honora’b le senator makes that statement-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order? I suggest that Senator Aylett should confine his remarks to the bill.

– Mr. Deputy President, I have contained myself in patience for about a quarter of an hour listening to a recital of history that has nothing to do with the bill. I suggest that the honorable senator should be directed to confine his remarks to the measure before the chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - The honorable senator is in order so long as he connects his remarks with the bill.

Senator AYLETT:

– I assure the Government that if it seeks our co-operation we shall co-operate fully, but first we want evidence of co-operation by the Government, ‘and we want to be informed fully on this subject. It is our duty to protect the people by seeking to discover if there are any flaws in this measure. Indeed it is our duty to protect their citizen rights whenever legislation is being considered by the Parliament. Although Labour has asked the Government for- the full facts, in order that we might reassure the people, the Government has not been prepared to co-operate in any way, but instead disseminates propaganda about defence in order to cover up its mismanagement of the economy of this country. Prices have continued to rise until chops are now 3s. 6d. per lb.,, and the inflationary tendency is very great. The Government parties have fallen, down on so many of their election pledges and promises that the people are beginning to doubt whether they should be entrusted with the defence of this, country. I have heard people ask, “ Can we believe what they tell us ? “, and “ Are they sincere when they say the position is serious and grave?” It is time that, the Government, took stock of the situation, and endeavoured to restore the confidence of. the people.

Sitting, suspended from X.J$ to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The recent triennial conference of the- Australian Labour party agreed to endorse- compulsory training in principle. That; of course, does not necessarily mean that it endorses this bill as it is. It means that the training, should be put into operation fairly, that the economics of it should be taken into consideration and that the world situation should also be considered. However, having said that, the conference stated that it endorsed the bill in principle. I take it that that means that we in this country have sufficient liberty - I shall not use the word “ democracy “, because it means anything, according to what political party you represent - to defend our country even to the extent of compulsorily training our people. There has been a great deal of discussion about the word “ compulsory “. The compulsory military training contemplated by this bill to my mind is not conscription. Conscription means compulsorily putting men and women into- an army after a war breaks out. The men and women who will be affected by this measure may never have to participate in a war, and we all hope that that will be the case. Compulsion exists in every phase of life. When a child is born, registration of the birth is compulsory. When a person gets married, there is compulsory registration, of the fact. When he dies, it is compulsory for the death to be recorded. There are compulsory health and education laws. If athing is compulsory that does not necessarily make it wrong1 or right.

During the last forty years there has been a great change in the world situation, but certain, people have not moved with those changes. It is not always a virtue to be consistent or to say, “ I think to-day the same as I thought 40 years ago ‘” I think that it was Emerson who said that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind. I do not think that any student of political affairs would disagree with the contention that the first world war was- a purely imperialist war. There was. not a different ideology in. Germany from that of Great Britain. It was a war for trade domination,, fought between Great Britain and. Germany. There was then no question of fascism or communism. It was a question of trade difficulties between two imperialist nations. As the most superficial survey of statistics will show, from the Boer War onwards Germany was consistently threatening Great Britain in the- markets of the world, particularly in iron and steel- production, shipbuilding, and in heavy industries generally. Many people at that time adopted- the attitude - and,. I think, rightly– that the peoples of those nations were equally civilized. Many Australians said that it did not matter who won. There was no talk of a dictatorship, because the -German people enjoyed some of the best social conditions in the world. Their cultural level was extraordinarily high. Accordingly, some people believed that it was a purely imperialist war, which did not concern the workers. They were, therefore, opposed to it, lock, stock and barrel. That wa.= a clear-cut issue at that time.

For decades many of the social democratic people of the world have believed in a citizens’ army. I think that this country must be defended. I do not say that this bill is a proper bill, because I can see all kinds of anomalies in it. For instance, those who are to be called up under its provisions will suffer compared with those who will not be called up. Young men who are learning a trade may be cut off in the middle of an apprenticeship and may lose very greatly, whilst others, such as students at the universities, may be allowed to continue their studies and suffer no inconvenience whatever. But we must look at things as they are. When Mussolini came into power, there arose an ideology known as fascism. It scorned the way of life which we call democracy, and Mussolini even boasted that democracy was dead. Then Hitler came along.

Many people, particularly Communists and fellow travellers,, say they are opposed to conscription. That, is not so. What they mean is that they are opposed to conscription- under certain conditions. I remember quite, well when, the last war brake out. that the Communists and the fellow travellers were in favour of the war for a couple of weeks and were actually advocating conscription. When it was discovered by the Comintern, as it was known at that time, tha’t it was an imperialist war, according to them, it was decided that any assistance given to the Allies was anti-working class. Everybody was required to do as little work as possible, otherwise they would be assisting imperialism against democracy, the democracy in fact being Stalinism. Then Hitler attacked Russia. Overnight those same people not only advocated that we should assist in the war effort, but they also advocated, in the Tribune and other Communist newspapers, that there should be conscription, not only for home defence but for the defence of other parts of the world.

I have posed to myself the questions: Do we need trained men? Did the last war show us that men were unnecessarily slaughtered because they were not sufficiently trained? I think that the answer to both those questions is “ Yes “. But when we are speaking about men defending the country we must also consider the economic circumstances at the time. After all, it is not compulsion by law so much as by economic circumstances, that the best time to do these things is perhaps when there is quite a lot of unemployment. Even this capitalist democracy gives us a certain amount of liberty, and the question is how it may be best defended. It seems to me that this country at the present time is in a very bad state indeed. I have spoken again and again concerning the internal situation, and I have said to Ministers that in my opinion the economic situation is so bad that if the country is to be pulled out of the chaos we shall require practically a war economy. I have advocated revaluation of the £1, and some of my colleagues have not agreed with me. I have advocated, in some instances, even the lowering of tariffs in such a way that there would not be any unnecessary interference with manufacturers. I have come to the conclusion that even the immigration policy must he reconsidered. Immigrants have come to this country and the housing position ho? become worse and worse. I am not in favour of building up racial prejudices, even against the Germans or the

Jews, and I am not in favour of the extermination of any race, economically or physically. I believe that that succeeds in doing the very thing that we are trying to prevent. It seems to me that the great influx of immigrants has increased the inflationary tendency that already existed. It also seems essential to stop the production of luxuries. There must be federal control of prices. The tendency would he then for wages to fall into line. It is quite obvious that within a few months there will be another demand for £1 a week increase of the basic wage. The situation to-day is such that it is of no use speaking about military training unless we are prepared to do something about the economic situation.

Recently I had occasion to buy a fowl - a “ boiler “ as it is called. I was charged £1 for it. One stick of celery cost me 2s. 3d., and two lemons 6d. each. I told the shopkeeper that I thought they were very expensive and I asked him, “ What about the control?” He said, “They come from Queensland. We have no control over the interstate commodities “. The members of the Government have told us that the States could make a better job of prices control than could the Australian Government, but this Government is scared to death of the internal and external situations. Nothing has been done. I am definitely of the opinion that our economy is in such a state that unless something is done to halt the drift this democratic parliamentary system cannot continue to exist in Australia for any great length of time. The (people will not stand it any longer.

– These barbarians, these cannibals, the Japanese, are to become out allies. We are now going to m a:ke a ‘treaty of peace with them. According to the Prime Minister, -the youth of this .country is to be .trained so as to defend Australia .by taking part in a war in the Near East. In the meantime, the Japanese are to be armed, -and to be given self-determination. Do honorable senators imagine that -we can arm the Japanese up to a point where they will protect themselves, and that they will go no farther ? Do they think that the Japanese are stupid? Without egotism, I can say that I have read as much about the Japanese as most people have. I have been through .Japan, and have talked with the Japanese. I have also talked with the Chinese, who are the only people outside Japan who really know the Japanese. Europeans know nothing of the psychology of the Japanese. Do honorable senators opposite think that the Japanese believe that they lost the war? They ‘believe nothing of the kind. They did obeisance to the will of their Emperor and ceased fighting, but they believe that they won the war. Does any one think that we can use the Japanese in alliance with Chiang Kai,shek against -the Chinese, .and that the Japanese will not demand in .return the right to .settle in

– It is well ‘known that the ‘Government of the Philippines has appealed to the United States of America to assist it ‘because the rebels are already at the gates of Manila. If we are to fight for democracy ,and the preservation .of the democratic way of life we must ensure .that .our democratic institutions shall be maintained. The Government is -playing into the hands -of Communist Russia which is astute -enough .not to reveal what it is -doing. The leaders of (Communist .Russia do not say that they favour conscription .and that all the young men of Communist countries must undergo military (training. They do .not say that there :is no objective literature in Russia, but -we know that there .is not. They do not say “ You may not attack Stalin “, hut we all know what would happen if any one (did so. Instead of talking about a’ffairs at home they ask what is America doing by backing up Chiang Kai-shek, and -what is Australia proposing in relation ito Japan. If we are successfully ‘to combat ‘the Communists we must act intelligently. This Government has not acted intelligently by submitting this bill without taking other necessary -supplementary .-measures. Wor many generations the Australian Labour party has upheld the principle of compulsory military training. I believe in compulsory service in the Citizen Army because I, like many other persons, believe that certain institutions which we have established in this country are worth defending and that we must be prepared to defend them. We still enjoy a very considerable measure of liberty here and it should be protected. Unless the Government acts promptly to cure our economic ills and prevent the operations of racketeers, many of our liberties will be lost to us. Rackets are rife from one end of Sydney to the other. Apples are being sold from 4d. to 8d. each, and grapes from ls. 3d. to 3s. per lb., the quality being the same but the price varying according to the district in which they are sold. While the people are being bled white the Government is working up patriotic fervour in an endeavour to distract attention from the state of affairs into which the country is drifting. The people of Australia and other democratic countries will fight for the preservation of their way of life if the governments under which they live display a willingness to protect their liberties and their democratic institutions.

Before this bill is given effect the Government should first clean up the economic mess into which this country has drifted. The military training of our youths will increase inflation. This scheme will withdraw many young men from industry for service in the armed forces and result in the employment of countless others in industries engaged in the provision of clothing and military equipment, all of which must have an inflationary effect. I appeal to the Government to set aside party political considerations and to take steps to restore the economy of this country to an even keel. The people have just about had enough of the “ rights “ and the “ lefts “ and all the rest of it. They want prices control; they want money to buy the things they need; they want electricity services to be extended to outer urban and rural areas, and more coal.

Senator Kendall:

– They certainly want more coal.

Senator GRANT:

– Coal is an important defence commodity, but I remind honorable senators opposite that if all the coal-miners in Australia were to work twice as long as they have worked in the past they would not be able to produce sufficient coal to meet the needs of our expanded industries. Industrial expansion has far outstripped possible coal production. A warning that such a state of affairs would exist in this country was issued many years ago. In conjunction with the national service scheme there should be a revision of our whole economic programme. This Government was returned to office on a promise to restore value in the £1 ; but the purchasing value of the £1 has so diminished in the last twelve months that when a person now changes a £1 note he no longer bothers to count the change. If our democracy is to be preserved the Government must take steps to prevent the people from being robbed by racketeers and give to young married couples some prospect of obtaining a house. The prospect of the average worker obtaining a house to-day is much worse than it was when this Government was elected to office. The cost of housing has risen to unprecedented levels. In these circumstances, what chance has the average worker of obtaining a home of his own ? The Government has done nothing to counter inflation other than to take the rather dubious step of imposing a sectional tax on the woolgrowers of Australia.

This bill does not necessarily conflict with the principles for which the Australian Labour party stands; but the necessity for its introduction depends on circumstances and conditions. We believe that there should be the least possible compulsion because we realize that if an Australian is given a fair go he will fight for his country without being compelled to do so.

Motion (by Senator Wordsworth) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - .Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.) Ayes . . . . . . 25

AYES: 0

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 5

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the bill. In the first place, I regret the recriminations that have taken place during the debate. It was not courteous of honorable senators opposite to cast so many slurs on the Opposition merely because the interstate conference of the Australian Labour party bad decided that the Labour party in the Parliament should support the principles contained in this bill. One would have thought that members of the Government might have been mindful of the scriptural verse -

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Because Australia offers so many opportunities to its young people and, indeed, to all its citizens, I should have thought that it would not be necessary for the Parliament, to pass such legislation as that which we are now considering. I thought that our young people would have been so ready to rally to the defence of their country that the introduction of this bill would not have been necessary. The fact remains, however, that they have not responded to the recruiting campaign, which has been an admitted failure. Recruits have been attracted at the rate of only 300 a month, and a force of such numbers would be so inadequate for our defence that it has been necessary for the Government to introduce this measure. That leads me to inquire why the voluntary system of recruiting has failed. I have given a great deal of thought to the matter, and I believe that one of the principal causes of the failure of the campaign in Western Australia, which I represent, lies with the choice of personnel to direct the recruiting campaign in that State. The local director of recruiting in Western Australia is Sir Charles Latham, who was formerly a member of the Senate and is now a member of the Legislative Council in that State. That gentleman is so concerned about the welfare of ex-servicemen that he voted against legislation that was introduced in the Western’ Australian Parliament recently to continue the protection given to ex-servicemen in such matters as housing. I think, therefore, that his appointment to lead the recruiting organization in Western Australia was farcical, and that his unsuitability for the position has had something to do with the failure of the recruiting campaign there.

Another reason for the lack of enthusiasm for the campaign lies in the state of doubt and indecision that exists in the minds of most people concerning Australia’s relation to the rest of the world and the part that this country should play in any future hostilities. Where does Australia stand in the international situation, and how can this country play an effective part in solving international problems? Our approach to these matters must have regard to the fact that Australia is an island continent. We are an integral part of the British Commonwealth, and our welfare in inexplicably bound up with the welfare of the other members of that Commonwealth. Our duty is not only to maintain this country as a free and democratic bastion in the south seas, but also to defend the interests of the British Commonwealth in. this part of the world. On looking around us it is obvious that the real threat to our security comes, not so much from Russia, as from the countries that lie to the north of Australia. Unfortunately, we have only a handful of people with which to discharge our obligations to our allies. The inadequacy of our population was impressed upon me particularly during a journey of 3,000 miles that I made in Western Australia recently. Throughout that journey I do not think that I saw more than 300 or 400 people, and settlements were separated by hundreds of miles. With a population of only 8,000,000 we have to defend an entire continent that is bounded by an enormous coastline. How can we best defend this huge expanse of territory? After all, that is our first task.

To the immediate north of Australia there are countless millions of people who have not sufficient land to grow even the food for their survival let alone to provide room for expansion. A great deal is heard about communism these days. Communism, and the Communists, are blamed for all sorts of things. I loath communism as much as does any honorable senator opposite, and I have fought it all my life. However, I must say, in the interests of fairness and truth, that I do not think that communism is the only cause of many of our social ills. I think that we must look further and examine our consciences in order to find the real cause. We must look into our own hearts and ask ourselves what part we are playing, individually, as citizens and, collectively, as a nation. What does such an examination reveal? It reveals that we have become smug and self-satisfied. We have a beautiful country ; there is no real shortage of the necessaries of life, and we have abundant sunshine in which to enjoy our leisure. Do we ever think of the envy that this great land must arouse in the breasts of people in the overcrowded countries of Asia? In those countries communism has gained a secure foothold because it has been able, with its false gospel of hope, to capture the imagination of the enslaved peoples. We know that for ages those unfortunate creatures have been regarded as mere chattels. I have visited some of those countries and I have witnessed the squalor, filth and misery in which the native peoples live. It is easy to understand, therefore, how those unfortunate peoples have embraced communism, which at least promises them ai minimum standard of living: That explains, the. phenomenal spread of communism throughout South and SouthEast. Asio. Our task is- to: improve the living conditions- in; those countries so that we1 can win back the peoples from communism and. prevent its entry into those countries where it has not yet gained’ a foothold. How can we do that? We can. best do it by providing foodstuffs for the starving peoples of Asia - and when I say that I do not mean by offering tosell; them wheat at fi a bushel. Whilst I do not regret the prosperity that our farmers are enjoying at present, and whilst. I know the vicissitudes that they experienced during the depression, I do not think, that, the inflated prices that our commodities are bringing can be altogether good for. our economy: I recall that during, the depression the real, trouble was- not that there, was not. sufficient food,, but that the people simply did. not have the money to: buy it. Although, huge stacks of wheat rotted, om the wharfs, any wharflabourer who* was detected, taking a billycan of wheat home, for hist fowls would, have- been sent to. gaol. We are con: fronted now with a- similar difficulty concerning, the. distribution, of our primary produce: I suggest that in the interestsof the betterment of. Australia’s relations’ with the unfortunate, peoples of SouthEast. Asia we should” make available to them, some of: our surplus.- foodstuffs. After all,, South-East. Asia is the real menace to the security of. this country, more so. because of the extraordinarydevelopments, that have taken place in civil and military aviation-, and it. would be no. more than. an. example of: enlightened self-interest to cultivate their goodwill.,

I hope- that the Government will have regard to- our overall economic position in formulating its defence- plans. Any scheme under which lads of eighteen years of age- are to be called up for military service must have something- to commend it, because it will at least provide a disciplinary training for- those youths. At the same time, we1 must bear in mind that we cannot adequately defend this! country merely by giving our youths military training:. Science* has devised new and terribles weapons of war: Of course, wes must realize that manpower is> still necessary, even, im modern war,. If a. man is to play, his part properly im the: defence of this country he1 must at least be physically fit. That is, why I feel, that even if. some- of the- processes; conducted in these- camps become out- of date tomorrow,, at. least the lads will have received physical training- to enable1 them to become responsible members of: society. My present thoughts do> not spring from a- sudden decision of an. outside body last week. I thought about it- a long; time ago when I was teaching, at. night, school. Lads came back to see me after, they had left school three or four years and the deterioration of character in. that period of relaxed discipline was apparent. It is going to be- quite a good thing for young lads to be subjected to- discipline in the formative period, of their lives.

The prospect of a third world war is frightening to many women - particularly the mothers of this country - in view of the Prime Minister’s (Mr. Menzies) warning last week that war might break out within three years. Last week I visited a friend who has a family of boys. They came in after, school to get some bread and jam. After they had gone out again and the noise had subsided, she said to’me, “ I wonder what I am rearing them for ?! In three1 years time Dick willbe eighteen “. I thought that that- question: was- typical of many questions’ that are going- through mothers’ minds at present. They are wondering whether their sons- will be plunged into a third world! war, That is: a terrific indictment of present-day world conditions. World War I. was; to end war; and now, when, we are- still not out of the shadow of World War II., we are- talking- and preparing for a third world’ war. We do not know exactly whom we are expecting to. fight. The Government says Russia. I am beginning to: wonder- whether that i»> true- or not. Even though Russia is theopponent of the democracies; I do not think that the democracies– would be readyto fight together as one unit. A couple of years ago I visited France and Belgium.. At that time the munitions factories were working- 24 hours1 a day, for seven days: a week; so that they would not be caught napping- again. When I spoke to one old woman- in Belgium^, who happened to- be a grandmother, and asked why she was working on a sunny Saturday afternoon, she replied, “ I hope that this bullet will find its way into the heart of a German pig”. She used somewhat stronger language than I have used, and continued, “ It is all right for you people ; you have not seen war twice in your own home town. There is only myself and my grandson aged ten left out of a family of fifteen As a result of talks that I had with the peasants - not the officials in Brussels - and the people in the industrial areas, it was evident to me that they still harbour a strong hatred of Germany. I do not think that the action of the American authorities a few weeks ago in releasing Krupps and other German industrialists will endear them to the hearts of the Belgian people. I do not think that the people of Belgium and Prance’ would ever fight on the same side as Germany. We must be realistic about this- matter. I do not subscribe to the belief that the might of Soviet aggression would unite the countries of ‘Europe. The hurts and scars are too deep;, they date back to I860 and 18T0-, at the time’ of the first Franco-Russian war. There has been no semblance of friendship between France and. Germany since. It. is a mistaken belief that France and Germany would unite to fight communism. 1 believe that in that very hatred of the German people- by the French and the Belgians- lies our greatest hope- for peace in Europe. Although we- do not know the exact military strength of Russia, I believe that huge armies have been established in that country. Perhaps that cleavage in the democracies will prevent our entering into any actions with the United States of America or any other country that might, precipitate a. third world war. But I am not so- sure about Japan. Before the recent world war I saw the- whalers coming; into Fremantleand; the- little men going a-round with cameras om their backs and smiling. We> did not realize then that, there- were’ teethbehind the smiles. To-day; under the influence of the American and British occupation forces, they are saying- that they are sorry that they were naughty boys But can we forget the horrors- of the Burma railway ? None of the women who lost their husbands at the. hands, of the- Japanese can look upon Japan as a future ally of this country. If Australia has to depend upon Japan, and expects Japan to be an ally, God help Australia. Instead of only the- seventeen and eighteenyear olds, we would need universal conscription and. all of the resources of our 8’,000,000 people to keep this country free.

There has been a great deal of discussion on this measure and I consider that all honorable senators have a right to discuss it, irrespective of whether they are eager to get it over and’ get home again, or not. It will affect every young fellow of seventeen and eighteen years of age in the community. We have been sent here to represent all of the people of the community, not merely sectional, interests. In a few years these young men will become adult citizens. This measure will mean a great deal to them, and will vitally affect their careers. I hope that a universal training scheme will be introduced and that the exemptions under it will be fair and very few,, because, after all, the job of defending this country devolves on every able-bodied person in the country.. Those who are not called up for national, service will still have to do- their jobs in the factories, shops; and. other places. While this bill, deals specifically with the seventeen-year-olds and eighteen-year-olds, it is really a call to all the Australian people to serve at. this time, in order that the fair name of Australia will never go down into the dust before the might of a foreign aggressor. In supporting, the bill, I trust that it will be administered fairly, and that there will, he- very few exemptions. I have sufficient confidence in my fellow Australians to think that very few of. the young men. of this country will try to get out. of doing their- duty at this critical: time:

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

’. - I congratulate Senator Tangney on the excellent speech that she has just delivered. I consider that her remarks were typical of what is most honorable in the Labour movement. There have been some criticisms of the attitude of the respective political parties towards defence, and I think, that it should be said once and for all that in the development of the defence of this country, and in the conduct of both world wars, all the great political parties that existed in. this country at the time played a patriotic and worthy part. If I criticize anything that has come from the Opposition it will be because certain speeches which are not typical, have made that necessary. If I criticize the fact that Labour’s decision to support this measure was delayed until some other body spoke, it will be because I think that Senator Tangney and other honorable senators have been greatly delayed in doing what they have always wanted to do. I stress that this is a bill not for war but for education, because one of the needs of modern civilization is to educate people for the hazards of life. The history of wars show that in the past men have been sent to battle without any preparation at all. As Kipling said of the Boer War, “You pitched them raw into battle as you picked them raw from the street “. In the first world war Australia and Great Britain were prepared not adequately but sufficiently. It was because of the complete unity of action on the most important questions that that was possible. I deplore that there should be any disunity, even if only on the part of certain honorable senators, and not of the Labour party as a whole.

It has always been accepted that it is the duty of a man in a modern civilized society to know how to defend his country. John Milton, a great contemporary of John Pym, who was mentioned by an honorable senator opposite last night, wrote, “ I call therefore a complete and generous education that which fits a man to perform justly, skilfully and magnanimously all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war “. I deplore the tendency in education to write off war before it has written itself off. We cannot get rid of war merely by setting up councils and talking about it and passing peace resolutions. As long as there is a threat, no matter from where it comes, we must be ready.

It has been said that because the young men who will be called up first have no vote we have no right to call them up. How absurd ! A child is not given a vote before it is taught arithmetic or the alphabet. These young men are immature in mind-, just mature in body. Discipline is a necessary part of education, and is all the more necessary because discipline is to-day somewhat neglected in the home as well as in some schools. What do we hope to get from it? I certainly hope that it will be a better type of training than was sometimes given in some centres under the old system. We must remember that when compulsory training was first introduced, before the first world war, there was little on which to fall back except the old-fashioned drill sergeant. He was a good fellow in his way ; a man with a voice that could be heard from here down to the Hotel Canberra; a man who knew his drill book by heart and who put the troops through their paces. It was very monotonous and uninteresting. To-day I hope that the training will be scientific, that it will cover both discipline of mind and body, and that young men will be taught to handle all the implements that are necessary in modern war, as far as is practicable. I trust that there will be such a variety of training that they will be able to adapt themselves to it. Some of the old-fashioned methods could be reduced to a minimum. I do not decry soldierly smartness and things of that kind, but we do not want that type of training in which shaving and the buttoning of tunics is more important than anything else. We should endeavour to turn out young men who know how to handle weapons and also to perform certain peaceful duties which may fall to their lot.

The ignoble suggestion has been made that the Government is preparing this measure, merely to deal with strikers, but I do not think that any one will believe that that is true. I suggest that the members of the Government are no more likely to use troops for that purpose than are the members of the party opposite. If there is an air raid it may be necessary to use troops in order to prevent complete disorganization of life in the great cities. That is an important factor, and a large number of young men accordingly will be trained in air-raid precautions and to teach people what to do in case of an attack which disrupts ordinary services.

Some answer is necessary to those honorable senators who have said that there is no danger from a particular power and that wo ourselves are contributing towards war merely by getting ready. I wish to quote some figures given by a world authority, Barbara Ward, who was formerly assistant editor of the Economist, one of the best-informed newspapers of the world, and who is at present in Sydney. She is of the opinion that these figures prove that Russia is seeking to break the peace. From 1945 to 1946 - a little more than a year - thu United States of America disarmed to the extent that the number of men under arms fell from more than 11,900.000 to 1,500,000. The number in Britain fell from 5,100,000 to 716,000, and in Australia we virtually disarmed completely. According to the most modest computation, Russia has at present 175 divisions in Eastern Germany and on the borders of Russia. According to computations that have been made, there are at least 4,000.000 men under arms in Russia. In addition to that, Russia has seized control of Czechoslovakia and of various other border countries. It pushed forward North Korea and undoubtedly helped to arm and equip the Chinese. The tension in Yugoslavia issues from one quarter only - Soviet Russia. In the face of that, it would be criminal folly for us to fold our arms and simply hope that all will be well.

I hope that the responsible senators opposite will disown the type of statement that was uttered last night by an honorable senator now absent from the chamber. If they do not believe that statement, I think that it is their duty to disown it, because the whole tone of that speech and every suggestion in it - everything that was intelligible to me, at any rate - indicated that Russia is a completely innocent nation and that we are part of a conspiracy that is being formed against it. That is the Communist line throughout this country. It is being said everywhere. Slanders, libels and aspersions are cast on our Prime Minister because he gave the necessary warning that we had perhaps only three years in which to prepare.

People say, “ You must not say war is inevitable “. I agree that war is not inevitable ; but neither is peace inevitable. If we do nothing, if we make no preparation whatever, then we do nothing to avert war. We invite it. If the members of the Opposition reject this bill and other necessary defence measures, they will be playing their part in making war certain. If the United States of America, Western Europe and ourselves were to disarm, I think that war would be certain. The Russian armies would simply roll over both Europe and Asia. If we make this necessary preparation we have two chances. First, we have an excellent chance - and the only chance - of preventing war. That is something to hope for. Secondly, if the worst comes to the worst, and war cannot be prevented, at least we shall make victory possible, and, I hope, certain.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– I do not intend to oppose the passage of this legislation, but I wish to say something in connexion with it. I regard this measure as a very important one. I feel sure that in this chamber, and, in fact, in this Parliament, we have no isolationists. No matter what our political differences may be, we are all convinced of the importance of defending this country to the best of our ability. However, I do not consider that the proposed legislation before us will accomplish that objective. I admit that it will have an effect, but when we hear suggestions that there may be only three years before another major war eventuates, I do not think that any members on the Government side of the chamber would say that the proposal now before us could meet a situation of that kind. Further, I do not believe that this proposal confers any kudos on the Government, because it seems to me that this is really an extension of the existing Defence Act. In fact, I consider that in the course of this debate the terms “ conscription “ and “ military training “ have become confused. To my mind, military conscription is for the purpose of sending members of the military forces to any theatre of war. This bill does not propose to do that at all. In fact, it purposely excludes service overseas unless the person affected voluntarily agrees to go overseas in the defence of this country.

I agree with Senator Tangney that there is a need for some system of training our manhood for the defence of the country, no that we

Shall know how to protect ourselves against an enemy >who is well trained. As I understand war, there is only one psychology in it, and that is to go in and kill, or -be killed. Looking at it from the ‘brutal point of view, that is the aspect we must consider. While there is room for argument about our ‘unpreparedness for previous wars in which we were engaged, I recollect that one of my own sons, who, unfortunately, did not come back, went into the last holocaust without any training. He was trained with a broomstick at ‘Northam, Western Australia, for a short period. He was sent to Malaya and became one of the unfortunate thousands who were captured by the Japanese. He went through all that hell associated with the Japanese theatre of war. I instance that .simply to make it clear that there is ;a .need to teach the .young men of this country how to defend themselves should the necessity arise.

I shall never agree to conscription for military service outside Australia because I do not believe in it; nor do I think that the majority of Australian people would agree to compulsory service overseas. I believe that this -Government is fully aware of that aspect and that that is why it is expressly stated that this bill is for compulsory training and service - particularly in respect of the military side of the armed forces - and that no trainee will be sent overseas unless he volunteers to go. In respect of the other two arms of the services the bill provides that recruits or trainees for the Royal Australian Air Force or for the Royal Australian Navy may not be accepted unless there is a willingness to serve anywhere in the world. That brings to mind what might be regarded as some inconsistency in our defence laws. A man who joins the Royal Australian Navy goes wherever his ship goes and takes part in any action in which his ship is involved. It will be remembered that in the last war Australian naval vessels participated in actions in all parts of the world. A man who enlists in the Royal Australian Air Force serves wherever he is required to :serve. But in respect of the military forces there is a different outlook altogether, and it seems to -me that the

Government has related that outlook to the present legislation. This legislation represents an extension of the Defence Act under which ‘all males between sixteen and 60 years of age may be called up for full-time service in the ‘Citizen Forces for home defence - ‘but not for service outside Australia. The Defence Act provides that only volunteers may serve in other than certain defined areas. Australia has participated in two world war3, and we can .justly claim that those who served in those wars on behalf of Australia were as good as those who served in any other .of the forces .engaged. In general, the members of our forces who served overseas did not have a great deal of training before embarkation, but many of them went through a further period of training before going into action. The defence system of Australia is based on voluntary enlistment, and I hope it will continue to be so based. Australian men and women can always be relied upon to defend their country. During the last war, there was a departure from the rigid provision that only volunteers should serve overseas. A Labour Government introduced legislation under which men could be compelled to serve in certain areas in the West Pacific. That raises the question on what constitutes home defence. We must take a common-sense view of such matters, and realize that it is better to meet and defeat an enemy somewhere outside our own country than to wait until he has actually effected a landing. For that reason, I believe the Labour Government did the right thing. Its action was criticized at the time, but many of the critics have since changed their opinions. I have been associated with the ‘Labour movement during the whole of my industrial life, and I have had a good dea’l to do with policy-making. The Australian Labour party has always been -opposed to compulsory military service outside Australia or its nearby territories.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

-A to compulsory unionism, too?

Senator NASH:

– There is no compulsory unionism in Australia. .Some day there may be, , ana I believe it would be a good thing. As a matter of fact, there is a close analogy between compulsory unionism and compulsory military service for home defence. It is only right that every worker should contribute towards the maintenance of those conditions for which the workers as a body have fought. In the same way, it is right that every citizen should assist in the defence of the society, the benefits of which he enjoys. World conditions are very different to-day from what they were even twenty years ago, and they are certainly very different from the conditions that obtained when the Australian Labour party first evolved its policy on conscription. Nations which, a few years ago, were hardly taken into account have now assumed great importance. It was the British who trained the Japanese to fight, and provided them with armaments. We have not forgotten that Australia sent steel to Japan to be shot back at our own people. Why did the British Labour Government grant selfgovernment to Pakistan, India and Ceylon? Because it was known that if selfgovernment were withheld, there was a danger of war against the white races, including the British and Americans. In the East, there are teeming millions of yellow and black people whose national outlook has changed tremendously during the last ten years. Those people are reproducing themselves much more rapidly than are the white races, and are pressing more and more closely on their available living space. Eventually, they must find somewhere else to live. The Indonesians have developed imperialistic tendencies, and are seeking to extend the borders of their country. The study of history shows us that one nation after another, all down through the ages, has sought to expand at the expense of its neighbours. Within recent years, a new national outlook has developed in China. Efforts have been made to exploit that new outlook, with the result that one regime has gone overboard and another, the Communist regime, has taken its place. The Government of the United Kingdom has recognized1 the new Chinese Government, but the Australian Government has refused to do so. I shall not argue the merits or demerits of that decision at the moment, but I remember that when the United

Nations organization was being formed in San Francisco a few years ago the basis of recognition of any government was that it should be in effective control of the territory it claimed to. rule. It has been asked where the Communist troops obtained the arms with which they have fought the United Nations troops in Korea. I do not know, but I conjecture with good reason that such was the rottenness of the Chian Kai-shek regime in China that it lost the respect of the Chinese people, and that the arms which were supplied to the Nationalists by the Americans were sold to the Communists, with the result that, as .soon as the forces of the United Nations crossed the 38th parallel in Korea, they came up against Chinese Communist forces that were armed with modern weapons of war. The people of Asia are no longer willing to accept the domination of the western races. They have found that they are as well able as the white races to build ships and aeroplanes, and to manufacture munitions of war. We have heard a great deal about the threat of communism, and I know that it is a very real one, but the fact remains that communism thrives only on poverty and degradation. The task that awaits the free nations of the world, and Australia particularly, is to cultivate the good friendship of the Asian peoples. They should not wave their flags and threaten in a bellicose way, to do this or that ; rather should they try to improve the standards of living of the Asian peoples and to change their cultural outlook so that they may appreciate the value of civilization as we know it and thus be less likely to fall under the domination of one or more of the autocratic powers that are disturbing the peace of the world. We should not threaten to wage war. We must examine the world situation objectively and to the best of our ability ensure that the nationals of Asian countries shall be given the same opportunity to develop as was given to the more fortunate races of the world throughout the centuries.

I have indicated that this legislation consists of nothing more than a proposal to extend the provisions of the Defence Act, which may be given effect by the Government at any time by the issue of a simple proclamation. Not only Labour governments have been responsible for the suspension of compulsory military .training in recent years. Since compulsory military training was first suspended governments other than Labour governments have been in office in the Commonwealth sphere, but until now no suggestion was made that such training should be reintroduced. By the issue of a simple proclamation the Government can provide for the call-up and training of junior cadets of from twelve to fourteen years of age, of senior cadets of from fourteen to eighteen years of age, and of citizen force cadets between the ages of eighteen and 26.

Senator Spicer:

– Tinder the provisions of the Defence Act those young men may be called up for training for only a few days each year.

Senator NASH:

– That is true. I have described this measure as constituting an extension of the Defence Act. That act empowers the Government to prescribe sixteen days annual training for members of the Citizen Forces, of which eight days shall be in camp. By proclamation, the Government may at any time prescribe 128 days military training for members of the ‘Citizen Forces over a period of eight years. The provisions of the Defence Act have been allowed to remain dormant for some time, and not only Labour governments, but also governments supported by the parties now in office were responsible for that dormancy. Under that act the prescribed period of training for members of the naval and air forces is 25 days annually over a period of eight years, or a total of 200 days, of which seventeen days in each year shall be in camps of continuous training. Under section 49 of the act members of the Citizen Forces are prohibited from serving outside Australia and its territories unless they have volunteered to do so. This bill provides for the training of citizen naval forces, citizen military forces and citizen air forces over a period of five years, a shorter period than is prescribed in the Defence Act. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), in introducing the bill, informed us that the present intentions are that for the Navy there will be a period of 124 days continuous training in the first year and thirteen days in each of the succeeding second, third, fourth and fifth years; for the Army 98 days continuous training in the first year, and in the second third, and fourth years there will be a fourteen days’ camp and twelve days devoted to evening and weekend parades and bivouacs. For the Air Force a training period of 176 days will be served in one continuous period following call-up. I agree that training in the Navy and Air Force should be continuous and of sufficient duration to enable the trainees to learn the fundamentals of their training.

Senator Spicer:

– “Why is that not also true of the Army ?

Senator NASH:

– Training in the Army falls into a somewhat different category. I have no objection to a period of training in the Army as I have already indicated. A restriction has been applied to service in the Navy and Air Force. Men registered for training in those services will not be accepted unless they signify in advance that they are prepared to serve beyond the limits of Australia. Possibly there is some justification for such a restriction. During the last two world wars our Navy and Air Force served in al! theatres of war.

The provisions of the bill relating to exemptions and deferments will be difficult to administer and may well lead to many complications, constitute . a distinct departure from the accepted principle of national military training. National service connotes service by all persons within the categories covered by the scheme. If we were to have conscription of human life I should advocate the conscription of wealth. A system of compulsory military training to be truly national must be so designed as to prevent persons coming within its ambit from avoiding their obligations. The bill reasonably provides that persons subject to a prescribed physical or mental disability shall be exempt from service. It also provides that persons whose conscientious beliefs do not allow them to engage in naval, military or air force service shall be exempt. Many persons deliberately advance conscientious scruples as a means to evade military service. Accordingly, the objection of a conscientious objector should be well sustained before he is granted an exemption. I fear that under the provisions relating to exemption from service the sons of wealthy parents may be able to escape their obligation to train while the sons of workers in the community will be compelled to undergo training. Students at a theological college, ministers of religion and members of religious orders who devote the whole of their time to the training of persons to become members of a religious order are also to be exempt from training. The Minister is to be empowered to defer liability to serve and to cancel or vary any deferment granted. The AttorneyGeneral, in introducing the bill, stated that youths who are apprenticed to a trade and those studying in educational establishments will be granted temporary deferment.’ He also said -

Wo intend to adjust, as far as possible, the call-ups of individuals, particularly those engaged in industries having seasonal fluctuations. lt is only reasonable that temporary deferments should be granted to apprentices to enable them to complete their training. Special dispensation must also be granted to those engaged in rural industries. However, if the Government says to the youths in the cities and big towns, “ You must present yourself for training”, but grants exemption to employees in industries having seasonal fluctuations this scheme can no longer be regarded as a national training scheme in the true sense of the term.

Australia emerged successfully from World War II. largely because of the assistance given to it by the United States of America under the terms of the lendlease agreement. Under that agreement vast quantities of modern machinery, vessels and war materiel of various kinds were made available to this country. That equipment enabled us, through the agency of the Allied Works Council, to undertake huge defence works; not only in this country but also in the islands adjacent to Australia. Consideration must be given to the impact of the compulsory military training scheme upon the industrial capacity of this country. Recently, an honorable senator opposite asked a question about the failure of the Government’s recruiting campaign ‘for the armed forces. I believe that that campaign has failed because there is not only full employment in this country, but also many jobs that cannot be filled by the available labour. Honorable senators will recall that when war broke out in 1914, unemployment was at a high level. In 1939, on the eve of World War II., another period of depression was approaching, and thousands of Australians were out of work. Our present economy is entirely different. As I have said, thousands of jobs remain unfilled because of the shortage of labour. The Quarterly Summary of Australian Statistics issued in September, 1950, gives a striking illustration of the growth of our manufacturing industries between 1938-39 and 1948-49. I remind the Senate that it is upon the manufacturing industries that we must rely for the production of war materiel. In 1938-39 there were 26,941 factories in Australia. By 1948-49, their number had increased to 40,070. In the same period, the number of employees increased from 565,106 to 890,232. Salaries and wages paid jumped from £106,743,000 to £339,287,000 and the value of goods produced rose from £203,417,000 to £568,415,000. I cite those figures to show the state of our economy. Is it necessary or wise to deplete industry to the degree contemplated in this measure in view of the scarcity of labour?

Statistics reveal also that the male population of Australia is decreasing. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), in his second-reading speech on this bill, claimed that the number of employees to be drawn from industry for compulsory military training would represent only one half of one per cent. Up to September last, excluding wage earners in rural industries, and females in private domestic service and in the defence forces, there were 2,563,900 persons employed on wages and salaries in Australia. Of that number 695,800, or slightly more than 27 per cent., were females. Since July, 1939, the number of males in employment has increased from 1,293,100 to 1,861,000, and the number of females from 437,100 to 695,800. That indicates that woman-power is playing a greater part in industry. Voting at Senate elections since 1940 shows that females outnumber males. The enrolment figures for 1946 were -males 2,314,193 and females 2,425,660. Returns since that time show that the preponderance of females is increasing. That trend is already reflected in the membership of this chamber. The fact that man-power is diminishing proportionately is a factor to which some consideration should be given when contemplating such a measure as this. In the first year, the impact of the compulsory military training scheme will probably be light, but in succeeding years it will be of major importance, and it is with those years in mind that we must consider this scheme in relation to the needs of our economy.

On a population basis, Australia’s 8,000,000 people have little significance in the world; but those 8,000,000 people are called upon to undertake the defence of a vast territory and an extensive coast line. It is quite clear that, with our limited man-power resources, our army can never be sufficiently large to provide adequately for the simultaneous defence of all the vulnerable points on our coastline. During “World War II., although enemy bombs fell only on Darwin and certain other northern ports, in some southern portions of Western Australia such as Bunbury and Busselton, there was considerable anxiety about possible Japanese landings. Therefore, whilst I believe in compulsory military training for home defence and do not oppose this bill, I consider that the real answer to our defence problems lies in increased naval and air strength. We must concentrate on the building of submarines and a.nti-submarine vessels. We are told that Russia has the largest submarine fleet in the world. Whether that is true I do not know, but statements by leading scientists about the devastation that could be caused by the use of atomic weapons make it abundantly clear that submarines carrying such weapons could do enormous damage to our cities. For instance, hostile submarines could surface off Fremantle, Melbourne, Sydney or any other coastal city and give us a taste of atomic warfare. Our military forces, no matter how strong, could do nothing to counter such a. blow. The greatly extended cruising range of the modern submarine has completely altered the complexion of submarine warfare. During the last war, three midget submarines were able to make their way into Sydney Harbour. One can readily imagine the devastation that could be caused should long-range submarines carrying atomic weapons be able to approach close to our shores. I consider therefore that we ourselves should have submarines and antisubmarine vessels to counter any threat that may be offered to us by this type of warfare.

Senator Kendall:

– How will the bomb be conveyed from the submarine to the shore ?

Senator NASH:

– How did the shells from the Japanese submarine reach Newcastle steelworks during the recent war? I am not talking a lot of rot, but, on the contrary, I address these considerations to honorable senators in all seriousness. I am merely trying to point a way out of our difficulties. I am prepared to be guided by the advice of people who have much more knowledge of atomic warfare than has Senator Kendall. Our defence obligation is not so much to train men for military service as it is to provide, as quickly as possible, a large number of submarines and aircraft. The former Prime Minister, the late Mr. Curtin, said at Fremantle about 1937 that the only effective way to defend Australia was by developing an adequate air force. At the time members of the Parliament laughed at him, and said that he did not know what he was talking about, just as Senator Kendall, who interjected a few moments ago, suggested, by inference, that I did not know what I was talking about. Unfortunately, time proved Mr. Curtin’s words to be only too true. Aerial defence is the only effective defence for this country. I shall not delay the Senate any longer now, but I hope that the expression of my views will assist the Senate is considering this matter, notwithstanding that that expression of views has provoked some hostility from some honorable senators opposite. I repeat that I shall not vote against the bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Much as I felt inclined to gnash my teeth as I listened for 60 minutes to the drivel which came from Senator Nash, I do not believe that his speech deserves any articulate comment. Having previously listened to Senator Tangney, I feel that notwithstanding Senator Nash’s deplorable utterance, we owe something to the representatives of Western Australia in this chamber. I consider that the matters to which Senator Tangney called our attention, and the manner in which she addressed herself to the subject, called forth the best in Australian manhood and womanhood, and, after all, that is what we require when we debate such an important matter as national military service.

Although I represent the State of Tasmania, I must say that the Opposition representatives of that State in this chamber have a most discreditable record in their attitude towards this legislation. I believe that it is my duty to point to the thoroughly contemptible and discreditable performances of some of the representatives of Tasmania on the Opposition benches. Yesterday, Senator Morrow, who, in the judgment of every member of the Senate, has obvious and definite Communist sympathies, urged the Senate that this bill, which provides for national military service, was not in the interests of Australia. The Senate may forgive me if I recall to its attention that Australia is now preparing itself not to engage in, but to avert, a third world war. We are now preparing ourselves in the hope that the misery that has been inflicted on mankind by the stupid and spineless failure of those who counselled disarmament before 1939 will not be repeated. Notwithstanding our experience of the folly of disarmament, Senator Morrow, in pursuance of his propaganda against Australia, from the seat that some Tasmanian voters gave him, yesterday advocated opposition to the bill. He did so in the same fashion as he opposed defensive preparations in the councils of his political party in 1938. It is to the great credit of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labour party that in May, 1938, he was expelled from that political party for his stand against its decision.

Senator Morrow:

– I rise to order. The statements made by Senator Wright concerning me are untrue, and offensive to me. I ask for their withdrawal.

The PRESIDENT:

– As Senator Morrow complains that the statements concerning him are untrue and offensive, I ask Senator Wright to withdraw them.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– The statements are in accordance with fact, and if the facts are offensive to Senator Morrow I shall only withdraw them on the morrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I am not sure that I caught the honorable senator’s words. I thought that he said something about withdrawing on the morrow. What did you say, Senator Wright?

Senator Ashley:

– Before complying with the direction of the President, I appeal to Senator Wright to pay respect to the ‘Chair. Although he is a newcomer to this chamber he has crossed swords with the Chair on many occasions. However, if he is going to adopt this domineering and mulish attitude I am reluctantly compelled to move -

That Senator Wright be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– May I reply to that appeal Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I should certainly like to see Senator Wright withdraw the offending words, but if he does not intend to do so, I do not see how I can allow the discussion to go any . further. At this last moment I again ask Senator Wright to withdraw. If he does not do so, the question will be put.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– ‘I have asked for permission to reply to the Leader of the Opposition–

The PRESIDENT:

– I have been very lenient in this matter, and now formally put the question -

That Senator Wright be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.

The Senate divided. (The PRESIDENT - Senator the Hon. GORDON BROWN., Ayes . . . . 31

AYES: 0

NOES: 25

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I shall be the judge of Senator Sandford’s conduct. On many occasions honorable senators have spoken in this chamber in such a way that if the Chair had taken action against them all there would soon have been an empty chamber, because every honorable senator would have been suspended. Senator Sandford has his peculiarities and idiosyncrasies. The Chair allows gome degree of latitude to all honorable Senators. I shall give Sena.tor Sandford an opportunity to return to the bill when the sitting is resumed at 8 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

page 141

NATIONAL SERVICE IN THE DEFENCE FORCE

Special Report of Select Committee

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania; [8.0].- I move-

That the Special Report of the Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force, presented to the Senate on the 7 th March, 1951, be adopted.

The report of the select committee which was appointed by the Senate on the 7th December last, was read to honorable Senators yesterday. The two main purposes for which the committee was appointed are set out in paragraph 4 pf the report. First, the committee was to consider and report upon the Government’s proposals for compulsory national service in the defence forces. Secondly, the committee was authorized to examine all the relevant defence, man-power and economic needs and capacities pf Australia. The report is comprehensive, and I do not propose to traverse its contents at any great length to-night. I shall, however, in Jibe course of my comments, make some brief references to certain matters set put in. it.

There are two main complaints in the report. The first is against the Cabinet of the Australian Government, and the second is against the service .chiefs of

Australia, and certain departmental heads. Cabinet’s attitude to the committee’s proposal to call before it the service chiefs of Australia and certain departmental heads %o give evidence in accordance with the terms of reference pf the commitee, is crystallized in a letter written on the 2nd February, 1951, by the then Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Fadden . to me as chairman pf the select committee. The relevant portions of thai, letter state-

Cabinet has considered fUlly the proposal to call these officers, and has decided’ that it would be against the public interest for the Service’ Chiefs or members of the Public Service to be required to participate in this inquiry.

The ground of the Cabinet decision is clearly stated in the Prime Minister’s letter of the 23rd December last. It is quite impossible to draw the line between what your Committee may call “ factual “ and what is “ policy “, and it should not be for any official Or for the Committee, in the view of the Government on matters which may touch security, to decide whether it is either one or the other.

Since the officials concerned would be compelled to claim privilege .immediately, they have been directed that there is no purpose in their attending, and that they should accordingly not do so.

I have accordingly directed them that they should not attend.

That was a plain intimation by the then Acting Prime Minister that, having considered the matter, Cabinet had decided to direct the service chiefs and certain departmental heads, not to attend the meetings pf a select committee appointed by a formal resolution of this Senate on the 7th December, There are several aspects pf Mr. Fadden’s letter to which I wish to make particular reference- The first is that, although the letter was in reply to a communication addressed to the Acting Prime Minister by me as chairman of the committee on the 12th January, the date pf that reply is the 2nd February. In fact, the letter reached me at 10 a.m. on the 6th February - l&p very minute appointed for the commencement pf the official sittings pf the committee in Melbourne. Admittedly, I had received from the secretary of the committee advice of a telephone call received on the previous evening conveying the contents of the letter, but the fact remains .that the select committee of the Senate was not informed by letter of Cabinet’s decision until 10 a.m. on the 6th February, thi very time appointed by the committee for the Chief of the General Staff, LieutenantGeneral Rowell, to attend to give evidence. My first comment on that matter is that there was plain discourtesy to the committee by the Government * through its acting bead. Secondly, Mr. Fadden based Cabinet’s decision on the ground that it would be against public interest to allow service chiefs and others to participate in the inquiry. He related that, quite frankly, a little later on with security; and the committee, in paragraphs 55 and 56 of its report, make a trenchant comment on that situation. As those paragraphs sum the position up very well I shall quote them. They read as follows: -

In the first place, the Acting Prime Minister stated that Cabinet had decided that it would be against the public interest for the Service Chiefs or members of the Public Service to be required to participate .in the inquiry. A later paragraph of his letter rests this decision on the ground that matters touching security may be involved.
The clear implication of this decision is that members of the Select Committee of the Senate may act irresponsibly or against the national interest. All members of the committee resent this as grossly improper, and insulting not only to themselves but to the Senate and to all members of the Parliament.

I make a particular reference to the words, “ all members of the Parliament “, because if any assumption is to be made regarding any members it should be that they will not act irresponsibly, but will always act in the national interest and with due regard for the security of the country. That is an assumption that has been upheld in the House of Commons in quite recent years. I shall return to that matter in a moment. Merely to indicate that the committee had a sense of responsibility, I point out that the first resolution carried at its initial working meeting was that the press and strangers should be excluded. The committee had a perfect appreciation of the fact that its work might take it into matters involving security.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– It was at the first working meeting of the committee at which evidence was to be taken.

Senator Spicer:

– What I have said is still true.

Senator McKENNA:

– No evidence had been tendered up to that date. It is also true, of course, that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) is acting in a disorderly manner by interjecting. The committee, recognizing that security might be involved, also heard a suggestion from me as chairman that I would recommend at an appropriate time, if security matters were raised, that the evidence should not be presented with the report to the Senate. I merely record these matters to show that, as might be expected, the committee had a proper appreciation of its task, and of the niceties and difficulties involved in it. I refer now to what I may term - to avoid using a stronger expression - the foolishness of the Acting Prime Minister’s letter, or at least one portion of it. The right honorable gentleman informed the committee in his letter of the 2nd February that Cabinet’s decision was based on the grounds set out in a prior letter sent to the committee by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). The Acting Prime

Minister’s letter plainly forbade service chiefs and certain other people to appear before the committee, whereas the Prime Minister’s letter, written before he left Australia on his recent trip abroad, plainly set .out that service chiefs and certain other people would attend but would claim privilege. I may interpolate at this point that no witness may claim privilege before a select committee of the Parliament. I merely point, therefore, to the foolishness of the Acting Prime Minister in claiming that Cabinet’s decision forbidding the attendance of service chiefs and others, was based on the Prime Minister’s letter. The Prime Minister very properly did not say that the service chiefs and certain other people concerned would be prevented from giving evidence before the committee. However, the vastly more important matter involved in the whole situation is that Cabinet’s decision was an assault on parliamentary privilege and, at that, upon one of the most important parliamentary privileges. Surely one of the most vital rights of either House of the Parliament is that of appointing a committee, or participating in the appointment of a joint committee, to inquire into and hear evidence upon, any matter of public importance. That is one of the highest privileges that this Parliament enjoys, and the decision of the Menzies Cabinet, expressed by the Acting Prime Minister, was the worst, form of assault on that privilege. Further, it was plain contempt by the Government of the Senate itself.

I come now to the origin of the Senate’s powers. Section 49 of the Constitution Act provides, in effect, that until the Parliament otherwise provides, the powers, privileges, and immunities of this chamber shall be those as determined for the House of Commons at the date of federation, that is, on the 1st January, 1901. Those rights, privileges, and immunities are clearly determined. They have become established over a long period of years. I propose to do no more in the course of my remarks than to refer to a few of them that I have noted. I invite the attention of the Senate to paragraph 34 of the report which sets out a resolution passed by the British Parliament as long ago as the year 1700. That resolution has been renewed at the beginning of every session of the British Parliament since that time. It was, in fact, renewed at the commencement of the session now taking place. Its terms are specific, and are particularly to the point in relation to the matter now under consideration by the Senate. The resolution is as follows : -

That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any .Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

That is the law that applies to this matter as being one of the privileges and powers of the House of Commons on the 1st January, 1901. Accordingly, I put it very strongly to the Senate that the action of the Cabinet was not only improper, but also plainly illegal, in contempt of the Senate, and in contravention of the Australian Constitution.

I think that it is correct to say that there could scarcely be a more serious breach of privilege or contempt of the Senate than is conveyed in this action of the Government–

Senator Spooner:

– Unless it were in “ rigging “ an election of the Senate !

Senator McKENNA:

– I concede, of course, that it would be more serious if, after what has happened on this occasion, the Government engaged in a repetition of the offence. I should, of course, regard a repetition of the offence much more seriously. To pursue that theme with the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), I can imagine only one more serious breach of contempt of the Senate, and that is if the Cabinet Ministers were to march into this chamber with armed forces to arrest senators or to coerce them in the course of their deliberations-

Government supporters interjecting.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is certainly interesting to hear honorable senators laugh as though this were a matter of novelty, but if they had any knowledge of history they would realize that the privileges of this Parliament are those that have been won and enjoyed by the Mother of Parliaments through the early centuries when they were exacted after prolonged struggles with various kings. If honorable senators opposite had read their history they would recall that in the Long Parliament of the 17th century King Charles and his armed forces marched into the House of Commons to arrest Pym, Hampden, Strode, and other members who were contending for the very privileges that the Government is seeking to deny to the Parliament to-day. So, in reply to the Minister for Social Services, who has expressed doubt about whether there could be a more serious breach of the privileges of this chamber, I have given two examples. The first is the historic occasion of King Charles’s attempted usurpation of the powers of the Parliament, and the second is the hypothetical illustration I have given of Ministers entering this chamber to repress honorable senators-

Senator Spooner:

– It is far more serious so to arrange the election of honorable senators as to ensure that a particular political paTty is assured of a majority in this chamber.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is quite deplorable that a Government that is insisting from day to day on criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings- for contempt against bodies that have been established under legislation passed by this Parliament should itself act in contempt of the Parliament. I say that that is most deplorable, more particularly since the contempt has-been committed by Ministei-3 in circumstances that are exactly described by the famous resolution of the House of Commons as being committed in circumstances which establish their action as “ a high crime and misdemeauour “. I repeat that this contempt of the Senate has- been committed by a Government that is very busy initiating contempt proceedings to protect bodies that have been established by the Parliament.

Another aspect of the establishment of the special committee to which I shall refer is that the Government has claimed again and again that it is seeking the co-operation of the Opposition-

Senator Spicer:

– It will never. get it.

Senator McKENNA:

– I remind the Attorney-General that on the 7th December, when I moved for the appointment of the committee, I intimated to the Government that it was desirable that the Opposition and the Government should co-operate in order to determine the defence needs of Australia. Honorable senators will remember that I urged that if we Could get together on that subject away from the atmosphere of controversy that pervades this chamber we might be able to hammer out an agreement over a very wide area of defence matters, which are so vital to Australia.. I made a plain offer to the Government on that occasion. There was no equivocation or doubt about that offer. I invited the Government to amend the, motion that- 1 had submitted to enable it to appoint a majority of the members of the committee, if it so desired. )« t1 ere any doubt about that? Does any honorable senator opposite controvert the fact, that I made that offer on behalf of the Opposition? Is their any one who will deny–

Senator SPICER:
LP

– Does the honorable senator deny that he was merely playing for time?.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, and I shall prove to the Attorney-General that the matter was entirely in the hands of the Government. In making- the offer to the Government of the appointment of a majority of the members of the select committee the Opposition was, in effect, giving to the Government complete control of the proposed committee, the right to decide when and where it should meet, what evidence it should take, and when it should submit- its: report. I remind the Government that the terms of reference of the select committee provided that it s’hould report on the second Thursday after the first meeting of the Parliament in the new year. It was for the Government and not for the Opposition to determine when the Parliament should meet. I point out to the Attorney-General that it was competent for the Government to call the Parliament together in the middle of January. It is clear, therefore, that the Government was offered (1) a majority of members of the committee: (2) complete control of the committee; and (3) the right to determine when the committee’s report should be submitted. I submit therefore, that I have completely answered the suggestion made by the Attorney-General that the Labour party was merely playing for time. We offered the Government our co-operation and offered to place the whole conduct of the matter in its hands. However, for reasons- which seemed good to the Government it declined to co-operate with us on this vital matter of defence. Nonetheless, the Government still complains that it has not yet received proper co-operation from the Opposition. “When it was offered co-operation it threw that offer back at us, almost with insults. If ever there was a bona fide offer of co-operation made by a parliamentary opposition to a government of the day that offer was contained in the terms of the offer that I made to the Government on the 7th December last.

I suggest, therefore, that it ill behoves the Government of a democratic country to display so little regard for the proposition that the Cabinet is established, bv the Parliament. The Cabinet is under the control of the Parliament, but the Parliament is not under the control of the Cabinet. I think that it behoves the Government to learn that the privileges of the Parliament, as opposed to the rights of the Executive, are, in effect, the privileges of the citizens of Australia. The report of the select committee makes it clear that it is the privileges of the people, whose representatives we are, for which we are contending.

We acknowledge at once that the Opposition has no jurisdiction over Cabinet Ministers who sit in the House of Representatives. However, we have jurisdiction in this chamber over the five Cabinet Ministers in the Senate.

Senator Spooner:

– How is that jurisdiction derived? It is derived from the fact that honorable senators opposite and their colleagues in another place did not give the people a chance at the last election freely to elect the members of this chamber.

Senator McKENNA:

– To the allegations of discourtesy that I have already made, to the insulting reference to the committee in the matter of security, and to the foolishness and the illegality of the Government’s conduct, I say that Ministers in this chamber have added another offence. I suggest that in being privy to this decision to prohibit departmental heads from coming to a select committee appointed by the Senate they were false to their duty as members of this chamber. I say, in short, that they were disloyal to the Senate, of which they are members as well as Ministers. The committee has recommended - and it will no doubt be the subject of further motions - that the circumstances set out in its report should, by resolution of the Senate, be conveyed to the House of Representatives for that chamber to take such action as it deems proper. After all, the matters of which the select committee has complained constitute a grievous contempt of the Senate. I point out to the Senate that each member of the Government is responsible for the decision made by the Government that departmental heads were not to attend the meetings of the select committee. Irrespective of whether or not a particular Minister was present when the decision was reached, and regardless of whether he voted for or against the proposal, he must accept his share of responsibility for the decision, which was conveyed in express terms by the Acting Prime Minister on behalf of all his Cabinet colleagues.

I suggest that the action, if any, that is to be taken by the Senate in relation to the matters that I have mentioned is something that must be determined by the Senate itself. However, the decision whether the Senate will take action, and,, if so, what action, will unquestionably depend on the attitude that members of the Government adopt in this matter.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Is that a threat?

Senator McKENNA:

– I assure honorable senators opposite that I have no knowledge of what action, if any, the Senate may take. However, I repeat that members of the Opposition - and I think that I am safe in speaking for my colleagues - have made no decision concerning the attitude that they should adopt in this matter. We shall be guided entirely by the attitude displayed by members of the Government in the course of this debate, not only in regard to the conduct of members of the Government themselves, but also in regard to the service chiefs, on whose behalf the Government may make certain submissions. This is a matter that I invite members of the Government to take seriously. Any contempt of the Senate is a serious matter. At least, the Opposition regards it as such. Lest it might be thought that’ I am making threats, I do not want at this stage to outline the courses of action open to the Senate in this matter. However, I think that Ministers in this chamber have sufficient knowledge of these matters to work out for themselves just what may happen.

I propose to call three witnesses who will express their opinions of the Government’s action in this matter. The first witness that I shall call is one who is referred to in the report of the select committee. I refer to the Right Honorable Winston Churchill, who, in dealing with the subject of parliamentary powers and privileges, when giving evidence before a select committee of the House of Commons on Witnesses, as recently as 1935, stated-

Any act which affects the working of any Committee of the House, amounts to a breach of privilege, if it is intended or calculated to defeat, hamper or obstruct the purpose which Parliament had in view in appointing the Committee.

If honorable senators opposite are not impressed with that testimony, then let me call the present Prime Minister of England, the Right Honorable Clement Attlee. When speaking in the House of Commons not very long ago in the Sandys case he had something very pertinent to say. His words are powerful, and I invite honorable senators opposite to take them to heart. They are as follows: -

There can bc no greater blow to democracy than the admission of any right of the Executive to hamper, hinder, or restrain members of this House from carrying out their duty to the nation. The freedom of members from pressure by the Executive was fought and won years ago, and it must be defended against attack even if that attack should be cloaked under anxiety for the national safety

. We cannot have the assumption that members of this House are deliberately acting against the interests of the country. . .

In these days when liberty is challenged and derided in other countries we should be specially vigilant to set an example to the world of the preservation of our parliamentary rights.

In case members of the Government are not impressed with the views of the two right honorable gentlemen whom I have quoted. I shall take them to the views of one with whom they are especially familiar. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Australian Country party in the House of Representatives, Mr. Fadden, who was Acting Prime Minister when these difficulties arose. Discussing the matter of parliamentary privilege in the House of Representatives on the 14th October, 1948, the right honorable gentleman had this to say-

If once the Executive, as represented by Cabinet Ministers, is given power to override the Parliament and the privileges of members, then at that very moment our free democracy ceases to exist, and the institution of Parliament, as we know it, is supplanted by a dictatorship of nineteen Ministers answerable to nu one but themselves.

Recommendations. - The conduct - and in certain cases most discourteous conduct - of the officials cannot be allowed to pass, lest by their inaction the Select Committee, and with it the Senate, permit a most dangerous and undesirable precedent to be established. When we have the unedifying spectacle of a Melbourne daily newspaper publishing a report under the following headline: -

page 147

QUESTION

SERVICE CHIEFS SNUB SENATE,

and going on to say -

The three chiefs of Australia’s armed services yesterday boycotted the Senate Select Committee’s inquiry on the introduction of compulsory national service for defence . . . it becomes a matter of urgency that the principle of the supremacy of Parliament in a democracy, and the respect due to it, should be asserted, and that public servants should - equally with members of the Cabinet - clearly recognize, and if necessary be made to recognize, that principle.

The action of Cabinet, and the resultant conduct of the officers, cannot help but create in the minds of public servants a false conception of ministerial hegemony in matters Parliament. It can only be in the general interest to put these matters in their right perspective.
It, has often been said, by members of all parties, that “ The. Senate is master of its own affairs “. That maxim would be well served by resolute action by the Senate of a kind which will manifest to public officials’ generally that, in a democracy, the institution of Parliament is still paramount; that Cabinet derives what powers it may have from the Parliament, and not Parliament from the Cabinet; and that Parliament’s rights are, in essence, the rights’ of the citizen. It is in the national interest that public servants should understand and act upon these precepts, even if they themselves are required, by a misguided Ministry, not to give expression to them.

That sums up fairly well the outlook of the- select, committee on this matter, and I believe and trust that it is an outlook that will be endorsed by the Senate. In conclusion, I again refer the Senate to the opening statement in the Special Report of the Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force, with which statement the committee also concluded its. report. It drew attention to what Pym, the 17th century statesman, said and I invite every member of the Government, particularly the members of the Cabinet, to ponder this sentence -

Parliaments without parliamentary liberties are but a fair and plausible way into bondage.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I do not propose spending a great deal of time in replying to the. speech of Senator McKenna, because the report proposed for adoption literally reeks with cant, humbug and hypocrisy. However, the suggestion has been made that this Senate has been brought into contempt. How true that is ! But I propose in a few words to sheet that charge and the responsibility for that contempt right home to and to throw it in the teeth of those responsible for it. I suggest that we review the conduct of the Labour majority in this Senate since an angry and disillusioned people rejected overwhelmingly at the polls the discredited Labour party, the remaining skeleton of a once virile and active body. First, we should examine the present constitution of the Senate. Of its 60 members, 42- were elected in 1949. Of that 42, 23 sit on the Government side and nineteen on the Opposition side. But for a very astute political move by the previous Labour Government in 1949, the 1949 election would have been held on the same basis as: that of 1946, and the result would have been 35 Government Senate supporters and only seven Labour Opposition supporters. Had the present Senate been elected on the basis of the 1946 election there would be. 38 Government supporters and only 22 Opposition supporters. The next point to remember is that at no time since the Menzies. Government has been in power has there been any dispute at all between the Houses as contemplated in section 57 of the Constitution Act. Whatever disputes there have been have arisen through the abuse of power enjoyed by the Labour majority in the Senate by virtue of its 1946 Senate hangover. Their colleagues who went to the poll at the time were rejected out of hand in five States, and were returned only in one State. Whatever disputes and whatever obstruction there has been has been brought about by that 19,46 hang. over, whose mandate is three years stale compared with that given to this Government.

With that background let us see who has brought this chamber into contempt. It is on record for all who care to read, that the passage of the social services legislation was delayed for months until the Opposition changed its direction in course of flight and allowed the bill to pass. Again it will be remembered that in spite of the Government’s mandate to legislate in that regard, the Commonwealth Bank Bill [No. 2] is still on the Senate notice-paper. I shall also refer to the shameful protection that was. afforded by the Labour hangover majority to our communistic subversive disrupters. The Labour hangover majority extended a protective mantle over the Communist wreckers for a period of six months, frustrated the Government and denied it the right to deal with them until, in spite of very hot and fiery words to the contrary, again the Opposition ate its words under instructions from eleven gentlemen and Senator Aylett, and the bill was allowed to pass. But more of that anon. Contempt of the Senate, indeed! The shameful record is by no means exhausted. Time and again this Labour hang-over majority has snatched the business of government from the hands of the elected representatives of the people. Time and again it has refused to sit in order to carry out the business of the Government, which honorable senators were sent here to discharge. I shall mention this last example, although the list is by no means complete, more in sorrow than in anger. I refer to that shameful morning when the bells, of the Senate were ringing-

Opposition senators interrupting,

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes. I ask your indulgence, Mr. President. It is really very difficult to deal with the question of contempt, although I quite agree that the Senate has been brought into contempt. I am giving many instances, and by no’ means a complete list, in which the Labour Opposition has brought the Senate into contempt. The Government has been attempting to get this bill passed, and we afforded the Opposition an opportunity to do so this afternoon. We know, and honorable senators opposite know, that they have been given instructions to let the bill through, but still they are frustrating the Government and wasting the time of the Senate.

To deal with the report, Senator McKenna delivered a very stirring address. In the course of it he referred to the fight which institutions such as this have had to wage in order to protect the rights of the people against prevailing despotism. The honorable senator referred to men such as Pym and Hampden. To couple such men with members of the Opposition is sacrilege. ‘Could any one imagine a Pym or a Hampden coming into this chamber and using words such as the following which were used in the Senate during the debate on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950 : -

He is denied the most fundamental rights. The Government is sponsoring a measure which is a plain denial of British justice and the casting aside of the courts of the land. It is in breach and violation of natural justice and completely opposed to the principles of democracy.

Could any one imagine a Pym or a Hampden, who held such a belief in his heart, not raising his voice or his sword to prevent the passage of such a bill ? Could any one imagine a Pym or a Hampden, at the behest of a man such as Senator Aylett, dropping his opposition if he really believed that the measure contained all those vile elements ? But that is what occurred in this Senate. Please do not mention Pym and Hampden in the same breath as lie members of the Opposition.

The Labour majority of the Senate appointed this select committee, “to consider and report upon the Government’s proposals for compulsory national service in the Defence Force “. The resolution then went on to state that the committee should consist of certain persons. Naturally, the committee would have to consist of somebody, and particularly somebody who would be agreeable to act on it.

This committee was appointed for the specific purpose of considering and reporting upon the Government’s ‘proposals for compulsory national service in the defence force. In other words, I submit, there is no difference between the proposals of the Government and its policy. Naturally, its policy would be enunciated and elaborated in its proposals. Senator McKenna has very kindly given complete answers to the question why certain people should not give evidence. I shall deal, first, with the very courteous, very succinct and very complete letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to Senator McKenna in answer to his request. The second paragraph of the letter contains the most important point, which summarizes the whole attitude of the Prime Minister. His letter stated -

It is, I believe, a sound rule of policy that permanent officers of the armed services or the public service should not be expected to comment on government policy. To the extent, therefore, that their opinions are sought the officials concerned would have no alternative hut to claim privilege. In these circumstances, I think that little purpose would be served by their attendance.

The Prime Minister was therefore not departing from established practice in every well-run democratic country.

I am indebted to Senator McKenna for his inclusion in this report of an authoritative statement by Professor Arthur Berriedale Keith, in his book, The British Cabinet System, 1830-1938. About the centre of the paragraph on page 14 of the report the following appears: -

Moreover, on details of defence preparations

Halting there for a moment, what could be more closely alined to defence preparations than the defence proposals of the Government? The quotation proceeds- the ministry is permitted to preserve complete silence, as is shown by the replies of Sir T. Inskip to all efforts in 1937-38 to extract from him encouragement as to the effectiveness of new British armaments, or types of aeroplanes.

From . that extract we can see that the principle is generally accepted, and has been accepted over the years. However, this brilliant Opposition thinks to itself, “ We know that we cannot obtain the information from the Minister, so we shall get it from one of the chiefs of staff “. That was a grossly improper request to make, and one that should never have been made.

If this committee, or whatever it calls itself, had its roots in sincerity and was really doing a job and not merely marking time until the federal conference of the Australian Labour party had given instructions on the attitude to be adopted towards defence, it could have gone to the Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride). It is quite likely that although the Minister would have treated the committee with the utmost courtesy, he would have followed precisely the same course as that adopted by the Minister for Defence in the United Kingdom. In spite of Senator McKenna’s assurance that the proceedings of the committee would be held in secret, the Standing Orders provide that not only may other senators attend such meetings but also that strangers may attend. It is in the discretion of the chairman of the committee whether meetings shall be held in secret or not. In that regard, Senator McKenna is a man subject to discipline. He is in honour bound to obey certain instructions.

Senator Ward:

– So is the Minister.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am not bound, except by my own conscience. I wish this to be perfectly clear. Standing Order 305, which deals with the question of committees such as this, and under which this committee .was appointed, states -

When a Committee is examining Witnesses, Strangers may be admitted, but shall be excluded at the request of any Senator, or at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, and shall always be excluded when the Committee is deliberating.

That means deliberating as distinct from the calling of evidence. The standing order proceeds to state that other senators may be present. Supposing .Senator Aylett, in his majesty, demanded that this committee should hold its meetings publicly. I suppose that they would be so held, upon which a serious and dangerous state of affairs would arise. Senator McKenna will say that implicitly that is a shocking imputation, but I must warn honorable senators of a fact that we much prefer to forget which is that there is in this chamber an honorable senator - Senator Morrow - who worships at the same political shrine as Senator McKenna and who takes his orders from the same body as does Senator McKenna. We have heard Senator Morrow utter in this chamber a gross and bitter attack upon the British Empire, upon our own country and upon our gallant ally, the United States of America, and we have heard him deliver a great eulogy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He has pictured the United Kingdom, our own country and the United States of America as warmongers.

He has painted Russia-

Senator Morrow:

– I deny that 1 pictured the British Empire as a warmonger.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator will have an opportunity at a later date to reply to the Minister.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I do not wish to be unfair to Senator Morrow, but I refer him r.o his own speech, delivered on the 7th and 8th June last year, as reported in Hansard, in which he compared the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States of America, and the Soviet Republics. It is there for all to read. It was a most subversive utterance. The speech that he made last night, in which he dealt with the defence of our own country, may be read by those who care to do so. I say that it would be folly to allow any one who shares the views expressed by Senator Morrow to know anything at all about our defence proposals. Yet the honorable senator apparently enjoys the same rights and privileges and is subject to the same obligations as other members of the Australian Labour party. It would be the height of folly and indiscretion to allow a. man of Senator Morrow’s calibre to know anything about defence preparations. I do not propose to discuss this matter further. Certain legal aspects will bc dealt with by the Attorney-General (“Senator Spicer). I think that I have shown that there is no occasion to take seriously the report of the select com mittee. There is not one line in its report to indicate that it ought to be taken seriously. As I said before, it reeks of cant, humbug and hypocrisy.

Senator SANDFORD (Victoria) [9.1 J. - I was amazed, as must have been all right-thinking persons in this chamber and throughout Australia, to hear the stupid reply of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) to the excellent case made out by Senator McKenna. Not once during his speech did the Minister discuss the report of the select committee, nor did he attempt to answer the charges brought against the Executive by Senator McKenna. It was significant that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) did not reply to the charges. I have always regarded him as a responsible Minister, and I am prepared to believe that he had no hand in the despicable action of the Government in directing service chiefs and certain heads of departments not to give evidence before the select committee of the Senate. Do honorable senators agree that rights and privileges of the Parliament - not necessarily of the Senate only - should be respected ? How often do we hear honorable senators opposite mouth platitudes about the need to safeguard democratic principles? Yet the Executive has shown that it is ready to flout those principles. I give the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) credit for believing that he would not have been a. party to such action had he been in Australia. 1 now ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he was in favour of the direction to service chiefs not to give evidence before the committee. I propose to name a few of the fascist-minded supporters of the Government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! The honorable senator must not refer to Government supporters as fascist-minded.

Senator SANDFORD:

– When Senator McKenna was reading the report of the Senate committee in this chamber Senator Maher interjected that it was “much ado about nothing”. That, apparently, was the opinion of several of his colleagues, also. There were other interjections from the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) and from Senator George Rankin, who asked, “ Have you received your orders ? “ I should like to know under whose orders Senator George Rankin is operating. Are they the orders of the Australian Country party, which is allied with the Liberal party in Canberra, or the orders of the Victorian Country party, which is allied with the Australian Labour party in Victoria? The Minister for Social Services asked, “ Has the report been endorsed by your conference ? “. I now propose to state some facts which are, unfortunately, never published in the press, but some people, at any rate, will hear them to-night. I have here a little note in which the Minister for Social Services is affectionately referred to as “ Billy Spooner “, but I refer to him as the Honorable Senator Spooner. In this note-

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I rise to a point of’ order. Senator Sandford proposes to read some matter about the Minister for Social Services, matter which he was refused permission to read this afternoon. The motion before .the Chair contains no reference to the Minister for Social Services’ except insofar as he is a member of the Government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I ask Senator Sandford to address himself to the motion.

Senator SANDFORD:

– The AttorneyGeneral should have raised his point of order when the Minister for Trade and Customs was talking, and when he refrained throughout the whole of his speech, to discuss the report of the select committee. He compared the numerical strength of this chamber with that of the House of Representatives, but he never mentioned the report of the select committee.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I suggest that the honorable senator get back to the report himself.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Why was not the Minister for Trade and Customs cil lied to order when he was speaking?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I am not responsible for what took place when T was not in the chair.

Senator SANDFORD:

– When .Senator McKenna had finished reading the report of the committee, Senator Maher, who is well known for his fascist tendencies-

Senator Kendall:

– I take exception to the words “ fascist tendencies “, and ask that they be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT . - Exception has been taken to certain words, and I ask Senator Sandford to withdraw them.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Exception has been taken by whom ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Never mind by whom.

Senator SANDFORD:

- Senator Maher did not object.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I ask Senator Sandford to withdraw the words to which objection has been taken.

Senator SANDFORD:

– I withdraw them. To whom shall I apologize - to Senator Maher or to Senator Kendall ?

Senator Maher:

– The Opposition established the select committee in defiance of the Government.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Here is an interjection from Senator Maher, the avowed fascist from Queensland.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order!

Senator Maher:

– I rise to order. Senator Sandford has again committed an offence of the kind for which you, Mr. Deputy President, reprimanded him only a few minutes ago. I regard his reference to me as a fascist as offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - As Senator Maher has taken exception to the words used by Senator Sandford I ask that they be withdrawn.

Senator SANDFORD:

– I withdraw them. It is a regrettable fact that, to-day, there is a tendency to drift towards a state of totalitarianism, whether to the left or to the right. For God’s sake let us be sensible; let us cherish and uphold the democratic system of government in this country irrespective of what political party may form the government of the day. Honorable senators opposite must accept responsibility for this misguided action on the part of the Government, even though it was taken by its temporary leader. If the democratic rights of the Parliament be trampled underfoot all semblance of democracy is abandoned. The party to which I have the honour to belong would not in any circumstances attempt to interfere with the rights and privileges of a select committee elected by the Parliament. I appeal to honorable senators opposite not to be misguided by the long arid rambling speech of the Minister for Trade and Customs, in the course of which he did not once refer to the subject-matter of the motion before the Senate. Instead the Minister spoke about the abuse of power by the Labour majority in the Senate. He contended that the passage of bills through this chamber had been delayed by the Opposition, but he did not say one word in answer to the charges that were levelled against the Government and its leaders by Senator McKenna. He referred to the Commonwealth Bank Bill and the “ hangover “ majority, but not once did he attempt to justify the action of the Government in flouting the rights and privileges of the Parliament. I warn the Government that its defiance of constitutional procedure in relation to the proceedings of this select committee may react against it in the future - probably in the very near future. In the course of his stupid reply the Minister referred to the Communists as though they had something to do with the subject-matter of the motion before the Senate. Not even my fascist friend opposite will contend that they have anything to do with it.

Let not honorable senators opposite think for one moment that the condition? that obtain in Australia to-day will remain sacrosanct unless we are prepared to guard and uphold them. Members of a democratic parliament should be above petty political party friction. 1 observe that the Minister for Trade and Customs has re-entered the chamber. 1 am glad that he has done so because 1 have been making some comments abou the speech which he made on the motion for the adoption of the select committee’s report.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The honorable senator drove me out of the Senate.

Senator SANDFORD:

– In spite of the fact that the Government, through the then acting Prime Minister, the Eight Honorable “ Irresponsible “ A. W. Fadden, issued direct orders to service chiefs and heads of departments not to attend the select committee, at least one courageous official was prepared to ignore the order if, in fact, it was issued to him, and to attend the committee. I refer to the Director-General of Recruiting, Sir Edmund Herring. He, at least, understood his obligation to uphold the rights and privileges of the Parliament, and he understood all the implication of nonattendance.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Sir Edmund Herring is not a public servant.

Senator SANDFORD:

– That is beside the point. If the Minister had even half as much intelligence as has Sir Edmund Herring, he would not have made the silly speech which he made tonight. Already, so soon after his return to the chamber, he is indulging in stupid interjections. We sympathize with the Government of which he is a member because he must be a great liability to it. Many supporters of the Government are gravely perturbed by its direction to service chiefs and departmental heads to boycott the select committee. I believe that the Prime Minister is very gravely perturbed by the action taken by his deputy in his absence. I sympathize with him and with the Attorney-General, both of whom have too much sense to have involved the Government in such a decision. Actions of that sort, whether they be made by governments that lean to the right or to the left, are anathema to the Australian people.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– We are discussing a motion in which this Senate is asked to adopt a report which makes, I suggest,, some of the most outrageous charges that: could be made against Ministers by members of this Parliament. I confess that I was astonished that a man of the calibre of Senator McKenna should not know better than to sign a report of this character. It bears on the face of it ali the signs of irresponsibility. It was obviously put together for the purpose of trumping up a charge against Ministers for which there is no foundation whatever. In recent years the electors of Australia became conscious of the fact that long years of office rather went to the heads of some former Ministers. Now that they are unable to exercise the sort of power that they would exercise as Ministers, they seek for themselves, as members of a select committee of this chamber, powers that the Parliament itself does not possess. I refer first to paragraph 60 of the report in which there is a quotation from a work on the British Cabinet system by Professor Arthur Berriedale Keith. In the course of that quotation it ih made perfectly clear that certain defence matters are not the subject-matter of inquiry, through a Minister or otherwise. Here is a most extraordinary matter. The committee’s report, after quoting Professor Berriedale Keith states -

There is, however, no real analogy between the two. Professor Keith’s comments clearly refer to demands made in the House for information on defence matters, &c. In our Parliament, too, it is not uncommon for Ministers to refuse to answer such questions on the ground that it would not be in the public interest. But such policy has no relation whatsoever to investigations by a Select Committee. . . .

Are we asked to believe that a select committee is paramount over the Parliament itself? That is what the committee’? report claims -

. particularly a Committee sitting in camera . .

When these nien were invited to give evidence before the committee who knew that it would sit in camera? Was there a word in the letters sent to the witnesses to indicate that the committee would sit in camera? It was not bound to sit in camera. For members of the committee to suggest that a select committee should be in a superior position to the Parliament itself is the height of absurdity.

There is much more evidence of irresponsibility in this report. Individuals who seek to make unctuous charges against others who are endeavouring to do their duty to the public should be careful to ensure that their statements are correct and do not contain misleading implications. In that connexion, I refer to the suggestion made in paragraph 58 of the report that the select committee was in an inferior position to that of the National Security Resources Board. I invite honorable senators to note the words that are used, and the completely misleading inferences that may be drawn from this portion of the report. The paragraph states -

The outrageous character of the Government’s decision in this matter is highlighted .by the Prime Minister’s statement of the 18th December, 1050, in which he is reported as having- told the National Security Resources Board that members of that Board would be fully in the Government’s confidence. It has, in fact, come to the notice of the Select Committee that the Prime Minister wrote to all Departments requiring them to make available to the Board all information at their disposal, no matter how “ secret “ it may be regarded. The Committee has now only to record that the Board in question recently appointed by the Government has only one Parliamentary member - the Prime Minister or his Deputy, six public servants, and five private citizens.

The inference to be drawn from that statement is that the Ministry entrusted to the National Security Resources Board, which apparently must be inferior to a select committee because it includes only one parliamentarian, information that it would not make available to the select committee and that that constituted an insult to the select committee. No mention is made in the report of the fact that members of the National Security Resources Board, like members of the Ministry, are required to take the oath of secrecy.

Senator Cameron:

– So are all honorable senators.

Senator SPICER:

– No. That is the vital difference. As members of the National Security Resource Board have ‘ taken the oath of secrecy, the Ministry is able to make available to them to assist them in advising the Government, material that it cannot make available to individuals who have not taken that oath. The misleading implication contained in that paragraph does no credit to the person who drew the report.

I come now to the gravamen of the committee’s charge. It is said witnesses who were bound to attend the meetings of the committee were induced by the ministry not to do so. I wish to refer first to a matter which is mentioned in the report but which is lightly passed over. It is undeniable that the men who were called to give evidence before the committee were not called in such a way that they were bound to attend. I invite the chairman of the committee to deny that. Not one of the intended witnesses received the kind of notice that would have bound him to attend to give evidence before the Committee. There is no technicality about this objection. It is a reality.

Senator Cameron:

– What should have been done?

Senator SPICER:

– I shall tell the honorable senator what should have been done. If the honorable senator listens he may learn something and have an appreciation of the outrageousness of this report. Let us see what kind of a notice was sent to the witnesses. First I refer the Senate to Standing Order 382 which states -

Witnesses not being Senators shall be ordered to attend the Senate or a Committee of the whole by summons under the hand of the Clerk of the Senate or, before a Select Committee by summons under the hand of the Clerk attending the Committee.

That is perfectly clear. Witnesses must be summoned to attend a select committee under the hand of the clerk attending ° the committee. What form of notice was sent to the prospective witnesses in this instance? I shall read the letter that was sent to Lieutenant-General Rowell -

I am directed by the Chairman of the Select Committee on national service in the defence force, Senator the Honorable N. E. McKenna to ask you to attend before the Committee to give evidence upon the subject referred to them by the Senate.

Then the subject-matter of the inquiry is set out. Ear from being a summons, the letter ends in this way -

Would you kindly let me know, for the information of the Chairman, whether it would be convenient for you to attend at Parliament House, Melbourne, on Tuesday the 6th day of February at 10.00 a.m. to give evidence upon the subject referred to the Select Committee by the Senate.

By no stretch of the imagination can that document be described as a summons.

Senator Cameron:

– What would the Attorney-General have done?

Senator SPICER:

– There is no need for me to draft the document that I would have used because a perfectly satisfactory form of summons was in use in this Parliament until a few years ago. It was an official document headed -

Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Senate, Parliament House, Canberra.

It stated -

I am directed by the Select Committee of the Senate on [subject] to summon you to attend at [place] at [time] to give evidence on the subject that has been referred to the Committee by the Senate.

– If this chamber is going to accept a report that is based upon such a flimsy foundation as is the report of the select committee, then it will bring this institution into disrepute. So much for the facts. I suggest that I have completely answered the charge.

I propose now to examine some other matters connected with this move by the Opposition to attack the Government.

Senator Ward:

– The . Minister’s explanation amounts only to a quibble.

Senator SPICER:

– This is no mere quibble. This is, as I have said, a criminal charge. One would expect that members of the Ministry were entitled to at least equal consideration to that which is extended by juries to accused persons on trial. In other words, in any criminal proceedings, an accused person is entitled to have the charge against him proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Yes, in this instance contempt of the Senate has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Senator SPICER:

- .Senator O’Byrne is sufficiently irresponsible to come to the conclusion that the Government’s action amounts to contempt of the Senate despite the fact that no foundation whatever exists for such a charge. However, let me take the matter a little further. But, before doing so I want to emphasize that I consider that what I have already said is all that need be said as a complete answer to the charge. However, the basis upon which the select committee claims that it can make the particular allegation against Ministers is contained in section 49 of the Constitution, which provides that-

The powers, privileges and immunities ot the Senate and of the House of Representatives are declared to be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and Committees at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Then, without very rauch thought about what they were really doing, the committee proceeded on the assumption that because the House of Commons has seen fit from year to year since 1700 to pass a particular sessional order, the terms of that sessional order applied in this Parliament. I would have thought that that was a mis-reading of section 49 of the Constitution. The powers and the privileges of the House of Commons include, of course, the power or privilege to pass that particular sessional order: and the House of Commons chose to do so. Section 49 of our Constitution means that the Senate has the power or the privilege, if it sees fit, to pass such a sessional order. It has never done so. Consequently, I suggest that the claim that is made that this charge can be founded on the sessional order passed by the House of Commons is also quite unreal.

I shall make only one or two further comments before concluding, one of which is that people who come into the Parliament or into the courts and make all sorts of unctuous charges against others should come in with clean hands. This charge has been made in order to create the impression that the Ministry of the day, if you please, has done something that is contemptuous of the Parliament and has infringed the privileges of members of the Parliament. That charge is made by seven members of a committee, all of whom belong to a political party which is at the present time a living embodiment of contempt of the Parliament. Members of the political party who sit opposite, and who, presumably, will support the charge, have themselves confessed that they vote in this House on certain matters in accordance with the directions of people outside the Parliament. Let them deny it if they dare. That is the position of the Australian Labour party to-day. Even in relation to a matter that we have been discussing quite recently, we know that a decision binding on Labour members of the Parliament was made by a conference, not of members of the Parliament but of outsiders, who are not responsible to the people. Members of that conference met and carried a resolution to the effect that the Australian Labour party was not to oppose a certain measure, which was a matter of some importance and one in respect of which members of the party have their own particular views. It was officially explained, we are told, that although members of the party were free to criticize certain clauses of the bill, they could not vote against the bill.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– From what is thu Minister reading?

Senator SPICER:

– I am reading from a report of the conference that was published iri the Sydney Morning Herald.

Senator Cameron:

– The official report of the conference has not yet been published.

Senator SPICER:

– What I have said has not been denied. It is not disputed that our parliamentary institutions have reached such a position that members of the Australian Labour party actually claim credit for the fact that their votes in the Parliament are dictated to them by people who do not sit in the Parliament, and that they accept that dictation under circumstances in which there is a clear threat of dire consequences if they do not do as they are told. I suggest, in all seriousness, that that constitutes a per petual contempt of the Parliament, and that it ill-becomes people who perpetually connive at such contempt to make charges of the kind that have been made in the report of the select committee.

I shall now read something that I hope members of the Labour party will read, mark and ponder. The matter that I shall read to them should be of particular interest because they are continually talking about the rights and privileges of the Senate, of the Parliament, and of their responsibility to the Parliament and the people. Chapter VIII. of the fourteenth edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice states -

To attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege.

Do not these people who give directions to the Labour party attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats that they will cease to be members of the party, that they will not get their endorsement, and that therefore they will not be members of the Parliament after the next election? May does not even leave it as high as that. Another passage in the same chapter reads -

Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a member in the discharge of jus duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

It would be hard to convince me that the conduct that took place at the Labour conference in relation to the measure which has been under discussion in this chamber does not have a tendency to impair the independence in the future performance of their duties of the members of this chamber who sit in Opposition. We know very well that they include confessed opponents of the bill, because they have said so. But they are impaired in the performance of their duty to allow their vote to follow their voice by the fact that they know the threat is made that if they carry out their duty, and exercise their independence as members of the Parliament, they will be cast from the party. It ill becomes people who are perpetually carrying on conduct of this kind to make the charges that have been made in this report, more especially when the foundation does not exist for such charges. The report has been prepared by what I am afraid must be referred to as a select committee, not, I suggest, in bona fide discharge of their duties as members of this chamber, but for no other purpose than’ to acquire some mean party advantage.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) 1 10.3]. - It was distressing indeed to see the attitude of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) when replying to the serious charges that were made by Senator McKenna yesterday. Their replies contained nothing but abuse, irrelevancy, and complicated legal technicalities. They showed a complete disrespect for the traditions of Parliament. The two Ministers have evaded the issue. Their offence, along with the offence of their colleagues, is one of endeavouring to deter or hinder any person from appearing before a select committee to give evidence. Great play was made by the Attorney-General as to whether we had summoned the witnesses. As I interjected at the time, that is indicative of the mind of a person of the calibre of the Minister ; he is a good man to have around the place when the country is heading for a police state. He has his secret police and he is used to dealing with them. The institution of Parliament is an honorable institution. Its traditions were upheld before the two Ministers came into it, and they will be upheld long after they are gone from the Parliament and forgotten. The Attorney-General, who is in charge of the legal affairs of the Commonwealth, stated that these departmental heads and service chiefs were not bound to attend, but were directed by the Cabinet not to attend. That appears to be a deliberate misquotation in order to eonfuse the issue, because he was intent on pressing his weak and irrelevant argument. Paragraph 18 of the Special Report contains a copy of the letter that was sent to Lieu tenant-General Rowell, asking him to attend to give evidence. He was not ordered to attend at a particular time. The letter reads - 11th January, 1951.

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Chairman of the Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force (Senator the Hon. N. E. McKenna) to ask you to attend before the Committee to give evidence upon the subject referred to them by the Senate.

In order to acquaint you with the full scope of the Committee’s inquiry, I enclose herewith copies of the following: -

Resolution of the Senate constituting the Committee. (6) National Service Bill.
Minister’s circulated second-reading speech in the Senate.
Advertisement in the metropolitan press, Sydney and Melbourne.
Chairman’s press statement.

Would you kindly let me know, for the information of the Chairman, whether it would be convenient for you to attend at Parliament House, Melbourne, on Tuesday, the sixth day of February, at 10 a.m., to give evidence upon the subject referred to the Select Committee by the Senate.

Yours faithfully,

R. Odgers,

Clerk of the Committee.

Paragraph 19 reads -

While this letter asks the witness to attend to give evidence, he is not ordered to attend at a particular time; he is asked to indicate whether a certain time would be convenient. The Committee might well have instructed the Clerk peremptorily to summon the witnesses to appear at stated times, but it was felt that it was reasonable - and courteous - that the Committee should study the convenience of the witnesses in this matter.

There is no need for secret police or a squad 21 to deal with the Senate. Perhaps the. Minister’s mind is running along those lines at the moment. The Parliament is being degraded by this contemptuous action of the Executive against representatives of the people. That is a courtesy that was extended to these people. The charge that we are levelling is that, there was a direction to deter or hinder persons from appearing to give evidence, which is contrary to the traditional usage of the House of Commons, and clearly contempt of the Senate. The Minister ignored the previous authorities that were cited in the report, and I should like to remind him of some of them. I notice that the Minister has left the chamber. Perhaps he considered that his contribution to the debate had been so unconvincing and in such poor taste that he should leave. The authority included in the report of the Committee of Privileges, Commons Paper 90 of 1934 reads -

The Sessional Order and what may be described as the general privilege of the House of Commons clearly prohibits anything in the nature of intimidation or force or any suggestion of false evidence on a question of fact or any attempt to prevent any person from appearing before a Committee of the House ot from expressing his honest opinion.

This contempt was committed when these people were directed not to attend. That is a most important factor to hear in mind. The authority contained in May’s Parliamentary Practice, 14th Edition, at page 129, reads -

To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either House or any Committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege.

The point that I make here is that the report that has been presented is the only report that the select committee could bring back to the Parliament to give an account of its stewardship. History has a habit of forgetting personalities, but it is most interested in the reports and the recorded proceedings of select committees. This committee was set up by the Senate as a duly appointed select committee. There is not a shadow of a doubt about the method of its appointment. It was given certain duties to perform on behalf of the Senate, and it was instructed to report back to the Senate. The AttorneyGeneral, implied that the members of the select committee were irresponsible and that they may betray the confidence reposed in them by service chiefs. I point out that the service chiefs were not obliged or asked to give evidence along lines of government policy. They were invited to attend and it was within their own discretion to refuse to give evidence on matters dealing with government policy. Standing Order 308 reads -

The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate, and documents presented to such Committee which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person.

The committee was most mindful of its responsibilities in this connexion. There was not one whisper of any evidence tendered to the committee that seeped away to the press. I compliment the committee on the manner in which it carried out its functions, and on its conscientious attention to its duties. The members of the committee paid considerable attention to detail and scrupulously complied with the terms of reference. It is all very fine when the Government knows that it is in a “ 3pot “ to counter such a grave charge against it by abuse, but the personal abuse that has been hurled across the chamber’ ill becomes responsible Ministers. The Senate itself, not I, will be the judge in this matter. I am merely informing the Senate of the nature of the Special Report of the Select Committee and the’ manner in which it carried out its duties. It will be the function of the whole Senate to deal as it thinks fit with this particular contempt. I do not think that there is any doubt that there has been a flagrant and grave contempt of the Senate. If we study the precedents in other parliaments and the authorities on this matter, we find that since the seventeenth century there has never been an occasion where contempt of the Parliament has been treated lightly. To allow this matter to go without comment would establish a most dangerous precedent. It would mean, in effect, that any select committee in the future, regardless of its personnel and political colour, would have no authority to carry out the functions imposed on it by the Parliament. Once that precedent is created, once we allow an incident such as this to become an accepted fact, future cabinets will refer continually to this occasion and will say, “ They got away with it then; why cannot we get away with it now ? “ That is a precedent that we must guard against. Till now, the Executive has been successfully prevented from encroaching on the privileges of the Parliament. We should be recreant to the trust that the people have placed in us if we did not carry on the traditions of the past and fight against any attempt to undermine those privileges.

The Attorney-General also mentioned that we had implied that there would be punishment for criminal contempt. There is no reference to punishment in the report. The authorities and the Standing Orders refer to it, but the report does not contain any such reference.

In paragraph 58 of the report reference is made to the National Security Resources Board. That board has been set up, of course, by the Cabinet and will be given the confidence of the Government on matters of very great importance concerning the defence of this country. How far is the Parliament entitled to know what is going on in the country? How much liaison is there between members of Parliament and the people; and between the Cabinet and the people? In this bottleneck which is fast being built up by this present Government, where the Cabinet is selected by one man, the Executive is assuming responsibility to flagrantly flout the Parliament. Into what position are we heading if we allow a situation such as this to become an accepted precedent in the records of this Senate ? We must judge, and I ask honorable senators who will eventually be called upon to judge this matter, what is the issue. It is completely clear. As the authorities have pointed out in referring to matters connected with the House of Commons, it is also clear that an offence has been committed. The technicality of whether a summons has or has not been issued is quite irrelevant. The point is whether the Executive, by means of its directive, has prevented the service chiefs and the departmental heads from appearing before and giving evidence to a select committee. That is the only issue for us to decide in this chamber. I am asking honorable senators to give to that issue very serious consideration, because it is a serious charge and one that we cannot allow to escape our notice.

The Attorney-General referred to Professor Arthur Berridale Keith and pleaded public interest in order to justify the actions of the Cabinet. It was stated to the chairman of the committee that in the public interest it was not desired that certain persons should give evidence before the committee. The collection of evidence is one of the main functions of a select committee. Such a committee has power to make investigations and to keep the results of those, investigations confidential until the report of the committee is made known. It is a most important democratic power and one which should be retained by the Parliament.

I now wish to refer to a situation which is developing in this country in relation to the Public Service. Previous to the last general election the Chifley Government was charged with being a bureaucratic government which employed numerous .people who required other people to fill in forms. The real position is that the heads of the Public Service are a law unto themselves. They .continue in office whichever political party is in power. They are very close advisers to the Ministers. They have their own field of authority carved out for them and enjoy the protection of various associations. Seniority gives them security in their positions. To whom are such people answerable? Ministers come to them quite green - as a matter of fact, very green in the case of the present Cabinet - and act on their advice. There is no authority in the land to whom heads of departments are answerable in any direction whatever, unless it be to a select committee or to a statutory standing committee, such as the Public Works Committee. I consider that it is a matter of the utmost importance that the committee system be continued in a democratic Parliament. For a public works committee, or other statutory committee, or a select committee to be able to investigate the administration of Commonwealth departments, to have witnesses appear before it, to examine records and to come back to the Parliament and to present an honest, faithful report after having gleaned evidence on oath, is one of the advantages of democracy and is something that should be guarded with every means that we have at our disposal.

I have pointed out that a select committee is bound to secrecy and that it must not divulge the nature of any of the evidence that is tendered to it. When it makes its report to the Parliament the information or the evidence contained in the report becomes the property of the Parliament and is available to its members. Although I do not wish to refer in detail to the evidence given to the committee, I consider that if honorable senators opposite had heard some of that evidence their attitude towards defence and their knowledge of defence matters would have been considerably broadened. What chance have members of this Parliament to learn of such matters? In the opinion of this Government anything pertaining to defence should be kept away not only from the people but also from the Parliament itself. _ It is kept in the minds of a secret few- the Executive which at this moment is being accused of contempt of the Parliament. There is no shadow of doubt in my mind that there has been a deliberate attempt to challenge the authority of a select committee which was delegated by the Parliament to carry out certain functions.

The members of the committee have been accused by the Attorney-General of trum ping-up a charge against the Ministry. If the Minister accuses the Standing Orders of trumping-up a charge, ]’ cannot argue against that; but the members of the committee meticulously adhered to the Standing Orders of the Senate. The matter of the admission of strangers was one with which we dealt, and mention of it has been made in the report. The first action of the committee was to exclude the press and strangers. The examination of witnesses was carried out with decorum. The administering of the oath by the secretary of the committee was performed with great dignity. The opinions expressed by the witnesses were well considered, and those witnesses who did appear realized the importance of being invited to appear before the committee.

Senator Mattner:

– How many witnesses appeared?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I shall not divulge that until the time comes for it to be done. We have carried out our functions and are now giving an account of our stewardship. The Senate gave us a job to do and we have completed, with reservations and as- far as we have gone, the job that we were given to do. Those reservations must be explained in order to remove injustice to ourselves and to the committee. We must explain why we are not able to submit the report that the Parliament required us to submit to it. Every tradition of the Parliament required that we should do the job, and that has always been the procedure in the past. Yet we are met by this thin edge of the wedge, this attempt by the Executive to supersede tb power of the Parliament. Instead of feeling ashamed of their conduct, twomembers of the Government, who claim to be His Majesty’s Ministers of State, arrogantly abuse the Opposition for bringing forward a most important matter from the point of view of precedent and parliamentary usage. The Go vernment could have gained much useful information from the report of the committee. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the Usher of the Black Rod, who acted as secretary of the select committee, for the conscientious and painstaking work that he did. The Senate is fortunate to have the services of an officer of his calibre and ability, and I am sure that my remarks will be endorsed by other members of the committee. Various opinions were expressed to the committee in evidence, which could have formed the basis of a very useful report had that been permitted. Whether the Government will itself move for the appointment of a select committee I do not know. Perhaps it is so self-confident that it believes that it can do without the assistance and advice of the Parliament. The action of the Government in disregarding the serious charges brought against it in the report of the committee supports the claim that the Senate should be abolished. Several honorable senators opposite, including the Minister for Trade and Customs, referred to certain members of the Senate as the “ hang-over “ from the 1946 election. The Minister for Trade and Customs is himself one of those elected at that time. The Government has gone past the stage of a “ hang-over “ and is in the “D.T.’s” stage. The “D.T.’s” from which the Government is suffering might be described as “ dictator tactics “. The method by which the Senate is elected is prescribed in the Constitution, where it is laid down that half the number of senators shall go up for election every three years. In 1946, the people elected certain senators for a period of six years, and nothing has occurred to nullify their election.

The Attorney-General, towards the end of his speech, said that the behaviour of members of the Opposition in this chamber ill became them. I throw that back in his teeth. It is evident from the behaviour of Ministers of the Crown and their back bench supporters that the contempt of Parliament of which they have been guilty was carefully calculated and premeditated. Members of the Government realize that while there is a democratically elected Parliament that can speak for the people there is less likelihood that a few men will be able to control the destinies of the country. So long as I have a voice to raise in this Parliament I shall raise it against dangerous precedents that tend to destroy one of our most cherished heritages, namely, the supremacy of the Parliament over the executive.

Motion (by Senator Henty) put - That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 30

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator HENTY (Tasmania) “10.4:1]. -The legal implications of the ridiculous report of the select committee have been fully and brilliantly dealt with by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). The only point on which I propose to comment is the fact that witnesses were not summoned in the orthodox manner. That fact has been attributed by some honorable senators opposite to the desire of the committee to deal courteously with the witnesses. However, having regard to the legal ability of the chairman of the committee, no one can convince me that there was not some other purpose behind the failure of the committee to summon witnesses in the proper legal manner. When I read the report I felt a growing sense of nausea at the hypocrisy of those who were responsible for its presentation. The report, of course, was merely a cloak for the machinations of honorable senators opposite.- The select committee was at best merely a sham. It was appointed for one purpose only, to delay the-

Sena tor Maher. - Political ?

Senator (Sandford. - The reference to the committee as a sham is offensive to me, as a member of that committee, and I ask that the words be withdrawn.

Senator HENTY:

– I withdraw the statement that the committee was a sham, and say that the purpose for which the committee was appointed was a sham.

Senator Sandford:

– I rise to order. The honorable senator has made only a conditional withdrawal. He has cloaked his offence by saying that the purpose for which the committee was elected was a sham, which, I contend, conveys tha same meaning.

The PRESIDENT:

– No point of order is involved. Senator Henty has said that the purpose for which the committee was elected was a sham. That ia merely his opinion and he is entitled to express it.

Senator HENTY:

– I propose to examine briefly the reason why this committee wa3 appointed. I believe that it was appointed for the sole purpose of delaying the vote of the Senate on the National Service Bill. What was the purpose of that delay? It was merely a device to gain time until the holding of the triennial conference of the Austraiian Labour party, which, it was hoped, would give fresh riding instructions to Opposition senators. I must admit that their hope was not in vain. For thy second time in this Senate we have witnessed the spectacle of Opposition senators receiving instructions to vote for a bill which they professed to oppose.

I propose now to deal with what 1 regard as a particularly nauseating section of the select committee’s report. I refer to the quotation at the beginning of the report of the words of a great English statesman, John Pym, whose defence of the rights of the people and of the people’s parliament against the sovereign power of the King, and whose, fight for the supremacy of the elected representatives of the people against any sectional interest in the community, are well known to all who have made a study of parliamentary history. The ideals of parliamentary liberties were advanced by the chairman of the committee in the introduction to the report. I direct attention to the fact that the chairman of the committee is the same honorable senator who rose in his place in this chamber on the 17th October last and voiced sentiments which were the absolute antithesis of the ideals of John Pym. On that occasion, speaking for the Opposition, the honorable senator said -

The Labour executive has spoken and we shall obey.

He was referring to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill which had been delayed in the Senate for many months until an outside body had been called to the rescue to give instructions to the Opposition as to what it should do about the measure. The rights that John Pym established 300 years ago, when through the years of the Short Parliament and the Long Parliament he fought against the attempt by King Charles I. to usurp powers, have been thrown overboard by members of the Opposition in this chamber. Is it any wonder that those of us who cherish those 300-year-old traditions felt sick at the hypocrisy that brought those ideals into the mire of expediency and political opportunity?

I propose now to deal with the statement by Senator O’Byrne that as long as he had a voice he would fight against the establishment of any dangerous precedent in this Senate. .Senator O’Byrne and the members of the party to which he belongs established the most dangerous precedent that we have ever seen in this Parliament by accepting, not once, but twice, the dictates of an outside junta, which was not elected by the people and has no responsibility to them, but which compels them to vote, not in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, but as they are ordered under the threat that if they do not obey they will not be endorsed as Labour candidates at the next general election. Let us consider some of the things that occurred prior to the last general election. Some of them have been referred to by Opposition senators on many occasions. One in particular concerned the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner). I propose to relate an occurrence in Tasmania the facts of which have never previously been revealed in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! How does the honorable member connect that matter with the motion before the Chair ?

Senator HENTY:

– I do so in this way: In Tasmania the chairman of the select committee (Senator McKenna) was placed on the top of the list of the candidates in the Senate team-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What has that to do with the matter under discussion ?

Senator HENTY:

– I was developing my charge of intimidation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Such a charge will take a good deal of developing.

Senator HENTY:

– If it is your wish, Mr. President, that I should refrain from developing that argument, I bow humbly to your decision. Sheer hypocrisy produced this report and for many a long day it will be remembered by members of this Parliament as a document unworthy to have been brought before the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Arnold) adjourned.

page 165

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 141.)

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had almost completed my comments on this- legislation. I had said, amongst other things, that, in implementing a compulsory military training scheme, w.e should be careful not to disturb unduly our economic system. The advance of scientific warfare has completely changed our former conceptions of what constitute adequate defence preparations. I fear that, as in the past, compulsory military training may again be used as the plaything of military careerists. Having regard to our small population, even if we called up all our eligible man-power, we should have little chance of successfully repelling an invading force which attacked us in great strength. In the event of war every man, woman and child in this country will be involved. In previous wars in which we have been involved, particularly in World War I., our isolation gave us great protection. Modern weapons and equipment have so annihilated distance that the protection afforded by our isolation no longer exists. In the training of the manhood of this country in the fundamentals of national defence we must get away from the methods of the horse and buggy days. It would, perhaps, best suit our purposes if we devoted the whole of our man-power and our energies to the development of the technical services such as, for instance, the air force as a first line of defence. It is ludicrous to think that a sparsely populated country like Australia should endeavour to defend itself with a land force against an invading power with vast resources of man-power, . transport and military equipment.

Debate interrupted.

page 165

ADJOURNMENT

Senator W. Morrow

The PRESIDENT:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 169

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Repatriation Department - H. A. McCrae.

Lauds’ Acquisition Act - Land acquired foi Postal purposes - Newcastle West, New South Wales.

River Murray Waters Act - River Murray Commission - Report for 1949-50.

Sugar Agreement Act - Nineteen th Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession .Committee, for year ended 3 1st August, 1950.

Senate adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 March 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1951/19510308_senate_19_212/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 March 1951

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Senator WRIGHT:TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator LARGE:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator ARMSTRONG:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator CRITCHLEY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:LP

QUESTION

CORTISONE AND ACTH

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator ASHLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COOPER:CP

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOKE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:CP

Senator SANDFORD:VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:

QUESTION

TIN

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator SCOTT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:LP

Senator HARRIS:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:

Senator TANGNEY:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:

Senator NASH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Nash:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator NASH:

Senator McLEAY:

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator HENTY:TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator TANGNEY:

Senator SPICER:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIR’S

Senator ASHLEY:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator MORROW:TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

Senator MAHER:QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU

Senator WRIGHT:

Senator SPICER:LP

QUESTION

QUESTION’S

Senator NASH:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

TRADE WITH RUSSIA

Senator COOKE:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

DIESEL OIL

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senate
8 March 1951

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SPICER:
LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator SPICER:
LP

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania