Senate
13 July 1951

20th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1630

QUESTION

TINPLATE

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 10th July, Senator Critchley asked a question concerning the shortage of tinplate. The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answer: -

The matter of tinplate is causing the Government a good deal of concern, due partly to the rising demand for it, and partly to the recent action of the American authorities in curtailing our quota for the remainder of this year. At the end of this week, members of the executive of the Tinplate Advisory Committee will meet in Canberra, and I propose to discuss the position with them in an endeavour to work out ways and means of rationalizing the available supplies during this period of shortage. The honorable senator may be sure that we shall do all that we can in this matter.

page 1630

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that motor traders are holding nearly £4,000,000 deposited with them hy intending purchasers of new motor cars! Can he say whether it is possible to take legislative action to protect the public against loss of this trust ‘ money in the event of motor car traders defaulting because of financial stringency?

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

– I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the honorable senator, and, in any event, the Commonwealth has no power to legislate in such matters, which come exclusively within the province of State parliaments. I suggest, therefore, that the honorable senator bring the subjectmatter of his question to the notice of State governments, and if the circumstances are as the honorable senator suggests, it is quite possible that corrective action will be taken by them. -

page 1630

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 27th June, Senator Nash asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following question, upon notice -

Is the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral aware that only a non-official post office is provided at Mukinbudin in Western Australia? Is he also aware that more than 400 people are resident in and around the township and that the nearest official post office is at Bencubbin, 24 miles distant? Is he also aware that there is no branch of the Commonwealth Bank at Mukinbudin? Will the Minister consider establishing an official post office at this centre Which is required and warranted ?

The Postmaster-General has furnished the following information : -

Whilst it is true that the post office at Mukinbudin is of non-official status, my inquiries show that it is conducted efficiently in separate accommodation in a good type of building, and is staffed to provide full-time postal service throughout the normal office hours. There is no branch of the Commonwealth Bank in the township, but money order and Commonwealth Savings Bank facilities are available at the post office. The question of establishing an official post office has been examined but, unfortunately, the general volume of business transacted has remained more or less stationary during recent yean and is insufficient to justify such a step at this stage. The honorable senator may be assured, however, that the matter will be kept under notice and reviewed from time to time in the light of any change in the local conditions.

page 1630

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Transport seen a statement in the Tasmanian press by Captain H. H. Norrie, master of Wanganella, in which he advocates the introduction of an all-the-year-round passenger and cargo service by a 10,000-ton liner between Melbourne and New Zealand calling at Tasmania? If so,. will the Minister give consideration to making a vessel available to provide such a service which will be very well patronized?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I had not seen that report, but I am particularly interested in the comments of the captain of the vessel mentioned. My department is now exploring the possibility of obtaining a passenger vessel for the Tasmanian service so that regular communication between Tasmania and the mainland may not again be interrupted.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister say whether it is correct that River Glenelg, loaded with. 6,000 tons of steel for Melbourne, is still being delayed by the seamen at Newcastle?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I regret to report t. liii t, again this morning, although plenty of seamen were available, they refused to nian the ship. That means that the crew will be paid off, and the cargo of 6,000 tons of steel will not be shipped to Melbourne this weekend. The delaying of the sailing of a vessel such as this costs the Commonwealth approximately £4,000 a day.

Senator GORTON:

-Can the Minister say whether consideration will he given to using volunteer labour or naval personnel with which to man ships when union crews do not offer when called upon to work, although no industrial dispute or strike is in progress?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– That matter is within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Labour and National Service. I shall be pleased to convey to him the question asked by the honorable senator and endeavour to obtain a reply.

page 1631

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Army say whether members of the armed forces, whether they have volunteered for service or have been called up, can be sent overseas without their parents’ consent if they are under 21 years of age?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– No enlisted serviceman who is under 2.1 years of age can be sent overseas without his parents’ consent.

page 1631

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of the Ministers almost daily reports to the Senate about industrial unrest, what is the Government doing to fulfil its promiseto bring peace to industry, other than to pay the board arid lodging of certain individuals ?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I have brought that matter to the notice of the AttorneyGeneral and the Minister for Labour and National Service, and I am informed that, under existing laws, no action can be taken because of the tactics that are being adopted. We are satisfied beyond doubt, however, that when the Communist Party Dissolution Bill has been validated by the people, we shall be able to take appropriate steps to deal with industrial lawbreakers.

page 1631

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time ago, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, replying to a question that I asked in the chamber, showed his keen personal interest in the problem of overcoming break-of-gauge delays in our railway system. Has he read a further report on the front page of to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald about the remarkable breakofgauge device now’ in use on the Franco.Spanish frontier? Has the Minister yet received a report on this device, which is claimed to reduce to one-thirtieth part the time of unloading and reloading goods at break-of -gauge points? As the report discloses that the New South Wales Agent-General is seeking authority to send Australian engineers from London to investigate the device on the spot, can * the Commonwealth expedite the matter particularly in view of the fact that it introduces into South Australia two lines of railway with gauges different from that of the main railway system of that State ?

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

– I read the report in to-day’s press with the greatest of interest, but so far, I have not received a reply from my technical officers. I hope to be able to get in touch with them when the Senate rises, and if I obtain any information in reply to the honorable senator’s question I shall be pteased to forward it to him during the recess.

page 1631

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, or, if it is considered to be a policy matter, to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Government examine our immigration scheme with a view to restating its aims and objectives, so that the people of Australia may be assured that the present flow of immigrants is not beyond our absorptive capacity, and that, in spite of the wholesale exodus of migrants from Europe, we are still setting immigrants of a suitable type? Does the Government consider that there should be a lessening of the flow of immigrants, or what might be called an immigration holiday, to ease the strain on Australia’s economy ?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– A suggestion has been implied in a number of questions that have been asked by honorable senators during the present sitting, that the Minister for Immigration should make a statement in connexion with some of the problems that have arisen in connexion with this subject. I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of my colleague, and see whether it is practicable for him to make a comprehensive statement.

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration read the press report concerning the arrival in Australia of a large number of Maltese who had no accommodation in view when they reached here? Can he explain why that happened, and will he make sure that such an occurrence is not repeated ?

Senator SPICER:

– I have not seen the report to which the honorable senator has referred nor am I able to say whether the Minister for Immigration has seen it. I shall direct the attention of the Minister to the question and obtain from him information in regard to the matter to which the honorable senator has referred.

page 1632

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. For some time the Government has been seeking by advertisements in the press to obtain 600 recruits for the Australian force in Korea. That appeal has failed. Last night another appeal for recruits to volunteer for service in Korea was broadcast by the Minister for the Army. If that appeal, also, fails to attract the number of recruits necessary, will the Government consider enlisting the aid of the Labour party, in order to ensure that relief shall be provided for the Australian troops in Korea, and that men who have been wounded on more than one occasion during the Korean campaign, shall not be required to return to the combat area?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am very glad to learn from the honorable senator’s question that there is a possibility of theGovernment receiving some aid from the Labour party in connexion with this important matter. This is the first occasion on which I have noticed a sense of national responsibility on the part of the Labour party in connexion with the important subject of defence preparation in Australia. Although I do not want to create any wrong impression, when, at long last, there is a possibility of a commonsense approach to this matter by the Labour party, I point out that it is quite wrong for the honorable senator to say that the programme of enlisting the required number of reinforcements for the Australian force in Korea is failing. That is not so. The reinforcements are being obtained at a reasonable rate, and I am quite sure that nobody would expect that the young men of this country would not respond. It is not the usual custom of Australian youths to stand back in the breeching and let others do the fighting for them. I am quite sure that the Korean force will receive the reinforcements required:

page 1632

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator REID:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been drawn to an article in to-day’s press, in which the Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales, is reported to’ have stated that the States have no price-fixing power in relation to wheat for home consumption. If that is correct, is it the full responsibility of the Commonwealth to fix the price of wheat for human consumption in Australia, and- for stock feed in the poultry, pig and dairying industries?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Anticipating a question on this subject, I have consulted the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who has informed me that the Commonwealth has no power to fix the price of wheat or any other commodity, but, in accordance with the wheat stabilization plan, legislation has been passed by the six States, under which the price guaranteed by the Commonwealth in respect of 100,000,000 bushels of wheat for export, automatically becomes the price for wheat sold in Australia. It is not within the authority of the Commonwealth to alter this position. It can only be altered by the six States passing legislation to enable them to change the price of wheat or definitely to authorize the Commonwealth to do so.

page 1633

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it would be possible for each honorable senator to be supplied with a copy of the important statement concerning butter that was recently made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– No doubt all honorable senators are aware that the statement referred to .by the honorable senator was a very important one. I do not think that it would be possible to have copies printed to-day, but as I shall be remaining in Canberra for another three days I shall have copies made and posted to all honorable senators.

page 1633

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator AYLETT:

– Having in mind the tribute which the Minister for National Development has just paid to the youth of Australia, can the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior state whether members of the fighting forces who are under the age of 21 years, whether they are called up or enlist voluntarily, are entitled to vote at general elections or referendums? If they are not, will he -give early consideration to affording those young men, whose responsibility it is to defend this country, full citizenship rights?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I am of the impression that returned soldiers are entitled to vote.

Senator Aylett:

– My question does not refer to returned soldiers.

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper, I shall obtain the necessary information and have a reply posted to him on Monday.

page 1633

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Trea surer ,by stating that in the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation, the amount of income tax that is required to be paid by the member’s of various occupational groups is set out in schedule form and in income brackets. Those groups include the legal and other professions. “Will the Minister consider extending that analysis in order to show also the amount of taxes payable by the members of all professions on income earned by personal exertion ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I shall place the honorable senator’s request before the Treasurer so that he may have an opportunity to consider whether it is practicable to comply with it, bearing in mind the information that is contained in taxation returns submitted by taxpayers.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Minister representing the Treasurer will recollect that, last year, I asked him to consider the extension of income tax concessions to residents of the far outback areas who are doing sterling work in the development of Australia under very difficult conditions, and that he promised to discuss the request with the Treasurer. As I have heard no more of the proposal I now ask him whether he will discuss it with the Treasurer.

Senator SPOONER:

– I recall the honorable senator having asked me a similar question last year and that I briefly discussed it with the Treasurer. I shall bring his further question to the notice of the Treasurer with a request that it be considered prior to the completion of the next budget.

page 1633

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service state whether the proclamation invoking the industrial sections of the Crimes Act which was issued in April last in relation to the Melbourne waterfront dispute, is still in force?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I am not certain whether the proclamation is still in force and accordingly I hesitate to give a definite answer. I shall ascertain precisely what the position is and inform the honorable senator in due course.

page 1634

QUESTION

KASHMIR DISPUTE

Senator WILLESEE:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs state whether there is a possibility that his colleague will extend his visit abroad to enable him to go to India and Pakistan, or make a special visit to those countries, or will the Government use the good offices of Australia, to assist those two units of the British Commonwealth to settle their differences over Kashmir? I make this suggestion because recent events show how danger spots rapidly move from one part of the world to another and because every effort should be made by Australia to assist in the settlement of differences between other units of the British Commonwealth.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I understand the honorable senator suggests that the Minister for External Affairs should extend his visit overseas to India and Pakistan with a view to assisting, if he can, in the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. I am unable to say whether such an extension is possible. It may. well be that the Minister’s itinerary has already been decided upon and that during his absence, abroad he will be very fully occupied. I can assure the honorable senator that no government in the world would be happier than we ourselves to see thi* dispute amicably settled. Members of the Government have played a considerable part in attempts to achieve that end. When the history of the dispute is written, the part played by Australia, through the services of Sir Owen Dixon, as well as the Prime Minister, will occupy an honorable page.

page 1634

QUESTION

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– A few weeks ago, I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs to encourage the production of a national anthem for Australia. I pointed out that at present two songs, Advance Australia Fair and Song of Australia were being played alternatively as an introduction to Australian Broadcasting Commission news sessions. Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether a royalty is paid by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the right to play Advance Australia Fair at each news session, and, if so, how much?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– When on a previous occasion the honorable senator asked me what was the national anthem of Australia I should have known that the national anthem of Australia is God Save the King. We have our own national songs which appeal to us, but His Majesty is King of Australia, as he is of Great Britain and Canada and South Africa and New Zealand. We can have songs which appeal to our national sentiments, and are racy of our own soil, and I agree that we should encourage their use, but the national anthem of Australia is now, as I hope it always will be, God Save the King. I do not know whether a royalty is paid by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the right to play Advance Australia Fair, but I shall find out, and let the honorable senator know later.

Senator Grant:

Senator Grant interjecting,

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. ‘ Edward Mattner). - I ask Senator Grant to be silent while the Minister is replying to a question. Constant interruptions prevent other honorable senators from hearing the answer. I shall not allow such interruptions.

page 1634

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator HENTY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What amount of mail subsidy was paid to Trans-Australia Airlines by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department during the years 1946-47, 1947-48, 194S-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51, and what was the rate per lb. per mile for the carriage of mail?
  2. What was the amount of interest charged on capital advances to Trans-Australia Airlines for the same years, and what was the rate of such interest?
Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished me with the following information : -

  1. For the financial year 1940-47 the Australian National Airlines Commission was paid for mails carried on its regular services at 025d. per lb. per mile and, in addition, some mails were carried on special flights under charter arrangement. For subsequent years the arrangements have been for the payment of lump sum amounts determined bv the Government, in return for which the Airlines Commission was required to carry all mails tendered, including any emergency mails which are normally sent by surface means. In addition, during 1947-48 and 1948-49, the commission was recouped its losses on developmental services in accordance with the principle embodied in section 25 of the Airlines Act. All these payments were made by the Department of Civil Aviation, as contracts with airline operators are normally made and administered by the Department of Civil Aviation. The total payments made to the Airlines Commission and the resultant average rate per lb. per mile (ascertained by dividing that total payment by the total quantity of mails carried, including emergency mails) for each of the relevant years were as follows: -

lt is emphasized that a lump sum payment adopted in recent years covers the carriage of all mails tendered to Trans-Australia Airlines and the resultant average rate per lb. per mile must vary, depending on whether greater or lesser amounts of mail are carried.

  1. The Australian National Airlines Act provides that payment of interest shall be a first charge on the profits of the commission, but due to developmental expenditure the commission’s activities did not result in a profit until the financial year of 1949-50, when an amount of £136,562 was charged as interest on capital advances. This represents a rate of 3J per cent. The financial results of the year 1950-51 are not yet available.
Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, until some months ago. the town of Cunnamulla, in the far sOul 11west corner of Queensland, enjoyed two weekly air services with Brisbane - one provided by Queensland Airlines Limited, unci the other by Trans-Australia Airlines?
  2. Is it a fact that the former service, which operated through Goondiwindi mid St. George, was suspended, and that, us a result. Cunnamulla now receives a poorer service than most towns of its size and importance in Queensland V
  3. If so, will the Minister consider providing a bi-weekly service to this town, either by extending to Cunnamulla the Trans-Australia Airlines Saturday service now terminating at Quilpie, or in some other manner?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished me with the following information: -

  1. Yes.
  2. It is a fact that the service operated l>” Queensland Airlines Limited, through Si. George to Cunnamulla was suspended but Cunnamulla has, in addition to the onceweekly Trans-Australia Airlines air connexion with Brisbane through St. George, a twiceweekly air service connecting with Brisbane through Charleville.
  3. It is considered that these air services reasonably serve the town at present.

page 1635

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Senator AYLETT:

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

In view of the high price of cornsacks, what action is being taken to encourage the production of jute in Australia in an endeavour U> meet requirements ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following answers : -

  1. The Department of Territories and the Departments of Agriculture in New South Wales and Queensland are all conducting experiments in the production of jute anr! substitutes for jute.
  2. The Commonwealth has set up a central fibre authority representative of the Commonwealth and States to examine nil projects for production and manufacture of fibres and to press on with those which show any prospect of success. This authority will deal with production of the fibre, manufacture into cloth and containers and marketing of the product. It is emphasized that this type of experimental work involves long term planning to ensure firstly, that fibre of suitable quality can bc grown commercially and secondly, that the manufactured goods are competitive with_ imported containers both in quality and in price.

page 1635

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator HENDRICKSON:
through Senator Critchley

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following question, upon notice -

What amounts, if any, were paid to the Postmaster-General’s Department for the years 1941 to 1951, by the various departments, including the Departments of Social Services, Repatriation, and the Interior, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, for parttime services provided?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– My colleague, the Postmaster-General, has furnished me with the following information: -

In the past the Postal Department has not received full cash payment for work performed for other Commonwealth instrumentalities hut has taken credit in its commercial accounts fur the additional cost incurred. Following a review made in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury, the department will now be reimbursed in cash for the full value of the services performed, except in regard to meteorological telegrams which must be transmitted free under the terms of the Post and Telegraph Rates Act, but for which appropriate credit will continue to be taken in the commercial accounts of the Post Office. Payments made to the Postal Department for work carried out for other Commonwealth instrumentalities during the financial years 1940-41 to 1949-50, and the additional credits taken in the commercial accounts of the Postal Department are -

Particulars for 1950-51 are not yet available. These figures do not include payments made to the Postal Department for work carried out for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Meteorological Bureau. In regard to broadcasting, the work carried out for the Australian Broadcasting Commission is either paid for by the commission or credited to the Postal Department from the parliamentary vote for the national broadcasting service. The department takes full credit in its commercial accounts for the value of meteorological telegrams transmitted free in accordance with the Post and Telegraph Bates Act. The credits taken for each of the financial years from 1940-41are -

The Postal Department is also required to transmit free of charge papers concerned with Commonwealth elections and national service registration. The value of this work is being assessed and credit will be taken in the department’s commercial accounts.

page 1636

SENATOR GORDON BROWN

The PEESIDENT.- For the information of honorable senators I mention that last night Dr. Uther was kind enough to undertake to communicate with me this morning concerning the progress of Senator Gordon Brown. I have just received a telephone message from Dr. Uther to the effect that the honorable senator is making a good recovery, is quite conscious and the outlook is good. He will probably be kept in hospital for about ten days, after which period he should be able to leave. On behalf of honorable senators I extend our thanks to Dr. Uther for his courtesy.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

page 1636

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I present the first report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1636

DEFENCE PREPARATIONS BILL 1951

Bill received from the House ofRepresentatives.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I oppose the motion on a number of grounds that I shall mention, not necessarily in their order of importance. I oppose it in the first place because of the ruthless gagging of debate that has taken place at the instance of the Government, not only in this chamber, but also in the House ofRepresentatives, and I need some assurance from the Government that the measure now before the Senate will not be subjected to the same procedure. In the next place I oppose the motion because, although officially we have no knowledge of the contents of the measure, we are all aware-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Of course, members of the Opposition do not read the newspapers !

Senator McKENNA:

– Our unofficial knowledge of the contents of the bill extends far beyond the information supplied by the press, and we know that this measure is the most far reaching and important one that has been introduced to the Parliament in the last ten years. It seeks to vest in the Executive the most complete power over every phase of manufacture and production and, indeed, over every private activity in the community. I put it to the Government that it should demonstrate to the people that it is not in any undue haste to have the measure passed, and that it should allow all its implications to be properly considered and discussed. The Opposition does not want a repetition of what has taken place in this chamber in recent weeks. We all know that the Government has consistently obtained the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to rush measures through to the second reading stage and compel debate to take place on them immediately. The Opposition insists that it be given ample opportunity to study the contents of this measure and to consider its implications at leisure.

Senator Guy:

– Does the Opposition want the Senate to sit for another week?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I put it to the Government that this is a measure that should not be rushed through this chamber. The Opposition has a duty to perform and it is not concerned whether the Senate has to sit next week or even during the following week. The Opposition wants the fullest opportunity to debate this measure, and it will record a most emphatic protest if that opportunity is not provided. This is the most important bill that has -come before the Senate in the last decade, and there should be no hasty consideration of it. If the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) is prepared to assure the Senate . that the debate will be adjourned after the motion for the second reading has been moved so that the bill may be fully examined over the weekend, the Opposition will not oppose this motion, but, in the absence of such an assurance, the motion will certainly be opposed.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

think, most members of the public, are aware of the delaying tactics that were adopted by the Labour Opposition in this Senate for eighteen months. Those delays, and the forthcoming referendum, make it imperative that the Government should get on with the job without delay. Clearly the minds of honorable senators opposite are made up, and even if the Senate were to sit for another three weeks, they would not change their attitude. Their opposition to this motion is purely political propaganda. Our potential enemy will not wait for us to get our defences in order.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– When will the Government stop trying to fool the people?

Senator McLEAY:

– It is all very well for the honorable senator to say that, but I have vivid recollections of Labour’s efforts to prevent the then Government from preparing our defences prior to the last war, although since then, they have not stopped telling the people about how they won the war. The problems that lie ahead are serious, and the Government will not tolerate the delaying tactics of the Labour party which, as I have said, are mere political propaganda.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- Had it not been for the amazing speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), I should have remained silent on this motion. Does the Minister seriously suggest that events during the eighteen months between the 1949 elections and the elections this year have anything to do with this bill ? We have been waiting for eighteen months for some action on the part of the Government, but now we are confronted with a bill which does not even tell the people of this country what the Government intends to do. The measure will confer blanket powers upon the Commonwealth. Honorable senators opposite want the Parliament to go into recess so that they may place the administration of this measure in the hands of the bureaucrats who, in some extraordinary manner, are supposed now to have disappeared from public life. Instead of being “ bureaucrats “ they have become “ our departmental advisers “. The Government will hand the bill over to them and then turn its back upon its own responsibility, hoping that its “ departmental advisers “ will have the courage of which it has shown a complete lack in the past eighteen months.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Honorable senators may not discuss the bill on this motion.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I was speaking of the delay that honorable senators opposite claim will be caused if Labour’s request for an opportunity to examine the bill thoroughly is granted. If the normal procedure is followed, we shall have a chance to investigate the measure. I am afraid of placing in the hands of this Government the wide authority that it seeks under this bill, and therefore I oppose the motion.

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

in reply - Mr. President, you know well-

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister for Trade and Customs closing the debate?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator Ashley:

– Then I protest against the closure of the debate. I have not been given an opportunity to speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have called the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– You know we’ll, Mr. President, but listeners in the gallery or in their homes may not know that this motion has stood on the noticepaper since the beginning of the present session. It corresponds precisely with motions moved by Senator Ashley, when Labour was in office. It is purely formal and will not limit or restrict discussion in any way. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senator Armstrong completely lack sincerity. They have said that the Government is endeavouring to stifle debate. That is untrue. The Government is prepared to allow the debate on this measure to continue for as long as the Opposition is prepared to discuss it.

Senator McKenna:

– Will the Minister agree to adjourn the debate to-day?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– No. While we dilly-dally our enemies are gathering strength. This is a matter of vital importance. It is so important that, as long ago as 1948, Senator Morrow, speaking on a bill similar to that now before the Senate, said -

I deplore the necessity for this bill, but we must recognize that-

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. I submit that the Minister is not in order in quoting from a previous debate at this stage.

The PRESIDENT:

– I rule that the Minister must deal with the motion before the Chair.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The motion is for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow the bill to be debated forthwith.

Senator Ashley:

– Before the question is put, Mr. President, I should like to know whether you had any special reason for not giving me the call. I rose before the Minister for Trade and Customs.

The PRESIDENT:

– I had called the Minister for Trade and Customs before I knew that Senator Ashley had risen. Had I seen him, I should certainly have called him before the Minister, but my decision having been given it will stand.

Question put -

That the motion(vide page 1630) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (ThePresident - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.

AYES: 32

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Secondreading.

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

– I move -

That the bill be now rend a second time.

The object of this bill is to clothe the Commonwealth with a wide range of power which the Government needs to deal with the extraordinary problems and circumstances arising out of the difficult and unsettled days through which we are passing. The temporary and emergency nature of the powers sought by the bill is evidenced by the provision that they shall expire not later than the 31st December, 1953, or earlier if world and domestic conditions so permit. The suggestion has been made by members of the Labour Opposition in another place and will probably be repeated parrot-like in this chamber, that the real design behind this bill is a sinister and ruthless bid for power which properly should not be entrusted to a democratic government. That assertion is entirely without foundation.

Senator Sheehan:

– I rise to order. Is it parliamentary, and in order, for the Minister to refer in such derogatory terms to the Opposition?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I agree that it is unfair to parrots.

The PRE SIDE NT. - The Minister was quite in order. He may continue with his speech.

Senator Sheehan:

– That is a reflection on the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I have never before, in my experience in this chamber, known honorable senators to be so touchy. I have frequently heard members of the Opposition make statements to which supporters of the Government could have taken exception, but they have not done so. However, when the position has been reversed, the Opposition has taken most violent exception, and has claimed that the remarks are quite unjustified. I rule that the Minister’s remarks were in order, and that there has been no reflection on the Senate.

Senator Grant:

– I rise to order ! Is the Minister justified in saying that honorable senators of the Opposition are going to be like parrots?

Senator Maher:

– The honorable senator certainly looks like one!

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I realize, Mr. President, that I should ignore interjections. However, if a bird has webbed feet, associates with ducks, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck; any one can be pardoned for thinking that it is a duck. Although it is evident that the Opposition does not want me to proceed with this measure, I intend to proceed. In this, as in many other matters, the Opposition is a victim of what might be called reciprocal projection. It pretends to see in the Government all those evils which are so characteristic of itself, such as class hatred, sectional interests, and contempt of the natural and fundamental rights of the Australian people. I must emphasize that there are in the Government parties men whose forebears, through many generations, have made, perhaps humble, but. really magnificent contributions to the development and growth of this country’s material, spiritual and political institutions. Our roots are deep in this country.

Senator Grant:

– I rise to order ! The Minister is attacking the Labour party. His remarks have nothing to do with the bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister will resume his speech.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I thank you for your protection, Mr. President. I can quite understand the reaction of honorable senators opposite, because they claim that only they have an Australian sentiment. The Government is pledged to the service of Australia, and this measure has been introduced to provide for the defence and protection of this country. It has been said in another place, and I have no doubt that honorable senators opposite also will assert, that the bill is designed to clothe the Government with a power that it does not need, and which will be used ruthlessly. I am merely anticipating objections that will be raised by the Opposition, and I am trying to show that the Government should be entrusted with the powers sought in this measure.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What power does the Government want?

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator will keep quiet, doubtless the Minister will explain the measure fully.

Senator Ashley:

– We will hear a lot of propaganda.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I ask honorable senators to cease to interject.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The supporters of the Government are, in effect, a part of this country, and they are pledged to its service. In the discharge of that service we have an Australian tradition to uphold, and the future of our children to consider. How wicked it is to suggest that we should be wantonly false to either ! Mistaken perhaps we may be, but false, never.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. I submit that the Minister, in making his second-reading speech, is anticipating comments on this measure that may be made by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. The Minister is suggesting also that to assist them in making such comments honorable senators will read speeches that have been made by members of the House of Representatives. I wish to hear the proposals of the Government under this legislation and I suggest that the Minister should deal with the relevant provisions of the bill now before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I again ask honorable senators to allow the Minister to proceed. I wish to hear what he has to say, but I am unable to pick up the thread of his speech because of constant interjections. If such interjections cease, all honorable senators will be able to judge whether he is in fact dealing with the bill.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I do not propose to read the whole of the preamble, which is divided into seven parts.

Senator Armstrong:

– Where is the bill? We have not yet been given copies of it.

Senator Cameron:

– ‘Copies of the second-reading speech have not yet been circulated.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– If honorable senators are sufficiently interested to open the folders in front of them I have no doubt that they will find copies of the bill.

Senator Cameron:

– Where is the second-reading speech?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am making it now.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Minister is making his second-reading speech.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– And, if I may say so, Mr. President, under great difficulties.

Senator Cameron:

– I rise to order. Is it not usual, Mr. President, for Ministers to circulate copies of second-reading speeches which they propose to make ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I assure honorable senators that the Minister is making his second-reading speech. I am not aware of a standing order which provides that a copy of that speech must bc distributed to each honorable senator, although I take it that that practice has been convenient and customary in the past, and I hope that it will be followed in this instance as soon as it is possible to do so. I ask the Minister to continue his speech.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I assure you, Mr. President, that the fact that copies of my speech have not been distributed to honorable senators is not due to any discourtesy on my part. As honorable senators are aware, this bill was not initiated in this chamber. It left the House of Representatives at approximately three o’clock this morning and it would be unfair if, in anticipation of that bill being passed by the House of Representatives, I had prepared a second^ reading speech without regard to the comments and criticisms that have been made by both Government and Opposition members iri that place. Foa- that reason, the speech which I am now endeavouring to make is not one which was prepared a week ago. It has been prepared in the light of what transpired last evening and early this morning when this measure was being debated in the House of Representatives.

The last preamble to the bill is one, I suggest, which should impress the minds of all honorable senators with the urgency and the great importance of this measure. It reads as follows: -

And whereas, having regard to the foregoing, the military and economic strength necessary for the defence of Australia cannot, in the opinion of the Parliament and of the Government of the Commonwealth, be built up and maintained with sufficient expedition and effectiveness unless the Government has authority to take such measures as are from time to time required in relation to any or all of the matters mentioned in the preceding paragraphs :

It is quite wrong to attribute to members of the ‘Government the statement that war is inevitable. They have not said that, but they have said that time is running out and that we cannot buy security and peace with weakness. Appeasement is surrender on the instalment plan. The only way in which we can guarantee peace in our time is by being so strong and so close and loyal to our great ally, the United States of America, and to those other free nations of the world that still remain, that no aggressor will dare to attack us. “We have little time left in which to make ourselves strong. On the question of whether war is inevitable or not, I wish to quote some words of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Attlee. In January of this year Mr. Attlee stated -

The Government does not believe that war is inevitable. But they believe that peace cannot he assured unless the defences of the free world are made sufficiently strong to deter aggression.

That view, incidentally, is also shared by our own Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). This Government believes that we are threatened. For once in my life, I am able to agree with Senator Morrow. In 1948, during the second-reading debate on the Supply and Developmental Bill 1948, which was introduced in this chamber by Senator Armstrong, and the provisions of which were much the same as those of the bill now under discussion, Senator Morrow stated–

I deplore the necessity for this bill, but we must recognize that, whilst the capitalist system lasts, there will lie wars.

Of course, I do not agree. that that is so, but the honorable senator went on to say -

It is terrible to think that we must prepare for another blood bath, which, unhappily, may come sooner than we think.

It has been suggested, in the newspapers and elsewhere, that this Government has been overcome by a sudden thirst for more power. That is untrue. I contend that there is nothing new and nothing unexpected in this measure. Honorable senators may recall that in the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister as far back as April last, the right honorable gentleman stated -

In the new Parliament we will bring down a defence preparations bill to institute such needed controls as may be thought to be within the limits of the Commonwealth Constitution. We do not propose to rush into controls; we have an instinctive dislike of them. We do not believe that Canberra can run things better than Brisbane or Perth. They will be adopted only if an emergency renders them necessary for the protection of our people.

It might also be remembered that His Excellency the Governor-General, in the Speech that he delivered when opening this Parliament, stated -

Meanwhile, my Government proposes to introduce a Defence Preparations Bill designed to facilitate national organization for defence by co-operative action where possible, but where necessary by positive and compulsory provisions. One of the incidents of national preparation for defence is that civil goods and services may run short because of increasing diversion of men and materials. When such shortages are, as they must be, accompanied by rapidly increasing defence expenditure the upward pressure of prices becomes more and and more acute. Insofar as the checks upon this process are to be found in administrative, financial and economic measures, they require legislative authority and therefore constitutional power.

Par from seeking to grasp power for power’s sake, we are pursuing a line that was endorsed by the people in 1949 and re-endorsed by them in April, 1951. Naturally, we hope that the mere fact that we have power to impose controls will render their imposition unnecessary. We look to the robust decency of the Australian people to save us from the necessity for imposing them. We believe chat when the people have been told that this measure has been placed upon the statute-book, they will realize the urgent necessity for the Government to push ahead with its defence preparations and will assist it to do so in every possible way. “We look forward with confidence to their co-operation knowing that they realize that the fate of this country affects every person who lives in it. I look forward with confidence to the wholehearted co-operation of employers and employees alike, not as separate sections of the community, but as Australians, whose sole interest is the welfare and security of their country.

I have no desire to deal with this subject although full details of the proposals in this bill were given in the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister a week ago. They have been published in the press, and accordingly there is no need for me to repeat them. I propose merely to give a brief summary of what is envisaged. First of all, there is involved in defence preparation the increasing of the trained strength of the armed forces so that effective forces will be available for instant use in the event of war. There is also involved in it that training and other facilities shall be available at a time to produce further forces because one does not get ready for war, and for the impact of war, by merely having mobilization strength. We must have training facilities in advance, accommodation and a supply of equipment. En addition to providing trained forces and equipping them, we must strengthen the whole national economy to meet wartime and war preparation demands. It i3 basically wrong to think that the problems associated with defence preparation, the development of basic industries and new resources, and the stabilization of currency are separate and distinct. Onn cannot be accomplished without th.i others. We cannot have sufficient munitions production unless we have coal, iron and steel, industrial plant, buildings and skilled man-power. Apart from other weighty causes, we cannot have enough of these things for munitions if less essential or non-essential trades are competing for them and getting them on an inflationary market. We cannot defeat inflation while there is a large unsatisfied demand for labour and basic materials side by side with growing competition from less essential or non-essential industries. Inflation is really the product of over-competition by a superfluity of money for a scarcity of goods. There is more money than there are goods upon which to spend it.

Senator Cameron:

– Whose fault is that?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It is the fault of our enemies. We cannot develop coal and hydro-electric power, as we must, without doing what we can to concentrate men, plant and materials to that end. In short, if we try to do all the things that we are trying to do to-day, and have no effective organization for putting first things first, we shall _ not have defence preparations, development or stability, but we shall have delays, waste, rising costs, rising prices, inadequate real production and a disintegrating economy. A moment ago Senator Cameron asked whose fault is it that there is more money than there are goods upon which to spend it? The honorable senator is well aware that if we use labour for defence preparations, and spend money on the purchase of aero: planes and implements of war, there must be a shortage of consumer goods. We are asking for these powers so that we may be in a position to defend ourselves. Democracy must be armed not only to resist aggression by an outside foe but also to sustain itself against its own weaknesses. Sacrifices must be made by the people, and I am sure that they will be made willingly, gladly and gratefully when they realize that they have a common interest and face a common danger. The greater the powers vested in us the greater are our responsibilities. As a government we share the philosophy that we ourselves are not the authors but the servants of power; that all power comes from Almighty God and that we are answerable to God and to the people for the manner in which we use it. I trust that we shall be false to neither. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Motion (by Senator Armstrong) proposed -

That the debate 6e now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I register my emphatic protest against the manner in which this bill has been introduced and at the insistence of the Government that we should debate it forthwith without first having had an opportunity to peruse the secondreading speech of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), who introduced it. To insist upon the debate on an important and far-reaching measure being proceeded with before copies of the Minister’s second-reading speech have been circulated and perused by honorable senators is a distinct departure from accepted practice. The Minister has said in his defence that he intended no discourtesy to the Opposition. Although I accept his assurance I remind him that I am at a great disadvantage in contributing to the debate without first having had an opportunity to read his second-reading speech. Perhaps he realizes that copies of his speech would be of little use to us because it contained no information about the controls that the Government proposes to impose under the provisions of this measure. Judging from the number of interjections that punctuated his speech from both sides of the chamber there is uneasiness in the ranks of Government supporters as well as Opposition senators about these proposals.

The Minister indicated that this measure is somewhat analogous to the Supply and Development Bill which, as Minister for Supply and Development, 1 introduced into the Senate in 1948. Thai statement is completely false. That measure, unlike the bill now before us, set out precisely what was meant by the term “ war materiel “ and the powers which the Labour government of the day sought to exercise. If this Government had the ability and the courage to tell the Parliament exactly what it wants to do under the provisions of this bill, this debate would proceed on an entirely different basis. The Opposition is not prepared to vest in the Government unlimited powers of the kind sought in the measure. The Minister for Trade and Customs quoted from the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in support of his contention that the reintroduction of controls was justified. Apparently, the Prime Minister was having two “ bob “ each way. In the policy speech, under the heading of “Desocialization”, the Prime Minister mentioned a number of government activities, such as broadcasting, shipbuilding, &c, and then he said -

Apart from these specific matters we will resist the return of oppressive government controls of all kinds.

He said that in the same speech from which the Minister for Trade and Customs quoted. It would appear that the right honorable gentleman isup to his old tricks. Of course, in the long run, only his own reputation is damaged by behaviour of that kind. Not only is the honesty of the right honorable gentleman himself impugned, but that of every member of the Government is brought under suspicion. All the promises so glibly made during the election campaign are now in process of being broken. The Government promised the Leaders of industry that it would support the principle of free enterprise, and it is interesting to hear now what those same leaders a>re saying./ Mr. Withall, director, Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, said -

We have considered the arguments used yesterday by Government speakers in support of the Defence Preparations Bill providing for reversion to bureaucratic controls, orders and regulations and are now more fully convinced than before that this retrograde policy will hamper and delay defence production, will cause great injustices through arbitrary discrimination between sections of industry, the displacement of employment and a deterioration of morale throughout industry in general; also inflationary effects only too obvious.

It was reported in the newspapers only yesterday that Mr. G. H. Palmer, a prominent figure in the retail trade in Sydney, returned to Australia this week after a tour of Britain and America. In the course of a press interview he said -

If the Commonwealth Government, under its War Preparations Bill, restricts the making of so-called luxury goods, local manufacturers will be forced out of business.

This will open tho way for British and American Exports. Mr. Menzies claims that Britain and America have been forced to restrict production and credit to switch to war production.

I saw no evidence of this in either country.

Radio sets, tho working man’s cheapest form of entertainment, are not luxuries.

Labour-saving machines such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines help free labour for industry and commerce.

Controls on production of such goods would kill a thriving secondary industry.

The president of the New South “Wales Chamber of Commerce, Mr. K. E. Coles, recently made this statement -

If the Government thinks the higher production needed to prepare for war can be brought about by appointing controllers in Canberra it will be sadly disillusioned.

During two election campaigns, members of the present Government preached the gospel of free enterprise.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– And now the honorable senator has become its spokesman.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– In this chamber I am the spokesman of every man and every section of the community that is being wronged. Those who are now complaining believe that the Government is inflicting an injustice .upon them. The president of the Melbourne Chamber of Manufactures, Mr. H. M. Gibbons, is reported in the press to have made the following statement: -

Commonwealth officials inquiring into nonessential industries said to-day that, in the light of defence needs, 10 per. cent, of labour in the metal trades was not doing worthwhile work.

I assume that the powers sought in this bill will be used, otherwise there would be. no need for the bill. If they are used, the ultimate result will be direction of labour by this Government, the so-called champion of free enterprise. Leading manufacturers in South Australia have declared that any sudden move by the Government to stock-pile scarce metals and other raw materials would tend to wreck Australia’s manufacturing capacity, and would cause unemployment. Because of lack of foresight, essential basic materials are scarce, and already unemployment has occurred in the canning industry. Professor “Wilfred Prest, Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Commerce, University of Melbourne, recently wrote as follows: -

In Australia it is proposed to restore the control of capital issues, but for the time being it is apparently hoped to re-allocate man-power and materials by indirect methods such as the regulation of bank credit.

The prospective restoration of controls so soon after their relaxation (or, in some cases, total abolition) will be a matter for widespread dismay. It is not only that the circumstances of their restoration - rearmament and renewed military preparations - are deplorable. The restoration of controls would also disappoint all those who hoped for the opportunity after the war of deciding for themselves what pursuits they would follow, what goods they would buy and, if employers, how they would conduct their businesses. The restoration of controls would inevitably restrict individual freedom of choice in all these matters.

The Government proposes to reintroduce economic controls in the name of defence, and yet it is about to close down one of Australia’s most important defence potentials, the shale oil industry at Glen Davis.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I have already said that, if the Government had informed the Opposition what it really has in mind, the whole position might be quite different. However, in this bill the Government is asking for carte blanche authority to exercise unlimited powers. The kernel of the bill is contained in clause 4 (2.) which would empower the Administration to govern by regulation. I invite honorable senators toconsider the exacttermsof thatsubclause, which isas f ollows: - (2.)Theregulationswhichmaybemade underthelastprecedingsub-sectioninclude, withoutlimitingthegeneralityofthepower tomakeregulationsconferredbythatsub- section,regulationsfororinrelationto- (a)theexpansionofthecapacityofAus traliato produceormanufacture goods,orto provideservices, for the purposes ofdefence preparations or forthe purpose of enablingthe economyofAustraliato meetthe probable demandsupon it inthe event of war;

  1. the diversion and controlof resources (including money,materials and facilities) forthe purposesof defence preparations; (c)theadjustmentoftheeconomyof Australia to meet the threat of war or the avoidance or reduction of economicdislocationor instability causedby,orimpeding, defence preparations ;and (d)measures to secure themaintenance and sustenance of thepeople of Australia in the event of war or to contributetowardsthemaintenance and sustenance of the peopleof countries associatedwith Australia in defencepreparations.

Itis extraordinaryhow the presscontrives so often to obtain even the most secret information. Consider,for example, the following reportthat appeared intheSydney Sun of the26th Junelast - “Ministers admit franklythat the Government’sbasic intentionisto strangle luxury production andto switchman-powerand material to essential industry.

During the initial stages atleast emphasis is tobe on co-operation ratherthancompulsion.

But Ministers,with the American example beforethemofthe failure ofvoluntary attempts tosecure high warproduction,believe that it will not be longbefore they willhave to change toa” get tough “ policy.

Before very long we shall be ringed around by themost stringentcontrols if wegivethis unlimited power to the Government. When the anti-Labour parties were in Opposition they were very fond of criticizingthe so-called bureaucrats. However, their attitude towards those seniorpublicservants has changed considerably since they attainedoffice, and to-daytheironlyconcern is to get this bill through, race away from Canberra, andleave us inthe hands of the governmentofficials whowill administer this measure.AsI havesaid, the attitudeof theGovernmenttowardssenior public servantshasundergoneaconsiderable change,andMinistersandtheirsupportersnowrefertothemas”departmentaladvisorsandhighlevel planners”.Theyaretheindividuals whowillactuallywieldthetremendous powerthattheGovernmentisseeking.

Ofcourse,iftheGovernmentcould convinceusthatastateofemergency actuallyexists,theOppositionwould agreetotheintroductionofnecessary controls.ButdoestheGovernmentreally believethatastateofemergencyexists? Afterall,ithasdonepracticallynothing tofulfulitsundertakingstorestore stabilitytooureconomy.Althoughit promisedtorestorevaluetothe£1,itdid nothing.Whenthehonorablemember forYarra(Mr.Keon)submitted,on behalfoftheOpposition,aformalmotion fortheadjournmentoftheHouseof Representativesinordertodiscussthe menaceofinflationandtherisingcost ofliving,Labour’ssuggestionthatcontrol ofpricesandcapitalissuesshouldbe reintroducedwasridiculedbythePrime Minister.Thisiswhattherighthonorablegentlemansaidonthatoccasion

The second proposition on which the honorablemember basedhis case was that this Government had abolishedcapitalissues control. Ofalltheabsurdities thatIhave listened to, that statement isthemost absurd. His colleagues who wereinthelast Government know wery wellthat long beforecapital issues control wasfinally abandoned by the present Administration it had become,for all practicalpurposes, adead letter. Anybody whowaspreparedtofightthevalidityof capital issuescontrolin the HighCourtmade his application, and usually gotaway with it.The simple truth wasthat at the beginning ofthisyearcapitalissuescontrolwouldnot havesurvivedthefirstchallengemadeinthe HighCourt.Everybodywhoisfamiliarwith thisproblemknowshowtruethatstatementis. All thatthe Governmenthas done isto re-enact that control which theright honorablegentleman criticized so scath ingly only last year.Irepeatfor emphasis that that is theonly positive action that the Governmenthas takentocombat the rising tide of inflation. Manypromiseshave been made by the presentGovernment during the last eighteen months to the effect that it would not reintroduce controls. Asa matter of fact, the sin of introducing controls seemed to be, in the view of the antiLabour parties, even more heinous than the original sin committed in the Garden of Eden. During the general election campaign in 1949, on which members of the anti-Labour parties lavished so much money and propaganda, the theme of their appeal to the people was: "Put us in, and controls go out ". Yet, only yesterday when I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs a question about the shortage of newsprint, the. Minister, in his capacity of leader of the Government in this chamber, said emphatically that the Government did not like controls. The actual text of his answer is interesting, and I shall read it to honorable senators. He said - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . However, at the present time the Government does not see fit to interfere to any great degree in the conduct of newspaper or any other business. Such concerns, in a democratic community, should be as free as practicable from government interference and controls. How does the Government reconcile that declaration of policy with the urgent request for unlimited power to exercise controls that it seeks in this measure? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- a power, and exercising it are two different thing3. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- But if the Government does not want the power, why does it ask for it? I shall recall some of the utterances of members of the Government in order to indicate their . complete dishonesty. Indeed, when we realize their utter failure to fulfil the many promises that they made during the last two general election campaigns we are forced to the conclusion that' they place more value on election fictions than on anything else, and believe that .the winning of elections is more important than anything else. Consider, for example, a statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives during the debate on the Banking Bill in 1947. The right honorable gentleman said - >The whole history of democracy, which we should be proud to say is still primarily the history of the English-speaking peoples, is one of struggle for the control of government by the people, not for control of the people by the Government . . . I warn the Prime Minister that the Australian people once aroused will not lightly surrender those principles of free government and, indeed, free living, for which twice in this century they have passed through the terrible ordeal of war. The Prime Minister has one marvellous quality. I have searched deeply, but unsuccessfully, to find whether he has any other remarkable qualities, but I believe that his outstanding quality is his brilliant use of the English language. His record for giving practical effect to his thoughts has not been impressive throughout his political history. The fact is slowly but surely seeping into the minds of the great Australian public that the Leader of the Liberal party, who looks so impressive and speaks so fluently, is not a man of action. He quoted a passage from J ohn Milton's essay " The Second Defence of the People of England ", as follows : - >Unless that liberty which is of such a kind as arms can neither procure nor take away . . Shall have taken deep root in your minds and hearts there will not long be wanting one who will snatch from you by treachery what you have acquired by arms. It is fantastic that this Government, which parades as the champion of free enterprise, is now asking the Parliament to confer upon it the wide powers that are provided in this bill. I remind the Senate that the Government used its superior numbers to force this legislation through the House of Representatives in two days. That time was not sufficient to allow for the proper consideration of the measure. Whether or not the Government forces the bill through this chamber, the fact remains that the people will be the final arbiters on the matter. I warn the Government that, with this kind of legislation, it is preparing a deep political grave for itself. .Surely honorable senators opposite realize that controls are not a substitute for a constructive programme, but are, indeed, a retrograde move. Why does this Government not follow the example of the Chifley Labour Government ? The Labour party was in office during the greatest war in history, and was obliged to control many aspects of our way of life. That task was accomplished in a remarkably effective manner. We used controls when they were needed for the effective prosecution of the war effort. The people were in complete agreement with that policy. The Prime Minister of the day, the late **Mr. J.** B. Chifley, in his vision, endeavoured to retain a number of those vital controls after the termination of World War II. and he succeeded in doing so, for two years, with the approbation of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. He retained the power to control prices until 1947 because he realized that once that power was relinquished by the Commonwealth, prices would rise rapidly. In that year, the economy of Australia was unequalled by that of any other country. The increase of the cost of living in the Commonwealth up to 1947 was lower than in any other country. The Australian £1 bought more goods in relation to the number of hours of work than the £1 or its equivalent in any other part of the world. Surveys which were made at that time by the United Nations revealed that the Australians were the happiest people in the world. Those surveys are most interesting, and I recommend a study of them to honorable senators opposite. The Chifley Labour Government did not relinquish controls until it was confident that the necessity for them had disappeared. That was the fundamental policy of the Labour Government at that time. It desired to be certain that a control, once it had been abolished, would not need to be reintroduced. That is the reason why we moved slowly in respect of abolishing controls. The Menzies Government has been in office for approximately eighteen months, and now desires to take powers that are equalled only by the powers that were exercised by the Chifley Government in war-time. The reason which is given by the Government for its decision is that there is a threat of war. Why does not the Government exercise the powers that it already possesses to meet that threat? If that course were adopted, the public would feel that the Government was eager to do its job. The Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator McLeay)** gives the Senate many explanations why this ship or that ship has been held up in port. Almost invariably, when he rises in his place, he makes a speech on that subject, but, in doing so, he merely condemns the Government and himself. What action has the Government taken to solve the shipping problem? I remind the Senate that *Aorangi* was held up in Sydney for more than a month before the Government decided to provide naval ratings to take it to sea. Anyone who was' not completely blind could see that the Communist-controlled Seamen's Union of Australasia was playing a game of draughts with the Minister, and that he was not aware of that fact. *Wanganella* normally plies between Australia and New Zealand. The Communist-controlled Seamen's Union would not provide a crew for it. This allegedly strong Government, which is seeking power to impose new controls, said to that organization, " If you will not take the ship to New Zealand, will you please take it to Tasmania?" That is an example of the manner in which the Government handles problems of that kind. Control is not a substitute for a positive programme. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Does the honorable senator believe in placing naval ratings on merchant ships? {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- I believe in action. When a situation calls for action, I do not believe that talk is a substitute for it. That is the difference between the Labour party on the one hand and the Liberal party and the Australian Country party on the other hand. I recall that the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden),** when he was the Prime Minister in 1941, sought to solve the problem of coal production. The method that he used was to give the secretary of the coal miners' federation £300 under the lap. Cabinet Ministers and the coal miners' federation were not aware of what was happening. The right honorable gentleman said to that official, in effect, " Use this money to pay taxi fares and keep the boys at work in the mines". That was the method by which a nonLabour Prime Minister hoped to stimulate coal production. This Government does nothing but talk. It has no policy for solving the problems of the country. The Government is on trial not only before the Opposition but also before the Australian public, and it will need all its ingenuity to convince the people that it needs the powers that are sought in this bill. I regard this measure as a political placard similar to those which the Government has been waving before the eyes of electors du ring the last three years. The people have become fascinated because theyhave looked at those banners forso long, and while they are unaware of the position, theGovernment isfilching shillings from their pounds. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **Senator Wright** *interjecting,* {: #debate-21-s9 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; ALP (N-C) 1941-42 -Since the honorable senator was. promoted from Whip toclown he cannot keep quiet. {: .speaker-K2G} ##### Senator Reid: -- That is a cheap gibe. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- I deliberately made it cheap. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I have listened to the honorable senator with a great deal of attention, and I ask him to come back to the bill. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- I have never left it. The Government is endeavouring to snatch these controls while the people are preoccupied with economic troubles. The £1 is rapidly losing its purchasing power, yet no actionhas been taken against the Communist disrupters whom the Governmentaccuses of being responsiblefor everytrouble, even the butter shortage. The public wants action from the Government and the passing of a bill in the Parliament is not necessarily the kind of action that will satisfy them. I understood the Ministerfor Trade and Customs to say that these may be no action under this bill. If it is left to the Menzies Government to take action, I aim sure that nothing will happen. The Government wavesvarious political banners with the object of distracting the attention of the public from tragic shortages of primary and secondary products and hopes that the situation will be remedied by talk. I shallbe interested to learn of the reaction in. the cities and. in the country districts to the honour that has been, conferred upon the Treasurer. I amreminded of the following- lines from *The Lost Leader,* by Robert Browning : - >Just for a ribbon he sold us; > >Just for aribbon to stickin his coat. Theright honorable gentleman, before he became the Treasurer in 1949, gave the people an assurance that he could restore thevalue of the so-called Chifley £1 to that of the Liberal-Australian Country party £1 of 1939; The right honorable gentleman repeated that promise many times on the hustings in the general election campaign in1949 but I doubtwhetherevensuchan optimist as heis will claim that he has fulfilled it. Of course, the Government honoured its pre-election promise to abolish petrol rationing, and I award it full marks for having done so. To the Government, promises no longer have any significance. If there is one thing that the public likes to see in any government, it is political honesty, and the people of Australia are beginning to realize that there is no honesty left in this Government. Its path is strewn withbroken promises. In defending itself against the criticism that is its due for its failure to keep its promise, it has sought to destroy the reputations of members of this Parliament who, over the years, have proved themselves to be men of honesty and integrity. Even in opposition the Labour party believes that ithas a job to do. It believes that it has an obligation to keep the Government on the rails of honesty. This is the greatest political trickster government that has ever held office in this Parliament,at least during my membership of the Senate. A confidence trickster is a social parasite, but a political confidence trickster is a threat to the security of the country because he breaks down the confidence of the people in the Parliament. The reaction of ordinary men and women to the Parliament is extremely importantbecause upon them rests the ultimate burden of sustaining the democratic system. The Government's technique is to hide its inactionbehind a smoke screen. Only those who can penetrate the smoke-screen really know how ineffective this Government really is: The great masses of the people are undoubtedly confused, and do not know what is going on. They are frightened, and the greatest human emotion is fear. Once a government can engender fear and panic in the minds of the people; it can *Defence Preparations* [13 July, 1951.]1649 determine their actions at will. This Government hassoughtto keepthe Australian people inaconstant state of fear, in thehope that they willnotbeable to examine important issues clearly andcoldly, but will,nevertheless, keepthe Government in office. The party that attacked the bloated Public Service andthe allpowerful bureaucrats is now expanding the Public Service atthe expenseof private industry. The bureaucrats have vanished. They have become "government advisors " and " departmentalcommittees ". We object strongly to the manner in which this bill has been framed and to its hasty submission to the Senate. Why does the Government not tell us exactly whatcontrols it wants so that we may consider each proposal on its merits? The passage of thismeasure will confer blanket powers under which the Government will be able tocontrol almost every aspect of ourdomestic life. Admittedly total war cannotleaveany section of the communityuntouched,butI see no reason why the Government shouldbe empowered atthis stage to control every phase of oureconomy. The parties that once professed to be against controls are now the control parties. The man in the streetmust have the greatest difficulty in following the machinations of this Government which is asking in this one measure for as many controls as were needed by the Curtin andChifley Administrations to assist in waging the greatest war effort in ourhistory. SenatorCORMACK (Victoria) [2.40]. - Iam interestedto discoverthat the Opposition views this bill with a great deal of concern. We on this side of the chamber also view it with a great deal of concernbecause ofthe necessity at this stage, six years after theconclusion of hostilities,to introduce inpeace-time legislation to prepare thiscountry for defence. I hope that theconcern that has been expressed by Opposition speakers will prevail against the sweet seductions that may exist at Moorefield andFleming- ton to-morrow. **Senator Armstrong** has cast himself in a new role. Inever expected to find him amemberof the round table of the Chamber of Manufactures, advocating the point of viewof that chamber and of the " hot house " luxury industries that have grown up in our economy. Ihope to he able toshow that, as **Senator Wright** has said, theOpposition'sargumentsare not arguments in themselvesbut amere syndicationof ideas,newspaper cuttings, and so on. One of the characteristics of the Labour party that I have discerned from time to time in the last fewyears is itsqueer method of thinking . **Senator Armstrong** has given a perfectexample of that kind of thinking . Itrather reminds me of the childwho goes into the fun parlour at Luna Park and visits the hall of mirrors. He standsbeforemirrors of allkinds, until finally he is confronted "by one which reflectshisimage upside down. When one looks at such a mirror for long enough, one couldbegin tobelieve that people normally appear in this world upside down. Marxists and others trained in their dialecticreach the stage at which every normal consideration that affects human beings is upside down. That belief is manifest in the actions andbehaviour of some Opposition members in this chamber and in the House ofRepresentatives. Yesterday, the Attorney-General **(Senator Spicer)** quoted the present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives(Dr. Evatt) as having said in 1942, thatthere was nothing inherently objection- able in referringlegislative power, but, inthelastfew days, the right honorable gentleman hasbeen taking exactly the opposite pointofview. That is an exampleof mirror thinking.Such thinking is also evidenced in the approachof theOpposition to theproblemsofcom- munism andinflation. Whenone realizes that theyalwaysseethings upside down,one can feel sorry for them, and the explanation of the problem with which we are confronted to-day becomes a little easier. As the preamble to this bill indicates, the measure deals with the external compulsions as well as the internal compulsions which affectthis country. It iswithin my province, 'therefore, "to examineboththose aspects of the legislation. **Senator Armstrong** has asked frequentlywhy ithas been necessary to introducethis bill. SenatorNash. - He has asked the Minister for thatinformation. {: #debate-21-s10 .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- As a private citizen and a member of the Senate, I have tried to inform my mind fairly and not by mirror thinking, of exactly what is happening, both inside and outside Australia. It is of no use to shut our eyes to the fact that grave external danger threatens this country. Mirror thinking is practised by the Communists in Russia. Since 1945 they have repeatedly stated publicly that a third world war between capitalism and communism is inevitable. Yet in the councils of the United Nations at Lake Success, they are continually preaching peace. Although they are forcing the free peoples of the world, in sheer desperation to rearm, they are branding them as warmongers. That is mirror thinking. By a similar process of thinking, members of the Opposition and their supporters have convinced themselves that there is no external danger to Australia. The existence of those external compulsions, over which we have no control, must be obvious to anybody who is willing to take the trouble to discover them. They menace the safety of Australia and the liberty of our people and the.t must be countered. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- But the Government could make use of the existing defence laws in order to meet the situation. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- I remind **Senator Ashley** that, in 1939, he vociferously denied that there was any external danger to Australia. By the same queer system of thinking he denies that we are in danger now. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- It was **Senator Nash** who interjected, not **Senator Ashley.** {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- I correct my error. The comment applies to **Senator Nash** with equal force. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- I rise to order, **Mr. President.** I deny the truth of **Senator Cormack's** statement, and I ask that he withdraw it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! **Senator Cormack** corrected his first statement and acknowledged that he had referred to **Senator Ashley** inadvertently. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I deny **Senator Cormack's** statement if it was intended to refer to me. It was not true, and I ask him to withdraw it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask **Senator Cormack** to withdraw the statement. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- I unreservedly withdraw the accusation against **Senator Nash,** but I point out that the curious inability of members of the Opposition to recognize external danger in 1939 still exists in 1951. It was stated during the debate on international affairs that the danger to Australia's economy as the result of external compulsions was imminent, and honorable senators opposite conceded the point by their silence. Tin and rubber are very difficult to get. I have been assured by authorities on whose opinions I can rely that over 100,000 troops and constabulary are trying to maintain order in Malaya, from which we import supplies of tin and rubber that are vital to our economy. The French are struggling against the Communists in Indo-China, where the whole rice economy of the northern end of that peninsula has been thrown out of gear. Other examples of such disturbances have occurred within the last month. The AngloIranian Oil Company has had its installations seized and, within the last 48 hours, we have suffered the final degradation of having the degenerate descendants of the Pharaohs board a British ship and maltreat its crew. Yugoslavia is under arms and forces are poised at its borders. All of these circumstances are portents of the external dangers that confront Australia. Fifth columns have given evidence of their existence in many countries, and in Australia we have learned that internal compulsions are actuated, in the main, by external forces. The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator O'sullivan)** gave a very concise definition of inflation this morning. Inflation occurs if the purchasing power of the people is enormously increased at a time when there are insufficient goods and services to satisfy the demand that arises from that purchasing power. I do not blame the Labour Administration for the swollen purchasing power of the Australian community to-day. It was caused by our expenditure on war. The way to cure inflation is to produce goods and services in sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of the people. The present Government parties were returned to power in 1949 on the cardinal policy that the only effective way to cure inflation was to increase production. In Great Britain, which has the full system of controls of which members of the Opposition were such ardent supporters when they were in power, inflation is more severe than it is here. Between the 10th December, 1949, and the 29th April, 1951, a majority of members of the Labour party in the Senate agreed tacitly to encourage the development of a situation within Australia that would foster inflationary processes merely in order that they might make political gains. Every attempt that the Government parties have made between 1949 and the present time to deal with the basic cause of inflation has been frustrated. In the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, that is, Russia, since 1945, the production of basic commodities that are needed for war has been doubled. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- How does the honorable senator know that? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- The honorable senator may study the statistics in the most recent copy 'of *Fortune* in the Parliamentary Library. As I have said, Russia has succeeded in doubling its output of war materials halfway through its second five-year plan. It has solved the problem of man-power shortages by pressing captured labour from overrun countries into service and by placing millions of women in industries. "While that has been happening, the output of every industry in Australia in which members of Communist-controlled trade unions are employed has decreased. That is why we have not been able to increase our production of goods and services. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator Aylett: -- Do the Communists control rural production? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- The unsatisfactory output of rural industries derives from under-production in our secondary industries. Because of the effect of the externa] and internal compulsions that I have mentioned, the Government has been forced to make do with the present meagre rate of production both in preparing for defence and in trying to stabilize the economy. Since the recent general election, the Government has had full control of this Parliament and it is able at last to take steps to straighten out the economy. No honorable senator on this side of the chamber wants controls merely for the sake of controls. The stage that has been reached in the evolution of this nation i3 similar in many respects to the situation that existed in the United States of America prior to the civil war. I do not have to remind honorable senators that that war was the outcome of a secession movement by the southern confederacy. In trying to maintain the economy of the union Congress was faced with a position similar to the position in Australia to-day. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- In what way? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I ask **Senator Nash** to desist from interjecting. He will be afforded ample opportunity to address the chamber in due course. **Senator Cormack** should be permitted to develop his speech in his own way. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- I thought that I had made it clear that the conditions were similar in that there existed disruptive powers inside the United States of America which culminated in that most devastating war. That could have application in some detail to what is happening in Australia to-day. It is an illustration of the force that confronts this Government, which is trying to work out its destiny under a limited Constitution. In July, 1861, that great President. Abraham Lincoln, wrote the following words in a message to Congress : - . . and this issue embraces here more than the fate of the U.S. It poses to the whole family of man the question: Whether a constitutional republic or a democracy (a government of the people by the same people) can or cannot maintain its . . . integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question: Whether discontented individuals, too few in number to control administration (according to organic law, in any case) can always, upon pretences made ... or arbitrarily without any pretence break up this government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask : " Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness ? " Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people or too weak to maintain its own existence? That is the situation that we have reached in Australia to-day. We are working under a limited Constitution; we have only limited powers. There are external compulsions and events which will decide the fate of this nation, and we can only resolve and decide events that concern ourfateinalliancewiththepeopleofthe British Commonwealth ofNationsand that greatdemocracy, the United States of America. That is how wecan and must solveour external problems. But we also have to solve theinternalproblem, which poses thequestion : " Are we to be too weak tomaintainourexistence, or arewetobetoostrongtoprotectit ? " During a debate on another measure in this chamber, Iheard **Senator Sheehan** make derisive references to liberalism. He asserted that we were abdicating the principles of liberalism, and that we were denying the rule of law and natural justice. I do not know what that means: But I do know that men mustbe prepared to surrendera few liberties inorder to protect the remainder. A liberal is not a man who is measured and gauged in terms of his. possessionsor wealth.. He is a man who possesses a comprehensive mind, and I believe that the concept exists in some of the members of the Opposition. Bu t I deny completely that the members of the Opposition have the sole custody of liberty and justice and the welfare of human beings, both those that work with their hands in factories and those who labour at their desks in a. managerial capacity. We have responsibilities without connexion. When the brutal system of Marx is. carried to its logical conclusion, man becomes an automaton, a slave. I refuse to accept the pernicious claim of the Opposition that this Government, by this measure, will deny liberty. Indeed, this is the only way that the liberty of the Australian people can be preserved. In another place the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** made that quite clear and definite when he introduced this bill. There is no control suggested in the bill before the chamber which willinterfere with a man's personal liberty to work as he wants to work. There only exists an element of control to deal with the Communists whounfortunately direct the activities of some of the trade unions of this country, and exert influence in the field of trade and commerce. These hucksters place their own personal ambitions before the interests of their country. **Senator Armstrong** expressed a fear that this bill would lead to government by decree and regulation. But, asI have already pointedout,wemustbecome strong in order to protect our liberties. I shallconclude byquotingthe following passage from thewriting of Abraham Lincoln,becauseIhavegoneto his life, his speeches, andhis messages to Congress in order to find out how that great humanitarian and lover of men and man, that great constitutionalist and democrat, dealt with the disruption that existed in his country - >Our popular governmenthas often been called an experiment. Two points in it our people have already settled -thesuccessful establishing and the successfuladministering of it. One still remains - its. successful maintenance against formidable attempts to overthrowit. {: #debate-21-s11 .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania .- Honorable senators havenot had sufficient time to study fully the provisions of thisbill. Although two speeches have been delivered from the Government side we have not heard an explanation of the provisions of this measure. The Minister for Trade andCustoms **(Senator O'Sullivan)** has not indicated what the Government intends to do if it is given the power sought. **Senator Cormack** stated that the bill had been introduced because of grave international danger, and he specifically stated that Russia was responsible for the present tension. Let us consider the views of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on the matter. When the right honorable gentleman introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, he said - >For reasons I have previouslystatedtothe House, we believe that there is grave danger of war. He then told honorable, members from which quarters he thought the danger emanated, and, in particular, mentioned Korea, Malaya and Indo China. I point out that Korea was engaged in warfare for many years prior to World War II., and the Koreans have been at war since the cessation of hostilities in that world conflict. Therefore, whatever danger is associated with Korea has existed for many years. Australia was committed by the former Labour Government to support any action that may become necessary by the United Nations to repel aggression. That Government committed this country to support the cause of peace by joining the United Nations organization. There have always been disturbances in Malaya. They have gone on ever since the last war ceased. The Government has been in power for eighteen months and has only suddenly realized that there is danger in Malaya. If there is danger in Malaya now it has been there ever since the last war and ever since this Government took office. Therefore the Government did not have to wait eighteen months to take action. The same state of affairs has applied in Indo-China. I claim to be 100 per cent. British and Australian but in Australia we claim the right to govern ourselves and to control our own internal affaii-3. There would be trouble if an outside power interfered with what we were attempting to do in this Parliament. "Yet Great Britain and other countries have objected to the Persian Government taking certain action in the interests of Persia. What would have been the attitude of honorable senators if another country had told the Australian Government that it must not attempt to nationalize the banks, a large number of whose shares are held by people who live abroad? Czechoslovakia had its troubles before the last war and it has had them ever since the cessation of those hostilities. It had them eighteen months ago when the present Australian Government took office. Apparently the Government wishes to close the stable door after the horse has gone. The countries of the Middle East have always been in a state of turmoil. The Prime Minister has said that that is where the main danger lies. He said that that is the reason why this bill must be passed urgently. He implied that there was not a moment to lose. If the position is so grave why has the Government waited for eighteen months to take this action ? And if such a serious state of affairs exists why has the Government not given honorable senators some details of what it intends to do instead of asking for an open cheque and then closing Parliament? As the elected representatives of the people honorable senators have been sent to this Parliament to discuss the problems of the nation and the bills that come before the House. We have not been sent here to agree to give any Government an open cheque so that it may rule by regulation. In 1939 the Government spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in broadcasting skits over the radio stations about the socialist Government and bureaucrats of Canberra who governed by regulations. **Senator Wright** was one of the champions who advocated tipping the bureaucrats out. He said that they were not necessary. All honorable senators opposite have said that controls were not necessary. The burden of their speeches until now has been that the reglation of industry or production was not necessary and prices control was not necessary because the States could handle such problems. They have said that the Labour Government was just ham-stringing the people, preventing an increase of production and imperilling our economy. The Prime Minister has said that the Austraiian £1 was only worth 10s. in purchasing power when he came to office. Before his Government was elected he said that if the bureaucrats were removed from Canberra and prices control were abolished, value would be restored to the £1. He gave a pledge to the people that if his Government was returned it would definitely put value back into the £1. Since then the value of the currency has depreciated by 50 per cent. What the Prime Minister called the Laboursocialist £1 when he came to office might now be described as the Menzies-fascist £1. The Prime Minister who spoke against controls which had been used to stabilize the economy of the country has now asked honorable senators to pass this bill quickly and give him an open cheque to impose new controls on industry and other spheres of life in Australia. The Prime Minister said that this measure was required in order to enable the Government to prepare for defence. He said that it was necessary in order to ensure that effective forces would be available for instant use in the event of war and to ensure that training and other facilities would be available at that time to produce further forces. I agree that such action as that is necessary, but is this bill needed for the accomplishment of that purpose? A bill to provide for compulsory military training has already been passed. Can the armed forces be increased under this bill? If they can, such action could only be taken by regulation. But the bill states specifically that it does not authorize such action so the measure can have nothing to do with increasing the strength of the armed forces. Going still further the Prime Minister said that the bill was necessary in order to facilitate the equipment of the forces. The power which this bill will give to the Government is required not only for the production and mobilization of equipment for war but also to assist development of a non-military nature. There is nothing in this bill to show how the Government will accomplish those objectives unless by regulation and control. That is the very kind of policy that honorable senators opposite have opposed. They have assured us that the 'Government which they support would not control prices or take any action of that nature. The action which the Government desires to take under this bill has already been provided for in acts of Parliament. In commending the bill the Prime Minister quoted from similar legislation which had been passed in the United Kingdom. He quoted what the United Kingdom Government had done and said that his Government would act on similar lines. Honorable senators must assume, therefore, that he intends to make regulations to enable the Government to do what the Government of the United Kingdom has done. The Prime Minister also stated that the United Kingdom Government in order to carry through its defence programme, will use its existing controls to reduce the consumption of such commodities as clothing, fabrics, radios, domestic utensils, pottery, glassware and other household goods. That Government will also reduce investments in building, cut down export production to some extent, and make an absolute reduction in the average level of civilian consumption. Measures are being adopted to ensure that manufacturers give priority to defence orders and that sufficient raw materials are diverted to defence production. No honorable senator will disagree with the intention of the British Government to give priority to defence orders and to make available sufficient raw materials for defence production, but it is interesting to note that the commodities to which I have just referred are nearly all household items. I suggest that reduction of production of such articles will penalize young men and women who are starting out in married life. All those commodities are essential to the settingup of a home. I suggest that in discussing this' measure I cannot do better than to refer to statements that have been made by the Prime Minister. The right honorable gentleman has said that Australia is pledged to support collective action to resist aggression. Surely we do not need legislation of this kind to enable us to do that? The Chifley Government committed Australia to resist aggression when it subscribed to the Charter of the United Nations. I suggest that this legislation is intended to cover certain action that will be taken later. The Prime Minister has stated that, there is a state of international emergency requiring special preparedness, and I do not say that such an emergency does not exist. No one would contend that we should not be prepared to meet an emergency, but I consider that the state of emergency to which the right honorable gentleman referred has been in existence for some time. He also said that the first move in defence preparations is to raise, equip and provision our armed forces, and to contribute towards the equipping and provisioning of the forces of countries that will be our allies in the event of war. The Prime Minister has stated that an essential part of defence preparedness is the obligation to help our allies to maintain their civil population by means of the provision of food shipments and that the sending of such shipments to a particular area may affect the whole course of the war. "What has this Government done to increase our food production? I remind honorable senators that a question of mine has been on the notice-paper for more than a week and has not yet been answered. That question asked whether it would not be possible to hold a conference of the State and Commonwealth Ministers for Agriculture in order to try to devise a plan whereby food production could be increased. If this emergency is as grave as the Government would have us believe it is, and if in the next six or twelve months 700,000 or 800,000 Australians enter the armed forces and essential industries, what will be the position of our food production then? At the moment we have not sufficient essential foods with which to supply our civilian needs. In fact, the position is becoming so grave that vegetables, which are a staple food, are now almost a luxury. If the price of vegetables continues to rise, only those persons on very high incomes will be able, to afford them. The position concerning potatoes illustrates what I have said. The grower of potatoes at present receives approximately £20 a ton, whereas the consumers in Sydney must pay £75 a ton for them. Yet this Government says that it does not believe in prices control and that such control is not necessary. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Prices control is in operation in New South Wales, where there is a socialist Government. . {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- That is true. I remind the honorable senator that in 1949 the Prime Minister stated that the States could, control prices more effectively than could the Australian Government. If the honorable senator considers that effective prices control means that the growers of a commodity receive £20 a ton while the consumers are obliged to pay £?5, I do not agree with him. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Was there no black market under federal prices control? {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- The potatoes to which I have been referring are purchased on the open market. I have mentioned only one instance, but I invite honorable senators opposite to tell me of one commodity the price of which has not greatly increased since 1949. The Prime Minister has said that this Government is bitterly opposed to any form of control, but that it is most essential to have a stable economy if we are *to* prepare *our* defences. He believes that it is essential that one should go with the other. Can any honorable senator opposite tell me how the Australian economy may be stabilized without imposition of drastic controls, including prices control? While honorable senators opposite have been talking prices have been rising, and will continue to rise while they continue to talk. We challenge the Government to tell us how the economy can be stabilized under this measure. In my opinion, all that has come from the Government, during the debate up to this stage is a series of involved utterances that are not connected with the bill. But before continuing with that point I shall paraphrase an item that appeared in one of the tory newspapers. The item in the newspaper is not palatable to honorable senators opposite because it begins with the words, " The fall in the value of the pound ". It goes on to state that prices are rising because of the failure of the Government to carry out its promise to put value into the £1 and stop the inflationary trend. It: also states that there are no fewer than 500,000 people in Australia who are affected by rising price* as they have not been affected since the days of the depression. It adds that there are 800,000 families on fixed incomes who are now beginning to know what it is to be short of commodities. Probably those families are also beginning to know what it is to be hungry. We have never known such times as the present since the days of the depression. This year 450,000 pensioners are suffering to a far greater degree than they suffered during the war years, because of the lack of purchasing power in their money. The pension that each of them receives would not pay even the rent of a flat. The Government says that it intends to stabilize the economy by the use of the provisions of this measure. There are thousands of families who would raise their their arms in thanksgiving to-morrow if the Government would tell them that, even by next year it would carry out its pledge to stabilize prices and put some value back into the worthless fascistMenzies £1. **Senator Cormack** referred to the queer methods of thinking that he said had been exhibited by honorable members on this side of the chamber. I am glad that he has now returned to the chamber, so that he can hear what we think of the present queer thinking of honorable senators opposite in comparison with what theysaid in 1949. Since the general election campaign in 1949 theGovernment has made a complete somersault in relation to national and international affairs. If the Government would suggest some way to correct the present disastrous state of affairs and to prevent the even more disastrous state of affairs towards which we are heading it would be doing something to justify itself. **Senator Cormack** also said that the Opposition denied that any dangers faced Australia at present. This Opposition has never denied that there are dangers, because there are always dangers. What we are asking the Government to do is to give us some information about the dangers that face the country. We demand, as representatives of the people, that before we shall give the Government an open cheque, which is what this measure really is, it shall tell us specifically where the danger is that might plunge us into a war tomorrow. Let the Government give us some information to justify the Prime Minister's statement that war will occur within three years. In my opinion the international situation is not as dangerous as it was twelve or eighteen months ago. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Then why is Britain rearming at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds? The reason is that it iscloser to the scene ! {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- That is why I am saying that the situation is not as dangerous now as it was twelve or eighteen months ago. Britain and America began to prepare eighteen months ago,but the Australian Government has only now awakened to the need for preparation. The situation is not as dangerous now as it was eighteen months ago, because Britain and America have made great preparations during the last year or so, while the Australian Government has been sitting idly by. The American and British preparations provide a bulwark that did notexist before. Yet the Australian Governmenthas done nothing in that time. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Onlybecause of the pernicious presence and influence in this Senate ofa Labour majority, upto the last general election. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I do not recall ore occasion on which the Opposition refused to pass a bill introduced by this Government to increase our armaments or to improve our economy. In fact, we passed 65 out of 67 bills that came before this chamber. It was not the Opposition that prevented the Government from going ahead with defence preparedness. We admit that the international position is not bright. It is the policy of the Labour party that we should be prepared to defend this country and to defend peace. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Wherever such defence is needed? {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- Yes, in the British Commonwealth of Nations or within the framework of the United Nations. We have never suggested otherwise, although we have been accused by honorable senators opposite of thinking and saying otherwise. They know that that is a deliberate lie, just as is the lie that was thrown across the chamber a moment ago by **Senator Wright** when he said that we prevented the Government from getting on with its job of defence. **Senator Cormack,** who interjected a moment ago, said that he blamed the country's production lag on the " Coms ". When I asked him whether the " Coms " were responsible for the lag in rural production, he said "Yes". That is the first time that I have ever heard anybody suggest that the farmers are Communists. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- I said no such thing as the honorable senator has attributed to me. Isaid that the lack of rural production stemmed from basic shortages caused by the Communist party. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I agree with **Senator Cormack.** Not oncedid he impute in his speech that the farmers were Communists. I ask **Senator Aylett** to withdraw his remarks and correct the impression that he has given. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I withdraw my statement and correctthe impression that might have been given by it. I was under a wrong impression, which arose from the fact that **Senator Cormack** said " Yes " to an interjection which I made while he was in the middleof his speech, and I musthavemistaken his meaning. However, he has said now that Communists are the indirect cause of the lack of rural production. It would be interesting if some of his colleagues would illustrate the way the Communists are responsible for a man reducing his acreage of potatoes by nine-tenths. It would be interesting to know how the Communists have caused dairymen to sell their herds and engage in sheep-farming. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Dairymen and other primary producers in Tasmania are unable to send their products to the mainland because ships are not available. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I am discussing this problem, from the viewpoint not of one section of the community or of one State, but of the Commonwealth as a whole. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Of what use would it be for Tasmanian potato-growers to continue growing potatoes if they could not get ships to take their products to the mainland markets? {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I agree with you that it would be useless for them to do so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I ask the honorable senator to address the Chair. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- It is a .shocking state of .affairs that -potato-growers should turn to other forms of primary production when consumers in the other States cannot obtain sufficient requirements of that basic commodity. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Who is responsible for the hold-up -of ships that has brought about that state of affairs? {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- During the eighteen months that this 'Government has 'been in office, it has done nothing to rectify the disastrous position of the primary producers. Immediately after it assumed office it refused to continue to operate the ships that belonged to the Commonwealth. It sold some and chartered others to private shipping companies. What has been the result of that action ? The private shipping companies to which the ships have been chartered do not care whether or not -the vessels leave port with full -cargoes. I have seen ships arrive in Tasmanian ports in water ballast. Indeed, one ship arrived in a Tasmanian port not long ago carrying no more than 10 tons dead weight of cargo. The Commonwealth has to make good the loss incurred on the operation of those vessels. It is disgraceful that primary producers should be driven out of production because they cannot transport their products from one State to another or to the overseas markets. **Senator Maher** contends we are responsible for the state of chaos into which this country is drifting. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- The provisions ot this bill will not help the Government to extricate us from the chaotic conditions under which we now live. If it is true that the Communists are responsible for industrial disturbances and for the slowturnround of ships, why has the Government, which has already been in office for eighteen months, refused to take action against them? {: .speaker-K2S} ##### Senator Robertson: -- Because thd Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives supports them. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Because Opposition senators have sabotaged the Parliament. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- Both interjections are unworthy of the honorable senator who made them. If **Senator Robertson** had made a similar statement during a speech, and not by way of interjection, I should have instantly demanded its withdrawal. The viciousness of the legislation introduced during the past week, and which the Government has been rushing through- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! That legislation has already been discussed .and passed and does not enter into the discussion of this bill. The honorable senator must -confine his remarks to the bill before the chamber. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- The Government would not permit the debate on this bill to be adjourned to give us an opportunity to consider its implications and to read and examine the second-reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Customs. In this measure the Government seeks a blank -cheque to impose such controls as it thinks fit. **Senator Robertson** accused the Leader of the Opposition in another place of supporting the Communists. That is a deliberate Se. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- I rise to order, lt is distinctly unparliamentary for an honorable senator to describe a statement made by another honorable senator as a deliberate lie. **Senator Aylett's** statement is as offensive to every honorable senator as it is to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I uphold the point of order, and ask **Senator Aylett** to withdraw the statement. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I withdraw it with due respect to the honorable senator who objected to it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask the honorable senator to make an unqualified withdrawal. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I withdraw it and say that **Senator Robertson** knew perfectly well that her statement was untrue. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I still demand an unqualified withdrawal, and I do so because I am well versed in the precedents of- the past. Successive Presidents have ruled that no honorable senator may make such a statement in this chamber. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator AYLETT: -- I withdraw it. Honorable senators opposite have said that Opposition senators sabotaged legislation introduced by the Government to deal with Communists who are holding up production in this country. We have never sabotaged any legislation, nor have we delayed the passage of legislation. The Government already possesses sufficient power to deal with the Communists and saboteurs but it lacks the courage and initiative to do so. This bill is the most atrocious measure that has come before us since this Government took office. If it is placed on the statute-book the Government will be able to exercise unlimited powers over the men and women of this country. It will be able to force a man to leave his employment and his borne to work elsewhere. It will virtually enable the Government to throw a working man to the wolves. Honorable senators opposite have stated that it does not seek to confer power on the Government to direct labour from one industry to another, but I have no doubt that when this bill has been placed upon the statute-book the Government will resort to indirect means to compel the workers to work in selected industries, and they will have no choice but to obey. If the Government is unable to achieve its objective by one means it will adopt another. It should be honest and say frankly that it favours compulsory conscription of labour to enable it to do what it hopes to be able to do by the coercive provisions of this bill. Honorable senators opposite have labelled Opposition senators as a bunch of socialists who want, to socialize all and sundry, yet they ask us to give to the Government a blank cheque to establish what will virtually be a fascist dictatorship which governs by regulation without consultation with the Parliament. The Government is hastening the Parliament into recess so that it can get on with that task. 1 invite honorable senators opposite to tell us of any plan that the Government has for dealing with the problems that face this country. {: #debate-21-s12 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Tasmania -- I support the bill because I believe that it will enable the Government to take steps that are necessary for the protection of Australia and its people. I believe that it is best for us to be prepared for war if we want to avoid war. In past generations time was given to lis to prepare after the war broke out, but under present world conditions we must organize our resources and industries now. Many of the remarks made by honorable senators opposite do not call for any reply, but **Senator Aylett,** who has just resumed his seat, constantly harped on the attitude of this Government towards what he called government by regulation. It should be remembered that every regulation which will be made under this legislation must come before the Parliament within fifteen days of the Parliament resuming its sittings. Then, if it is found not to be in th.p interests of the country, it can be disallowed by the Parliament. That answers the charge that the Government intends to govern by regulation. Another suggestion that I want to refute is that this bill has been brought in like a bolt from the blue, and as a surprise to the Parliament. It has been said that it has been introduced without a mandate being held by the Government. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** said in the policy-speech that he delivered at Camberwell on the 3rd April - >In the new Parliament we will bring down a Defence Preparations Bill to institute such needed controls as may be thought within the limits of the Commonwealth Constitution. We ilo not propose to rush into controls. We have an instinctive dislike of them. We do not believe that Canberra can run things better than Brisbane or Perth. They -will be adopted nilly if emergency renders them necessary for" the protection of our people. Yet honorable senators opposite said that they had no indication that this bill would lie brought before the Parliament, and had no chance to study it. They certainly knew that it would be brought forward, but I am sure that they did not study it, judging from some of their speeches. The Opposition says continually that this Government came to power because the Prime Minister said that he would throw out all controls. That is not correct. At no time did he say that. The Government dislikes controls for controls sake, but it has never shirked its duty to impose controls when it has believed that they were in the interests of the people. The present Prime Minister brought the National Security Act before the Australian Parliament in 1939. That was the sire and the dam of all the regulations that were made during the following years. No complaints were made about the administration of that act by the government that introduced it and it was only after a Labour government sought to perpetuate the regulations after the war that we, voicing the desire of the people, advocated the abolition of those that we thought to be unnecessary. To get this bill into proper perspective we must alter our ideas of what modern war means, because new techniques have developed in the last few years which indicate that war can be conducted in time of peace. We must organize our political thought to grapple with these new techniques, and this bill, together with those others which have been passed by the Parliament this week, is a genuine and vital attempt to deal with the new technique of war. I have no doubt that this attempt will be successful. This country has been attacked from within by agents of a foreign power with the deliberate object of upsetting our economy so that we cannot prepare for war. That foreign power wishes us to be weak when the battle begins. The Liberal and Australian Country parties have never hesitated to take measures to protect the nation. It is galling to honorable senators opposite to realize that this Government is now taking action in the interests of the nation, irrespective of what section of the community may be hurt. The teeth of the Opposition have been pulled by this Government taking measures which will hurt some of the business interests which the Opposition has always said this Government is here to represent. When we take measures for the protection of Australia, we take them without fear or favour. We do not consider ourselves responsible to any pressure group, whether it be a business pressure group or a trade union pressure group. We do what we believe is right. This bill is designed to do the right thing for the protection of the nation. There are two ways in which controls may be administered. The Government can either seek the co-operation of the industries which will be affected, or it can hand over the conduct of the controls to government departments. The Government has intimated that the cooperation of industry is to be sought, so that we may have the benefit of its which will be taken when this bill becomes law. I believe that any controls that are instituted under this legislation will be made more effective if we secure the voluntary co-operation of the industries to which they apply. Let us seek the assistance of men who have spent the whole of their adult lives in those industries, and who know them, so to speak, inside out. Let us ask them to give the Government the benefit of their experience. In every industry there are some men who are not big enough to be prepared to sacrifice their personal interests in the interests of the security of the nation. If they know that the Government is not armed with power to ensure that what it wants to do shall be done, they will put their own selfish interests first, but if they know that the Government is in a position to insist upon its plans being put into operation, they will co-operate. The best way in which to exercise the controls envisaged by this bill is to ask the industries to which they apply to make voluntary sacrifices. There is another way in which to exercise them, lt is the one that was used by Labour governments during and after the last war - to hand the administration of the controls to government departments, or bureaucrats. I do not believe that that should be done now, because a great deal of damage was done under the regime of the Labour party by departmental officials who were asked to make decisions that affected industries of which they had no experience. The voluntary system is far better. Honorable senators opposite who have asked why this bill was not introduced some months ago have been indulging in confused thinking. During the last eighteen months the Government has had to fight two general elections. No one denies the truth of the statement that during the life of the last Parliament the Senate passed 65 of the 67 measures that were presented to it. It was the length of time that the Senate took to pass them that caused the Government to go to the country again in April of this year. Much of what occurred in this chamber during the last Parliament was an utter waste of time and of public money. In April, the Government parties were returned with a majority in both Houses of the Parliament. During this sessional period, the Government has secured the passage of many measures that it believes will assist in alleviating the present difficult position. No one can accuse the Government now of wasting time. What has been done in this Parliament during this sessional period proves beyond doubt that the Government intends to do a job, and that it is doing it rapidly. The debate upon this measure has been interesting, and it is probable that it will continue for some time. It has been suggested that the Government intends to gag the debate, but the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator** 0'Sullvan has given an unqualified assurance that that will not be done. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are willing for the debate to continue until every member of the Opposition who wishes to speak upon the measure has done so. There are not many Oppostion senators here now, and there will be fewer of them here to-morrow. Although I have been a strong opponent of unnecessary controls, I believe that, by introducing this bill, the Government acted in the best interests of the people. Governments have sources of information about developments and trends overseas that are not available to private citizens. This Government, having considered the information at its disposal, has decided that this measure- is necessary for the protection of the Australian people. It has been introduced in good faith and will be administered in good faith. I support it.- {: #debate-21-s13 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
Victoria -- At the outset of my remarks, 1 record my protest against the refusal of the Government to agree to an adjournment of this debate. This measure is one that requires to be studied in the light of all the known circumstances. It does not state specifically and precisely what the Government intends to do under it. In my opinion, honorable senators on this side of the chamber are not indulging in exaggeration when they say that the Government is determined to rush the bill through the Parliament, especially when we bear in mind how it was " guillotined " in the House of Representatives. The recitals in the preamble to the bill, although they read very well, are not necessarily based, on fact. I am not prepared to accept any statement unless I am reasonably certain that those who have made it have a knowledge of all the relevant facts. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber do not accept the recitals, as the Government evidently expects them to do. I remind the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator O'sullivan)** that we are not dependent mentally upon highly placed persons. We claim the right to think and judge for ourselves. It does not follow that, because a man holds high office in a court of law or some other public institution, the opinions that he expresses cannot be challenged. I am not impressed by cither the political theatricalism or the exhibitionism of members of the Government. The Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator McLeay)** would have us believe that the enemy is at our very door. The emotionalism or hysteria in which Ministers have indulged so frequently in this chamber does not impress me. It is a sign that they are not certain of their facts, and are relying upon their imaginations to convince the people. ITo good reasons have been advanced in support of the bill. The alleged reasons are mere generalizations which cannot be accepted *ex cathedra.* In view of what has happened in the past, one is entitled to put one's own construction on those reasons. My belief is that the Government is seeking to govern by regulation in the interests of monopolies. I have bad some experience of government by regulation. In April, 1941, I was a member of a regulations committee, and on one occasion more than 500 regulations were passed *en* *bloc,* proving to me that the Government was prepared to allow those regulations to go into force without being properly considered. I advocated then that a permanent committee be set up to. examine regulations in conjunction with the acts upon which they were based, and I believe that an independent authority of that kind has now been appointed. In my opinion, the Government has deliberately allowed the present state of economic disruption to come about in order to try to justify its economic controls. The Government has made no attempt to deal with inflation. In the 1949 election campaign, and since, members of the present Government declared emphatically that it was their policy to restore value to the £1, meaning that the currency was to be deflated so that the purchasing power of the people's money would be increased. Instead of honouring that promise, the Government has allowed inflation to continue, until to-day the £1 is worth hardly 5s. as compared with the £1 before the war of 1914-18. The Government has not even tried to honour its promises. In the election campaign of 1949, and again in the campaign of 1951 spokesmen for the present Government parties said that if they were returned to power action would be taken against certain persons whom they described as Communists, but nothing has been done or even attempted, notwithstanding the fact that action could have been taken under any one of three acts. **Senator Armstrong** said that certain employers' organizations were protesting vigorously against this legislation. ITo doubt they can see clearly that the Government intends to put many small business men and manufacturers out of action on the ground that their undertakings are uneconomic, or that the goods they are producing are not essential. To the extent that small business men and small manufacturers are put out of action the power of the great monopolies will grow. Wars accelerate economic tendencies, and one of the effects of two world wars has been to strengthen monopoly control of goods and services. When this legislation is put into operation, as I have no doubt it will be, hundreds of thousands of small businesses will be closed on the ground that danger threatens us from outside, and that the economic needs of the country demand the sacrifice. The displaced owners will be told that the materials and labour that were used in their businesses can 'be much more advantageously employed by great concerns like the Broken Hill Proporietary Company Limited. That is the *modus operandi* that has been employed in other countries and, to some extent, in this country also. I believe that the Government intends to give big military contracts to monopoly undertakings which have the biggest plant, and we may rest assured that for all practical purposes, the monopolies will obtain the contracts on their own terms. If the Government closes down the Glen Davis project, as it proposes to do, I assume that it will place tie plant on the market. There will be very few competitors and if a sale is not effected an offer will be made by some concern to take over the plant for a mere song. That practice has been followed by governments in the past in the United States of America and Great Britain and it was followed in this country by non-Labour governments after World War I. The only section of the community that will benefit under this measure will be the leading monopolies, which honorable senators opposite so eloquently defend. We shall thus have a state of affairs in which, behind the scenes, the leading monopolies will control the economy of the nation through the medium of the Government that now asks for a blank cheque to enable it to implement the proposals contained in the bill. Honorable senators opposite have complained about strikes. During my long experience in the industrial sphere I have taken part in many negotiations for the settlement of strikes. I know that nine out of every ten strikes have their origin in either deliberate provocation by employers or incompetent management. If the economy of this country were managed as it could, and should, be managed in the interests of the workers, very few strikes or industrial disputes would occur, because in such circumstances the workers would have very little to strike for. If the economy were controlled to give to the workers a fair share of the wealth that they produce their position would be immensely improved. But, to-day, the reverse is the case. Every increase of prices reduces the purchasing power of wages. That is a prolific cause of industrial disputes. Yet supporters of the Government declare that disputes are inspired by Communists, whereas they actually are caused by unbalanced economic conditions and the low standard of living of the workers. The stand that thu workers take in such circumstances is their inevitable reaction to such a state of affairs. Not one honorable senator opposite so far has made an intelligent approach to this problem. Instead, all supporters of the Government attribute ulterior motives to the workers whom they condemn, or indulge in fits of hysteria such as we witnessed on the part of the Minister for Shipping and Transport in this chamber yesterday. He referred to the existence of what he called a system of organized sabotage in industry. His statement may be true, or untrue ; but he did not say to what degree the workers are being sabotaged by the Government as the result of its deliberate policy of inaction. That is sabotage of the worst kind. One has only to read the newspapers to learn of the numerous ways in which persons on the lower ranges of income and pensions are affected by economic conditions that the Government allows to continue. Those sections of the community simply cannot cope with rising prices. Under such conditions it is only to be expected that men and women who are employed in industries that are indispensable to the economy, such as, the coal-mining, waterfront and shipping industries, will take a stand in order to protect themselves. They would not be worthy men or women, or worthy Australians, if they did not do so. However, the Government has not made any attempt to understand the position from the viewpoint of the workers. Honorable senators opposite have simply condemned the workers and implied that all men and women who challenge the existing state of affairs under which .they suffer unjustly are traitors or Communists. Supporters of the Government will not impress the people by adopting that attitude. If the Government hopes to establish a better state of affairs by passing this measure, its supporters will be sadly disillusioned. Honorable senators opposite are always talking about Communist leadership of trade unions. I have had nearly 50 years' experience in the trade union movement. I have organized men and women into groups, or unions; and in every instance I have found that the man, or woman, who is selected to represent a group or union, generally has most in common with the majority of the persons who make the selection. The average worker is not concerned about the politics, or religion, of officials of his organization. The rank and file select as their leaders those whom they believe will be able to present their case to the employers intelligently and dispassionately and thus obtain the results that they desire. Members of the Waterside Workers Federation elect **Mr. Healy** as their general secretary, not because he is a Communist, but because they consider him to be the most able man for the time being to carry out the duties of that secretary. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator Wood: -- I rise to order. I submit that the honorable senator's remarks have nothing to do with the question before the Chair. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid).** - I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the lull before the Chair. He appears to be dealing with a measure which the Senate disposed of last night. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON: -- I am directing my remarks specifically to clause 4 of the bill, which empowers the GovernorGeneral to make regulations for or in relation to - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the expansion of the capacity of Australia to produce or manufacture goods, or to provide services, for the purposes of defence preparations or for the purpose of enabling the economy of Australia to meet the probable demands upon it in the event of war. I point out- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. -Order ! I repeat that the honorable senator's remarks concerning **Mr. Healy** and the Communist party have nothing to do with the bill. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON: -- I accept your ruling, sir, but I point out that **Senator Cormack** was not prevented by the Chair from making reference to similar matters. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! I am not concerned now about any action taken by some previous occupant of the chair. I am in the chair, and I ask you to obey my ruling. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON: -- Very well, sir. The next paragraph of the sub-clause reads as follows : - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The diversion and control of resources ( including money, materials and facilities) for the purposes of defence preparations; That provision would authorize the regulation of our entire economy. Although the workers of this country are depending upon the Government to maintain our economy, it is clear from what is happening that the Government is unable to do so, and that although the workers are prepared to play their part in maintaining the economy the Government is not prepared to play its part. The next paragraph of the sub-clause reads - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. The adjustment of the economy of Australia to meet the threat of war or the avoidance or reduction of economic dislocation or instability caused by, or impeding, defence preparations; What does the Government really propose to do? It has not given us the slightest detail. However, I think that I am entitled to form an opinion of the probabilities from its past record. Undoubtedly, it intends to abolish the 40- hour week. A number of kites have been flown in the press lately which indicate the Government's intention to do so, and only a few days ago a report appeared in the press to the effect that **Sir Douglas** Copland had suggested that the number of working hours should be increased. No wonder the Communists are having such success in their agitation- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. Order ! I remind the honorable senator that during this debate he is not permitted to discuss the legislation dealing with communism. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON: -- Consider the next paragraph of sub-clause (2.), which is as follows: - {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Measures to secure the maintenance and sustenance of the people of Australia in the event of war or to contribute towards the maintenance and sustenance of the people of countries associated with Australia in defence preparations. I submit that the four paragraphs that I have read prove abundantly that the Government seeks power to interfere with every phase of our national economy. Turning now to what should be done, I say that if the Government really intends to legislate efficiently and economically in the interests of the nation, as the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** would have us believe, it should at least attempt to do certain things.First, it should regulate and control practically all phases of the national economy and not merely those that relate to defence or war preparations. Secondly, it should maintain the balance between production and consumption on a progressively increasing scale. Thirdly, it should control inflation and prices, because fluctuations in price movements have always prevented the smooth functioning of the nation's economy. The fourth step is to prevent excess production or under production in the different branches of production in order not to dislocate industry as a whole. It should balance the output of capital goods and consumption goods and increase real wages on the basis of the increase in productivity. I mentioned that matter a few minutes ago, and I merely point out now that if wages were increased in accordance with our increased productivity there would be very little industrial trouble to-day. E.ull employment is .also necessary because unemployment reduces .the aggregate purchasing power of the workers. The .seventh thing necessary is to control profits by determining the necessary minimum of profits and restricting profits to .that minimum. The Government should also prevent excessive speculation in commodity and stock markets as well as equalize the distribution of the national income so that income from investments does not accumulate at the expense of consumption income. The tenth requirement is to control investment in its three decisive aspects, by *(a)* preventing the excessive accumulation of private capital; (6) directing the flow of capital according to planned and balanced industrial requirements; .and ,(c) preventing excessive accumulation of capital in the form of corporate surplus and in the Form of reinvestment by unincorporated business. To attain all those ends a planned and regulated economy is .essential. The objectives that I have outlined are interrelated, and I place them before the Government in a sincere endeavour to assist it to cure the many ills that afflict our economy to-day. The Minister for Trade and Customs said that we must all be prepared, in the national interest, to make sacrifices. However, I point out immediately that the vested interests of this country have sacrificed very little, even in the last two world wars. While the workers were being sacrificed on the altar of war big business was increasing its profits, and the workers certainly obtained very little benefit for their sacrifices. Similarly, if this measure is passed the people who will be called upon to make the biggest sacrifices will be the workers, and it is arrant humbug for the Government to speak of " equality of sacrifice ". {: #debate-21-s14 .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia -- Although I listened carefully to the remarks of **Senator Cameron.** I must admit that at times it was difficult for me to retain my interest in his argu ment because he wandered somewhat off the subject of the debate. However, 1 gathered that he criticized this legislation on the ground that it will favour business monopolists. I remind the honorable senator that the administration of which he was a member governed largely by regulation for eight years, and I point out that some of the controls that thepresent Government desires to exercisewere -exercised for many years by Labour when it was in office. The honorablesenator cannot have it both ways, and I should like to "know, therefore, whether he considers that Labour governed in the interests of monopolists. I cannot resist the feeling that the honorable senator'sargument was addressed to those who may be listening to the broadcast of this debate, but I believe that only a small proportion of his listeners would take any notice of his wearisome contentions. For the benefit of the honorable senator I point out that the purpose of this legislation is to coordinate the requirements of all users of materials, services and other articles that are required for the defence programme of the country. Nobody regrets the necessity for this bill more than I do. At first sight, it may appear that the introduction of this measure is a retrograde step, but on second thoughts, I am certain that all thinking people regard it as an essential piece of legislation, even if they do come to the conclusion that it is Ho'bson's choice. Many criticisms have already been directed at the bill from many sources. I have read the criticisms that have been voiced by the president of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, and of many other persons, including tradesmen and private individuals. Many of those criticisms are understandable, and the people who have made them are quite entitled to place their views before the Government, and to publish their opinions. But I deplore the criticisms that have been offered by people who understand the true position. We hear a good deal of criticism from honorable senators opposite, but their criticisms are a shallow piece of political hypocrisy, and a pathetic attempt to gain a few votes. The Labour party knows perfectly well the necessity for this legislation. Incidentally, the provisions of the bill are quite in accordance with the principles of the Labour party, and the assertion by Labour senators that they disagree with the principles of the legislation is mere cant, and evidence of lack of sincerity. This important piece of legislationshould have been treated on its merits by all honorable senators, and should not havo been dragged into the morass of party political discussions; and disputation. This subject of national defence should be above party politics. The bill is a. war measure which calls for a response from all sections of: the community. Let no man deceive himself on that point. It is now necessary that we prepare for war in earnest, and that reason alone is justification for this bill;but in the course of my remarks,. I shall endeavour to show more than a justification for the measure.I shall endeavour to establish that the international situation and our own internal economy demand it, and that the bill is entirely in accordance with the principles of Liberal policy. {: type="A" start="I"} 0. desire to direct a few remarks to the international position, which, I insist, renders this bill necessary. Let us recall what has happened since 1949, because that is. important. Soma honorable senators opposite have criticized this bill and have, by implication or quite openly, suggested that the international situation at present is substantially the same as it. was in 1949. No realist can suggest that such is true. In 1949, the security of Australia was not in danger. Not one Australian soldier was in the firing line. But what has happened since that year? Early in 1950, the Malayan incident occurred, and members of the Royal Australian AirForce, with heavy bombers and transport aircraft, have been in service in that part of the world ever since. Almost immediately after the outbreak of the Malayan affair, the Korean incident occurred'. Australian troops have been serving in Korea with great distinction ever since. All those developments in the international sphere have occurred since 1949, and nobody can seriously suggest that the international situation has not continued to deteriorate, until now the position is grave. Since that year, Russia has been strenuously preparing for war. SenatorCole. - Did not Russia prepare for war before 1949? {: .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator VINCENT: -- Since that time, we have discovered many things about Russia. It is now manufacturing the atomicbomb, and has completed the construction of service aerodromes in eastern Europe that are vastly different from the civil aerodromes which had been made there prior to that year. These service aerodromes are now ready for jet fighter and jet bomber aircraft. Those things have happened since 1949, and Opposition senators know it as well as we do. Since 1949 Russia has built a vast submarine fleet, and has the largest army of any nation. Does that not mean anything to honorable senators opposite? I suggest that even **Senator Morrow,** although he may not say so, believes that Russia is preparing to strike as rapidly as possible. Thedemocracies are well aware of the position. The Australian. Government is alive to. the danger.. Last year, the United States of America prepared to expend more than£100 a head of the population on its defence programme.. Great Britain this year has greatly increased its defence vote which is now £A.40 a head of the population. Surely those facts mean something to honorable senators opposite. What was the next development?I remind Opposition senators, lest they have forgotten it, that a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers was held in London last January for the express purpose of discussing the deterioration of the international situation. I should not have to remind the Opposition that the various Prime Ministers agreed that the international situation was so grave that all the democracies would be obliged to arm themselves hurriedly. The conference decided that the only way in which to avert a third world war, assuming that it could be averted, was by rapid rearmament. The conference also agreed that each member of the Commonwealth of nations should embark upon a three-year defence programme. What was the next step?The PrimeMinister **(Mr. Menzies)** returned to this country and calledthe State Premiers into conference. I have a copy of the report of that conference. The main topic of discussion was the grave deterioration of the international situation. In his opening remarks to the conference, the Prime Minister said - >I am very sorry, indeed, that I should have to ask you to attend at very short notice, because you are all very heavily engaged with your own responsibilities. My reason for doing so is this : In recent weeks - the last month or two - as you know, 1 have had some occasion not only to consider certain international problems on the spot but also to have a series of discussions with other Prime Ministers of the British Commonwealth and to give consideration to certain problems in consultation with the Chiefs of Staff and technical officers in London. I have returned to tell my colleagues in the Commonwealth Government - and I think they support my view - -that the international position is an extremely disturbing one. I shall deem it necessary next week to put this matter to the Commonwealth Parliament in considerable detail, and through the Parliament to the people, because I should like to say at once I believe that we cannot expect to have a popular realization of some nf these things unless a great deal more is put before the people than we have been in the habit of putting before them- in the past. > >My conclusion is this- - I state it right away - that the possibilities of war are so real and so serious that Australia cannot, with justice to itself or its allies, grant itself a day more than three years in which to get ready". That view is not peculiar to me - and *X* am not regarded by my colleagues, in the Cabinet at any rate, as an excitable person. Does any honorable senator suggest that the international situation has not deteriorated since 1949? Does any rational person believe that there is not to-day a grave national emergency which demands immediate action? Our ta.sk is to prepare for a possible war within the next three years. Our defence plans must be related to the various internal problems that face us. Some of those problems are serious. We have not yet finished paying for World War I. Provision was made in the budget for 1950-51 for the payment of £24,750,000 on war and repatriation services arising out of World War I.' That was almost £3,000,000 more than the sum required for those services in the previous year. We have hardly started to pay for World War II. In the last financial year, war and repatriation services arising out of World War II. cost this country £103,900,000, or approximately £30,000,000 more than the sum expended in the previous year under the same heading. Obviously those commitments must affect our economy, which is already overstrained by a huge programme of necessary public works. For example, because of the ravages of World War II., Western Australia is faced with an expenditure of £23,000,000 on the rehabilitation of its railway system. Then, of course, there are national undertakings such as the Snowy Mountains scheme, which are essential to the development of this country. Our economy is being sorely pressed, too, by the cost of our immigration programme, and who will deny that, at least up to the present, that programme has not been essential to the development of this country? A further serious problem is created by the ever-increasing cost of materials from overseas, and finally, we are faced with the problem of the Communist-planned decrease of production in key industries. Those are only some of the factors that contribute to the serious internal situation with which we are confronted. Ontop of all those problems, is superimposed' the far greater problem of preparing for war. That task can be represented very simply in terms of money. It means that this country will have to find £500,000,000 for defence in the next three years. The magnitude of that task can be gauged when we realize that, in 1949-50, we expended only £50.000,000 on defence, and that in the last financial year, we budgeted for an expenditure of only £133,000,000 under that head. Expenditure on defence in the current year will probably reach £200,000,000, or more than was expended in 1943 when the problems of World War II. were at their height. In terms of goods, our defence preparations represent an enormous increase in the nation's requirements of food, coal, steel, and other essentials. In terms of man -power, they represent a requirement of about 150,000 trained men in three years. In World War II., an American heavy bomber cost from £55,000 to £58,000; to-day it costs approximately £2,000,000. Those figures show clearly that the state of war preparedness that we are seeking to achieve will cost somebody a lot of money. How can we prepare for war and at the same time carry out costly developmental programmes and maintain luxury and semi-luxury industries ? It is elementary that we cannot burn the candle at both ends and also in the middle. Long-range developmental programmes will not produce any return in the immediate future. We cannot have motor cars and. plenty of beer and at the same time have guns and butter. We must eliminate non-essentials and co-operate in order to carry out this defence programme because it is of prime importance. I shall discuss now the fundamental reason for the introduction of the bill. Some critics contend that the producers of the wealth of the country can cooperate without being subjected to the controls that are envisaged in the bill. 1 personally abhor controls because there are definite weaknesses in every form of control by legislation. Nevertheless, I am forced to admit that only through the agency of such a. measure as we are now discussing can proper co-ordination of our economy be achieved. Let us consider the situation from an international point of view. Australia is suffering from acute shortages of essential defence materials, such as tinplate. According to a. report in the *Sydney Morning Herald* to-day, the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale),** said yesterday that there would be a world deficiency of about 1,000,000 tons of tinplate a year for the next five years. He warned that the shortage might continue indefinitely in spite of the fact that new tinplate mills were being built in various countries. The United States of America is prepared to supply tinplate to Australia on the condition that we ensure that local supplies shall be diverted from non-essential production to essential war production. How can Australia assure America that the condition will be observed unless we ha.ve legislation of this nature? Let us consider the situation now from a domestic point of view. If, for instance, there are five tinplate manufacturing companies in Australia and only three of them agree to use their stocks for defence purposes, how could the Government carry out its defence programme without using some form of coercion on the two uncooperative companies? The real importance of this bill can be appreciated if that test is applied to every essential commodity, from rubber to steel, that Australia lacks. I am certain that most of the producers of essential commodities will co-operate with the Government. The degree of such co-operation will be reflected in the number of regulations that will be promulgated from time to time. The States have agreed to co-operate with the Government in their public works programmes. Fortified by those assurances, and the powers that will be conferred upon it by the bill, the Government will be able to tackle with confidence the diffcult programme that it has laid down. Critics of the bill have attacked the policy of the Government parties in relation to defence and economic controls. lt must be admitted that the first Menzies Government introduced controls under the National Security Act early in World War II. The policy of the parties that are represented on this side of the chamber always has been to advocate the enforcement of a proper system of controls over industry in times of national emergency. Nobody can truthfully deny that that is a fact. That policy remains unchanged, and it is the policy pursuant to which this bill has been introduced. If it enables Australia to help to avert a third world war, it will be entirely justified. If we are forced into another major war, it will still be justified because, at least, we shall be prepared for the worst. We shall have saved the lives of thousands of young Australians because we shall have trained them to fight. On that ground alone the measure is fully justified. {: #debate-21-s15 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales -- I protest emphatically against the indecent haste with which the Government intends to pass this bill through the Parliament. **Senator Henty,** one of the back-benchers on the Government side of the chamber, challenged us a few minutes ago to sit here until the consideration of the bill had been completed. As another back-bencher, I assure him that I shall be here as long as he remains, if not longer, in order that the bill shall be considered in every detail. This is one of the most important measures that has been presented to the Parliament during my experience as a senator. It will affect the lives and the welfare of almost every section of the Australian people, but the Government wants the Senate to pass it with casual expedition! With the possible exception of the invalidated Communist Party Dissolution Act, no other bill in my recollection has been open to such grave legal doubts. The Government claims that it has the right to enact such legislation under its defence power, but I warn it that there will be costly and almost unending litigation to test its validity. Notwithstanding the opinions of the many representives of the legal profession on the Government side of the chamber, many sections of the people will take advantage of every opportunity to protect their rights should the legislation be brought into full operation. The proposal to promulgate restrictive regulations and orders in relation to a wide variety of important matters shows that the Government has turned a complete political somersault. I am sure that the bill is not very palatable to many of its supporters. In fact, it is revolting to some of them. It will dispose of parliamentary government and substitute government by regulation in its place. The most disturbing factor of the Government's conduct is the introduction of the bill at the 11th hour as the Parliament is about to go into recess. The elected representatives of the people will be denied an opportunity to discuss any regulation that may be promulgated in accordance with the provisions of this bill. At all times the Australian Labour party has been prepared to co-operate in the implementation of any measure for the defence of this country. Reference has been made to the threat of war. Honorable senators on this side want to be assured that the dangers of war are real, if their co-operation is wanted in this matter. Why has not the Government informed the people of Australia, and particularly the Parliament, of all the facts? I believe that the threat of war has been magnified in order to screen the failure of the Government to carry out its election promises. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Does that apply also to the socialist Government of Great Britain? {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- The interjection is irrelevant, because we are dealing with the position in Australia. If **Senator Maher** would devote attention to the welfare of the Australian people, instead of reflecting on the good job that has been done by the British Government, he would! be of more service to the community. The bill before the chamber provides unlimited powers for the Government. Honorable senators opposite have stated that although the Government seeks these powers, it does not want to use them unless that course becomes absolutely necessary. The Minister has not proved to theSenate that the powers sought are necessary. The bill provides, amongst other things, for the making of regulations in relation to " the expansion of the capacity of Australia to produce or manufacturegoods, or to provide services. . . ." Ashonorable senators are aware, shortages exist in basic foodstuffs, including potatoes, onions,- salt, butter and mutton. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The people of New South Wales can buy potatoes at " McGirr " prices. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- **Senator Aylett,,** who represents Tasmania in this chamber, has already pointed out that potatoes for which the growers in Tasmania receive- £15 a ton are being sold in another State for up to £75 a ton. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What *r* bout the " McGirr " prices control ? {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- The honorable senator who continues to interject implies that an unduly hig!! price is being charged in New South Wales for Tasmanian potatoes as a result of the maladministration of prices control by the State. I remind honorable senators that the abolition of the control of prices by the Commonwealth was advocated by the leaders of the present Government when in Opposition during the regime of the former Labour Government. Clearly, there is something wrong with the method of distribution of potatoes. This conservative Government is a government of inaction; its supporters have done little more than talk about the conditions in this country. Honorable senators will remember the famous slogan of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menizes),** " We must put first things first ". I suggest that the Government's first major consideration should have been to provide adequate food for the people of this country. On many occasions since this Government assumed office, reference has been made in this chamber to the election pledge of the Prime Minister to restore value to the Australian £1. Since this Government took over the reins of office it has made no attempt to arrest the inflationary trend in our economy. On the other hand, honorable senators opposite have complained that sufficient quantities of material, plant and man-power are not available for essential industries because of competition by the less essential industries, which produce goods that are sold on an inflationary market. What a disclosure of ineptitude! The Government now proposes, virtually, to hand over responsibility to the people whom honorable senators opposite described during the 1949 general election campaign as bureaucrats, and whom they promised to destroy. Such a proposal could emanate only from a feeble and spineless government. In my judgment, this bill has been introduced as a smokescreen, in order to save the Government from the wrath and criticism of these people as a result of the inflationary conditions that now exist, and to destroy competition that is adversely affecting the monopolies in this country, which are the masters of the Government. It will also cover the Government's failure to maintain Australia's economic stability, and save the Government from further embarrassment. The Government now proposes to fasten its responsibility on to the National Security Resources Board which was appointed some time ago to make inquiries into the Australian economy and to assist the Government by bringing about an increased production of goods that were in short supply. The Parliament was not consulted in regard to the appointment of that board. There is on the board a number of public servants who have given good service to the country. They have been directed by the Government to make inquiries into certain aspects of agriculture and commerce and to arrange for the rationing of materials that are in short supply whether produced locally or imported. This bill has been drafted for the purpose of overcoming difficulties associated with the shortage of materials. There is ample evidence of the Government's failure to deal effectively with this problem. Before his election to office the Prime Minister promised to reduce taxation. Yet when the budget of his Government was introduced it was found that taxation had been increased by £20,000,000. The Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** made provision in hisfirst budget for the expenditure of £50,000,000 to stockpile goods that were in short supply and were needed for defence. What happened? The Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** was advised by an advisory committee to purchase rubber when it was 2s. 2d. per lb. So that his vanity would not suffer by reason of acceptance of advice from such a source, he rejected it, with what result? The rubber was not purchased until its price has risen to over 7s. per lb. When a question was addressed to the Minister on this subject he shrugged his shoulders and said that the Government had £10,000,000 worth of rubber in a stockpile. He did not state that if he had bought rubber when the price was 2s. 2d. per lb. he would have had £30,000,000 worth of rubber in the stockpile and it would have cost only £10,000,000. For that reason there should not be an extension of controls and power should not be delegated to committees or boards to deal with matters that are the responsibility of the Parliament. Clause 4 (3.) provides - >Nothing in this section authorizes the making of regulations - > >Imposing taxation; > >With respect to the borrowing of money on the public credit of the Commonwealth ; > >For or in relation to the compulsory direction of labour ; > >Imposing any form of, or extending any existing obligation to render, compulsory naval, military or air force service. > >Those are the four exceptions that have been stated to the provisions of the bill, which applies to every other phase of our lives. The Government has all the power it needs for the imposition of taxation. So the first exception to the provisions of the bill is of little value. The exception with respect to the borrowing of money on public credit is of no value. The exception regarding the compulsory direction of labour is a very important one. The Government does not favour the maintenance of the present state of full employment, but it has not the courage to alter that state of affairs, which was brought into existence by the Labour Government. In a snide manner, it proposes to except from the regulation-making power of the bill the power to direct labour. It wishes to make provision for the control of finance and materials so that it may indirectly control the flow of labour and do more damage to the industry and economy of the country than it could do by the compulsory direction of labour. > >Like the average Australian citizen, I lack information in regard to the need for this bill. No more illuminating example of the weakness of the Government's case is needed than the spate of abuse and propaganda to which honorable senators were subjected last night by the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator McLeay).** Some indication of what will take place if the proposed powers are given to the Government was then made evident. Apart from abuse the only statements made by honorable senators opposite have been vague and based upon generalities. They have been characterized by an atmosphere of secrecy more profound than that which prevailed during the most critical stages of World War II. Is there any wonder that the Opposition asks: Where is the danger? Honorable senators on this side of the chamber desire that the Government shall tell them where the danger lies, and if that is done the green light will be given, if necessary. > >When the Liberal party and the Australian Country party failed this country during the early days of World War II.- {: .speaker-K6Z} ##### Senator Spicer: -- They did not. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- I maintain that they did. They were dismissed from office because their own supporters had become disgusted with their war effort. I recall how the late **Mr. John** Curtin inspired the people of this country and was responsible for the prosecution of a succesful war effort. This conservative Government has expended hundreds of thousands of pounds on advertisements in the newspapers of the country in an endeavour to recruit men for the armed services. What a lamentable failure that recruiting campaign has been ! I suggest that that is an indication of the increasing lack of confidence in this Government. Not only have huge sums of money been expended on the insertion of advertisements in almost every newspaper in the country, but a campaign has also been waged under the direction of **Sir Edmund** Herring. The resources of the Commonwealth Bank have been tapped to assist that campaign, but the result of all those efforts has been the recruitment of approximately only 5,000 men. Is not that an indictment of this Government which now seeks additional power to affect the lives, liberty and welfare of the Australian people? T consider that the proposed controls will have a more disastrous and more disturbing effect upon the industrial and commercial life of this country than those that were in operation during the worst period of the second world war. After many years of conservative administration, there were no fewer than 250,000 unemployed when that war broke out. Although controls and restrictions operated under Labour governments, they were not so damaging or disturbing as will be the restrictions that the Government now proposes to apply during a period of full employment. I point out that when men are moved from one industry to another there is a distinct possibility of unemployment occurring. {: .speaker-K2A} ##### Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP -- Why does not the honorable senator tell us about the golden age? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I am interested to hear what **Senator Ashley** has to say, and I ask that interjections shall cease. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- And about time, too ! {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I "shall be the judge of whether or not this is the right time. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- Despite the methods proposed to be employed by the Government for the diversion of finance and materials to essential industries, any diversion of man-power would have a damaging, if not a completely destructive, effect upon many small industries in this country. Even at this late hour, I suggest that instead of proceeding with this legislation the Government should call a conference of representatives of industries and trade unions in an endeavour to secure, by means of voluntary cooperation, what it proposes to do by means of coercion. Abundant evidence exists to prove that the Government has failed to exercise the powers which, it already possesses. Only last week photographs that depicted unlimited waste of man-power and materials on the Snowy Mountains scheme appeared in various newspapers. When asked a question in this chamber concerning that matter, the responsible Minister stated that inquiries would be made. Those pictures showed many thousands of pounds' worth of material and plant covered by snow and deteriorating. Surely that was sufficient evidence to warrant the taking of immediate action? Such waste of man-power, finance and material resources will not condition the Australian people to extend additional powers to a government that is prepared to stand idly by and allow it to occur. Last week, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, in its annual report, disclosed that 9,000,000 man-hours had been lost on the waterfront during the period under review. Only two days ago shipping companies released 6S waterside workers before they had worked their full time. That indicates how man-hours are lost. Men are allowed to play two-up and cards on the job and to go fishing and stay away from their employment for other reasons while still being paid. That is the kind of thing that this Government allows to go on, yet it is seeking greater powers to control the lives and the welfare of the people of Australia. Questions have been asked in this chamber about the precarious supply of tinplate for Australia, reference to which was made to-day, and in regard to which a Government back-bencher **(Senator Vincent)** made an apology. During the war years, when Labour was in power and when the demand for tinplate was much greater than it is to-day, we made ample provision for supplies of that commodity. One of the reasons why tinplate is in short supply to-day is that, it is being hoarded by the big monopolies to the detriment of small producers. This bill will help those monopolies to hold on to those supplies. Not only will it help them to do so, but it will also help them to destroy eventually the competition of small businesses. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- It can also make them disgorge those supplies. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- The honorable senator knows more about sheep than about tinplate. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **Senator Wright** *interjecting,* {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- I am not talking to you. I shall see you outside. You will suit me outside, where I shall have something to say. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I, too, shall have something to say, but it will be inside and not outside. I ask **Senator Ashley** to resume his remarks and to address them to the Chair. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- Thank you, **Mr. President.** The record of the Menzies Government has not conditioned the public mind for an extension of any controls that would lead to regimentation in this country. The Minister for Shipping and Transport yesterday went to a great deal of trouble to explain the shipping position to us. He had had a great deal of information compiled for him before he made his speech. He has been in charge of the shipping portfolio for nearly two years, and I want to know what action he has taken in that time to improve the shipping position. None whatever ! Constant inquiries have been made by honorable senators from Tasmania about shipping services to that State. Why has the Minister not been able to arrange for the shipment of potatoes from Tasmania to the mainland, and to ensure that the Tasmanians shall receive sufficient wheat from the mainland? I understand that wheat is now so short in Tasmania that the people cannot get enough to make damper, far less bread. As **Senator Armstrong** has said, this Government is destroying the only source of petrol that we have in this country by closing down the Glen Davis refinery. {: .speaker-K2G} ##### Senator Reid: -- Oh, oh ! {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- The honorable senator may well say "Oh, oh!" It is all that I expect from him. If the Government is prepared, without having the powers sought under this measure, to destroy the only potential supply of oil in this country, what will happen when the measure gives it more powers in respect of materials and man-power? I direct attention to the sixth recital in the preamble to the measure, which reads - >And whereas in present circumstances tho defence preparations mentioned in the preceding paragraphs cannot be carried out without the diversion of certain of the resources of Australia (including money, materials and facilities) for nee in, or in connexion with, defence preparations : Man-power is not included in the resources to be diverted, although I said a moment ago that it was. The Government has shown its inability to control the affairs of the nation. It is all very well for the Government to complain that it did not have in this chamber enough senators to enable it to do what it liked during the eighteen months that preceded the last general election, but as has already been stated to-day, 65 of the 67 bills that have come before the Senate during its term of office have been passed. In conclusion, I accept the challenge issued by **Senator Henty.** If the Senate sits right through until to-morrow morning, I shall be found in my seat here, as I have been on every sitting day since I was elected to the Senate. I have not missed one division, and I have been attentive to my duties. So, if the honorable senator's statement was an invitation to me to be present in this chamber to-morrow morning, I assure him that I shall be here and that I shall do my utmost to defeat the objects of this bill, not only in this chamber but also at every opportunity that arises to do so on the public platform. {: #debate-21-s16 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Victoria .- I should like at the start to express my pleasure that this debate has not been and is not to be curtailed, because the Government has seen fit to grant to the Opposition all the time it could wish to have to discuss this measure. There is therefore, no question of guillotining this bill through the Parliament and it. cannot be claimed that the Opposition is not being given proper opportunity for a full consideration of it. I should have thought that that concession by the Government, which was requested so forcefully by the Opposition, would have brought into this chamber rather more than the ten or eleven scattered supporters of the Opposition, at least one of whom appears to have gone to sleep during the last speech - for which I cannot blame him - that are now in the chamber. They sit gloomily on their benches. **Senator Armstrong,** in opening the Opposition attack on the measure, made strong comments on its inadvisability. To support his argument he cited not only the Chamber of Manufactures and the Chamber of Commerce, but also several great retail stores. I do not know whether or not **Senator Armstrong's** statement revealed him to be the spokesman in this chamber and in his own party for big business, but it should at least preclude him in future from ever imputing to this side of the chamber domination of big business. This bill and the opposition to it that **Senator Armstrong** cited should also show that we are prepared to act in the interests of the whole of the people, as we see them, no matter what special pressures may be brought to bear on us by big business organization. *Sitting suspended from 5.^5 to 8 p.m.* {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON: -- Whatever else **Senator Armstrong** may have said in his speech he absolved us of the charge of being dominated by big business. It is a matter of great gratification to all of us that that truth has at last penetrated the mind of an honorable senator, who, in the past, has been so prone to voice the catch-cry that this Government is dominated by big business. We have shown that whatever pressure may be brought to bear on us by organized business, we act only in the best interests of all the people of Australia. It must be apparent to any student of politics that opposition by the Labour party to a measure of this kind cannot be anything but completely hollow. Opposition members favour the sort of legislation which permits government by regulation. When they were in office they resorted to that system of government very extensively. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna),** when he sought to give effect to his abortive medical scheme, introduced merely an enabling bill, and left the whole of the rest of the field to be governed by regulation. As far as I am aware the constitution of the Australian Labour party still includes a plank which proposes the establishment of a supreme economic council to function outside the Parliament and to be charged with the responsibility of regulating the economic affairs of Australia. Having that particular predilection, and subscribing to that plank in the platform of their party honorable senators opposite are still prepared to put up a sham opposition to ;i. measure which in every respect must meet with their approval. I do not base my advocacy of the measure on the fact that it should meet with the approval of the Australian Labour party. Far from it ; indeed, that very fact makes me suspicious of the bill; but at least it contains the safeguard that any regulations made under it, unlike regulations which might have been made by a supreme economic council, if such a body had been established, are subject to disallowance by the Parliament. That great safeguard must be prominently in our minds when we discuss this measure. If the Opposition is genuine in its hostility to the bill, if it is not merely putting up a hypocritical sham fight against it, its adherence to the proposal for the establishment of a supreme economic council must be categorized as weak and pusillanimous. Members of the Opposition must abandon that proposal or they cannot conscientiously oppose this measure. "What a contrast if, is to have the Labour Opposition in the Australian Parliament putting up a fight against this bill when the Labour Oppositions in other parts of the British Commonwealth have supported measures of a similar kind. In Canada, representatives of the organized Labour unions approached the Canadian Prime Minister and asked him to introduce a bill such as this so that the country would be able to deal with enemies which the Labour Opposition had enough perspicacity to see were threatening the safety of the country. This measure can be justified only by the urgent need to put the defences of this country in a proper state. If thai need did not exist, there would be no justification for the bill and it could not bc accepted. We were asked by **Senator Ashley,** in one of the lucid moments of his speech, what need there was for legislation of this kind and why we needed power to control materials. It must be obvious that if we are to embark upon a programme of adequate defence preparation we must take from civil consumption rubber for tyres for military transports, clothing for uniforms for the troops, copper, lead and other metals for munition of war, motor transport and trucks, building materials and many other things which the people urgently need for their own purposes. The withdrawal of those commodities from civilian consumption will result in a greatly increased demand upon what is left. The former Leader of the Opposition, **Senator Ashley,** has said in this chamber that the great monopolies of Australia have been cornering those materials. If that is so, there is great justification for a bill which will enable the Government to see that what i3 left after defence needs have been met is spread equitably over the whole field of industry. The honorable senator has told us that when he was in a position of authority he was obliged to provide .tinplate in the appropriate proportions to appropriate users. When he did that he acted on authority given to him by the provisions of a measure such as this. In that instance, he relied upon the authority given to him in the National Security Regulations which were promulgated under the National Security Act. If that is so, what is his justification for opposing the granting to this Government of similar powers for a similar object? The sole purpose of this bill is to ensure that materials in short supply shall be equitably spread over the country and that they are diverted to those industries that have a defence potential instead of to those which Professor Copland has described as encouraging a " milk bar " economy. If there is need for defence preparations, there is need for this bill. That is the test by which it must stand or fall. 1 do not suggest that if we accept that proposition we can necessarily overlook the dangers' that are inherent in the bill. There is always danger in a measure which authorizes government by regulation. I am not at all sure that the Acts Interpretation Act should not be amended so that regulations made under this measure or any other measure will lapse within a certain period if they are not actively approved by the Parliament. That, however, is a matter which arises out of the bill rather than something that is definitely included in it. I do not believe that in the situation which I have tried to describe, and which I believe exists, this bill and the actions which it envisages will in themselves be enough to ensure either our defence preparations or to counter the inflationary effect on our economy which those preparations will entail. I think that the Government having received these powers, the duration of which is limited to two years unless they are again agreed to by this Parliament, should take further steps against inflation. For instance, a conference is being held for the purpose of deciding upon an equitable allocation of international materials to avoid such happenings as the United States of America bidding against itself in our wool market or in overseas rubber markets. If we are to press for an international allocation of materials, it is obvious that we must have the power which will be given by this bill to allocate internally the materials that we shall thereby get. I hope that we shall eventually see some sort of an arrangement such as was made during the last war for a wage freeze in this country. In saying that I am not talking of the cost of living adjustment. If that does occur, it is possible that we shall need some system of price fixing in Australia. I hope that together with this programme we shall examine the immigration policy to see whether it should be pushed on as fast and as far in the future as it has been in the past. I hope that our public works will be rationalized so that priority will be given to works of the greatest importance in order that they may be finished first. I hope that expenditure, not directly connected -with defence. will be slashed, but that is an uninformed opinion. It is not the opinion of one who is in the centre of government, who knows all the factors that have to be taken into consideration. I. am sure that those who do know the factors and who are responsible will use a *I* least some of the measures that I have outlined to-night. As a part of the general programme that I have outlined for the defence of this country, this bill is absolutely essential. It has been reluctantly asked for by the Government. It has been reluctantly granted by another place. I think, if I may anticipate, that it will be reluctantly granted by this chamber. We shall jealously watch the use that is made of the powers that it will convey. 1 suggest that the safeguards implicit in the bill are sufficient to ensure that the Parliament will be in no way superseded. With those safeguards, the bill provides one of the best possible measures for the defence of this country against an outside enemy. The Government should be given by the people powers such as are sought by this bill which after all are to operate for a limited time unless the danger still exists at the end of that time in which case the powers will need to be renewed. Whether they will or will not need to be renewed, we cannot tell. Whether the danger will still exist in two years time we cannot tell, but I am as sure that if this bill is passed we shall run less risk of finding danger still in existence in two years' time. Therefore I support the bill. {: #debate-21-s17 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- During these dying hours of the first period of the first session of the Twentieth' Parliament, a great mass of legislation is being rushed towards its inevitable conclusion. Honorable senators have recently considered several measures, all of which have, if not a common intent, at least certain common qualities.. Under the Standing Orders I cannot comment in detail on the provisions of the Constitution Alteration (Powers to deal with Communists and Communism) Bill, nor on the Conciliation and Arbitration (No. 2) Bill, but it cannot be disputed that whether or not the bills were justified, both of them certainly interfered with particular liberties which up to now have been traditional in our community. Whether or not that interference is justified is not a. matter for discussion now, but the bill under consideration is of a similar naturt in that in its intent and content it, too, purports to interfere with liberties which have been traditional in this country. This bill represents the zenith of the trend towards interference with age-old liberties. It will give immense power to the Government to legislate by regulation, and those regulations will intrude into every sphere aud every corner of our national life. They will intrude into the small shop, the small factory and even into the domestic kitchen. We are considering whether or not this bill is justified. While the bills that I have mentioned were passing through this chamber, certain other liberties were gradually trickling away from the people like grains of sand would trickle through the hands of Ministers. They are the social and economic liberties of the Australian people which are trickling away as the result of inflation, which is gradually robbing the people of their assets and security. While the Government purports to deal with liberty it is closing its eyes to the loss of liberty in many other ways. I mention inflation because this bill is virtually an economic mobilization measure, and if we are going to mobilize this nation economically we must consider the impact of that mobilization on the present condition of the country. Therefore, if I discuss our present economic position, it is because this measure will affect that position and, conversely, will be affected by it. Our present economic condition causes everybody grave concern. Our troubles have continued during a protracted period, and have given members of my party cause for grave concern. My disturbance arises not because the Government is not looking after the present position, but because it is not even looking at it. I am perturbed not because the position is out of hand, but because it is out of sight. I am perturbed not only because our economic position is of great concern to 8,000,000 Australians, but also because it appears to be of little or no concern to the 80-odd members of the Government parties in this Parliament. This measure and the others to which I have referred have been received with, one might say, suspicion. They have been closely scrutinized. We feel, and our feeling is shared by others, that they have not been introduced in good faith. People associated with industries and occupations with which the measures purport to deal have said that the legislation will not, and cannot, be effective, but, despite that opinion, the Government has proceeded with it. Those persons have expressed serious doubts about the good faith of the Government. Those doubts have also been evident in the reception of this bill. During the last nineteen months, inflation in this country has increased to such a degree that it is now virtually uncontrollable. We have passed from controlled inflation to uncontrolled inflation. To handle the situation would be to handle political dynamite. Is it not possible for the Government to deal with it by what I shall call ordinary civilian means? The Government, having taken the advice of economists who. doubtless would suggest complex remedies, could grapple with the complex economic problem with which we are confronted. The Opposition suspects strongly that, in introducing this bill, the Government has not acted in good faith because, during the last nineteen months, it has not used the weapons and means that have been at its disposal to deal with the economic situation. I believe that the bill has been introduced, not with the object of achieving the purpose for which it purports to be designed, but for the purpose of enabling the Government, under the pretense of acting in the interests of national defence, to do something that it could have done with the ordinary weapons that are available to it. Let me read to the Senate one of the many recitals in the preamble to the bill. They are a prominent feature of legislation introduced by this Government. The recital states, in part - >And whereas the defence preparations mentioned in the preceding paragraphs cannot be carried out to the necessary extent . . . unless at the same time measures are undertaken for adjusting the economy of Australia to meet the threat of war and for avoiding or reducing economic dislocation or instability caused by, or impeding, defence preparations. > >Undoubtedly, the present economic situation is impeding defence preparations. Under the terms of this measure, an attempt will be made by the Government to cure the inflation that is disrupting our economic life. That is made clear in the preamble to the bill. It is bad for the Government to introduce legislation that purports to be designed for one purpose and to use it for another. That will breed mistrust in the minds of the people about the objects of legislation and cause a grave lack of faith in the National Parliament. > >I agree with **Senator Gorton** that the important question that we have to consider is whether there is any justification for this measure. I believe that I am expressing the opinion of all honorable senators on this side of the chamber when I say I agree that, in certain circumstances, the liberties of individuals and of groups of individuals must be sacrificed to the national interest. We have to decide whether those circumstances exist now. The present situation has been described by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner)** and other members of the Government- in one way, but the bill describes it in other terms. Therefore, the Australian people are confused. They are unable to assess the gravity or otherwise of the situation. > >The Government must secure the cooperation of the people. The bill, in effect, asks for their co-operation, but it also threatens that if they do not cooperate with the Government, compulsion will be used. Oan the Government reasonably expect the co-operation of the nation unless it issues an authoritative statement describing the circumstances that have compelled it to introduce this measure ? A spate of contradictions, halfstatements and summaries of the position has confused the people. In a speech that I delivered in this chamber recently, I appealed to the Government to take the people into its confidence, but it has not yet done so. We are still wading in a morass of vague statements, not one of which is conclusive and not one of which inspires confidence. Hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles is a threat of compulsion if we do not co-operate with the Government. The Government is asking for the nation's cooperation, but it has failed to tell the people the reasons why that co-operation should be given. > >How grave is the threat to this country ? Are we to assume that in the past few months there has been a great deterioration of the international situation which is known to the Government, but perhaps not even to the rankandfile members of the Government parties or to every member of the Cabinet? Is not the Government under an obligation to take the National Parliament into its confidence? If we must always manage our national affairs under the threat of external danger, whether it be near or remote, great or small, what will be the future of this country? We shall remain, as would any other country in similar circumstances, in a state of suspense. National development will cease, individual careers will be halted, and individual hopes will be frustrated. The Government must make an authoritative statement about the position, and take the people into its confidence. > >I read in the press recently that a Government supporter in the House of Representatives had said that while troops from this country were engaged in military activities in any part of the world, the right to strike should be denied to all organizations in the community. The workers of this country have always been loyal. The great body of Australian trade unionists made no threat to take direct action during the whole of the last war. If the principle enunciated by that member of the House of Representatives were taken a step further, as this bill proposes to take it, all the natural and fundamental rights of individuals and of groups of individuals in the community would be suspended, because of a vague threat of war, undetermined and undisclosed, or an alleged need to make preparations to defend ourselves against a form of aggression that has never been put clearly and starkly before the people. I appeal to the Government to take us into its confidence. During the war, secret sessions of the National Parliament were held, and members were given facts which were withheld from the public. If the position is such that the community must accept war measures in time of peace, surely their elected representatives are entitled to the same courtesy from the Government as was extended to them by a Labour Prime Minister during the war. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Does the honorable senator suggest that such action has been taken in Great Britain? {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- I do not know, but it was certainly taken in Australia. We approach this bill with suspicion, and we wonder what it is really all about. A doubt arises whether it .will ever be enforced at all. Only the other day the Prime Minister, when answering protests against the legislation, denied that the Government intended to issue a spate of regulations. Nevertheless, in his secondreading speech on the bill, the Prime Minister said - >Some one may ask why it is necessary to take power to make regulations for this purpose. I can answer that question briefly. In the first place, it may be necessary to move quickly iti circumstances that are not sufficiently grave to warrant a calling of a special session of the Parliament. It is not always practicable to call a session suddenly, as we know from experience. Circumstances might arise which would require instant executive action that could not be deferred until a special meeting of the Parliament was called. Indeed, the circumstances might not of their own nature, be sufficiently important to justify the convening of a special session. In the second place, as honorable senators will understand, the measures that would be necessary are likely to be rather detailed in character, and more appropriate, therefore, to become the subject of regulations than of an act of Parliament. In other words, he obviously expects that the measure will be implemented through regulations, but when challenged on the point he denied that it was intended to issue a spate of regulations. We are forced to wonder whether the Government is serious. If it is not intended to enforce this legislation, why was it introduced? Was it in order to give an appearance of activity by the Government which, for nearly two years, has been completely inactive; or does the Prime Minister recognize that, in order to deal with the present situation, he must retrace his steps, and give effect to suggestions that have been advanced by the Opposition? If the Government does not intend to put the measure into force, but is merely making a pretence of action, it is playing a shabby trick on the public. For my part, I believe that the Government really intends to implement .thislegislation, and that it will become, in fact, a real threat to the rights of thepeople. It is a threat to private property, and is in conflict with the principle of the wide distribution of property among the population. In time of war, individuals willingly surrender some of their property rights. There is upon them a moral obligation to do so, which most of them willingly accept. A national economy which is based on monopolies is capable of quick economic mobilization. On the other hand, an economy based upon the wide distribution of property is not so easily mobilized. This legislation, if enforced, must result in the displacement of many small proprietors, and the concentration of property and techniques in the hands of a few. The -bill is designed, therefore, to change our economy into that of the complete capitalist state, and to destroy the system of property distribution which renders a society safe and stable. The Government must be careful that, in its efforts to secure the defences of the nation, it does not undermine the very foundations upon which they rest. National liberty is the sum of the liberty of the individuals that make up the nation. If individual liberty is destroyed national liberty cannot survive. We oppose the bill because the Government has failed to show us that it is necessary; because it is authoritarian in concept and in method; and because it demands the co-operation of a nation that has not been taken into the Government's confidence. We oppose it because, were it enforced, it would leave disfiguring and ineffaceable marks on the body of our society. {: #debate-21-s18 .speaker-KUH} ##### Senator McMULLIN:
New South Wales -- In approaching this important measure it is wise for us to take a look at the present world situation in order to ascertain to what degree the Government's proposals are warranted. I shall not weary honorable senators with a review of world affairs. I need only remind them that conditions to-day in Persia and the Near East contain the makings of a third world war. None of us should be blind to that fact. Wo know only too well that at any time the other side might choose we could become involved in another conflagration. Therefore, having regard to the international situation, it is wise for us to assess our preparedness to meet possible hostilities. There can be no doubt that in the event of the outbreak of a third world war we shall have very little time to get ready. In these circumstances we should urgently examine the state of our national defences. We should survey conditions to ascertain how best we can intensify our defence preparedness without materially interfering with our internal economy. That will involve a considerable amount of organization. Of necessity, we must divert materials into right channels and ensure that the most effective use shall be made of those materials. It is to be regretted that we are confronted with this task, but the present situation is so serious that we have no alternative but to tackle it. I remind members of the Opposition that they have not a mortgage upon love of freedom or upon the desire to fight in defence of it. Supporters of the Government have just as high a regard - indeed, a higher regard - for the freedom of the subject. We must also remember that the people of Australia have twice reposed their trust in the Government parties within the last two years. There can be no doubt that at present our basic industries are not producing sufficient of the commodities that are so urgently needed in the interests of the national economy. During the last few years we have, up to a point, permitted industry to direct its forces into the manufacture of luxury, or semiluxury, goods. In our present serious situation we must take stock of our resources and rectify that defect. If we are to enable our industries to function to their fullest degree we must ensure that they receive adequate supplies of basic materials, such as coal. An important factor that has not been stressed sufficiently in the course of this debate is what may be described as our fourth branch of defence. I refer to food production which ranks in importance with the other three branches of our defence organization - the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Unfortunately, the production of many important primary products has declined to a serious degree owing to the fact that our f arming community has not been able to obtain adequate supplies of materials that it urgently requires. Primary production has been hampered because of the shortage of machinery that is required for the manufacture of materials that are indispensable to efficient farming. I refer, for instance, to wire netting and fencing wire which are needed to combat the rabbit pest, and galvanized iron which is required for housing. Those deficiencies are most important, particularly as Australia may be called upon to make a substantial contribution to world food supplies. Our primary industries have been labouring under great difficulties. That fact is reflected in the drift of population from the country to the cities. In turn, that drift has been caused to some degree by our failure to carry out a planned programme of production. Another factor that has tended to decrease the labour pool available for primary production is the programme of public works that is being carried out in the various States. Nothing can be said, in principle, against the undertaking of public works. But we are now faced with the problem of whether our overall labour pool is sufficient to enable us to carry on public works without, at the same time, depriving essential industries of adequate manpower. I am pleased to learn that the Government intends to review current works programmes with a view to diverting labour that can be spared from that sphere to more important industries. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Does the honorable senator wish to direct labour ? {: .speaker-KUH} ##### Senator McMULLIN: -- No ; and I shall not be side-tracked by that interjection. It must be obvious that public works cannot be allowed to compete with essential industries for the limited manpower that is available. Only public works that are of great urgency should be proceeded with. The shortage of consumer goods has contributed largely to present inflationary trends. The existence, of a surplus of purchasing power in the community has created too great a demand for goods that are in short supply. That is an unhealthy state of affairs that must be remedied as soon as possible. The Government will be enabled to apply remedies under this measure pursuant to which it will impose controls for that purpose. I am not influenced in any way by the outcry in the newspapers that various organizations such as chambers of manufactures and chambers of commerce have raised in protest against this measure. Those protests do not interest me in the slightest. Such organizations are doing a good job but they are naturally influenced by a sectional viewpoint. On the other hand it is the duty of the Government to take an overall view of the picture in order that the greatest good shall be done and the least injury shall be caused to our national economy as a whole. I say to those organizations that have been exerting such pressure during the last few days that they acted unwisely in condemning this measure without having investigated it fully and ascertaining the good that it could accomplish in the interests of the nation. Similar legislation is in operation in the United States of America and Great Britain and it has worked very effectively in those countries. I regret very much, possibly because I have only recently been elected to the Senate, to notice a certain tendency in this chamber. I refer to the practice of many senators of relying upon statements that their opponents made many years ago, merely in order to score debating points. Surely we can view the current situation in the light of present-day realities and not with our eyes on the past. International relations and even internal conditions in overseas countries are changing from day to day, and it seems hardly worth while to worry about what hapened ten years ago and still less about what happened in the dark days of the depression. If we can take a general view of the situation as it exists to-day, including the dangers that confront us,if we can realize our own strength and the potentialities of this country, and if we can work together as members of a single community, I am sure that we can all be much happier. The present Government has a clear mandate to implement this legislation, and I have complete confidence in the members of the Ministry, who are men drawn from many walks of life. They are, therefore, truly representative of the people of this country. I have no doubt that before they agreed to the introduction of this legislation they carefully investigated every aspect of the problems that confront us and had in mind all the dangers that are allegedly inherent in it. The Opposition contends, of course, that the passage of this bill will whittle away our traditional liberties, and it alleges that the Ministry proposes to delegate to the Public Service its duty to govern the country. Members of the Opposition profess to be terrified at the prospect of entrusting authority to public servants. I remind them that the great majority of the members of the present Ministry have had a good deal of experience of government and administration, and because they certainly love this country as much as do members of the Opposition, I am convinced that they would not do anything that might harm it. In reply to the criticism of the Public Service that was implied in the speeches of many members of the Opposition, I remind our political opponents that Australia has every reason to be proud of its public servants, who discharge very efficiently their complex administrative duties. Once the need for the introduction of this measure is properly understood, and the provisions of the bill are viewed from that standpoint, I think that we may regard the consequences of its implementation with confidence. Apart from considerations of national defence, our economy is menaced by a number of factors, including inflation, and strong action is needed to correct that- situation. However, before a government can take strong action it must be fortified with adequate legislative powers, and that is why the Government has introduced this measure. I repeat that if the bill is viewed fairly and in the light of our present dangers and difficulties, we need have no cause for anxiety about it. Furthermore, I am convinced that when it is implemented many of the fears voiced by members of the Opposition and others will disappear. I wholeheartedly support the bill. {: #debate-21-s19 .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales -- I oppose the bill. When I took part in the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Powers to Deal with Communists and Communism) Bill 1951 last night, I characterized it as " No. 4 " of the series of anti-democratic and repressive measures that the present Government is seeking to foist upon us. The bill now before us is " No. 5 " of that series. If the measure has any purpose at all, it is to organize society in such a way as to allow monopoly capital to obtain complete control. Of course, that will inevitably lead to unemployment, and the incidence of unemployment may become as high as 10 per cent., which is, I think, the objective enunciated by Professor Hytten. Although I have been a member of the National Parliamentand of the Parliament of New South Wales for some years, in all my parliamentary experience I have never heard a second-reading speech delivered by a Minister in circumstances such as those that surrounded the speech made by the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator O'Sullivan),** who introduced this bill this morning. Nobody seemed to know what the bill was about. The Government did not even provide us with a copy of the Minister's speech or give us any warning about it. Of course, the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator McLeay)** assured us that it was a most important measure, and begged us because of that fact not to waste too much time in passing it. The lack of logic in his statement lies in the implication that the more important a measure is, the less consideration it should receive from the Parliament. I have pointed out all along that untrammelled inflation must inevitably lead to chaos, and for a long time I have advocated the introduction of necessary economic controls. I believe in revaluing the £1, which the *Sydney Morning Herald* also advocates, and I believe in increasing the interest rate on government loans, a contention which, strangely enough, the *Sydney Morning Herald* also urges. Some reference was made to the present inflation by **Senator McMullin,** who is, I believe, a grazier and doubtless represents the views of graziers. If there is one factor which is responsible more than any other for the present inflation it is the high price of wool-- {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- But the graziers did not fix the price of wool. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I am referring now to sheep, not goats, and the honorable senator will do well to realize that and remain silent. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Apparently **Senator Grant** cannot understand that the graziers did not fix the price of wool. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I do not blame the graziers for taking all they can get; but I do blame the Government for permitting them to do so. *Honorable senators interjecting,* {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- It is not remarkable, of course, that the tremendous amount of money that the graziers received from the sale of their wool should have contributed to the present untrammelled inflation. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Nonsense ! The Treasury takes the cream of their income. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- It is an extraordinary fact that honorable senators opposite can interrupt me as much as they like without being checked by the Chair, but nevertheless that will suit me. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I ask **Senator Grant** to address the Chair and to confine his remarks to the bill. I shall not tolerate any reflections on the Chair, and I regard the remark that he has just made as a gross reflection upon me. Once again I direct him to confine his remarks to the bill and to address the Chair. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I assume, **Mr. President,** that this bill is intended to stem inflation, and I take it that I am quite in order in mentioning one of the factors that is, in my opinion, responsible for the present inflation. If I am out of order in doing so, there is no point in my discussing the measure. I want to show that the graziers are responsible for the present inflation because of the manner in which they have thrown their money around. The average grazier in New South "Wales occupies quite a social position in the life of his country town. When the graziers received their huge wool cheques they all wanted to buy expensive English Jaguar motor cars, and they almost gave away the used motor cars that, they already had. They invaded our capital cities and thought nothing of paying £10,000 or £15,000 for a house. Those who did not choose to buy houses built them. They got bricklayers to work for them by paying them any wage at all that the bricklayers demanded. If a bricklayer wanted an extra £1 a day, *n* grazier would pay him that amount willingly. They sent their wives and daughters to London for the social round, and expense simply did not matter to them. They created such a shortage of goods and services in the cities that it became almost impossible for the ordinary working man or woman to exist. That situation led, in turn, to successive demands for increases of the basic wage, and the continued increases of that wage have had a very direct effect on the present inflationary trend. When I mentioned these matters some months ago one honorable senator opposite said that I was talking nonsense and that wc should allow the law of supply and demand to operate without restraint. That comment was typical of the attitude of Government supporters at that time, and I want to know what has happened since to cause them to change their minds so completely and to induce them to support such a measure as the one before us. This bill is most remarkable for a variety of reasons. Excluding the Communist Party .Dissolution Act, it has the longest preamble that I have ever read. Under the provisions of the measure, power is given to certain individuals to do in peace-time what they would not bc able to do in war-time. I am inclined to change my mind about a conclusion that T have reached. I thought that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** desired this bill to be put into operation, but I arn satisfied now that he introduced this legislation for the purpose of window-dressing. **Senator Byrne** has already mentioned that possibility. He delivered a wonderful speech, of which the Government should take cognizance. If a state of emergency exists, we should know about it.. But as I survey the world objectively, it seems that the chances of war are lessnow than they were some time ago. If a state of national emergency existshow is it that only yesterday the Senatewas considering legislation the purpose of which was to ask the people, by way of referendum, to grant to this Parliament power to dissolve the Communist party? Seemingly, various Ministers who aremembers of the legal profession, from the Prime Minister down, have been incapable of drafting a bill, or a series of bills, to enable the Government to deal expeditiously with those persons whom, it asserts, are traitors and saboteurs. We are told that this is a period of emergency. How does the Government propose to deal with the Communists who are said to hp sabotaging production? The Government proposes to hold the referendum about six months hence. The appeal to the people has been made necessary because the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Communist Party Dissolution Act is *ultra vires* the Constitution. Apparently Ministers have no confidence in their legal ability, and are reluctant to run the risk of drafting a bill, or a series of bills, which the Leader of the Opposition i»i the House of Representatives, the learned **Dr. Evatt,** may knock into a cocked hat. Therefore, the Government proposes to seek the authority of the people to incorporate verbatim in the Constitution all the provisions of the Communist Party Dissolution Act. I contend that if such a state of emergency exists that this bill must be passed, the Government should deal with the Communists now. I do not know anything about the law- {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- **Senator Henty** has stated that he is in favour of an " open go ", and the law of supply and demand. I shall watch closely how he votes on this bill. He turns so quickly that he meets himself on the way back. " Hear, hear ! he said. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Is the honorable senator cheering himself? {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- If the honorable senator's name was "Wrong" he would be right. The learned judges of the High Court ruled that the defence power of the Commonwealth could not support the Communist Party Dissolution Act. Some of the more conservative elements retired from the bench a few years ago, and **Mr. JusticeFullagar** and **Mr. Justice** Kitto were appointed in their stead. The justices of the High Court have expressed the opinion that the Communist Party Dissolution Act is *ultra vires* the Constitution, because the conditions do not justify the conclusion that this country is in a state of war. How in the name of goodness, then, can the High Court fail to declare that this bill isultra *vires* when Industries are interfered with by the bureaucrats? A few years ago, honorable senators opposite used to criticize the activities of the bureaucrats. They have executed an extraordinary *volte face* on this bill. They used to declare that they would not brook interference with private industry. During the general election campaign in 1949, the honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Eric J. Harrison),** who is now the Minister for Defence Production, ridiculed the Chifley Labour Government for having retained controls. He said, " Leave controls to the States. Let the law of supply and demand operate, and conditions will be balanced eventually." It is extraordinary that a Government which has held such views should present this bill to the Parliament. This measure will permit an oligarchy to do anything with the exception of four things, or perhaps only three things. The Government claims that Labour cannot be conscripted under this legislation. But if various industries are to be closed down, the persons who are employed in them must pack their belongings and seek jobs in other industries. The Government thinks that this bill will arrest inflation. What will happen to the small entrepreneur, the " little fellow ", who will struggle to get some raw materials on the black market, and finding it impossible to carry on, will be driven to the wall? When industries are closed in that way, the employees will lose their jobs. The Government claims that there will not be physical conscription in the sense that workers will be forced to take employment in other industries, but I emphasize that there will be economic conscription. For that reason, we may say that this bill will permit an oligarchy to do anything except three things. The fact that three things that the Government cannot do are mentioned leads me to suppose that it will be able to do everything else under the sun. We are told that we are fighting to preserve our way of life, and for free enterprise. What will happen is that government control will be replaced by control by a bureaucracy. Regulations will be promulgated while the Parliament is in recess, and the bureaucrats will be able to do arbitrarily anything that they like. I do not object to the closure of certain luxury industries in war-time if that will be in the interests of the country ; but this bill will give greater powers in peace-time to the Government than it possessed in war-time. I have examined some of the powers that were taken by the Government during World War II. Credit restriction was introduced by the Liberal party, alias the Nationalist party, alias the United Australia party, alias the conservatives. There were also capital issues control, rationalization of industry, materials control, interest control, export and import control, censorship, rationing, prices control and wages control. Those powers were taken in wartime. The Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** has stated in the House of Representatives that there is no doubt that under this bill, such things as rayon, nylon and tinplate will be rationed. I hope that the Minister for Trade and Customs will tell us in his reply to this debate the reason for the Government's *volte face.* What has happened in the world ? Are the Russians going to attack Persia? If so, let us know about it. If there is to be a war, Labour will give every possible assistance to the Government, but surely honorable senators opposite do not expect us to support the granting of almost unlimited powers to the Government in the present circumstances. The preamble to the bill states - >And whereas, in the opinion of the Parliament and of the Government of theCommonwealth, there exists a state of international emergency in which it is essential that preparations for defence should be immediately made to an extent and with a degree of urgency, not hitherto necessary except in time of war: No attempt has been made to back up that statement. Under this measure, the Government will be able to close up any industry at will, without indicating to any one how or when it is to be done. I am confident that Government supporters have no more information than we have about the Government's intentions. When the federal executive of the Labour party decided that the Labour Opposition in the Senate should oppose the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, we were described as " yes-men ". Are Government supporters mere " yes-men " to-day? If not let them get up and tell us what the bill is all about. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- We are not " yes-no-yes " men. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- Honorable senators opposite were " Yes-men " at one time ; now they are " No-men " ; and they are in no man's land, which is the proper place for them. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Padden)** may know what this bill is all about, but honorable senators opposite do not know what it means. They speak of an oligarchy ruling the Labour party, but they are controlled by one man. If I am wrong, let any honorable senator opposite rise and say, " Here is the information that you want. We shall tell you why this is necessary". Not so long ago the Prime Minister said : " We do not want any socialist controls. We want free enterprise". His supporters immediately prshoed his words, and they have been repeating them for two years, but now apparently, it is a case of, " When father says turn we all turn ". The Prime Minister says that things are different. He cannot tell us why, but the mere fact that he says they are different is sufficient to convince his followers. If there is in fact a state of emergency in this country, why is the Parliament to go into recess? Why is it not to meet next week, the week a fter, and the week after that if necessary? There would then be no need to confer this wide power on the bureaucrats. Presumably, while the Parliament is in recess, should members of the Government consider this or that action to be necessary, they will take it by regulation. We shall not bo able to do anything about it except to move for the dis allowance of the regulation when the Parliament reassembles, and in the meantime, misery may have been caused to thousands of people. I am assuming, of course, that the Prime Minister really wants to bring the measure into operation. I have not a very high opinion of the right honorable gentleman's legal acumen, but I should be sorry to think he really believes this measure to be constitutional. I do not think anybody in this Parliament seriously considers that the bill would survive a challenge in the courts. If that is so, then what is the object of the bill ? I am inclined to believe that it has been introduced only so that the Prime Minister will be able to say to the people : " I put the measure on the statute-book, but it was declared to be invalid by the High Court". Already he has said to the people, " I tried to deal with the Communists. At first the Labour party would not allow me, but, of course, members of that party are allied with the Communists ". Presumably the right honorable gentleman does not suggest that the High Court, too, has Communist affiliations. If it is not his object to have this bill declared invalid by the High Court, he hopes to organize the whole of our economic resources and place them in the hands of a group of individuals. That is what has happened in the United States of America. According to a newspaper report that I read a couple of days ago, one of America's leading finance administrators said he was ashamed that a coterie of Americans had been able to corner the market in tin and so make a profit of £200,000,000 sterling in a few weeks at the expense of the great mass of the people of the United States of America. That is what will happen here. **Senator Armstrong** has been accused of defending the Chamber of Manufactures, but have the manufacturers of this country not as much right as any one else to be defended? They are Australian citizens. How would any honorable senator opposite who is a business man engaged in the manufacture of some commodity, like some government official to say to him, " The production of these goods must stop. Your men are to be transferred ". {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator Aylett: -- What would happen if the men did not want to go? {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- They would be starved into going. I have too high a regard for some members of the Government to believe for one moment that they consider this legislation to he democratic. It could, if it became operative, lead to an increase of working hours. It could certainly enable the pegging of wages and it could result in the wiping out of small business men. Is the present state of our economy really a surprise to any member of this chamber? I have frequently warned the Senate that if the price of wool continued to rise, and our currency "was not revalued, the stability of our economy would be wrecked. What has happened? One of the main reasons why *there* is not enough milk to-day is that the man who grows the feed for the cows that produce the milk has found it more profitable to turn his attention to sheepraising. Why .should primary producers grow food when they can more profitably own a few sheep? I warned the Senate again and again that this would happen, but nobody would support me. **Senator Maher** said, "Do not worry. The price of wool is falling". But it would not matter if the price of wool fell to nothing now, because graziers could sell their sheep and still finish with a profit. Government supporters must declare whether or not they have been converted to the doctrine of economic controls. Even the capitalist press, which has supported the Government parties consistently in the past, has attacked it on this issue. The *Sydney Morning Herald* and the *Daily Telegraph* are reminding the people that members of the Government and their friends formerly asserted that private enterprise was infinitely preferable to bureaucratic control. If ever a bill was designed for the purpose of strangling private enterprise, it is this measure. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Then we ought to have every good socialist behind us. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- The honorable senator has always said that there are no good socialists. What can be the matter with him? This measure will have a terrific impact upon the business and manufacturing sections of the community. The manufacturers have been very shortsighted in their attitude to the Government's policy against revaluation of the £1. I know that many Australians, including some honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber whose names I shall not mention because they have discussed the subject with me privately, believe in the revaluation of the £1. Manufacturers would wholeheartedly support revaluation if they were not blind to their own interests. Why did they not realize that an alteration of the exchange rate would have enabled them to import raw materials more cheaply and would have intensified competition so that workers would have had to work harder ? Primary producers also failed to realize that they would benefit from revaluation because it would have enabled them to import agricultural machinery and other equipment at lower costs. They have neglected their own interests, and now they find that the very principles which they have espoused so faithfully are to be strangled. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Is the Labour party in favour of revaluing the £1? {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I do not know, but at least honorable senators on this side of the chamber belong to a united political party. Every honorable senator and member of the House of Representatives, with the possible exception of **Senator Wright,** knows very well that a great majority of members of the Liberal party was in favour of revaluation. But the political power of the Australian Country party was so strong that the Liberal party was not allowed to do as it wished. The tail wagged the dog. The value of Australian currency in relation to other currencies was already at a ridiculously low level when the Government considered the idea of revaluing the £1, and now it seems that it will be depreciated still further as the result of the establishment of a war economy under this measure. Provided that the Government is fair dinkum, the ultimate result of the operation of this legislation will be economic disaster. There is nothing to show that the prices of foodstuffs will be controlled by the Government under its terms. Therefore, the people will be able to buy less and less with their pegged incomes, the standard of living will decline, surplus stocks of unconsumed goods will be accumulated, unemployment will ensue, and we shall find ourselves rushing along the road to depression. Personally, I do not believe that the Prime Minister imagines for a moment that this legislation, which will become an act very soon, will withstand a test in the High Court for even a quarter of an hour. It is a sham measure in exactly the same way as was the Communist Party Dissolution Act. The truth is that the Prime Minister did not want to fight the Communists, and he fully expected the Communist Party Dissolution Act to be declared invalid. If we had no Communists we should have no Liberals. That is why the Liberal party does not want to destroy communism. We have been told by **Senator McMullin** that a state of international crisis exists, that our situation is desperate and that, therefore, this bill mustbe enacted at once. I believe that the honorable gentleman is absolutely sincere. However, the Government maintains that nothing can be done about the Communists, who are intimately linked with the supposed crisis, until a referendum has been conducted. The Government cannot have it. both ways, and I suggest that the Minister for Trade and Customs should discard all subterfuges and tell the Senate what it really has in mind. If we cannot be trusted, it is an insult to us to entrust bureaucrats and members of the Executive with the whole security of the nation. Under the terms of the bill, such persons will be empowered to do as they like. I am opposed to the measure, lock, stock and barrel. It will not stem the tide of inflation, but in fact, will increase the flood. The Government has produced no plan to combat inflation, and it will get nowhere by trying to plug leaks in our economy here and there while the floodgates are open. In any case, it has delayed action too long, as I predicted that it would do a year ago. There is an old Scottish saying, "You're aye a day ahin' the fair ", which means, " You're always a day late in bringing your eggs to market ". That is true of the Government. A year ago I said that the inflationary trend was so great that Australia even then needed a war economy and war regulations to pull itself out of the mess. I still hold that belief, but I want to know exactly what sort of regulations will be promulgated. My objection to the bill is not that I am opposed to controls. I merely want to know categorically what those controls will be. As a democratically elected representative of the people, I refuse to bow myself out of this Parliament to-night without having raised my voice inprotest, because we shall probably re-assemble next October to find that the bureaucrats, whom honorable senators opposite have so often bitterly criticized, havedone incalculable and irreparable damage to the economy. Government supporters have said that the Opposition is dominated by an oligarchy. I hope that they will not allow themselves to be dominated now and will join with usin saying, "If a state of national emergency does exist, we want to know exactly what the Government proposes to do about it". If the Government can prove to methat Russia is so dangerous to the rest of the world that we need controls for the benefit of the nation, I shall be the first to support itsproposals. But, in the absence of any information about its plans and without knowing who will direct them, which industries will be closed and what men will he dismissed from their jobs, I cannot vote for a measure such as the bill that we are now considering. It has neither beginning nor end. It is the " open sesame ", which will permit bureaucrats to do as they wish, with or without the approval of the democratically elected representatives of the people. {: #debate-21-s20 .speaker-K5T} ##### Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia -- I shall be brief because it is inevitable that, as a debate on a bill of this nature progresses, speeches must become increasingly repetitive. I shall content myself with trying to proveto the Opposition that there is a need for this measure. I agree with **Senator Byrne** that the Government's proposals should be considered most carefully. Having examined it thoroughly, I am of opinion that it is not only necessary but also long overdue. The Government is responsible for ensuring that Australia shall be ready to go to war if, unfortunately, the necessity to fight should be forced upon us. If the decision to wage war rested with us, of course there would be no need for this bill. But such decisions will be made, not in Australia, but on the other side of the world. As **Senator McCallum** has already pointed out, acute tension exists in Persia to-day. if, unfortunately, some person committed an irresponsible act in that country, such as shooting a Persian national, the whole world may be plunged into war within a short period. Must we wait until the world is precipitated into another conflict before we prepare this country's defences ? I venture to say that at the present time Australia is illprepared. **Senator Ashley** asserted that this bill is a smoke-screen, designed to divert the attention of the people of this country from other subjects. I should like to remind the honorable senator that it is not so long ago that an act of aggression far more serious than could be any act of Parliament was perpetrated. I wonder whether the people in the United States of America thought on the night before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour that by breakfast time next morning the American nation would be at war with Japan. Can we not derive a lesson from what happened on that occasion? Must we wait until an enemy power bombs one of our cities before we take steps to gear this country for war? Has the honorable senator forgotten the morning when the people of Australia were stung by the news that *Prince of Wales* and *Repulse* had been sunk? Although I have not been consulted about my view on this matter, I firmly believe that it is the recollection of those tragic happenings that has prompted the Government to bring down this measure, in order to obtain from the Parliament power to do certain things to place this country on a wai- footing. I shall endeavour to prove the truth of my contention that we are ill-prepared for war. I was closely connected with the transport industry in Western Australia during my association with the Western Australian Government. When the McLarty-Watts Government came to office in that State in February, 1947, I recommended to that Government that it should appoint a royal commission to inquire into various aspects of the Western Australian Government Rail- ways. A royal commission was appointed towards the end of 1947. It found that the railways service of Western Australia was. on the verge of a total breakdown. Despite strenuous efforts by the Railways Commissioner and the Western Australian Government it was not possible to rectify the position, principally because steel rails were unobtainable. Orders were placed for additional locomotives and railway wagons- {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator Sheehan: -- I suppose in the meantime road transport operators got in ahead of the authorities? {: .speaker-K5T} ##### Senator SEWARD: -- If the honorable senator who has just interjected does not mind, I should prefer to make my own speech. Efforts were made unsuccessfully to obtain steel rails from abroad. I mention these facts in order to show that unless the Australian Government is given power to direct steel manufacturers to roll rails, it will be impossible to repair our neglected rail systems to make them serviceable for war-time traffic and carriage of goods. For that reason alone the introduction of this bill is justified. Although I shall not refer to the difficulties confronting the railway systems in other States, it is well known that there has been a tremendous increase of transportation by road in recent years. The deficiencies in our railway systems could not be rectified in a day or two. It may interest honorable senators opposite to learn that in order to make good a certain section of a railway line in Western Australia, it became necessary to pull up a section of lightly used track elsewhere in order to obtain the necessary rails. Little difficulty arises in connexion with the production of coal in Western Australia. Recently, the production of the Collie coal-fields has been increased, and a minimum of trouble is experienced by the management. About 5 miles of track is needed to provide new shuntingyards, but efforts for the last three years to obtain the steel rails have been unsuccessful. When this measure becomes law, the Government will have the power to direct the turning out of the urgently needed steel rails. Several honorable senators of the Opposition have asked what the Government is doing to .increase our food production. **Senator Grant** rightly stated that food supplies are vital to defence. The authorities in Western Australia have been trying more or less unsuccessfully to increase the production of food in that State. At present, an area of about 1,000,000 acres of land is being cleared in Western Australia for the purpose of establishing about 2,000 dairy farms. However, difficulties have been encountered. It will not be possible to bring those farms, into production until adequate supplies of superphosphate are available and wire fences erected. In addition, galvanized piping will be needed for the installation of water services, and a considerable quantity of farm machinery will be required. The Government of Western Australia has been unable to obtain any appreciable quantity of those commodities. The principal reason for the shortages of wire, galvanized piping, and farm implements is that the works of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ar° operating at only 60 per cent, capacity because of the Communist influence in the coal industry. It is entirely true to say that the Communists are also holding up food production in this country. In addition to being unable to obtain new materials for the purpose that I have already mentioned, difficulty is being experienced in obtaining supplies to maintain existing food-producing installations. When I was addressing the Senate during the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply I mentioned that two ploughs had been sold in Western Australia for £600 each; the new price is £200. So desperate are the needs of the farmers, and so eager are they to increase production, that fantastic prices are being paid for almost any type of farming machinery available. The establishment of an additional 2,000 dairy farms in Western Australia must ultimately reduce the cost of dairy produce. Furthermore, the inability of farmers at present engaged in the industry to obtain supplies of commodities essential for the maintenance of extensions has been responsible for a tremendous increase of prices. No doubt honorable senators have read such statements in the newspapers recently as, " Owing to the decline of dairying we may have to stop the export of butter to Great Britain ". What a shocking state of affairs! We should hang our heads in shame when we realize that, through our inability to obtain sufficient quantities of the commodities that I have mentioned, we may have to curtail or even suspend entirely the export of foodstuffs to Great Britain to ease the burdens of the noble people of that country who suffered untold agonies during World War II. I emphasize again that the Government requires the power sought in order to be able to direct the manufacturers of steel to produce commodities urgently needed to prosecute our war effort. Honorable senators opposite may ask why it is not possible for the Government to obtain from Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited sufficient quantities of the commodities to which I have referred. I point out that the company has a moral obligation to meet thedemands of individual clients who have been good customers. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has always done its best to meet the requirements of Western Australia. But it is necessary to have an authority which can determine the most important industries and supply them with what materials are available. When this bill is passed the Government will be able to take that action. It will be able to take charge of the situation and direct the steel to those industries that are vital to our war needs. The supply of water is another matter about which Western Australia is vitally concerned. During the last war, when it seemed possible that the enemy would try to land on the coast of Australia, a hurried survey was made of the southwest portion of Western Australia between the Darling Range and the coast in order to ascertain whether the people who inhabited that region could be moved away from the coast if a landing took place there. It was found that if those people had been moved inland there would only have been sufficient water for 30 per cent, of them. The State Government is now in the process of laying down two big water schemes in order to bring water from the coastal hill areas to the inland towns. About 20 miles of pipe have been laid from each end of one scheme and. about another 50 miles have to be laid. But the government cannot obtain pipes. Lt obtained a certain amount of steel from Japan at £97 a ton. Australian steel, which was the best and cheapest on the market before the war, costs about £25 a ton. At the mention of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited every Australian should hold his head high. It is one of the finest companies in the world. Is it not time that the Government had authority to direct the requirements of war industries into the proper channels ? {: #debate-21-s21 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
TASMANIA -- The object of this bill is the direction of labour. {: .speaker-K5T} ##### Senator SEWARD: -- Does the Labour party intend to do nothing until the enemy lands in Australia? Who said anything about direction of labour? Has it been announced that the Government will direct men to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ? I remember that one Labour member of the Western Australian Parliament visited Broken Hill as a member of a committee and inspected the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited's organization. When he came back he said that it was the finest institution he had ever seen. There are no strikes there because of ill-treatment of labour. Yet, the honorable member does not want to direct labour to Broken Hill. 1 suppose he considers that the men would be too satisfied. But direction of labour is not the object of this bill. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has the capacity to produce and if it can only obtain coal it will *bc* able to produce at its full capacity with a. minimum amount of additional labour. I aru sure that those who go to work at Broken Hill will be very pleased chat they were sent there. Some honorable members in another place have taken a great dislike to the issue of regulations. I am not very keen on that principle myself but some special action is required in a matter of this kind. If Parliament should be in recess when an emergency arises should the Government wait to call Parliament together before it takes any action ? I should like it to be possible for regulations to be withheld until sanctioned by Parliament but such a course would not be possible. The Government must have power to bring regulations into effect immediately it considers them to be necessary. I recollect that some years ago the Leader of the Labour party in another place introduced a measure which provided for the issue of regulations which did not have to be submitted for parliamentary approval. They merely had to be circulated. Regulations issued under this bill can be disallowed in the usual way when Parliament meets if it should not be in session when the regulations are issued. I congratulate the Government on this bill. I arn perfectly certain that the Government recognizes its responsibilities and I. aru also certain that it will .not issue a whole sheaf of regulations, as honorable senators opposite have suggested, in order to bring every industry under control. It will be necessary to control supplies of steel and it will be necessary to take action in. regard to superphosphate works. Because American supplies of sulphur are becoming exhausted Australia cannot obtain supplies from that country. If Western Australia is not able to obtain superphosphate ite agricultural production will come to an. end. It will be necessary for the Government to take action in relation to supplies of steel and sulphur as quickly as possible. If Australia, has to depend on overseas supplies of materials such as these it may find itself without them in the event of war. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill and I hope that it will not be long before the necessary directions will be given to divert essential materials into the channels in which they are most needed. {: #debate-21-s22 .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE:
Tasmania **.- Senator Gorton** twitted honorable senators on this side of the House with supporting big business because they had spoken against Ibis bill. The bill will create in Australia the cartels that are known in countries such as America and will operate to the detriment of smaller businesses. That is the objection of the Opposition to the bill. The honorable senator mentioned that Labour organizations have asked for a bill similar to this, but he failed to mention that they asked for definite powers, whereas the bill before the Senate is a nebulous affair. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber do not know what will happen if it becomes law. That is another ground nf objection to the measure. An honorable senator on the opposite side of the chamber mentioned production during the course of this debate. I am of the opinion that distribution plays just as important a part in the economy of this country as production does. Yet the present Government is not trying to improve distribution in any way. If it desires power to do certain things, why does it not include the direction of shipping? When honorable senators on this side of the chamber ask questions concerning the shortage of shipping facilities, they arn told by the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator McLeay)** that the Government proposes to sell the Commonwealth line of ships. Would it not lie hotter to direct those ships into avenues where they can be used to improve the distribution of essential commodities? If some of them were transferred to tho Tas- manian run, that State could supply products which would be very welcome on the mainland. The bill before the Senate is a somewhat ridiculous one and I have no doubt that it has produced heartburnings on the part of some, honorable senators opposite.. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- We are all happy. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- I can see by their faces that honorable senators opposite are happy, but are they happy when their leader gives a command and they are obliged to spring to attention? The Government parties are pledged to a policy of no control of private enterprise, except, of course, when such control is beneficial to private enterprise. Socialization i.= supposed to be a word that is hateful to them. Yet, no sooner are they in office than they introduce more socialist legislation than was dreamed of by the Labour governments. I admit that the socialist measures introduced by this Government spring from political motives and are designed to assist private enterprise. The Government hopes that their introduction will not lead in the end to a socialist state. Every time a measure such a3 this is introduced, particularly when introduced by this Government, I am reminded of the history that I once learnt and of Disraeli's " leap in the dark " when he introduced legislation that was designed to placate his supporters and to enable his government to remain in power. I suggest that that is what this Government is doing at the present time. It is leaping about in the dark in the hope that a! least one of its pieces of legislation will 3ee the light of day. It has no objective. Its outlook is confined to the *status quo.* It dodges hither and thither trying to fool the people so that it will be permitted to remain in office. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- It fooled the Opposition, too, with the Commonwealth Bank Bill! {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- The Government has fooled the people admirably during the last nineteen months, but it cannot d<i so for ever. This bill, like the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950, is a mere sham. The good and not so good lawyers on the. Government side of the chamber- {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- The Opposition also had a couple of lawyers who were not so good ! {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- They won their case, though. {: #debate-21-s23 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- Notably the banking case.! {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- Equally notably, the case concerning the Government's antiCommunist legislation. The Government should know that this legislation, if passed, will not stand up to expert. scrutiny. T suggest that a bold front has been put on in order to fool the people, but when the justices of the High Court arc called upon to adjudicate, those provisions will topple. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- If the honorable senator thinks so, why is ho speaking now? Why is he wasting the time of the Senate? {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- I am endeavouring to show honorable senators opposite how stupid this Government is in bringing forward such a measure. Do the Government parties really believe that their supporters in private enterprise will not challenge it? I suggest that it will be challenged as soon as it becomes law, and that that challenge will be upheld. Honorable senators have frequently stated during this debate that legislation of this kind is necessary because of the deterioration of the international situation. I do not agree that that situation is deteriorating. On the contrary, I believe that it has improved. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- It is getting better for the "Corns "! {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- My reply to the honorable senator is that it is also getting better for the forces in Korea. Copies of a draft Japanese peace -treaty have been circulated in this chamber to-day, and I remind honorable senators that negotiations for peace in Korea are taking place. If any statesmanship is shown during those negotiations and the militaristic outlook is dropped, peace will be assured in that unfortunate country. World conditions are brightening, and I hope that effective action by the United Nations will mean that they will continue to do so. The militaristic outlook that is so often displayed reminds me of small boys playing with guns : sooner or later they will fire them. Why does the Opposition oppose this bill? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- That is what we are trying to find out. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- I shall enlighten the honorable senator if he will listen to what I have to say. First, the members of the Opposition object to the form of blanket control which the Government seeks. The Government apparently cannot make up its mind what it is that it really wants. If it can, it should state specifically the matters that it wishes to control. Those matters have not been disclosed, but the Government still wishes the Opposition to trust it. One of the reasons why the Opposition does not trust the Government is that the Government parties are subject to a dictatorship. As **Senator Grant** has stated, those parties are controlled by one man. The individual members do not have any voice in the policy of those parties. {: .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator Wedgwood: -- The honorable senator should not be silly. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- They do not even know who is to be the twentieth Minister in the Cabinet. They must wait to bf told by their dictator. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- That is normal constitutional procedure, from which the Labour party has departed. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- The members of the, Australian Labour party believe in democracy. We do not have to be called to Canberra in order to be informed of appointment to Cabinet rank. The selection is made by the party. The Opposition is afraid that this legislation will lead to conscription of labour, and that is another reason for its objection to this measure. I suggest that if the Government obtains the power that it seeks, conscription of labour will bring about its defeat. {: .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator Wedgwood: -- We are not worried about that. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- The honorable senator will find that conscription of labour "is a very real fear in the minds of the people. Another reason why we oppose this bill is that it will mean a new black market enterprise in companies. Another reason is that there will be so much lobbying in the precincts of this chamber that the Senate bells will have to be rung at least ten minutes before the meeting time each day so as to enable honorable senators to force their way through the lobbyists who will be in the passageways. The Prime Minister has stifled the criticism of his followers, except the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Bland).** I hope that **Senator McCallum** will not be similarly stifled. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** stifled criticism by saying that he would use " very sparingly " the powers that are to be given to him under the measure. Why does the Government want these powers if it intends to use them "very sparingly". If the *bill* is justified by the present international position, then this is no time for using its powers sparingly. But the Prime Minister told his supporters that only in order .to placate them. Should a state of emergency arise the Government already has powers that it can use. But if the Government intends to fiddle with defence preparations and not go all-out in the war emergency which it claims now exists, then the bill is unnecessary. If the bill is really necessary, then, I repeat, the Government should go full steam ahead. The Prime Minister has assured his followers that there will be very little interference with private enterprise and so has regained their confidence. Many Government supporters were strongly opposed to the bill when it was introduced but the Prime Minister won them to his side by that assurance. Under this bill we shall see economic conscription of labour. Although **Senator Cormack** has claimed that the Government is the champion of labour, we all know that its whole attitude to both manual and white collar workers is one of hostility and suppression. {: .speaker-K2S} ##### Senator Robertson: -- How terrible ! {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- It is very terrible, but I am afraid it is only too true. We on this side of the Senate represent the workers and are proud to do so. {: #debate-21-s24 .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator MAHER: -- They arc not proud to have such representation. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- Honorable senators opposite represent private enterprise and profiteers, but they deny that they do, because they arn. ashamed of the fact, and I do not blame them for being ashamed of it. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- The latest Gallup poll indicates that a very large proportion of the workers will vote for us. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- I will return to the bill if the honorable senator will let me do so. The second recital in the preamble lo the bill reads - >And whereas, in the opinion of the Parliament and of the Government of the Commonwealth, there exists a state of international emergency in which it is essential that preparations for defence should be immediately made to an extent, and with a degree of urgency not hitherto necessary except in time of war: That is just another excuse for the Government to conscript labour, or, if honorable senators opposite would rather have the position stated in another way, to conscript the manufacturers of this country, because the Government has decided that that is the only means by which it can put value back into the £1. That is what is behind this bill. Of course, the Government has claimed that when it gets rid of the Communists everything will be fine. {: .speaker-K2S} ##### Senator Robertson: -- What is the honorable senator's particular method? {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- I shall come to that later. The third recital in the preamble reads - >And whereas the defence preparations of Australia will include, in the first place, the raising, equipping and provisioning of the armed forces of Australia in increasing numbers and the equipping and provisioning of armed forces of other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and of the United Nations : The Government is making a mistake in respect of our military preparations, as that paragraph shows, because we have not enough people in this country to provide us with an army or navy of any great, size. But we have the numbers to provide a tremendous air force. It would be to the benefit of Australia if we concentrated on our air defences and developed a mobile air force that could be used around Australia at short notice, and could also be developed to tremendous proportions. Instead of that we fool about, building a couple of ships that will not be of much value, although when I make that statement I do not intend to speak derogatively of the men who man our naval vessels. In time of war, warships are not of great value to us, and we could expend the money that is used to build them to better effect on a great air force. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Why put all the onus on the air force boys? Why not spread the job over all sections of the armed forces ? {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- We have not the men or materials to spread the job effectively through all the forces, so we should concentrate on our air force for defence. {: .speaker-K2A} ##### Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP -- Why is H.M.A.S. *Sydney* going up to Korea? {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- It is a token only, just as our force at present in Korea is really only a token force, although it is doing such a wonderful job. The fifth recital in. the preamble to the bill reads - >And whereas the defence preparations of Australia will include also the expansion of the capacity of Australia to produce and manufacture goods, and to provide services, for tinpurposes of the defence preparations mentioned in the last two preceding paragraphs and generally for the purpose of enabling the economy of Australia to meet the probable demands upon it in the event of war: If the Government is not careful about how it implements this measure it will destroy certain factories that could be swung very rapidly into war production, whilst other factories will be made ready for war production and never be used. The Government must make sure that it uses the correct factories to produce the goods that are needed. The powers sought in this bill will be of little value to the Government in its plans for strengthening our defences because Government supporters generally are not wholly behind the proposal and will not allow the controls to operate to the detriment of those who have elected them to this Parliament. Honorable senators opposite are afraid of government by regulation, and they fear the effects of this measure upon the vested interests that sent them here. I register my emphatic protest against the bill and I trust that it will be rejected by the Senate. {: #debate-21-s25 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
W astern Australia -- "We must consider this measure against the background of the present disturbed state of the world. To-day, Russia is preparing for war. In the press recently we read that last year Russia produced no fewer than 16,000 war planes compared with 3,000 in the United States of America and fewer than 100 in Australia. **Senator Cole** opposed thu measure on the ground that the Opposition objects to the imposition of controls of any kind. *[Quorum formed.]* I congratulate the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator O'Sullivan)** for having decided to give to the Opposition unlimited opportunity to debate this bill. We are prepared to sit to-morrow, and, if necessary, next week, in order that all honorable senators may have an opportunity to take part in this debate. When **Senator Ashley** directed attention to the state of the Senate a moment or two ago, I was disgusted 'to observe that only four La'bour senators were present in the chamber. One would expect those who are opposing the bill to exhibit a little more interest in the debate. The hostility of the Opposition to the bill is merely a hypocritical sham. In his long speech **Senator Cole** did not offer one constructive suggestion. He has described the Government as a " do nothing " government, but when it seeks to do something he is in the forefront of those who try to hamper it. The Oppo sition vigorously opposed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill last year, but when it received its instructions from the federal executive of the Australian Labour party, a body of twelve men-- {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator Aylett: -- I rise to order. I should like to know, **Mr. Deputy President,** what the federal executive of the Australian La'bour party has to do with this bill. I ask that the honorable senator be directed to relate his remarks to the bill. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid).** - **Senator Scott** must relate his remarks to the subjectmatter of the bill. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I shall not again refer to the federal executive of the Australian Labour party. I shall say that an outside body directed the members of the Australian Labour party how they should vote in this Parliament on a measure that vitally affected the security of this country. I was impelled to refer to the directions of that body by **Senator Cole's** statement that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** had instructed members of the Government parties that they were to support this measure. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator Cole: -- That is quite true. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I do not need to remind the honorable senator that Government senators vote according to the dictates of their consciences and not according to instructions. That is not true of Opposition senators. We all have very vivid recollections of how honorable senators opposite turned a complete somersault a little less than a year ago after they had been given their orders by an outside body that exercises complete control over them. *Opposition senators interjecting,* {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I direct your attention, **Mr. Deputy President,** to the fact that I cannot make myself heard over the hostile interjections of Opposition senators. I ask for the protection of the Chair against them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! The honorable senator must address himself to the bill. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- The Government parties held a meeting to consider this measure at which its purposes were outlined in detail. During the discussions that ensued many questions were asked and satisfactorily answered and honorable members and senators left the meeting perfectly satisfied that it should be placed upon the statute-book without delay so as to enable tha Government to prepare the defences of this country against the contingency of war. Do honorable senators opposite suggest that we should sit back and allow the Communists to take "control of this country? The Government is aware of its responsibilities; it, docs not like to impose controls, but in the circumstances that now exist it has no option but to do so. **Senator Cole** has stated that this bill will empower the Government to direct labour at will. That is not so. Clause 4 (3.) specifically precludes the making of regulations for or in relation to the compulsory direction of labour. If, as the result of unpreparedness, this country were overrun by an enemy, honorable senators opposite would say, " We knew that this would happen as a result of the administration of a 'do nothing' Government ". This measure will be passed by the Senate after Opposition senators have talked themselves dry. The strengthening of the defences of this country will be costly and the expenditure of money for that purpose must inevitably have an inflationary effect. If we expend a large sum of money and employ large numbers of men on the production of commodities essential to war preparations we must have power to divert those commodities into the proper channels. The bill specifically states that we must increase our production of food, as well as our production of armaments. Because Communists control some of our major industries, the farmers are not getting supplies of materials that they need in order to keep up our food production. For instance, wire netting is almost unavailable, and what there is of it has to be imported. Because the countries from which such supplies are now imported are putting into effect their own defence preparations plans, such sources of materials are gradually being closed to us. Therefore, we must increase our own production. If the Government were to expend millions on defence preparations without providing some sort of control, inflation and luxury spending would be come worse. Therefore, much as this Government dislikes to do so, it mast institute some controls so that certain manufacturers may be made to realize that they cannot continue the manufacture of luxury articles and will have to swing their factories into the production of essential goods. That will mean that a priority system will have to be evolved which will divert into certain channels goods that are necessary for the defence production of the country. Clause 4 (2.) *(a)* reads - >The regulations which may be made . include . . regulations for or in relation to- the expansion of the capacity of Australia to produce or manufacture goods, or to provide services, for the purposes of defence preparations or for the purpose of enabling the economy of Australia to meet the " probable demands upon it in the event of war; That is the main feature of this bill. Although the measure will not affect many of the people who are said to support the Labour party, it will affect big organizations which the Labour party says support the Government. Nevertheless, the Government must go ahead and do what it considers to be necessary for the safety of the country. Consider steel as an example. Under the provisions of this measure it will be possible for supplies of steel to be withheld from the manufacture of luxury goods and diverted to the manufacture of motors, armaments and other defence items. The people must be conditioned to this measure. When introduced, the bill had a hostile reception from many quarters including the Opposition. In two and a half years or three years time the electors will give their judgment on our actions. What sort of judgment would it be if during the intervening period a war occurred and the Government had done nothing to put the country into a state of preparedness? The preamble to the bill embodies this recital - >And whereas, in the opinion of the Parliament and of the Government of the Commonwealth, there exists a state of international emergency in which it is essential that preparations for defence should be immediately made to an extent, and with a degree of urgency, not hitherto necessary except in time of "war: The Government, having access to all sorts of information, believes that a state of emergency exists. In the light of that, are we to take no action? On the contrary, we shall take the necessary action whether that will cause us to lose votes or to gain them? We shall take full responsibility for our actions, knowing that under this bill we shall be able to obtain the equipment necessary for the defence of this country in these parlous times. {: #debate-21-s26 .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria -- I am quite sure that the people of Australia, and perhaps throughout the world, will feel indebted to **Senator Scott** for his remarks. From time to thu. the world political position has been discussed in this chamber. An allegation has been made that a speech of an honorable senator from this side of the chamber has been broadcast by Moscow radio.' I believe that the remarks of **Senator Scott** will be broadcast from Moscow radio tonight, because at least we have learnt from, him the name of the potential enemy of Australia and the reason for this bill having become necessary. In fact, the honorable senator has told us more than the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** ever told us. The Prime Minister said that it was necessary to prepare for the emergency of war; that for reasons he had previously elaborated there is a grave clanger of war ; and that - >Korea, Malaya, Indo-China and Persia, added to the early events in Czechoslovakia and , Middle Europe, make up a pattern of planned aggression no less menacing than the events of 1035-39. The Prime Minister did not mention that Russia was the potential enemy and that it was against Russia that this legislation was aimed. I believe that **Senator Scott** did not intend to convey to the Senate or the nation the information that he did disclose. Because the subject of communism has been discussed in the course of the debate on the legislation that has been before the Senate for the last few days, the honorable senator, owing to his innocence and lack of political experience, believes that all the measures now coming before the Senate are designed only to enable us to fight communism. It has been interesting to listen to the arguments advanced in support of the Government's contention that the defences of this country must be strengthened. Every country is entitled to make preparations for the defence of its territories and of its people against aggression. The only member or supporter of the Government other than **Senator Scott** who has said that there is likely to be a war is the Minister for Defence Production **(Mr. Eric J. Harrison),** who recently returned to this country from abroad. The Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen have said that, in their opinion, war is not inevitable, but they believe it to be wise to prepare for that eventuality. Any one who listened to **Senator Scott** to-night could be pardoned for believing that war was just round the corner. This is not the first occasion on which an Australian Government has been called upon to make preparations for the defence of this country. The first defence preparations on behalf of Australia were made when a Labour Government was in power. {: #debate-21-s27 .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCALLUM: -- By men whom the Labour party subsequently threw out. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- The men who formulated the first real plans for the defence of this country were not thrown out of the Labour party. They remained honoured members of it. **Mr. Andrew** Fisher, as Prime Minister in a Labour government, laid the foundation of .the defence system of this country. But that Government, in making preparations for defence, did not disrupt our economy. It was entrusted with the task of building an army and a navy, and later an air force, for the defence of Australia, but it did not introduce legislation of this kind, by which the economy of the nation is threatened. When this bill becomes law, no Australian industry will have any hope for the future or any assurance that it will not be forced out of existence. The bureaucrats who will administer the measure will have, so to speak, power of life or death over the nation's economy while the Parliament is not sitting. When the Government led by **Mr. Fisher** was called upon to establish an adequate defence system in Australia, it performed that task in an ordered manner. Despite the ridicule to which it was subjected by the1 anti-Labour parties, which were then the Opposition in this Parliament, it raised an army and built ships. Its task was much more difficult than is that of the present Government. The Prime Minister, in the course of the speech upon this bill that he delivered in the House of Representatives, said that steps had already been taken to increase the size of our army. This Government sponsored the legislation under which the defence of Australia will be entrusted to lads of eighteen years of age. Mere lads are to be called to the Colours. The Government has stressed the necessity to develop Australian industries, but I read in to-day's press that apprentices and other young employees in our most vital industries will be called to the Colours under the national training scheme. Is that the way in which to organize our economy for the defence of the nation? Does the Government realize the difficulties that lie in the way of establishing an adequate system of defence in a country of approximately 8,000,000 people? The Government deplores the fact that it is almost impossible to obtain labour for some essential industries, yet it proposes to take from those industries a great labour potential by calling up young workers. I cannot understand its attitude. It has introduced measures designed to thwart the activities of Communists in this country, but the brand of communism or totalitarianism is imprinted on this measure. That is clear to anybody who has studied the development of the Russian economy from the time of the revolution to the present day. The Government proposes, through regulations administered by bureaucrats, to push the people about. The Prime Minister has said that industries cannot be developed, or national works undertaken, without the permission of the Government. Is that not what the Russian Government did? **Senator Cormack** pointed out that the Russians had transported thousands of men and women from the satellite States into the heart of Russia to use them as slave labour. Now, this Government, which is loud in its protestations against communism, is proposing to direct labour in the same way as the Russians have done. If there are Soviet agents and saboteurs in Australia they must be gratified to see that a government, which is supposed to be the champion of free enterprise, is busy preparing the people to live under totalitarian conditions. Nothing of the kind has ever before happened in a democratic country. The Government's proposals will come as a rude shock to those persons who, not so long ago, assembled in Melbourne and decided to contribute thousands of pounds to a fund to bring about the defeat of the Labour Government led by **Mr. Chifley.** I know that many of the manufacturers resented being called upon to contribute, but they were told that if the economy of the country was to expand as it should, it was necessary that the Labour Government be defeated. Before the war, many Australian industries were being pushed to the wall, but under the sympathetic administration of a Labour government their fortunes were restored. Therefore, the men in control of them were reluctant to contribute to Liberal party funds for the defeat of Labour, but under pressure from the organization they did so. They were told, and came to believe, that the present Government would remove economic controls. They looked forward to the opening up of new markets, and to opportunities to exploit the national prosperity that had been made possible because of full employment under a Labour government. Now, this Government is reversing its policy, and proposes to restore economic controls, but it is doing so in peace-time. The Labour Government introduced controls, but that was in war-time when controls were necessary. During the election campaign of 1949, the antiLabour parties told the people that if they were returned to power trade would be freed from restrictions, and private enterprise, given free play, would bring about a reduction of prices, thus restoring value to the £1. This afternoon, **Senator Cormack** spoke of full production as a panacea for all our economic ills, but will it be possible to obtain full production under the system of controls which the Government proposes to institute? All of us are aware that inflation is caused when goods arc in short supply and, at the same time, there is a superabundance of purchasing power in the community. Does the Government propose to increase production under this measure and to make available to the people consumer goods that are in short supply ? Certainly not. Under the bill the Government will place into the hands of a small section, the bureaucrats whom honorable senators opposite so roundly condemn, power to decide what commodities shall be produced, who shall produce them and where they shall be produced. During the general election campaign in 1949 supporters of the Government parties talked about the direction of labour and claimed that Labour stood for the conscription o* labour. They urged the people to return a non-Labour Government in order that the worker would enjoy freedom to choose his job. It was as a result of the administration of the Curtin and Chifley Labour Governments that the workers were enabled for the first time in the history of this country to select their own jobs. To-day, in spite of the fact that a non-Labour government was returned to office in 1949, the workers still enjoy that right; but they do so solely because of the wonderful development that was achieved in Australia under Labour governments. If the truth were told it would be shown that the Government has introduced this measure for the purpose of regimenting the workers once again. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I rise to order, Mr: President. I submit that the honorable senator for the last four minutes of his speech has been deliberately misrepresenting the purposes of the bill which expressly provides that nothing contained in it shall authorize the making of regulations for the compulsory direction of labour. {: #debate-21-s28 .speaker-KSS} ##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Edward Mattner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- I have allowed a great deal of latitude in this -debate because the bill covers such a wide field. I have listened most attentively to honorable senators on both sides. In my view, **Senator Sheehan** has not transgressed. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- The main purpose of the measure is to enable the Go vernment to direct labour into certain channels because a good deal of resentment is felt against the workers who are now enjoying the fruits of Labour administration, including the right to select their own jobs. I am fortified in that belief by the three principal measures that have come before the Senate during the current week. I point ou t to **Senator Wright** that if the Government, by regulations which it will be empowered to make under this measure, closes down certain industries, the workers employed in such industries will be obliged to seek employment in other industries. Although the Prime Minister contends that the Government does not propose under this measure to conscript labour for industry or for the Army, or to raise compulsory loans, the fact remains that once the bill has been passed and regulations have been issued under it to close down certain industries, the Government will have imposed conscription of labour indirectly. The manufacturers must view this measure with apprehension. I am not astonished that the Director of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures has expressed grave doubts about the advisability of the Parliament passing it. Such doubts are shared by eminent men in the community. The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Bland),** who is a member of the Liberal party, has expressed grave- suspicions about the measure. I believe that leading nien in all walks of life in the community secretly entertain similar suspicions and are hoping that after it becomes law it will be successfully challenged in the High Court. If the Government really believes that these proposals are necessary, one naturally concludes that it will submit them to the people at a referendum in order to have the measure written into the Constitution. However, the Government is hardly likely to do that sort of thing because it must realize that it would not be able on such an issue to work u p fears . of some foreign power as it obviously hopes to do when it submits its proposal to ban the Communist party to the people at the referendum that is to be held in the near future. I believe that if this measure fails to withstand challenge in the High Court, the Government will drop it. Therefore, in view of the importance that the Government attributes to the bill, I should like to know what it intends to do in such circumstances. Has it any alternative proposition, to place before the Parliament on the ground that Australia is in danger of invasion, that some foreign power is lurking in the shadows close to our shores? We have heard nothing from honorable senators opposite about such an alternative. At present, they are obsessed with the desire to obtain power to coerce the people and to bend them to the will of the Government. Members of the anti-Labour parties accuse us of being socialists, but I warn them that the passage of this bill will bring great joy to the hearts of the ardentsocialists, because it will do everything that Labour has been accused of wanting to do. Under the bill the Government will be able to direct labour and to exercise all the controls that are necessary to planned economy. Could anything be more totalitarian than this measure? Talk about commissars and about bureaucracy ! Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1697 {:#debate-22} ### ADJOURNMENT {: #debate-22-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - >That the Senate do now adjourn. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.) AYES: 17 NOES: 30 Majority . . 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1697 {:#debate-23} ### DEFENCE PREPARATIONS BILL 1951 Debate resumed. **Senator SHEEHAN** (Victoria).Despite the fact that I have just been interrupted, I assure honorable senators that I shall not occupy much more of their time. The division that has just taken place recalls to my mind reports that appeared in the Adelaide *Advertiser* and other organs of the capitalist press to the effect that the Government proposes to obtain from the Governor-General in Adelaide next Monday assent to certain bills, including this measure and another measure to increase the number of Ministers. It was inferred that the measure to increase the membership of the Ministry was to be passed by the Parliament and then taken to Adelaide. However, another report stated that the Government might keep the Senate in session until next Tuesday. Unfortunately, I do not know which report is correct. {: #debate-23-s0 .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- The Opposition is so concerned about this measure that it may well prove to be necessary, if it passed, for the Government to take it to Perth to receive the Royal assent because we are prepared to do everything possible to prevent it from being passed. Why do we adopt that attitude, and why are we still meeting in this chamber at this hour to-night? I shall tell honorable senators opposite why. The reason is that this bill vests total power in the Executive and in minor officials, and that it can interfere greatly with the whole of our economic activities. No section of the community is likely to escape the meshes of this legislation. All property rights will disappear under the powers that are to be conferred upon the Executive. Businesses may be destroyed by the issue of regulations. Capital that has been invested in businesses established since the last war may be quickly lost. The .primary producers will not be immune from the reach of this legislation. Because we detest such powers as are implied in this bill we have decided to fight the measure to the very last and it will not matter to us whether we sit tonight, to-morrow night, or next week. We assert that this bill should not become law at the present time and that if thu Government had the will and the desire to do the right thing it could deal with economic problems and prepare our defences as the Labour Government did without introducing a new law that will only strengthen the authority of the bureaucrats. We shall oppose this bill with all our might. I believe that when the people understand its provisions they will realize the great wrong that they did and the great mistake that they made in 1949 and again a few months ago by succumbing to a fear complex and by voting against Labour and placing in office an administration that has proved itself to be incapable of directing this country along the right road. **Senator** TATE (New South Wales) 1 11.13 ). - J was interested to hear **Senator Sheehan** say that, until **Senator Scott** spoke, he had not heard any one, with the exception of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and the Minister- for Defence Production **(Mr. Eric J. Harrison),** say that there was likely to be a war. That statement of the honorable senator astonished me greatly because in between a number of irrelevant references he mentioned some historical events. His knowledge of history should have taught him that there is always a possibility of war. In fact, Clauswitz said that the period of peace between wars was merely a period in which to make preparation for war. I regret that such is the case. That is not my opinion, it is the verdict of history. Time has proved that that is what hap pens. We believe that the period between World War II. and the next world war will be shorter than was the period between World War I. and World War II. Our chance of averting a third world war lies in several courses of action. There is a possibility that the United Nations, if it is properly supported, will be able togive effect to the desire of the ordinary people of the world for peace. Until this objective has been achieved the strengthening of the war potention of the nations ou this side of the Iron Curtain is essential. **Senator Sheehan** has said that we arepreparing our defences although war is not a reality. I remind the honorable senator that war does not commence at a given date in these modern times. International tension works up to a point at which armed clashes occur. War docs not begin spontaneously but commencesslowly. If any honorable senator requiresan assurance that all the portents of war are not already visible, he does not read the newspapers or the reports of the proceedings of the United Nations. He does not take notice of attempts between the nations to get together on the highest levels, and he ignores facts that are known to schoolboys. **Senator Sheehan** complained that the Government, by exercising its authority under this bill, will be able to close some industries and that workers will be obliged to seek other ' jobs. I point out that men move continuously from one industry to another. I ask him whether he imagines that there will be only one industry after this legislation has been in operation for some time. Even if some power is exercised in the interests of the country, there will be thousands of industries and many thousands of jobs. Employment conditionswill be much the same as they are at present. The idea that there will be only one employer is quite absurd. In any event, such a condition in the form in which he suggested is precluded by the provisions of the bill, which are most specific. The world is divided into two campsAustralia is allied with the United States of America and the members of the British Commonwealth, all of whom are taking steps to prepare their defences. They are exchanging views, technical personnel, materials, equipment, and know-how on the military, commercial and manufacturing levels. Action which we are taking is similar to action that has already been taken by our friends. One. of the recitals in the preamble of the bill reads as follows: - >And whereas, in the opinion of the Parliament and of the Government of the Commonwealth, there exists a state of international emergency. . . . Even allowing that newspapers may colour the situation a little, one no doubt that an international emergency exists. I do not think that any sane member of the community, and certainly not the honorable senator if he consults his soul, can say, " I do not believe that an international crisis exists ". A state of tension certainly exists throughout the world. War is in progress now. It is only a question of degree. The Government has come to the conclusion, with very sound reasons, that the degree of war that has been reached warrants thorough defence preparations. Who wants to be caught in a defenceless condition? Preparations for modern war take time. They cannot be completed overnight. Time is the greatest factor. All those who have studied military strategy agree that the element of surprise yields the most advantage, if it can be used successfully. We do not propose to leave Australia in a condition in which it can be surprised on the naval, military, air or civilian fronts. To-day, there are four services that fight in a war. There is a civilian front as well as a fighting front, and on neither of those fronts should we be caught unprepared. The preamble of the bill also states - >And whereas the defence preparations of Australia will include also measures to secure the maintenance and sustenance of the people <if Australia in the event of war and to contribute towards the maintenance and sustenance of the people of countries associated with Australia in defence preparations. This country has known droughts. Surely the lesson of a drought is that we must prepare for droughts. Other countries suffer from blizzards, and must be prepared for them. The droughts and blizzards of war will strike at the civil population and completely disrupt our war effort unless we are prepared. It has been said by no less an authority than Field-Marshal **Sir Bernard** Montgomery that the role of the army in any future war will largely be to care for the civil population. An army in these days does not consist merely of a few mercenaries fighting at a front line. A total war is a battle between nations. Care of the civil population in war-time mattered little 150 years ago as long as the soldiers at the front were adequately fed. Napoleon truly said, " An army marches on its stomach ". So too, a nation marches and fights on its stomach. One .purpose of this measure is to ensure that the people of this country should be fed and cared for should war come. Another recital in the preamble to this measure reads - >And whereas in present circumstances the defence preparations mentioned in the preceding paragraphs cannot bc carried out without the diversion of certain of the resources of Australia (including money, materials and facilities) for use in, or in connexion with, defence preparations : It is necessary that our resources should be used in proper priority, and that first things should be done first. That will be possible under the provisions of this bill. Reference is made later in the preamble to the avoidance or reduction of economic dislocation or instability caused by or impeding defence preparations. We hear much talk to-day about inflation. We should realize that, everywhere in the world, prices are rising because of preparations for war. That problem is much in evidence in this country, and we must do as our friends are doing in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. We must so order our community life as to ensure that available materials will bc used where they are most needed. By that means we can assist to check rising prices but I am afraid that as long as the pressure of war preparations continues, world prices will continue to rise. Inflation is a world problem. Australia is merely a segment of the circle, and the problem must be attacked in the whole circle, but it will not be solved completely until the pressure of war has been relieved either by the coming of war itself or by the arbitrament of the United Nations. This measure has been described as an authority to govern by regulation. I say without hesitation that any regulations under this measure will be scrutinized thoroughly by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. We are not committed to the acceptance of any specific regulation. This measure may be regarded as an insurance for the protection of the people. It will enable the Government, in certain circumstances, to promulgate regulations. We owe that to our allies who are taking the democratic path with us. I hate controls as every other man and woman in this country hates them, and I shall watch all regulations closely and judge each on its merits. Government by regulation is often convenient, but it should not be permitted unless there is a necessity for it. The onus will be on the Government to show that necessity exists for any regulations that it issues. Every opportunity will be given for a discussion in this chamber of whatever regulations are issued under this measure. We have a, Regulations and Ordinances Committee, in relation to which the Standing Orders provide - >The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to sit during Recess ; > >All Regulations and Ordinances laid on the Table of the Senate shall stand referred to such Committee for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon. Then, the Senate has the machinery for whatever action it deems to be appropriate. The guiding principles of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have been set out as follows : - >It is the function of the Committee to scrutinize all Regulations and Ordinances to ascertain - > >that they are in accord with the Statute. > >that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. > >that they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions. > >that they are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. The committee is authorized to obtain legal assistance and such assistance is given, not by departmental legal advisers, but by outside legal authorities chosen by the committee itself. For that purpose funds are provided to the committee. **Senator Cameron** said that the bill would usher ina marvellous era of prosperity for monopolies, which would get all the big contracts. That is absolute nonsense. During World War II. I had a great deal to do with defence contracts andI can assure the Senate that they were not allocated to monopolies but were distributed equitably amongst firms both large and small. In any case, it would be impossible for a government to favour the monopolies. What are these monopolies about which the honorable senator talked so loosely? I wish that they could be named so that we could test his allegation. The Government is not concerned about the welfare of monopolies. Its sole interests are the welfare of the people and the preservation of the nation. Those are the subjects that monopolize its attention. **Senator Cameron,** as usual, delivered a homily on the management of men. One would think that honorable senators on this side of the chamber had never dealt with the workers. I have had dealings with every trade union that is associated with constructional work in Australia, and I have met thousands of unionists. I had the privilege to assist in the establishment of the Institute of Industrial Management, the purpose of which was to foster good relationships between employers and employees. 1 am connected with organizations that employ thousands of men but have never had a strike amongst their workers. We are not blind to the legitimate needs of the workers, and the honorable senator's attempt to lecture us was sheer effrontery. The strength of this bill lies in the fact that it gives the Government power to bring together all parties associated with the industries that are vital to our defence preparations. The trade unions, which have always played an important part in the defence of the nation, will notbe excluded. Good results can be achieved by means of voluntary co-operative effort. Our experiences during World War II. proved that fact. Although the National Security Act and the regulations and orders that were issued under it provided war-time governments with sweeping powers, it was often found unnecessary to invoke those powers. I always pin ray faith on co-operation in preference to coercion. This bill obviously foreshadows the necessity for deciding on priorities in industry. Fortunately, we can be guided by our experiences during World War II. We should know where we are going! Great care must be exercised in determining which industries should be relegated to the lowest categories in the order of priority. It would be easy to decide, for instance, that lipstick and face powder were not essential. But those items are of great importance to the morale of women, and that fact should not he ignored because morale is of the greatest importance. Therefore, we must ensure that the powers shall be exercised sympathetically. The Government has no intention of clumsily applying the axe to various sections of our economy. All the problems that are involved in the organization of the country for defence will be approached with the greatest possible care. The strongest arguments in favour of the bill have been adduced by members of the Opposition. I can only thank honorable senators opposite for providing the Government with the weapons with which to flay them. They "have talked continually about the declarations against the use of controls that were made on behalf of the present Government parties during the election campaign of 1949. The clearest proof of the necessity for the enactment of this bill lies in the fact that the political parties which most abhor controls now believe that, in the light of the international situation, controls should be imposed for the good of the country. It is obvious that the Government would not make use of controls except under the greatest provocation. The Government, by virtue of its office, has a more intimate knowledge of the present international situation than has any other body in Australia. Therefore, it must be trusted. The operation of controls is fraught with difficulty, and honorable senators opposite may rest assured, that only the minimum number of restrictive measures will be applied. No widespread system of controls is envisaged. As each regulation is promulgated, the Government will sub mit to the Parliament ample evidence of the necessity for promulgating it. The bill provides an insurance policy against disaster. Time forgives none of us for its misuse. We do not want to be *too* late with too little again but, if we adopt the suggestions of the Opposition, we shall be too late and do nothing. I hope that as soon as possible after this measure becomes law we shall be able to get ready to meet the threat of war, although I trust that the overall application of powers provided in this bill will not become necessary. I am sure that we all hope that the parleys now taking place will result in international differences being resolved. However, until positive assurances and guarantees have been exchanged we must continue to develop the defences of this country. Our armed forces must be backed fully by a civil effort. This is necessary in obedience to the first law of life, which is self-preservation. The powers sought in this bill will be safe in the hands of this Government, which is to be congratulated for bringing down this measure. {: #debate-23-s1 .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP , - **Senator Tate** has advanced reasons why the Opposition should agree to this measure. It is an amazing piece of legislation, having as its objective the placing of Australia on a war footing at a time of peace. The Government does not require defence powers additional to those provided in the Constitution. If it has not utilized those powers to the full it has been recreant to its duty and responsibility to the nation. Although Labour relinquished office at the end of 1949, the anti-Labour Government has only now brought forward this measure. I have considerable doubt about the genuineness of its proposals. At the same time .1 point out that the Labour party is second to none in matters relating to defence. Proof of this assertion lies in the fact that the majority of defence projects in this country have been launched during periods that Labour Governments have been in office. **Senator Tate** has pointed out that the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and other countries, are preparing for defence. Every country has ti legitimate right to provide for the defence of its people, and it is the responsibility of the Australian Government to see that adequate preparation is made for (lie. defence of this country. But I remind the honorable senator that the countries to which he has referred have not altered their constitutions in order to do so. This bill seeks to alter the defence powers of the Commonwealth in a snide way. "We are not at war; in fact I understand that the peace treaty with Japan now awaits ratification by the Parliament. "We were Told several days ago that we are now at peace with both Germany and Italy. Every speech that has been made from Hie other side has been based on supposition. We all know that a prospective attacker is not concerned about niceties. "He does not wait until his victim has prepared his defences. I emphasize that it is the duty of the Government to see that Australia is adequately prepared for defence, within the limits of the existing defence power. It should not attempt to put this country on a totalitarian war footing at this stage. The Government i=i seeking power more complete than the power that was exercised by Labour governments during the period of World War II. I do not think it can be disputed that the Government is seeking in this bill to abrogate the authority of the Parliament and to remove from the elected representatives of the people responsibility for making decisions. Power is sought to enable somebody outside of the Parliament to issue regulations and determine what shall be done. In addition to trying to get round the existing defence laws, the Government is attempting to take away from the Parliament the authority with which it has been invested by the Constitution. The bill provides that a Minister may delegate authority to any person in any part of the Commonwealth of Australia in relation to the defence of this country and of other countries associated with Australia. In 1949, when the supporters of the present Government were in Opposition they definitely opposed the introduction of controls. They sought to gain the confidence of the people of this country by telling them that they would abolish bureaucracy by getting rid of the officials who were telling people what time they should go to bed and get up, and what sort of work they should do. What a remarkable change of front has taken place ! The opponents of Labour promised that they would relieve the overloaded Public Service, but they have failed to redeem that promise. This is a proposal to have the Parliament carry on its operations by proxy. That is a much worse state of affairs than that which applied during the war. Yet government by regulation is a principle which honorable gentlemen opposite said was anathema to them when they sought the suffrages of the people in 1949. **Senator Tate** indicated that there has been some change of opinion since 1949. The Government has not given any indication of any such change of opinion. It has not given this chamber any definite evidence that the country is approaching a state of war. Honorable senators were told some time ago that it will only be three years before a war will eventuate. Subsequently, they were told by somebody else that it was only a matter of two years. Nobody has said with whom the war will take place. I understand that **Senator Scott** said that Russia is our enemy. I should like him to state what authority he has for that assertion. 1 consider that this bill provides for the creation of bureaucrats and planners in excess- {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- Are the Russians the friends of the honorable senator? {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- No. The honorable senator should not make silly statements in this chamber. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- Are they the honorable senator's friends or enemies? {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable senator is just an ignoramus. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- The honorable senator is a troglodyte. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- This bill provides for bureaucracy and planning *in excelsis.* Never before in the history of federation has any government, in peace-time, introduced legislation such as this. The bill provides that the GovernorGeneral may make regulations for defence purposes. The Opposition does not object to the Governor-General making regulations. That is a common-sense procedure. But the bill provides that the scope of the regulations shall be unlimited. It authorizes the issuing of regulations without limitation to effect the expansion of the capacity of industry to produce or manufacture goods, or to provide services for defence preparations, or to enable the economy of Australia to meet probable demands upon it in the event of war. That is a wide ambit of authority. What type of regulations will be made under this bill? What opinions have the members of the parties which support the Government expressed concering these unlimited powers? Honorable senators opposite have lauded this proposal. I do not think that many of them know what the bill contains. The issue of regulations in respect of the production of goods or the provision of services will involve the direction of labour despite the fact that it has been stated that such a power is beyond the scope of the bill. Secondary industry has expanded tremendously in recent years. Labour-saving machinery for housewives has been manufactured to a much greater extent than ever before. Refrigerators have been made available to the people. Are they essential or nonessential commodities? The authority which the Minister may delegate to any person under this bill will make it possible to close down an industry and that might result in many thousands of people losing their jobs. The cessation ofnon-essential production would result in considerable unemployment. There is no provision in this bill to make other work available to men who lose their jobs in an industry that has been closed down. Employees generally live in areas adjacent to the industry in which they work. If industries are closed down it will be necessary for workers to secure employment in industries that have been allowed to carry on, and those industries may be a considerable distance away from where the workers live. The bill provides that to meet probable demands upon our economy in the event of war, regulations may be made to divert and control resources including money, materials and facilities. That proposal will result in the control and direction of capital for invest ment. Perhaps the Commonwealth Bank Board, when it has been established, will decide the destiny of large and small industries. It could tell an industry that it cannot be financially accommodated any longer because it is not essential. Such a procedure could only result in the control and direction of capital for investment and the control and direction of essential housing materials. I ask for leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1703 {:#debate-24} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Senator O'Sullivan** ) agreed to - . That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m. {: .page-start } page 1703 {:#debate-25} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - >Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and Designs (3). > >Flax Canvas Bounty Act- Return for year 1950-51. > >Norfolk Island Act - Ordinances - 1951 - > >No. 2 - Post and Telegraph. > >No. 3 - Coroners (Validation). > >No. 4 - Advisory Council. > >Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Civil Aviation - E. J. Kelly. > >Raw Cotton Bounty Act - Return for 1950. > >Sulphur Bounty Act - Return for 1950-51. > >Tractor Bounty Act - Return for 1950-5 1 . > >Senate adjourned at 12 midnight.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 July 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1951/19510713_senate_20_213/>.