House of Representatives
10 April 1935

14th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 14th Parliament
  3. 1935

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1191

PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for Health · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I lay on the table of the House a copy of the report on the Convention for the Protection of

Industrial Property as revised at the Industrial Property Conference which was held in Londonin June, 1934. The report was submitted by Mr. B. Wallach, Commissioner of Patents, whorepresented the Commonwealth at the conference. A copy of the revised convention is attached to the report.

page 1192

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Commerce · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Government does not propose to answer questions without notice to-day. Departments have been asked to expedite the preparation of answers to questions on notice so that they may be distributed this afternoon ; and, on the motion for the adjournment of the House to-night, unanswered questions will be answered by Ministers.

page 1192

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table : -

Papua - Annual Report for year 1933-34.

Commonwealth Bank . Act- -Treasurer’s Statement of combined accounts of Commonwealth Bank and Commonwealth Savings Bank, together with certificate of the Auditor-General, as at 31st December, . 1934.

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1035, No. 33.

Land Tax Assessment Act - Applications for relief from taxation dealt with during the year 1934.

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

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1935, Nos. 25, 26.

page 1192

PORT AUGUSTA TO RED HILL RAILWAY BILL 1935

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10th April (vide page 1145), on motion by Mr. Pater- son -

Thatthe bill be now read a second time.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– When the transcontinental railway service is speeded up the authorities should be careful that hardships are not imposed upon the train crews. The conditions which prevail on the railway services in Great Britain might, to some extent, be taken as a guide. The train which does the London-Edinburgh run completes the journey in eight hours, but the crew which takes the train from King’s Cross drives it only as far as Tollorton. A second crew rides in a third-class carriage immediately behind the engine, and at Tollerton they pass through a tunnel in the tender which connects this carriage with the engines, and take control, while the first crew goes back into the carriage. Although as to time occupied they do practically only one day’s work, they receive two and a half days’ pay, and are allowed to rest the next day. In Victoria, on the Albury express a similar practice obtains on the run between Benalla and Melbourne, a distance of 1.21 miles. The total run both ways is 242 miles, and for this the crew receive two days’ pay, and are allowed to rest the next day. That was the practice on both the Sydney and Albury expresses when I was in the service. Men working fast trains need special opportunity for rest, because of the responsibility they have to boar, and the strain under which they work. On the transcontinental line men are running trains between Loongana and Cook, a little over 200 miles, in six hours, and for that they receive only about seven hours’ pay, The speeding-up of the service is likely, therefore, to have an important effect on the remuneration of the men, and also on the amount of employment offering.

Another consideration is that the grade on the Red Hill route is much easier than on the Terowie route. The maximum load on the Terowie route is 202 tons, whereas on the proposed route the grade is 1 in 100, and the maximum load 560 tons, so that one engine can take practically two trains. This, also, will reduce the volume of employment available. There are some men in this service who have reached 50 years of age and although they have had over twenty years’ service, are not yet classified as drivers. There are others too who have had nearly 20 years’ service but who are not yet classified as firemen. It can be understood, therefore, how they dread the introduction of the new methods. They recognize that the now methods must come, but they ask for some form of protection, and they are entitled to at least the same considerationas is given to railway employees in other Englishspeaking countries. It is obvious that the Railway . Department will derive a tremendous advantage from the opening of the new line as the result of the easier grades.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– What is the ruling grade on the transcontinental line?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The ruling grade is about 1 in 100 betweenRed Hill and Kalgoorlie. It must be remembered that, on this section, there is the longest stretch of absolutely straight railway line in the world, and also that it passes through an area which is more sparsely populated than any other area in the world which is traversed by a railway. The Minister would do much to relieve the anxiety of the railway workers in South Australia if he would make a statement to the effect that the interests of men employed by the South Australian Commissioner for Railways would be protected ; that they would not lose their employment, or suffer any disadvantage as a result of the Commonwealth taking over the new section of line. It is also desirable that the Commonwealth authorities should announce their willingness to recognize any losses which the South Australian Department of Railways may suffer as the result of the introduction of the new system. If changes are made which affect adversely the status of employees, individually or collectively, their rights and interests should be protected. All employees should be safeguarded against financial loss, and should not be required to bear any of the expense arising out of changes made in the industry as a result of the passing of this legislation. Provision should be made for any persons who suffer loss of employment as a result of the contemplated changes and I trust that this will be done.

The attitude of those who refuse to support this proposal, or support it only on the ground that it will provide employment, is not easy to understand, unless it be that they have an unconquerable prejudice against any form of government enterprise. To leave the railways in their present condition, without attempting to remove the obvious disadvantages under which they work, would be to raider them hopelessly incapable of competing with private enterprise, upon which no such restrictions are placed, or conditions imposed as to the effectiveness of the service rendered. The shipping and motor interests are well served by those who oppose the construction of this railway. At the present time, hundreds of persons travel either by steamer or by aeroplane between the eastern and western States because of the time taken on the railway journey, and the irritation and delay occasioned by having to change trains.

At the present time, 140 men are employed on the work of reballasting the Trans-Australian line in anticipation of the Red Hill to Port Augusta link being completed. In the newspapers the other day, it was reported that the officer in charge of these workmen said that, there were very few applications for employment, because there were not many persons unemployed at Port Augusta. Preference was being given to local men in the matter of employment. If the Red Hill to Port Augusta link is not completed, the money spent on ballasting the other section of the line will be wasted, and the services of the men engaged in this work may be dispensed with, because no speeding-up of the service will be effective unless a complete day is saved.

When the new section . is completed, there will have to be an alteration of the railway passenger services in most of the States unless the original proposals are adhered to giving a complete 24-hour saving of time. It is a matter for regret that the discussion over this matter has given rise to threats of. action at law. I trust that nothing will be done that is likely to cause legal entanglements, because these could only result in bitterness and further useless expense at a time when every penny of public money that is available should be utilized for the purpose of putting people back into useful employment. Surely governments that are charged with the duty of advancing the interest of the nation as a whole will not be parties to a struggle in the courts over this proposal. If it could be shown that the railways of South Australia would suffer a substantial loss of revenue as a result of the construction of the Port Augusta toRed Hill line, it should not be difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the extent of that loss. I believe that the Commonwealth Government would be prepared to provide fair compensation to the State, particularly as the . building of the new line would) serve national interests in removing breaks of gauge which make the present service ineffective and unsatisfactory.

On the subject of the standardization of railway gauges, the Government and the Opposition have views in common. Both parties at the last election favoured it, and nothing has occurred since to alter their attitude to the problem. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) made it clear that the Labour party was prepared to proceed with this work, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) also indicated that he was anxious to go on with it. It is inseparable from any really comprehensive scheme of public works which has for its object the relief of unemployment. No other scheme has been put forward which would absorb so many of the unemployed, whether skilled or unskilled workers, as would the standardization of railway gauges. The construction of theRed Hill to Port Augusta line can be reasonably regarded as the most pressing and most useful part of this scheme. It is claimed by the South Australian authorities that the loss of revenue that would be occasioned by the construction of this line would be about £50,000 per annum. It seems to me that it is not possible to say at the outset whether there would be any loss. I noticed recently, in a report published in the Adelaide Advertiser, that Sir William Goodman had set out five estimates, one of which calculated the loss at £80,000 a year. If any loss occurs, there should he no serious difficulty in making an adjustment with South Australia.

I deeply regret that the Government has found itself unable to bring the States together to give further consideration to the whole subject of the standardization of railway gauges. It has to be admitted that it tried to do so at the latter part of last year and in the early part of the present year. Those who scan the press reports and watch developments generally could not help being impressed by the fact that the final obstacles to the carrying out of the work were raised by States in which the parties in power belong to the same party as that in office in the Commonwealth sphere, and that this Government was hampered by its desire to avoid possible political complications. I regret that the Government has not chosen a similar method for financing the project as that employed by the Labour Government when the Trans-Australian line was undertaken; but it apparently prefers to incur further interest-hearing debt to following the example of the Labour Government, which utilized the credit of the nation. That is a matter which could be dealt with more fully on another occasion.

If we leave the railways of Australia in their present disjointed condition, we can never hope to remove the burden that they impose on the taxpayers. In a time of national emergency, this important arm of our transport services would be found inefficient. Whilst I do not claim to have practical knowledge of railway operations from a defence point of view, as a railway man of 35 years’ experience I claim to have had a unique opportunity to observe the difficulties which are caused, both in normal and abnormal times, through the present breaks of gauge. At Albury, during a period of drought, the railway yards were full of fodder, but starving stock could not be fed because of the congestion at Albury and Wodonga due to the break of gauge. At the present time, if large bodies of troops had to be moved from one part of Australia to another, too long a time would be occupied in the operation owing to the break of gauge.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member’s remarks are not strictly relevant to the bill.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– But standardization will have to be carried out at some time, and the proposal in this bill represents a commencement. While the competing services, aerial, shipping, and motor, are supplied by the latest aircraft, modern luxury steamers, and comfortable and speedy motor cars which run over nearly perfect roads, railways generally are embarrassed in their operations by breaks of gauge which destroy the continuity of their service, and make long-distance and interstate travelling an evil to be looked upon with disfavour, and, if possible, avoided. Rather should it be a comfortable, interesting and enjoyable experience.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has not observed my ruling that he should confine his remarks to the subject-matter of the bill.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Do you mean, Mr. Speaker, that I may make no reference to the break-of-gauge question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has already made many references to that aspect of the subject, and he is now discussing general weaknesses of the railway system as compared with aerial, sea, and road transport. But this bill specially provides for the construction of a particular railway.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am desirous of comparing the inefficiency of the present service with the more efficient service provided by the competitors of the railways.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member would be in order in comparing the efficiency of the service provided by the Trans-Australian railway with that to be provided under the bill, but he is not doing that.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– There are other references which I will have to refrain from making, but perhaps I can make one comparison. What would be said of a power, lighting, or heating concern which, although it had at the base of its operations sufficient resources to supply all the requirements of its customers, and notwithstanding potential demands for all it could supply, had to keep its plant only partly in use, because its mains, pipes or wires, were not big enough to carry its power, gas, and so forth to its customers?Under present conditions it is as hopeless a proposition to expect the Australian railways to succeed on an interstate basis as against its competitors, as it would be for the hand-looms of the past genera tion to attempt to outrival the production of a modern textile factory.

Before concluding I would like to say that I am sorry the Government is not anxious to go on with the section of the trans-Australian line from Kalgoorlie to Perth. The Western Australian Government, in 1926, was apparently willing that this work should be undertaken, for the following resolution was carried in both branches of the legislature in that State : -

That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the federal policy of extending the standard gauge railway should be consummated in Western Australia.

Mr Paterson:

– Let us deal with one State at a time.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Work in other States must naturally follow. For the reasons I have advanced, and because the bill proposes to take a definite step in the direction of the standardization of gauges - the first real effort since the Kyogle-Brisbane line was constructed - I feel that it will compel the support of not only the members of this House, but also of the people generally who desire to see Australia free of its transport shackles.

Mr McBRIDE:
Grey

.- I regret that the bill is causing so much opposition in South Australia. The Commonwealth Government must be amazed at the attitude of the South Australian Government, and in order to reinforce my statement in that regard, Ishall quote” a few extracts from the South Australian Hansard in regard to the introduction and passage of the bill for the validation of the agreement. At that time the South- Australian Government was a Labour one and in the federal sphere the Bruce-Page Ministry was in power, so it should not be claimed that this was in any way a party matter. It may be debated strictly from the national viewpoint. In introducing this bill into the State House, the then Premier, Mr. Gunn, who was also the Minister for Railways, made some very important statements, which are recorded in Hansard, of September, 1926. Supporting the agreement which he had made, he stated first of all that the proposal had the support of the Railways Standing Committee of South Australia, which had investigated a similar proposal and had recommended the construction of a portion of this line. His words, as recorded in Hansard, were -

It was our intention to carry the line through to Port Augusta. Whatever traffic we got on it, if the Commonwealth had not come in, would have been at the expense of our existing lines. Wo were determined to forge ahead. And now the Commonwealth have come along and said that they would help us to forge ahead, and will stand in with us. That was the result of the strong case which I tried to make out, that this was a transcontinental railway.

Reference was also made by Mr. Gunn to the recommendations of the Railways Standing Committee, which, in its report, said that the line would open up new country and serve quite good areas in the Wandearah district. This was therefore a line which the State Government intended to construct according to its own statements, and the government welcomed the assistance which the Commonwealth was giving it by coming in and offering to construct a portion of it. The bill went through both Houses of the South Australian Parliament without a division’, proving definitely that its members were fully in agreement at that time with the proposals of the Commonwealth Government. There is also on record in the same volume a most definite statement by Mr. Butler, the present Premier of South Australia, who was then Leader of the Opposition. Commencing his remarks on the subject he said, “ Sot desiring to delay the passage of the bill, I take the earliest opportunity of supporting it “. Towards the end of his speech he said, “ The work is one which we all believe to be of great national importance, and I congratulate the Premier, Mr. Gunn, most heartily upon what he has done in this respect”. And he actually concluded his speech in the following words : -

I realize, as the Premier has said, that this is a huge national undertaking, and I am proud, as I am sure other members will be, to bc taking part in this debate, as it marks a new era in the history of Australia. It will be a. great day as far as we are concerned when a through line is built. It will prove not only to Australians, but to people all over the world, that we have attempted something great, and accomplished something good.

I believe that those statements fairly represent the views held by the members of the South Australian Parliament at the time. They are not torn from their context nor in any way distorted. I, therefore, repeat that the Commonwealth authorities must regard with amazement the very stout opposition which they are meeting with at the present time. Not only is the South Australian Government opposing the proposal, but many people are opposing it also. I attended a meeting held in the northern areas at which representatives from the section extending from Terowie to Quorn .met and definitely expressed their opposition to the proposed line. They passed the following resolution : -

That this meeting, representative of every district from Terowie to Port Augusta, views with alarm the proposal of the Commonwealth Government to construct a line of railway from Red Hill to Port Augusta as such a railway would not only increase the burden on taxpayers generally, but would result in a serious loss of revenue to existing State lines without proving of the slightest value to any commercial or rural interests, and we urge upon our representatives in the State and Federal Parliaments to strenuously oppose the proposition at every opportunity.

That meeting was held at Orroroo last month. The people attending it naturally held the view that the Government’s proposal would take a certain amount of traffic away from the line upon, which their businesses were located, and they were looking after their, own interests, as most people do. They thought that the proposal then before the Government and people of South Australia would injure their trade. We must, I think, view the matter from a very much wider aspect than the particular interests which undoubtedly will be affected. I believe the people of South Australia would be prepared to regard it from a national view-point if they were better informed as to the contracts entered into by the Commonwealth and State governments, and the expressions of opinion of their own representatives recorded in the South Australian Hansard which I have quoted. Many misleading statements have been made to the people of South Australia, including the following which appeared in a leading: article in the Adelaide Advertiser, of “the 18th March :-

The outcome of the negotiations was a tentative agreement upon the construction of the proposed line, the Gunn Government being rendered more complaisant than it otherwise would have been because at that time also unemployment was a serious problem in the State.

The negotiations referred to are those which took place between the Gunn Government and the Bruce-Page Government. The article then went on to quote the agreement which provided that the Commonwealth undertook to construct a section of the north-south line from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs, and also the railway covered by this bill. Its comment was -

It is evident from tlx; phraseology of this clause - that is the clause in the agreement- that the State government, eager to see something done at once to relieve unemployment, was impatient for the work to be begun.-

Any one who has read it must realize that whatever employment was to be given under the original agreement could not have been given for at least three years. If Mr. Gunn at that time foresaw what would happen three years ahead, he was one of the few men in this country who did. No one dreamt then that we would descend to such a depth of depression as we have been through since that time. To show the fallacy of the argument of the Advertiser, when this agreement was entered into in 1926, as that paper says, to relieve unemployment, South Australia had the lowest unemployment figures in the Commonwealth. Its percentage, according to the Commonwealth Year-Book, in that year was 5.2 per cent., as against an average of 7.1 per .cent, for the whole Commonwealth. At present I believe it is somewhere in the vicinity of 23 per cent. I have brought up these matters to show that the people of South Australia are being absolutely misled by those sources from which they usually obtain their information. I hope, therefore, that the House will not abandon this project, but will definitely go ahead and complete the line which, as the present Premier of South Australia said, is a national undertaking of which every South Australian should be- proud. I admit that the question of transport is a complex one which is exercising the minds of able men all over the world. On that subject Pro fessor Hallsworth delivered a lecture a few months ago, in which he quoted Sir Josiah Stamp as saying that the question of transport was one of the most seriousdomestic problems in Great Britain. InGreat Britain, America, France, Germany and other countries, the railways have definitely met with the competition of road, air and other forms of transport to a very much greater degree than they can possibly be faced with in Australia. One reason is that in those countries the roads are much better than they are here, and vehicles and fuel cost a great deal less. Petrol in Great Britain in 1934 was selling for ls. 5d. a gallon, even though it was subject to a tax of 8d. a gallon. With all those factors operating, the railways in Great Britain were obviously faced with a much more severe form of competition than had to be mot by the railways in Australia. It is of course well known that the railways there are privately-owned enterprises, but they have to conform to certain requirements imposed upon them by the British Government, including a statutory obligation to carry, at low freight rates, commodities such as iron ore, coal, limestone, and road metal. This makes it much more difficult for them to compete with other forms of transport, which do not carry those heavy goods, but take the cream of the freight traffic which would otherwise be carried by the railways. We can take a lesson from what is being done in other countries. As the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) said, that competition is being met very successfully elsewhere by improving the railway rolling stock and giving & much quicker and more frequent service. That is just what we are aiming to do by means of this bill. Professor Hallsworth said -

An ideal distribution of traffic would provide for an economically sound division of function between road, rail and other forms of transport’ and would take into account, not only the price to the consumer and the cost to the operator, but also the ultimate real cost to the community.

I suggest that we cannot possibly hope to meet the competition with which the railways are faced in Australia, unless we follow the lead given by other countries. I believe that this bill represents a real step in a forward direction. The Commonwealth railway system is in an unfortunate position, inasmuch as it traverses very poor country yielding little or no freight. Consequently the Commonwealth authorities have to face a loss from year to year. As is pointed out, nobody expected the Commonwealth railways to pay. They were left for the Commonwealth to construct and manage. The attitude now being adopted by .South Australia, if successful, will compel the Commonwealth railway system to remain as it is, with a backward and non-paying service, unable to increase the number of passengers and the quantity of freight it carries. That is a very unfair way in which to approach the subject. It may be said that by building this line we are only adding to the loss, but I do not agree with that view. In. .1932 a commission was appointed to investigate the South Australian railway system. To the surprise not only of those conducting the system, but also of the Government of the day and the people of South Australia generally, very illuminating facts were elucidated by this commission. Refuting the accusation that is usually levelled against the country lines in this respect, it showed that the great bulk of the losses on the South Australian railway system were suffered on railways within the metropolitan area of Adelaide. It showed that in 1920 over half the loss incurred on the whole of the State railways had been incurred on the metropolitan lines. In 1930 the losses on the metropolitan lines totalled £564,000, whilst the net deficit on all the railways was only £300,469. In 1931 the losses on the Adelaide metropolitan railways totalled £1,268,176, whilst the net loss for the whole of the railways in that year was £1,685,920. Thus threequarters of the loss incurred on South Australian railways in that year were incurred on the metropolitan and not on country lines which are usually referred to as an incubus on the South Australian railway system.

I congratulate the Acting Prime Minister on the proposals he set out to-day in connexion with this project. I believe the Commonwealth’s proposals in this matter will remove any valid objec- tion which the South Australian Railway Commissioner could have. Under this revised plan South Australia will still be able to receive the bulk of the railway revenue because most of the traffic over the line will go from Adelaide to Port Pirie and will not be seriously affected by the operation of the Commonwealth section. I believe this proposal will also settle the point raised in 1925 when there was a dispute over letting the Commonwealth railway line come into the Adelaide railway station. Such a proposal had been opposed by the present South Australian Railway Commissioner. I have here a memorandum in which he states -

In my opinion the proposal to bring the 4-ft. 84-in. gauge Commonwealth railway into Adelaide is the spearhead of a policy for the absorption of the State railways by the Commonwealth by a process of penetration, and I respectfully, but strongly, urge that this should bo vigorously resisted, as the control of its railways by the State is a vital factor in the economical development and welfare of the State.

In view of the heavy burden which the losses on the South Australian railway system imposes on that State’s budget, I believe it would be a good thing if the Commonwealth took over the whole of this railway.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– It would be a good thing for South Australia if the Commonwealth took over the whole of the railways in that State.

Mr McBRIDE:

– Yes. Although the losses on the South Australian railways have been reduced from £1,685,920 in 1931 to £688,000 in 1933, the railways are still incurring substantial losses, and the South Australian people would be glad to get rid of this burden. The Commonwealth’s latest proposals would obviate that difficulty raised by the present railway Commissioner in South Australia about allowing a Commonwealth railway to come into the Adelaide station, and the Government of South Australia would be well advised to approve of it. I congratulate the Acting Prime Minister on the genuine gesture which the Commonwealth Government has made in this matter to the Government of South Australia in an endeavour to bring about a conclusion of this most regrettable incident.

I should like the Commonwealth Government, when considering the construction of this work and after it has completed it, to give serious consideration to the position of any men who may be thrown out of work as a result of this undertaking. I suggest that if any men are thrown out of employment through loss of freight on the South Australian system the Commonwealth Government could reasonably absorb them into the Commonwealth system, as obviously this new line will require considerable labour for maintenance purposes. I agree with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) as to the conditions under which men, who are working on the Commonwealth line, are forced to live. The honorable member speaks from a greater personal experience of this matter than I have. However, I know sufficient of those conditions to urge upon the Minister that when this line is constructed, seeing that the cost of the project will be considerably reduced, some of the money thus saved should be used to improve housing conditions for these workmen. I have travelled on the EastWest line frequently. My people have interests close to it. Thus I have first-hand knowledge of the conditions under which these men live - not only the engine-drivers and guards, but also the permanent way employees. Their housing accommodation is an absolute disgrace to the Commonwealth Government and does not compare with the accommodation provided for similar railway employees of the South Australian Government. I commend the proposals now before the House and I hope every honorable member will support the bill.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

– I oppose the measure. I contend that as this is part of the bigger project of standardizing the railway gauges of Australia, the Commonwealth Government should be guided by the recommendations of Mr. A. Combes who was commissioned in 1916, to inquire into the construction of a strategic railway from Brisbane to Port Augusta. He recommended the construction of a direct line of a uniform gauge between Brisbane and PortAugusta. He pointed out -

The construction of a broad-gauge railway from Port Augusta, South Australia, to either

Broken Hill or Hay, in New South Wales, is a necessary part of the scheme for a fairly direct 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge line across the continent of Australia from Sydney on the east coast to Fremantle on the west coast

Before the Government proceeds with the proposal now before the House, it should go more seriously into the question of the bigger undertaking of standardizing railway gauges throughout Australia, and should concentrate on the construction of a line to link up the eastern and western’ States of Australia directly. I mean that, instead of following a roundabout route through Victoria and South Australia, a more direct line should be constructed from Broken Hill to Port Augusta. The present proposal will obviate only one break of gauge. Some honorable members have stated that it will effect a saving of 25 hours in travelling time, but the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner in his report has estimated that it would save only 9 hours. Furthermore, it will shorten the distance by only 70 miles, whereas, a line constructed direct from Broken Hill to Port Augusta would shorten the distance by 440 miles, and, compared with the Port Pirie route, would effect a saving in actual travelling time of 18$ hours apart from what would be saved by avoiding several changes of gauge on the full journey from Kalgoorlie right through to Brisbane. Before constructing any branch or feeder lines to the great East- West system, the Commonwealth should concentrate on the major work as its first consideration. Mr. Combes considered three proposals to link up Port Augusta by a uniform gauge with the main railway system in the eastern States. The chief of these proposals was that a line should be built from Port Augusta to Hawker to open up new country and connect with Broken Hill. He reported -

All things considered, I am of the opinion that the Hawker route is the beet to adopt for a railway from Port Augusta to Broken Hill. The principal point- in its favour is the fact that it would serve and develop over 6,000,000 acres of fair pastoral country more than 20 miles from existing railways.

Apart from the point of view of defence and the transport of goods, there is sufficient justification for the building of such, a line in that it will open up new country. To-day perishable goods, such as tropical, fruits which are sent from Queensland .to Western Australia, are despatched via Broken Hill, although there is no direct connexion there with the South Australian system, as the goods have to be transhipped over a gap of a mile from one State system to the other. To-day, there are two ‘breaks of gauge to be contended with on this route ; but it is ‘ found to-day to be the most direct route from Queensland to Western Australia. I repeat that if a line were constructed on this route as recommended the greatest possible saving would be effected.

Mr. Combes also pointed out that the cost of constructing this line would be £1,565,000, only a little more than double, the estimated cost of the proposal now before the House. It would involve only 260 miles of construction to make a direct link between the South Australian railway system and the main eastern railway systems. Thus, it has many advantages over the project now being considered by this House. The proposal under consideration will still involve two breaks of gauge, because transhipments will still have to be made on to the Victorian and New South Wales systems to link up with Queensland. About £8,000,000 has been spent in the construction of the East-West railway by the Commonwealth Government, and I contend that we cannot expect this line to be reproductive until such time as a complete system of uniform gauge is put into operation. The proposal I favour will undoubtedly bring more passenger and goods traffic to the East-West railway. Since .1929, the passenger traffic on this line has fallen considerably. It carried in that year 31,109 passengers; in 1930, 26,650; in 1933, 13,905, and in 1934, 13,820. Thus the tendency is for the passenger service to decline substantially, probably because of the inconvenience suffered. A more direct route would be patronized to a far greater extent, and would prove a more profitable investment for the Commonwealth. One of the principal arguments used at the outset against this direct line was the heavy cost involved in building a bridge across the- Darling River at Menindie.

As the line is now completed to Broken Hill, no opposition can be offered on that account. With the construction of a railway from Hawker to Broken Hill, Menindie, on the Darling River, would be 331 miles from Port Augusta and 624 miles from Sydney. According to those figures, Port Augusta would be the natural port for the traffic from the Darling River valley. That is a big wool-producing area, which has poor but expensive transport facilities. This line would be of substantial benefit to it. In South Australia, the line would serve 6,000,000 acres of land north of the existing railway. The route from Red Hill to Port Augusta runs practically parallel with another line that already connects those two centres.

Mr Paterson:

– But there is a mountain range 2,000 feet high between those two lines, which makes one area inaccessible to the other.

Mr CLARK:

– At certain points they would not be more than five miles apart. National necessity should be the first consideration in a matter of this kind. The line that I have suggested would absorb a far greater number of unemployed in South Australia and New South Wales, and a larger quantity of material would be needed for its construction. Any proposal for the linking up of the east and the west should adopt this route. Feeder lines could later be linked up with it, and increase the value of its service, lt would receive the endorsement of posterity when the colossal task of standardizing the whole of the railway gauges of Australia is considered. The defence aspect of the matter has been stressed by authorities of note, including the late Lord Kitchener. A line far removed from the seaboard would be less open to attack by an invader. The Government should consider which is the more necessary work from a national view-point.

The most cogent reason for the immediate construction of this direct link is the existence of a large number of unemployed, particularly in the Broken Hill area, where they total at least 2,000. Many men lost their employment in the mining industry as the result of the introduction of machinery and the adoption of modern methods. They are not likely to be re-absorbed in that industry in the near future, and it is the duty of the Government to find employment for them in some other occupation. The proposal I am putting forward would be a great national work, which would give a considerable measure of relief to men who are experienced in such works as have to be carried out in connexion with railway construction. They could be absorbed for a number of years.

This matter was to have been considered by a conference of Premiers in February last, in conjunction with a general review of the position in connexion with the standardization of railway gauges throughout Australia, but it was shelved. The Government must take into consideration the comparative costs, and the benefits likely to accrue. Its present proposal will not effect a substantial saving in time on the journey to Fremantle.

Mr Paterson:

– With an alteration of the time-table there will be a saving of 24 hours.

Mr CLARK:

– The report says that it is only nine hours.

Mr Paterson:

– That estimate is out of date.

Mr CLARK:

– The report on Commonwealth railways operations for the year ended the 30th June, 1934, states, at page 14, that it will enable the time occupied on the journey between Adelaide and Kalgoorlie to be reduced by about nine hours. The lino that I suggest would effect a saving in travelling time alone of at least eighteen and a half hours, apart from the saving of the time now occupied in consequence of ‘breaks of gauge at different points. If this and other essential links were first constructed, I should not oppose any measures to increase their effectiveness. As the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) has pointed out, the method of financing the cost of construction could be that adopted in connexion with the east-west line; that is, the note issue could be used through the agency of the Commonwealth Bank. All the money needed for the east-west line was provided free of interest. I trust that this work will be proceeded with at a very early date; and that other lines which are more or less feeders will be regarded as a secondary consideration and be dealt with only when the major proposal has been completed.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I congratulate the Government upon having introduced this measure, and agree with those who have already spoken that it is entirely non-party and should, receive the endorsement of all.

Breaks of gauge have constituted ft problem ever since railways were first constructed in Australia. The standardization of railway gauges has alwaysbeen a plank in the platform of every political party. But it was not until the advent to office of the Bruce-Page Government that the matter was fairly faced. The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark) has said that the present Government has not faced up to the bigger question. This is one of the most interesting subjects upon which any honorable member could speak, and it is regrettable that more time is not available for its consideration. From my experience and from my reading of the history of this matter, I have come to the conclusion that the interests of individual States have received too much consideration, while the national viewpoint has been somewhat overlooked. I commend the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) for his valuable contribution to the debate and the information he has supplied. The honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) also, as a South Australian, made an excellent speech along national lines. It appears to me that the railways commissioners in the States desire above all else to maintain their positions. In their view, the departments which they control must at all costs be preserved, and authority over the railway systems must be vested solely in the governments of the States. I point out that in the majority of cases the losses made on the different railway systems are equal to the deficits of the States. We can never face up to the position honestly and straightforwardly until we have a Federal Railways Council to supervise and manage all systems in the Commonwealth. No person in Australia is sufficiently expert to give an opinion upon standardization of railway gauges. Those who claim to have the requisite knowledge say that the use of a third rail would be dangerous. I defy any one to name a single person in Australia who has seen the third rail system at work, except in connexion with the experimental track laid by the Commonwealth from Tooumwal, over which the Victorian and New South Wales engines ran to prove the practicability of the arrangement. It is said that the use of a third rail from Red Hill to Adelaide would be dangerous. Those who say so really show their ignorance. The use of a third rail on the existing 5-ft. 3-in. gauge permanent-way would allow a margin of 4. inches between the nearest parallel rails. [Quorum formed..] It is also claimed that if a billet of wood were placed between rails as close as that, an engine could be thrown off the line. I have never heard such nonsense spoken.

Mr Gregory:

-The talk about the use of a third rail is greater nonsense.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– That is not so. I can show honorable members a photograph of the Acton railway yards in Great Britain, in which there are three break-of-gauge points, and through which express trains rush daily at 60 miles an hour. Only mad people would think of putting a billet between the rails of a railway line with the object of throwing an engine off the track. At present our railway engineers, as a regular thing, put two rails close together across bridges and viaducts, and they also put guard rails close to the ordinary rails around curves, in order to ensure safety.

Mr Gregory:

– And instructions are given to locomotive engine-drivers to drive slowly over those sections of the line.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The guard rails are used in order that speed may be maintained around bends. We also have flanges on the wheels of our rolling-stock to ensure greater safety.

I believe that nine-tenths of the members of all parties in this Parliament regard with some alarm the suggestion that the building of the Port Augusta ‘ to Red Hill railway should be further delayed, and welcome the introduction of this bill. From the point of view of defence, every one must admit that the more standardization there is in our railway gauges, the better it will be. Honorable members who served overseas during the war know something about the great feats of Germany in the speedy transfer of her troops from one place to another, and will readily admit the importance of standardized gauges for defence purposes. It is a tremendous undertaking to move even one division of the army, with its 20,000 personnel and all its gear, from one place to another. In fact, it would be an almost impossible undertaking with many breaks of railway gauge. Seeing that the experiment in the use of the third rail at Tocumwal was so successful, I cannot understand why the Railways Commissioner of Victoria should have said that he would not allow a third rail to be used in Victoria. I regard Mr. Clapp as one of the best railways commissioners in Australia. He has proved himself to be a sound general manager with a good business mind. But I remind honorable members that he is not an engineer. If I desired to have a tooth extracted I should go to a dentist. If I desired expert technical advice on a railway matter, I should go to an engineer. I sincerely trust that the Government will turn a deaf ear to the proposal that, has been made that it should build a line into Port Pirie, and thus allow of the extension of the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge railway. If we build more railways of 5-ft. 3-in. gauge or any gauge other than 4 ft. 8½ in., our railway troubles will be accentuated. We all know that during the war hundreds of miles of railway line were laid in Mesopotamia, and rolling-stock and engines belonging to the London and North West Railway Company were taken to that locality on barges up the Tigris river, and used on the German railway system in that area. Some of the difficulties in regard to the standardization of railway gauges have arisen because, although New South Wales and Victoria agreed to adopt the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge as their standard, New South Wales subsequently reverted to the 4-f t. 8½-in gauge. This was done because that gauge became the standard of all European countries. I hope that this bill will be passed. I believe that the proposed line will be as useful to the people of South Australia as to those of Australia generally. “We should in this matter forget our own particular States, and deal with this measure as a national project of major importance.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- This bill is important to all the people of Australia, but probably more important to the people of Western Australia than to those of any other State. At present travelling to Western Australia, except for a limited volume of air transport, is either by rail or boat; but those who travel frequently over the existing railway system know only too well how tedious and tiring is the long journey between Adelaide and Port Augusta, with ite three breaks of gauge. After leaving Port Augusta passengers who travel from Western Australia to Adelaide are in the train for three and a quarter hours before they are any further south than, when they started. It must be realized, too, that the route through the Pichi-Richi Pass at 2,000 feet elevation, is not economic because of the grades.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– -The Mount Lofty Range has to be crossed on the journey from Adelaide to Melbourne, and it rises to 2,000 feet.

Mr Paterson:

– But the grades are much better than those through the Pichi-Richi Pass.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The train load through Pichi-Richi Pass is only 202 torts, but on the new route it will be 560 tons. There can be no really economic carriage of goods or passengers on the existing route, and so long as we neglect to build the line now proposed, the shipping companies will be able to compete successfully with our railways for the business that is offering.

Certain figures have been quoted during this debate respecting the saving of time that will be effected if the line from Port Augusta to Red Hill is built, and the remainder of the east-west line properly ballasted. I wished to work out my own calculations in this connexion and, for that reason, have denied myself the pleasure of reading the speech given by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) in introducing this bill - a denial which I shall take the opportunity to remedy during the recess, for we all know that when the honorable gentleman devotes himself to the study of a subject, he makes an informative speech upon it. The saving of time that can be made on a through journey from Adelaide to Perth depends, not only on the building of the Port Augusta to Red Hill railway, but also on the completion of the ballasting of the East- West line. At present only 700 miles out of 1,050 miles have been ballasted, though I am aware that the work is still being proceeded with. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weak links in the East- West railway prevent the use on it of up-to-date locomotives of the Pacific type. The average speed attainable on the line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta iB 29£ miles an hour ; but if the whole of the line were ballasted a speed of 40 miles an hour could easily be maintained. This is a conservative estimate, for it is well known that on some of the important longdistance 4-ft. 8-J-in. gauge railways of the world, notably that from Chicago to New York, a journey of 1,000 miles is done in 1,000 minutes. With the advent of the U-type diesel-engined locomotives on the East-West line much greater speeds will be possible than are at present attained. The elimination of the break of gauge at Port Augusta would save at least an hour there. Allowing two and a quarter hours for taking in water and other purposes, a saving of 20 hours could be made on the run from Perth to Port Augusta. With a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge, introduced from Perth to Kalgoorlie, and the saving that could be made by the elimination of the break of gauge at Terowie, I am satisfied that a total saving of 34 hours could be made in the run from Perth to Adelaide. This, as everybody knows who has travelled on the line, would be of tremendous advantage to passengers, for in addition to the direct saving of time, there would also be the elimination of the disturbances inevitably consequent upon changing passengers and luggage from one train to another, which is a matter for serious complaint at present. If we also convert the line from Perth to Kalgoorlie to the 4-ft. 8-J-in. gauge, we should be able still further to reduce the time occupied on the through journey, and that is the next work which ought to be undertaken.

It is essential that the Red Hill to Port Augusta line should be constructed. I am not one of those who become heated on the subject of defence, but we must recognize that if there is a danger of invasion we should take some precautions to guard against it. Lord Kitchener, who knew something of military matters, pointed out when he was in Australia that the greatest weakness in the defence system of Australia was our many breaks, of railway gauge. He estimated that it would take six weeks to move troops from Sydney to Western Australia in the event of that State being invaded. We have spent between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 on the transcontinental railway.

Mr Stacey:

– It is a pity it was ever spent.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Having spent that money, we ought to do our best to make a success of the investment. The honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey) should recognize that the best interests of South Australia will be served by providing means of rapid communication with its important neighbour in the west, and he should not join in the hysterical outbursts of the Adelaide press against this proposal. During parts of the year, Western Australia provides a market for much of the beef produced in South Australia, and even South Australian beer is becoming popular in the west, though I do not know why. There is much more traffic from Adelaide to Perth than from Perth to Adelaide.

The most serious competition with the transcontinental line comes from the coastal shipping services. The journey occupies only one day longer by steamer between Adelaide and Fremantle than by rail between Adelaide and Perth, and, naturally, those who desire comfort before speed travel by steamer. There is no adequate service on the transcontinental line for the handling of luggage, &c, and, in the case of women passengers, this is a serious disadvantage. The completion of this new section of line will remove many of the objections previously urged against the South Australian service.

In the near future, we shall also have to face the competition of the air services.

The air journey between Adelaide and Perth, a distance of 1,500 miles, takes two days, but it can be readily perceived that, with the introduction of up-to-date American aeroplanes capable of travelling at 150 miles an hour or more, the journey could be accomplished in ten hours. Fortunately, air travel, in my opinion, is not going to become general in the near future. All people are not airminded, nor are they in such a hurry that they will seek this mode of travel when more comfortable methods are available.

The transcontinental railway service could be further improved by the installation of air-conditioning plants on the trains, as is done on the American passenger trains. For financial reasons, this could probably not be done immediately, but we should set it before us as a goal. If this system were installed, it would be possible to maintain an even temperature in the carriages throughout the whole journey.

With the completion of this new link it should be possible to increase greatly the quantity of freight carried over the transcontinental line. Most of the goods traffic between the east and” western States of the United States of America is carried by the railways over the five or six main transcontinental tracks, a distance of anything up to 3,000 miles. There is no reason why there should not be 40 or 50 freight cars on our transcontinental train, instead of goods being drawn by “ puffing billies “ up the Pichi-Richi Pass, over which train loads of only 200 tons can be taken.

I desire to pay a tribute to the comfort and service provided for passengers on the transcontinental trains.

Mr Prowse:

– They are the best in the world.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The service provided on this line cannot be equalled anywhere else in the world, and great credit is due to the conductors in this regard. Steamer stewards are usually looked upon as giving good service, and those of us who have done any travelling know that they are very attentive, on the last day of the voyage, at any rate, but the conductors on the transcontinental line can beat them easily. They render the same unfailing and courteous service all day and every day, often under the most unpleasant conditions. I commend the Government for having brought up this bill. I feel sure that this is but an instalment of the work of providing a standard gauge on all Australian railways.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I oppose the bill now before the House, and I do so, in the first place, because it is a violation of the agreement between South Australia and the Commonwealth. A. former Premier of South Australia, Mr. John Gunn, speaking in the South Australian Parliament in 1926, quoted the Parliamentary Draftsman as follows: -

Its effect will bc that unless the Commonwealth does commence building the line within three years of the period fixed, it will not lawfully be able to do so at all.

Mr Paterson:

– But what does the agreement say?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The agreement says something very similar. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) knows that there is an impasse over this matter, and that the Government of South Australia intends to appeal to the High Court if the Commonwealth persists with the construction of this unnecessary and extravagant railway.

Mr Paterson:

– Does the honorable member suggest that the last alternative is extravagant?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I do not suggest any alternative. I believe that the matter of communication between Adelaide and Port Augusta is something outside of the sphere of the Commonwealth Government altogether. This section of railway line has no more relation to the transcontinental line than has the section between Mount Gambier and Melbourne. The natural route for the transcontinental line is straight across the continent from Perth, via Kalgoorlie, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, and Broken Hill to Sydney.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Would not the honorable member squeal if his suggestion were accepted ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I would not, because I have advocated it for years. Instead of wasting money on a work which would be of use only to Port

Augusta and Port Pirie; we should broaden the gauge from Port Pirie and Port Augusta right through to Broken Hill.

Mr Paterson:

– The present proposal will form part of that larger scheme.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– It is not wanted. A railway line between Port Augusta and Port Pirie traverses a narrow plain of very inferior country between the Flinders Range and the sea. It is so poor that its carrying capacity is not much more than a rabbit to the acre, and it is just plain nonsense to talk about building a railway to further the economic development of this region. From Port Pirie to Red Hill the only country that the railway would traverse is the Wanderah wheat plain, but the wheat from that area is carried by motor lorries straight to the seaboard in order to get the advantage of seaport prices for it. The wheat from the Flinders Range follows the downhill route to Port Pirie or Port Germein, where it is loaded on to the overseas vessels.

If we were to build a railway line of standard gauge from Port Augusta and Port Pirie and on to Broken Hill, we should have a line that would.be capable of paying its way. It would give the lead, zinc and sulphuric acids of Port Pirie direct access by land to the great iron and steel works of Newcastle, and it would be necessary to build only a small spur line to connect with the important iron ore deposits of South Australia. The subject of defence has been mentioned, and surely we must realize the importance of an inland line of communication between the South Australian iron ore deposits and the manufacturing centre of Newcastle. In the event of sea communication being cut by an enemy, this route would still be open.

The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) said that the construction of the Red Hill to Port Augusta line would tend to increase goods traffic over the transcontinental railway. I remind the honorable member that, even if the line were completed, there is not sufficient rolling-stock to carry what goods might be offering. Even if we had the railway, the rolling-stock, and the gauge, we should not have the men or the material to send there. The only possible method, from the military aspect, of approaching this matter is, with great respect to the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr), to place the big steel manufacturing industry of Newcastle in direct rail communication with the source of its raw material. A railway from Port Augusta to Port Pirie would not help that in any way.

Mr Paterson:

– In order to get transcontinental communication we would still need to bridge the gap between Port Pirie and Port Augusta.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The gap is not between Port Pirie and Port Augusta. A railway has already been constructed from Port Augusta to Peterbo rough.

Mr PATERSON:
CP

– Yes, but on a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– Then that must be converted. [Quorum formed.’] Instead of reducing the number of breaks of gauge in South Australia this proposal will increase them. It will put three railway gauges into the town of Port Pirie, and it does not close up any one break of gauge in the State. The position in South Australia is without parallel in the Commonwealth, because it has Commonwealth railways, State railways, and private railways, and it has a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, a 4-ft. gauge., and’ a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. In fact South Australia has within its borders eight different systems of railways, taking the gauges which are more or less independently run, and the three different ownerships. The present proposal does not help South Australia in any way whatever to overcome that difficulty. Finally, I assert, with all due respect to the Government, that, when this deed is committed, the federal and State taxpayers collectively will have to face an added deficit of about £130,000 a year, if we are to believe the people who inquired into the project, as the result of a most unnecessary expenditure.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- Whenever a railway bill is presented to Parliament it naturally opens up a number of very big subjects, including the development of the country, the opening up of land, transportation generally, and methods and modes* of transport. I give an undertaking not to enter upon a discussion covering that wide field, nor do I intend to speak at length on the question of gauges, although the bill does bring before us the matter of a standard railway gauge. There is a great deal of diversity of opinion about railway gauges. I do not agree that the gauge which we are frequently told has been adopted as the standard is the best gauge for Australia. Who adopted it as the standard gauge? This Parliament has never decided that 4 ft. S£ in. is the best gauge, or the standard gauge, for Australia. 1 believe that 5 ft. 3 in. is the best gauge for railway working. It is far more comfortable to travel on, and experience shows that it leads to more economical working. I have seen railway systems operated in England, on the Continent, and in America, and my experience in travelling over them satisfies me that the best gauge for Australia is 5 ft. 3 in. The railways of South Australia and Victoria, with their 5-ft. 3-iu. gauge are 100 per cent, better than the New South Wales railways. As a matter of fact the worst railways in Australia are to be found in New South Wales. *[Quorum formed. * One of the arguments put forward in favour of the bill is that it will save travelling time for passengers to and from Western Australia. Under present arrangements, east-west passengers spend only half an hour in Adelaide, and then continue their journey either to Perth or Melbourne. The time-table is badly arranged, and I should like the Minister who controls the Commonwealth Railways to look into it, whether the bill is passed or not. The travelling public should be allowed more time to spend in Adelaide, fu Melbourne they have to cool their heels from. 9 a.m. until 5.30 p.m. I admit that Melbourne is a nice place, but so also is Adelaide, and the people of Western Australia, and the north-eastern States should be allowed a little longer time to enjoy its beauties.

Mr Paterson:

– That has nothing to do with this Parliament.

Mr PRICE:

– I realize that it is a matter for adjustment between the various Railway Commissioners. I am not satisfied that a direct line is necessary, and I am afraid that the expanse cannot be justified.

If the House agrees to it - and the indications are that it will - I suggest that it would be far preferable for the Commonwealth to build a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge from Red Hill to Port Augusta, than to connect up with Port Pirie in this way. It would provide a much faster service from Port Augusta to Adelaide, and would be far preferable to running a 4 ft. 81 in. line right into Adelaide. Despite the remarks of the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr), who dealt very effectively with the matter a little while ago, honorable members know the dangers and difficulties of having twin gauges on a railway sustem. I do not profess to be an engineer, but I have had a number of years’ experience of railways, and I am satisfied that it would be far too dangerous to run 4 ft. 8-J in. and 5 ft. 3 in. rolling-stock on one line. I should not like to cast a vote for any such arrangement, and would much prefer to protect the travelling public by having one gauge, and that the best gauge. If the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge were continued to Red Hill, the construction of such a line would entail considerably less loss on the State railways. The capital cost, and the interest and working expenses, would be considerably less than under any of the schemes put forward by the Commonwealth Government. It is estimated that an annual loss of £127,000 will result to the Commonwealth and the States from this proposal. Why? I do not think that this line, if built, will earn axle grease. Its sole purpose is to save a few hours for a limited number of passengers on the transcontinental railway.

Mr Paterson:

– Twenty-four hours between Perth and Melbourne.

Mr PRICE:

– I know, but the Minister does not take into consideration the great expense that is involved. I do not think it is justified. Air and motor and other forms of transport have to be considered. The matter of roads must also be taken into account. More and more the railways are being beaten by these other means of travelling. Therefore, I consider the matter should be considered very seriously. The South Australian Government urged the Commonwealth Government to withdraw this measure, and intimated that if the Commonwealth pro ceeded with it the State would have no option but to approach the High Court for an injunction to restrain the Commonwealth from commencing the undertaking.

Mr Drakeford:

– Does the honorable member agree with that view?

Mr PRICE:

– I intend to put forward the view of the State Government on this point on which I have been making inquiries for the past few weeks. I am sure all honorable members would like to see an amicable settlement arranged between the two Governments.

Mr Paterson:

– The Commonwealth Government is anxious to do that.

Mr PRICE:

– I believe that the Minister desires that. No honorable member would wish to have any State pitted against the Commonwealth, or vice versa, and I hope this measure will be shelved, and gone on with at a la’ter date. A postponement would enable roundtable conferences to be held between representatives of the Commonwealth and the Government of South Australia, by which means I hope an amicable settlement could be arrived at. The Minister said that the Commonwealth Government had submitted several schemes for the consideration of the Government of South Australia in this matter. Its latest scheme is that the Commonwealth Government should extend the 4-ft. S-i-in. gauge from Port Augusta southwards to Port Pirie, a distance of 56 miles, and that South Asstralia should extend the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge from Red Hill to Port Pirie, a distance of 26 miles. This would make Port Pirie the break-of-gauge station. I would rather see the line carried on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge from Red Hill to Port Augusta. This gauge is the most suitable. However, the latest scheme suggested by the Commonwealth is far better than any previously outlined.

Actually the only feature of this bill that appeals to me is that the building of the railway will, to a certain extent, relieve the unemployment position. Every honorable member will support this objective. Nevertheless, the South Australian Government contends that the Commonwealth Government is not entitled by law to construct the proposed railway against the wishes of the State. It is necessary, therefore, for the Commonwealth Government to show, first, that the State Parliament has given consent to the carrying out of the railway and railway works referred to in the agreement in 1925; and, secondly, that this agreement is still valid and subsisting and binding upon the State. The State Government has gone fully into this, aspect of the matter, and has sought the advice of eminent counsel. It is well to place on record just what actually is the position in this respect, because it is possible that we may find ourselves in a position where the State Government will find it necessary to have recourse to litigation. Counsel consulted by the State Government has advised that the consent given by the State act of 1926 was conditional upon the construction of the railway being commenced within three years from the 26th- February, 1926-

Mr Paterson:

– It was conditional upon the State Premier giving notice within twelve months ; that was not done.

Mr PRICE:

– Counsel has advised the State government that it was conditional upon the construction of the railway being commenced within three years from the 26th February, 1926, or such longer period as might be fixed by the Premier, and that this agreement lapsed after the expiration of three years from that date, and, therefore, ceased to be binding upon the State before the Commonwealth act of 1930 was passed. The bill now before the Commonwealth Parliament, which seeks to amend the Port Augusta to Red Hill Railway Act 1930, will therefore bc ineffectual. Counsel further advises that if consent were given by the State to the original agreement it was upon the terms and conditions embodied in the agreement, and as these conditions with respect to having the necessary surveys and estimates made and with respect to the introduction of Commonwealth legislation to give effect to the agreement have not been fulfilled, the Commonwealth Government has defaulted and the agreement is at an end; it is no longer binding upon the State. I stress this point because it is important that honorable members should realize its implication. [Quorum formed.’] Counsel further advised the Government of South Australia that the agreement of 1925 is not now acceptable to either party. The Acting Prime Minister says that the Commonwealth Government “believes that certain modifications would be in the best interests of the Commonwealth Government, the State Government and taxpayers alike “. I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider deferring this bill until after the recess, when honorable members will return to the discussion with their minds refreshed and after the Commonwealth Government has had an opportunity to get into touch with the State Government with the object of arriving at an amicable settlement. If my suggestion is agreed to, the Commonwealth Government will be able to go more fully into the matter and be in a better position to arrive at a settlement which will be in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country.

If this measure is carried, and I am afraid that it is going to be carried, I appeal to the Government to treat South Australia leniently, because, if this line is constructed, South Australia is bound to suffer a tremendous loss of revenue in addition to its many other disabilities. If such treatment is not accorded, this action on the part of the Commonwealth will be unjust and will hereafter be spoken of as such.

Tho honorable members for Darling (Mr. Clark) and Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) advocated the building of a line to Broken Hill. This project was inquired into many years ago. I do not think the present is an opportune time for the construction of such a line, but I feel that some day it will be built, and when it comes to be built there will be some justification for building it on the 4-ft. 8½in. gauge as it will be linking two systems of the same gauge.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

– I apologize for intruding into the debate at this stage, but I have been impelled to do so because of the miserable and parochial attitude which has been taken up by certain people in South Australia in connexion with. the construction of this line. The objections of these people are based purely upon local interests. They were first raised by people living at Quorn and Terowie, and I believe that at the bottom of this agitation is an idea to establish a pretext for further compensation being given by the Commonwealth to South Australia. I remind these people that South Australia has been treated very generously by the Commonwealth Government. That State this year received a special grant exceeding £1,500,000, and, in view of this generosity, it ill becomes South Australian representatives to adopt the attitude they_have taken up on this matter. A transcontinental railway should extend across the whole of the continent; it should not be purely an undertaking of local interest; it is a national project. If South Australia intends to hamper the Commonwealth in such undertakings of national Importance, it is about time that extended powers were given to the Commonwealth Government to meet that emergency. I am very surprised to find a single honorable member in this House objecting to the proposal to complete this railway.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

.- All honorable members are aware of the reasons which prompted the Government to advance this proposal. Last year it was decided to allocate a large amount of money for the relief of unemployment, and it was generally accepted that portion of that money should be spent on this project. Australian railways are bristling with mistakes, and. in contemplating the construction of any line in the future, every precaution should be taken to see that none of these mistakes is repeated. Before federation, each State built its own railways to suit its own requirements. Even then, however, one would have thought that each State would have had sufficient foresight to agree to construct its lines on a uniform gauge. However, that was not done. The present route from Adelaide to Terowie is a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge; from Terowie to Port Augusta the gauge is 3 ft. 6 in. This section of the line has very steep gradients running as high as 1 in 40. The result is that the journey over this section, a distance of 200 miles, is unnecessarily long and tiresome: it takes practically a day to complete. The route proposed in the measure now before the House will shorten the distance by approximately 70 miles. I should have opposed entirely the first proposal which was submitted to this House. I am entirely opposed to the idea of having a third rail, as was intended in connexion with that proposal.

The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) has expressed the decided opinion that no danger is to be apprehended from the use of a third rail, and has pointed out that there is a space of only a few inches between the two rails. That fact, I take it, would increase the danger, because any obstructive matter that became lodged between the rails might derail a train. Considerable engineering difficulties would be encountered in the Adelaide railway yards, where all the tines have a gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. [Quorum formed.] The latest proposal of the Commonwealth is for the extension of the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge from Bed Hill to Port Pirie. I am confident that that will find favour with both the people and the Government of South Australia.

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– in reply - I shall occupy only a few minutes of the valuable time left to the House, in replying to some rather astonishing statements made by the honorable members for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) and Boothby (Mr. Price).

The description of the agreement given by the honorable member for Boothby and his argument that it had ceased to have any force or effect as between the Commonwealth and South Australia, seem to me to be rather a travesty of the real position. In the agreement it was laid down that if the Premier of South Australia, within twelve months of the passing of legislation by the State, informed the Prime Minister of a time within which this work must be commenced, being not less than three years, the Commonwealth would be bound by the time limit so set and would have to commence construction, otherwise the agreement would become null and void. The Premier of South Australia did not inform the Prime Minister within twelve months of the passage of State legislation that a time limit would be set, and our legal advisers assure us that the Commonwealth now has a free and unfettered right to build the line at any time.

The honorable member for Barker has contended that the problem with which we are faced would be better dealt with by converting the line from Broken Hill to Port Pirie. That work may be undertaken in the future. I hope that it will be, because it would be a very valuable contribution to the linking up of the eastern and western sides of the continent on a gauge of 4 ft. 8½ in. But even if that were done, an essential part of the work would be the bridging oi the gap between Port Pirie and Port Augusta with a gauge of 4 ft. S£in., because that would enable rolling-stock to be taken from, say, South Brisbane or Sydney, right across the continent to Kalgoorlie. Because of the gradient that could be obtained, surely it would be infinitely better to go by way of Port Pirie and from Port Pirie to Port Augusta, than across the Flinders Range !

Although two alternatives to the existing agreement have been placed before the South Australian Government, I want to make it clear that the Commonwealth is still prepared to carry out the agreement to the letter. But, as the Acting Prime Minister (Dr. Earle Page) stated earlier to-day, the Government much prefers, if possible, to secure the willing co-operation of South Australia rather than its reluctant acceptance of a legal agreement. That is the object of the second alternative which has been placed before the House to-day and has been forwarded to the Premier of South Australia. It is submitted without prejudice to the existing agreement. It is proposed that the South Australian Government shall extend its 5-ft. 3-in. gauge line for a distance of 26 miles from Red Hill to Port Pirie, md that the Commonwealth shall extend its 4 ft. 8-J in. line from Port Augusta to Port Pirie, the latter to be made the break-of-gauge station. I was astonished at the statement of the honorable member for Barker that this proposal would not solve any breakofgauge problem. If the South Australian Government agrees to it, and I hope that it will, and consents to the Victorian and South Australian joint sleeper rolling-stock being run straight through from Melbourne to Port

Pirie, a traveller from Western AusAustralia to the Eastern States would leave the Trans-Australian train at Port Pirie instead of at Port Augusta, and step into another train that would take him, without further break of gauge, right through to Melbourne. That would eliminate the 3 ft. 6 in. connexion between Port Augusta and Terowie.

As a first alternative to the agreement the Commonwealth asked South Australia if it would be prepared to sell to the Commonwealth the 5 ft. 3 in. line from Red Hill to Salisbury, and allow the Commonwealth to covert it to a 4 ft. 8-J in. track instead of having a third rail. South Australia is not agreeable to that, nor is it inclined to go on with the existing agreement. The Commonwealth has, accordingly, advanced the second alternative, and. in doing so has gone so far as to offer to relinquish, for the present, the opportunity afforded under the agreement to run the trans-continental passenger trains into Adelaide, and the standard-gauge stock trains into Dry Creek abattoirs. While that advantage would be withdrawn, the two main objectives of the Commonwealth would be secured, namely, first the shortening of the route and the saving of a day in the time occupied between Western Australia and the eastern States; and, secondly, the immediate provision of a good deal of employment. A saving of approximately £450,000 compared with the third-rail agreement would be made if this modified proposal were adopted. If agreement were subsequently reached with South Australia and Victoria on the larger issue of complete standardization of the gauges, the conversion of the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge between Port Pirie and Adelaide would be a very simple matter, and the cost would be only a fraction of that involved in the temporary solution of the break-of-gauge problem, by the use of a third rail.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the earnest desire of the Commonwealth Government that this modified proposal shall be accepted by the South Australian Government, if that Government is not prepared to accept the original agreement to which it is a party, for the two-fold purpose of transforming this, admittedly the worst section of the East-West line. into one of the best sections, and of providing employment. In order that no time may be lost in this connexion, the Commonwealth proposes to commence the construction of the line from Port Augusta under the authority of the existing agreement. Meanwhile, it would be prepared to enter into a new agreement with the South Australian Government on the lines suggested. Even though some months must necessarily elapse before such an agreement could be ratified in the Parliaments of South Australia and the Commonwealth, the State would still have ample time after the expiration of that period to build its relatively short section of line on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge fromRed Hill to Port Pirie before the Commonwealth line from Port Augusta could reach Port Pirie, because the latter would cover more than twice the distance of the former. In order to avoid delay, and disappointment to those who are looking for employment, and so that a great national work may be undertaken, I ask the House to pass the bill in its present form, accepting the assurance of the Government that it is willing to amend promptly, along the lines indicated, both the agreement with South Australia and this legislation, if the cooperation of the South Australian Government can be secured.

Question, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Preamble.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I am not prepared to agree to the preamble, because it embodies a statement which is absolutely contrary to the view held by South Australia. It says that all doubts have now been removed in regard to the consent of South Australia to the construction of the Port Augusta toRed Hill railway having full force and effect. I say, with all due respect to the Government, that that is not an accurate description of the state of affairs. So long as there is talk of approaching the High Court, for a decision on the matter, it is not right to state in the preamble that all doubts have been removed.

Preamble agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1211

WHEAT COMMISSION BILL 1935

Bill received from the Senate.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Dr. Earle Page) read a first time.

page 1211

BILLSRE TURNEDFROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : -

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1935-36.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1935.

Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Validation Bill 1935.

Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Validation Bill 1935.

page 1211

IMMIGRATION BILL 1935

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · North Sydney · UAP

– I move -

That the bill bo now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to cure certain defects in the Immigration Restriction Act revealed by the decision of the High Court in the Griffin case. Griffin was charged with being a prohibited immigrant under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1910-1932 in that he was an immigrant who had, five years after his entry into the Commonwealth, failed to pass the prescribed dictation test, and further that he was, during that time, a prohibited immigrant under that act. If honorable members will examine the principal act, they will see that sections’ 5, 7 and 7a, which this bill seeks to amend, provide the machinery by which the act works. Our immigration laws, as honorable members are well aware, are essential for the welfare of the Common wealth, and the original act, passed in 1901, was regarded as a fundamental law. The then Attorney-General, the late Honorable Alfred Deakin, when introducing the measure, said that it could be described as “ the Monroe Doctrine of the Commonwealth of Australia “. It certainly is the bulwark of our White Australia policy, and forms the base upon which the industrial structure of the Commonwealth has been slowly built up since that time. It is obvious that our system of industrial arbitration, and those standards of high wages and conditions for which organized Labour has fought most strenuously during the last 30 or 40 years are dependent upon our preventing large numbers of people accustomed to lower standards and wages from entering this country. When the original bill was introduced into this Parliament, the Labour party of the day took the view that it was desirable to exclude aboriginal natives of Africa, Asia, and the islands of the Pacific by direct statutory prohibition, but that course was not agreed to, mainly because the British Government in a despatch to the Commonwealth Government expressed the opinion very strongly that that form of -restriction would give offence to very many nations with which it was most desirable to remain on terms of amity. So a language test was substituted for direct statutory exclusion. It was, in fact, the only practicable alternative. The original bill as introduced into the House provided that the test should be 50 words in the English language, but after protracted . debate it was agreed that the dictation test should be given in any European language. In 1905, a further amendment to the act provided that a test of not less than 50 words could be given in any prescribed language. The test has thus passed through three stages: first, in the English language only; secondly, in any European language; and thirdly, in any prescribed language. It was further provided that until the prescribed languages had been authorized any European language should be deemed to be a prescribed language. No languages have ever been prescribed, so all tests have been given in a European language chosen by the departmental officer. It is necessary to refer to the language test, because it goes to the root of the original act and it has continued to be the means upon which the Government has relied to exclude undesirable aliens. It now appears that the law has serious defects which must be remedied if our national policy is to be enforced. In the Griffin case, the High Court upheld the appeal on the ground that the information laid under section 5 relied, in fact, on the provision of section 7, which sets out that -

Every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this act shall be guilty of an offence.

If honorable members refer to section 5 of the act, they will see that if provides that-

Any immigrant who evades an officer or who enters the Commonwealth at any place where no officer is stationed may if at any time thereafter he is found within the Commonwealth be required to pass the dictation test and shall, if he fails to do so, bc deemed to be a “prohibited immigrant offending against this act.

The mere fact of his failure to pass the test made him ipso facto a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of that section. In all prosecutions the Crown has relied upon the provisions set out in sub-section 3 of section 5 in which the onus is thrown on the immigrant to prove that he has not committed any offence against the act. The Crown, in laying the information in the Griffin case, relied upon section 5 as a basis for securing a conviction under section 7. Sub-section 3 of section 5 provides that in any prosecution under the last two preceding sub-sections, the averment of the prosecutor, contained in the information that the defendant is a prohibited immigrant because he has done or has failed to do certain specified things shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary by the personal evidence of the defendant either with, or without, other evidence. Under section 5, in order to prove that a person is a prohibited immigrant, it is only necessary that a dictation test should be imposed, and that he should fail to pass it. Section 5, however, does not provide a penalty, and so, in order to secure the imposition of an effective penalty, it was necessary to lay information under section 7 as well as under section 5. The information in Griffin’s case was based on section 7, although reliance was also placed on section 5. Under section 5 the onus of proof is on the immigrant, but section 7 throws on the Crown the onus of proving that he is, in fact, a prohibited immigrant. I have already reminded honorable members that this act is the bulwark of theWhite Australia policy. It would be impossible to exclude undesirable aliens from this country if the Crown were called upon to prove that they are, in fact, prohibited immigrants within the meaning of this act.

Mr Lazzarini:

– . Why?

Mr HUGHES:

– That, I think, should be obvious. It has been my fortune to administer the External Affairs Department, and so I am in a position to speak with some authority on this matter. For instance, it happens sometimes that members of Chinese crews desert from vessels in Australian ports. It is impossible to prove, as a fact, once they are ashore, that they are not residents of this country, or that the papers in their possession have come to them in an illegitimate way. It has been the practice of persons who bring coloured labour here for their own purposes, to pass papers from one Chinaman to another. Permission is given by the department for Chinese to go back to China; papers are issued to them, and then those papers pass like coin of the realm from one to another. I have had men brought before me whose papers showed that they had been resident in Australia for 20 years, but, when I put a question to them in English, all they could reply was “ Cabbagee and Li’l’ Bourke-street “. That was all the English they knew.

During the last 34 years, this act has proved marvellously efficient. It has been accepted by those great nations who are our neighbours, and with whom it is vitally important we should keep on good terms. It has been accepted by the world as an exercise of our sovereign right to determine who shall come into this country and who shall not. It makes no distinction between the people of one nation and of another, because it provides for the exclusion of people simply on the ground that they fail to pass a dictation test. In that way the racial or national pride of no one is offended. I can speak authoritatively of this because I was present at Versailles when the Japanese delegates pressed so strongly for the recognition of racial equality. Eventually they accepted the position as it stood.

The dictation test provides an elastic and most convenient means for exercising our undoubted right to say who shall come into this country. I do not dispute that there may be objections in certain cases to the exercise of those rights, but that can be urged in respect of almost any rights. Rights, if pressed to their utmost, may, arouse hostility in those against whom they are exercised. To make that admission, however, is not to condemn the act or this amending bill. If we admit that it is desirable that we should be masters in our own house, we must have the right to exclude persons whom we deem to be undesirable. It would be impossible to maintain that imposing structure of industrial conditions that has been built up over a course of years by the almost incessant efforts of Labour organizations but for this act.

Now I come to the position created by the recent decision of the High Court. In Griffin’s case the High Court ruled that the offences covered by section 5 of the act were not the same as those covered by section 7. Let me disabuse the minds of honorable members of the impression that we are desirous of going behind the decision of the High Court in the Griffin case. We accept the decision, and, so far as anything Griffin has done up to the present is concerned., he enjoys the same privileges and rights as any person in Australia. We are now considering, not the Griffin case or the Kisch case, but the position created by the decision of the High Court, as it affects the powers of the Commonwealth to exclude undesirable aliens. It is to remedy the defect in the law revealed by this decision that this amending bill hasbeen introduced. It is proposed to amend the act so that both section 5 and section 7 shall be self-contained and shall not depend one upon the other. Clause 2 of the bill provides -

Section five of the principal act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section : - “(6.) Any person who is, by virtue of this section, deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this act shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for. six months, and, in addition to or substitution for such imprisonment, deportation from the Commonwealth pursuant to an order made in that behalf by the Minister.”

If honorable members turn to section 7 of. the act they will see that the clause I have just read attaches to section 5 the penalty provisions of section 7. . When this amendment is made, information can be laid under section 5, a conviction secured and a penalty imposed. Section 7 of the principal act is amended by inserting after the word “ act “ where it first occurs, in the second line of the section, the words “ and every person who, by virtue of this act, is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this act “. If honorable members turn to section 5 of the act they will see that that repeats the wording of sub-section 2. The mere fact that a person has failed to pass the test is sufficient; he is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant, and the onus of disproving it is thrown on him. We insert now in section 7 the proviso that not only every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this act, but also every person who by virtue of this act is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against’ this act, shall be guilty of an offence. Then at the end of section 7 of the principal act we insert the following sub-section, which attaches to section 7 the averment provisions of sub-section 3 of section. 5 : -

In any prosecution under this section the averment of the prosecutor that the defendant is a prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this act, or is ; i person who by virtue of this act is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary by the personal evidence of the defendant either with or without other evidence.

So that, as I said at the outset, both these sections are now self-contained, and both now include provisions throwing the onus of proof upon the defendant.

Mr Garden:

– Against the right honorable gentleman’s life-time principles.

Mr HUGHES:

– If anybody goes to the honorable member’s house, the honorable member is himself the person who determines whether he shall enter or not.

The honorable member lays down the conditions upon which that person shall enter his house, unless he comes armed with the powers of the law. We have the right, which every householder has, to determine who shall come into this country ; and the onus is thrown upon the person coming, and not upon us. Nor is it thrown upon the householder. The other person has to satisfy the householder of his identity and of the innocence of his purpose. All those things are obvious. I must ask honorable members to wipe from their minds the suspicion that this legislation, which has been in existence now for nearly 35 years, was designed for the purpose of dealing with Griffin or some other person. What we are ‘Concerned with is not whether Kisch or Griffin came in, and not whether they ought to have been prosecuted or let ‘ alone. That is all gone. Let the dead past bury its dead. The point is whether we, the people of this country, are to be deprived of all protection ; whether the institutions which have been built up and which really constitute the Australia that we value, are to be swept aside and trampled underfoot. I say deliberately that, unless these amendments are made, this act becomes for those purposes inoperative, and it is impossible to exclude undesirable aliens.

Mr Brennan:

– The right honorable gentleman has made the burden of proof much wider under section 7 than it was under section 5. It is a much heavier burden of proof.

Mr HUGHES:

– It throws the onus of proof on him. Why is it wider?

Mr Brennan:

– Because under section 7 he will now have to disprove everything alleged which constitutes the definition of prohibited immigrant under section 3 instead of the specific things mentioned in section 5.

Mr HUGHES:

– If the information is laid under section 7 and the defendant is charged under section 7, how much less than that would suffice? The honorable member has supplied his own answer. If the information is laid under section 7 it is very evident that the onus must be thrown on the defendent to disprove what is alleged against him. He must go to the very root of the offence with which he is charged. The amendment, therefore. goes no further than is necessary. Paragraph c of clause 3 of the bill provides that section 7 of the principal act shall also be amended by omitting from the proviso thereto the words “provided that the imprisonment “ and inserting in their stead the words : 7aa. Any imprisonment imposed for an offence against section 5 or section 7 of this act.

The now sidenote co that proviso is “ Deportation of prisoner “. This amend.ment is consequential on the new penalty provisions to be inserted in section 5, and provides for similar action being taken in respect of cases dealt with under section 5 as may be taken in those under section 7. All these amendments are necessary. We must consider what is the object of this measure. What are we trying to do? Once we admit that this country cannot maintain the White Australia policy-

Mr Rosevear:

– Forget about it. The White Australia policy is not involved.

Mr HUGHES:

– My words fall on deaf ears if they are addressed to those who do not believe in the White Australia policy - to those who have attended Pacific conferences, where the coloured nations of the world were gathered, and have extended to them cordial invitations to join in the onward march of the brotherhood of man. You might as well appeal in the name of Christ to those who do not believe in Christ, as talk of a White Australia to people who do not believe in it. The less the honorable member and those associated with him in the corner have to say about this the better it will be for them.

The last clause of the bill amends section 7 a of the principal act by omitting the words “ the last preceding section “ and inserting in their stead the words “ section 5 or section 7 of this act “. That is a mere consequential amendment, which is obviously necessary in order to cover the amendments already made by the bill in the principal act. I shall not labour the question further. It has become imperative to amend the act, and the most necessary amendments are made by this bill. I do not suggest that the whole act does not require recasting. I do not deny that the High Court itself, by the mouth of

His Honour the Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Rich, invited this legislature to do this very thing, and pointed out the urgency and necessity for doing it. I do not suggest that this bill in itself is enough; but I do assert that, unless it is passed, the act will be inoperative.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- The measure which has been submitted to the House by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Hughes) contains some proposals which, I think, are necessary and desirable, and others which are not only undesirable, but also unnecessary. It is prompted by the unanimous decision of the High Court in the case of Griffin, but it is not correct to say, as the Minister said, that it was suggested by the High Court. What the High Court said was that the immigration legislation was confused, and should receive the attention of Parliament.

Mr Hughes:

– His Honour said “ and it well merits the attention of the legislature.”

Mr BLACKBURN:

– But the right honorable the Minister informed the House that these exact proposals were recommended by the High Court. That was one of a number of erroneous statements which he made in his speech. He said that the measure in this form was suggested by the High Court. As a matter of fact the High Court did not suggest it. What it said was that the legislation was obscurely drawn, and should be considered by Parliament. So far from deciding that there was no power to punish under section 5, ‘His Honour Mr. Justice Dixon decided that, reading section 5 and section 18 together, there was power to punish. I agree with the proposed amendment of section 5; but, before I come to that, let me say something about the judgments given by Their Honours of the High Court, and about the bill. The prosecution was launched under section 7 of the act, as numerous prosecutions have been launched in the past. But the difference between those which have been launched and have succeeded in the past, and this prosecution, is that the prosecutor in Griffin’s case offered no evidence against Griffin at all.

Mr Hughes:

– But lie relied on section 5.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I did not interrupt the right honorable the Minister. If he does not interrupt me I shall be much better pleased, and I think he himself will be happier. The prosecutor in Griffin’s case simply said., “ There is section 7 and there is the information, which says that Griffin is a prohibited immigrant. Upon him rests the burden of proving that he is not a prohibited immigrant.” The prosecutor’s alleged authority for that was sub-section 3 of section 5. Incidentally, that sub-section has not been in the act since 1905. Nothing like that sub-section was in the act of 1905. Convictions were obtained under section 5 before the act ever contained any. provision like that. The rudiment of what is now subsection 3 was inserted in 1910, ten years after the act first came into force. The magistrate accepted the view put to the court by the prosecutor, and convicted Griffin. From that conviction Griffin appealed. The High Court quashed the conviction, and said, “We have already twice decided that sub-section 3 of section 5 has nothing to do with section 7. Section 5 and section 7 are independent sections “. The court stated that it already had decided that point involved in the case, and therefore need only give a very short judgment on it. The court pointed out that it had .already been decided in two cases, as long ago as 1.926, that section 5 and section 7 are independent sections, and said then, that because no evidence was tendered against Griffin, the conviction could not stand. That is the position. Now proposals are made to amend the law.

Before discussing those proposals I should like to say something on the general provisions of the law. I agree with the right honorable the Minister that the community has the right to exclude people from it; and I agree with him, as every other honorable member on this side of the House does, that the measure of exclusion should be made as effective as possible; but in the development of this legislation the measure of exclusion now differs from that provided in the original act. Instead of only excluding persons of an Asiatic or African race, and preventing the mass movement of labour which would threaten our own conditions, and excluding persons who, by reason of physical or mental defects or criminality might be a burden upon our community, the act now goes further and gives power to exclude people because of their opinions on political and social issues. This power was not provided in the original act; it was not inserted in the acf until 1920. The act contains definitions of prohibited immigrants, and in section 3 there are 16 sub-sections which, if a man comes under any of them, make him a prohibited immigrant, and many of those sub-sections enumerate a number of classes. There are a great number of classes of persons who are defined as prohibited immigrants under this act. Section 5 and section 7 are connected in policy. Section 5 deals with the very cases mentioned by the right honorable the Minister. It deals with persons who fraudulently obtain entry into this country, namely, persons who obtain entry into the country by evading an officer, or by landing at any place where no officer is stationed; or who obtain entrance with forged credentials or credentials which do not belong to them; or who, having been admitted temporarily on permit, break the conditions of their permit; or who, having been admitted as indentured labourers in the pearl-shell industry, are afterwards deemed by the Minister to be undesired immigrants.. It also deals with any person who, having entered the country and being given a dictation test within five years of such entry, fails to pass such test. In connexion with the persons so defined in these five classes the act definitely throws the burden of proof upon the defendant. If a man is charged with having obtained entry into the country by evading an officer, the burden of proof is placed on him in resisting such a charge. In the case of Li Wan Quai - decided in 1906 - it was laid down that a deserter who deserts his boat was a person who comes under the section relating to evasion. The burden of proof is also placed on the individual where persons obtain entry by landing at any place where no officer is stationed, or on those who use forged credentials or papers which are not their own Upon these grounds the burden of proof is imposed upon the individual. It was. said by Mr. Justice Isaacs in the Ah On case, page 103, vol. 39, Commonwealth Law Reports -

These evidentiary provisions have been found necessary to prevent or counteract the surreptitious or fraudulent evasion of the actual immigration laws by persons who in truth are smuggled into the country., and are only discovered, if ever, with difficulty. This is the class of persons with which this case is concerned, and, broadly speaking, the only class of persons intended to be reached by the legislation impeached by the respondent.

However, the burden of proof that is thrown on the individual is a limited burden. He is told that he is charged with being an immigrant who has evaded the law in one or other of the ways I have just mentioned; he is given notice of that in the information, and that is the only thing on which he has to bear the burden of proof. For instance, if he is charged with having entered the Commonwealth with forged credentials or with papers not his own he would have to bear the burden of proof in that respect, and that only.

It is said that section 5 does not contain any ‘ provision for penalties against persons who fraudulently enter the Commonwealth. Mr. Justice Dixon expressed the opinion that there was power under the act to inflict -a penalty in these cases, basing this opinion on his reading of section 18 in conjunction with section 5. However, let that pass. “We are prepared to support an amendment to section 5 to make express provision with a penalty, but, in considering section 7, the problem is quite different.

Section 7 deals with the case of a man charged with being a prohibited immigrant although he may not have attempted any fraud whatever in obtaining entry into this country. Section 5 gives ample means to deal with a man who obtains entry or attempts to obtain entry, into the country by fraud. The persons dealt with in section 7 may be persons who have attempted no fraud whatever, but happen to hold unpopular opinions. In this section we may be dealing with perfectly honest men. Under the amend ment it is proposed, not only that shall section 5 be tightened up and strengthened, but also that the burden of proof shall apply to persons charged under section 7. That is the widest possible burden an accused person can be made to bear. Under the amendment a person charged under section 7 may have to prove that he does not come within any of the sixteen categories of prohibited immigrants set out in section 3; he does not know what he shall have to prove. Apart from that, I think, it is undesirable for this Parliament to extend the principle of throwing the burden of proof upon the accused man. This is a verydangerous thing to do; yet it is very easy for the legislature to be led away by the attractive plausibility of a specially hard case. Legislatures make rules which not merely govern the case for which they are originally designed to ‘be applied but also become precedents for other measures. When the legislature acts at all in this direction, it should remember that the standard it is laying down to apply to person A may be subsequently applied and extended to persons B, C, D, and so on to the end of the alphabet. The peoples who have adopted the English system of law have done so because they believe that these laws are superior to the laws of other countries. One reason for that belief is that by the English common law no person is taken to be guilty of an offence until he is proved guilty. The mere fact that he is charged with an offence does not make him guilty of that offence; the person who makes the charge has to prove that the person charged is guilty. All down through the history of the English common law, canon and civil law have been struggling over that point. Canon law laid it down that any person charged with heresy must assume the burden of proving his innocence beyond all doubt. But common law said that if a man were charged with an offence it must be proved that he committed the offence. The story is told of the Roman Emperor Julian, who sat on the bench when a man was being charged with an offence. In this case no sufficient evidence was submitted so Julian acquitted him. When he did so the prosecutor humbly said : “ Most Noble

Emperor, how could any man he ever convicted if his denial is to be accepted as sufficient’’ and to this Julian replied: “And how could any man ever be acquitted if the accusation were to be accepted as sufficient.” Yet that is what we are being asked to do in this amendment; we are asked to agree that a mere accusation shall be accepted as proof of guilt. If it is right to insert such a rule in this law to-day it will be right to insert it in other laws later. This vicious practice was first adopted in our customs laws, and it has since been extended in all directions. I say that the extension of such a practice is dangerous, improper, and, in this case, unnecessary, because, having listened, to the speech of the right honorable the Minister I am quite satisfied that none of the cases of immigrants of whose entry he is afraid will ever be dealt with under section 7. Section 5, when strengthened as proposed by the amendment, will be adequate to deal with deserters or evaders, or persons who land at a place where no officer is stationed, persons who use forged testimonials, or who come in on papers which they cannot prove as their own or who break the conditions of their entry, or any person who cannot pass a dictation test five years after his or her admission.

Mr Hughes:

– What would the honorable member do with those people?

Mr BLACKBURN:

- Mr. Justice Dixon agreed that the act already provided penalties to be applied to such offenders. However, honorable members or. this side of the House agree with the proposed amendment to section 5. If it is contended that section 5 does not already provide for penalties against a man who fraudulently tries to break the laws i>f this country, we are willing to strengthen the law. But we are not prepared to consent to an amendment by which a visitor to this country may be, not only charged with being a prohibited immigrant, because of views he holds on political and social questions, but also compelled to prove that his views do not fall within paragraph gd of section 3 of the principal act. Yet that could be done. The right of asylum has been one of the great contributions that England has made to the cause of the freedom of Europe. There would be no Italy to-day if Mazzini and others had not had the protection of England against Austrian rulers, nor would Hungary have won her freedom from Austria if Kossuth had not had the protection, not only of England and the United States of America, but even of Turkey. The free institutions and free democracy have been developed in Europe to a great degree, because England was the asylum to which political refugees could come. Now we are being asked to say that this principle of freedom shall be forsworn. When we boast of British freedom and British institutions it is of things like this that we think; but many of those who profess to glory in British institutions, destroy them every day in essence and spirit. The right honorable the Minister said that all the fears of honorable mem-be rs on this side of the House with respect to this legislation, are based upon distrust of the administration and upon fears that the powers given by this measure may be abused. We do not fear that those powers may be used. We know that with the present Government in power, supported by the party which it now has behind it, if this power is given it will be abused. We know also that there are certain honorable members in this House and in the Ministry who openly avowed their desire to exclude from this country persons who differ from them in social and political opinions. The Government proposes that it shall have the right, not merely to exclude these persons from Australia, but also to throw upon them the burden of. proving that the views which they hold do not come within the category of “ prohibited views “.

The only portion of the bill that seems to me to be objectionable, and that I think the House should reject, is paragraph b, of clause 3. It places upon the honest man a burden of proof that should be placed only upon the dishonest man. It is an intolerable burden, which he should not be asked to bear. The dishonest man is asked to bear only a light burden. He knows exactly what he has to prove. But the man against whom there is no suggestion of dishonesty is asked to prove that he does not come under one of sixteen different paragraphs of section 3. That cannot be consented to by any self-respecting House that adheres to British traditions, believes in British institutions, and boasts of the freedom for which our ancestors fought. Had such things as this been suffered in the past there would be no freedom in Australia to-day. Our very institutions are the result of the discontent of men who came to this land from those countries. We know how great a part was played in the development of democracy in New South Wales by men who were sent out because they were associated with the democratic movements that followed theFrench Revolution. It was the Emancipists who made democracy possible. We cannot over-estimate Victoria’s debt to the Chartists, the Young Irelanders, the Germans who were concerned in the German Revolution of 1848, the Italians who were connected with the outbreak of revolution in Italy in the same year, the Spaniards and other revolutionaries of young Europe who, being disappointed with the defeat of freedom in Europe, heard with great joy of this country across the seas, where gold had been discovered, and where every man who was willing to work could not only earn a competence, but could also realize, under fresh and more propitious skies, the ideals which his native land had rejected ; a new country that could be developed, and one which would be a fit home for men and women- - even for heroes.

I trust that this paragraph will not be. accepted by this House. I believe that the Minister himself would not have advocated it years ago. I trust that he has not degenerated from his former standard. But even if he does not invite the House to reject paragraphb, I urge the House to reject it.

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– A flaw has been discovered in our immigration legislation, and if we are to preserve inviolate the White Australia policy, it is essential that we should repair it as quickly as possible. Until this week, we believed that our existing legislation safeguarded that policy. It was a case of “ Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise “. Not only we, but also other nations, believed our law to be effective. A breach in our defences has now been, exposed, not only to ourselves, but also to the people of other countries. We cannot overlook that most important fact. If we delayed the repair of this flaw, we should endanger the White Australia policy, to which we all subscribe.

Mr Beasley:

– The Minister should state the case fairly.

Mr PATERSON:

– I have stated what is absolutely the case. I believe that every- honorable member is proud of the fact that we can claim to be 97 per cent. British stock. With respect to Anglo-Saxon blood, Australia is more pure than is Great Britain itself. We have a smaller percentage of alien blood. The White Australia policy is very generally accepted by all parties. I believe that it can no longer be maintained unless our legislation is strengthened along the lines proposed. Almost every week, in my capacity as Minister for the Interior, I have to sign deportation orders to send out of Australia deserting alien seamen who come here on board ship from different countries. When they are discovered, the onus is placed on them of proving that they are not prohibited immigrants.

Mr Rosevear:

– Is not that an admission that this is unnecessary?

Mr PATERSON:

– -No. So long as we believed that we had the power we were able to exercise it, because others also believed that we had it. Now that it has been discovered that the power does not exist, others will take advantage of the weakness in our law.

Mr Brennan:

– We are prepared to remedy that weakness.

Mr PATERSON:

– If a vessel from which seamen have deserted has not left port when these men are discovered, it is comparatively easy, by confronting them with the master, to prove that they are deserters and prohibited immigrants. But if they are able to remain undiscovered for some little time, and their ship leaves without them, it is exceedingly -difficult to prove that they are prohibited immigrants unless we have the undoubted right to place upon them the onus of proving that they came here in a regular fashion, and not through the back door.

Mr Rosevear:

– Does not the Minister think it possible for an innocent man to be unable to prove his innocence?

Mr PATERSON:

– No. A man who comes here through the regular channels in a rightful way, and not surreptitiously, should not have the slightest difficulty in proving his case. I believe that this legislation will hold no terrors for such a man.

Mr Beasley:

– What does the Minister say are regular channels?

Mr PATERSON:

– An alien who came to Australia with a proper landing permit would come through the regular channels.

Mr Beasley:

– Did. not Griffin come through the regular channels? Did he not land in the ordinary way?

Mr PATERSON:

– Honorable members make the grave mistake of imagining that this legislation is proposed solely with the object of dealing with cases such as that mentioned by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley).

Mr Brennan:

– No.

Mr PATERSON:

– The Immigration Act covers a far wider field than that. It is essential that sections 5 and 7 should be absolutely selfsufficient, and that neither should lean upon the other. The bill should make provision for safeguards that will enable us to retain control of immigration. I do not think that honorable members opposite would suggest for one moment that our legislation should have a doubtful effect in any shape or form. Surely we must be able to say who shall, or shall not, become the future citizens of this country!

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– And who may lie a visitor to it.

Mr PATERSON:

– And those who may be visitors. To be able to say that, wo must have the powers that we propose to take under this amending legislation.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

.- I listened very attentively to th& Minister who introduced the bill (Mr. Hughes), and was astonished at the arguments that he advanced. He raised a bogy man, and said “Look! I create him before I knock him over “. No one in this House objects to section 5, which does all that is needed. We believe that the Commonwealth should have the power which that section confers upon it. But the question of the White Australia policy has been raised. The Minister waved his arms frantically, and, pointing to me, said “ You believe in letting everybody in”. I understand the position as well as he did when, in 1910, he advocated what I am advocating now. I have not changed, but he has. Is he going back upon the principles that he then enunciated? I heard the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill) say, in regard to me, “You might have been deported yourself “. I know that that might have happened to me had I not come to Australia prior to 1901. The Government has been advised to deport me at different times; yet, when I wanted to leave Australia on one occasion, the authorities cancelled my ticket and refused to allow me to sail. The Minister in charge of the bill has said that he wishes to maintain rates of wages and labour conditions instead of lowering them to the level of those of Asiatic countries. We wanted to go to the East to tell the people there that we could protect ourselves only if “they fought for proper conditions in the cotton factories that had been shifted from England to Shanghai, Yokohama, and Tokio. The Chinese Government honoured me by granting to me the privilege of going into any part of China in order to do what I considered necessary, because it wished to protect its nationals against American and British capitalists. The same privilege would be extended to me to-day were I to visit China. I supported the Minister in 1910 when he was fighting on the coal-fields. If legislation along these lines had then been in operation, and his entry into Australia had not been made prior to 1901, he would have been deported. He was sought by the authorities, and had to go into hiding.

Under the provisions of section 7, no charge is to be laid; consequently, the person against whom action is proposed will not be able to defend himself. An Asiatic is informed of the nature of the charge against him., but that treatment is not meted out to those who come from England, Scotland or Ireland. As the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has pointed out, a man will be found guilty of an offence of which he will not know the nature. Surely the Minister does not stand for such a retrograde measure!

Silting suspended from 6.15 to 6.45 p.m. [Quorum formed.]

Mr GARDEN:

– The wail in the interests of our White Australia policy by the Minister in charge of the bill has no application to honorable gentlemen on this side of the House. I am entitled, however, to direct attention to the fact that the provisions of section 7 of the Immigration Act are rarely, if ever, used against Chinese, Japanese and other Asiatics, but are almost invariably applied to people of white races. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) has said on many occasions that we have, in Australia, the purest Anglo-Saxon race in the world, and that is so. Why should action have been taken against a young man like Gerald Griffin, 22 years of age, a native of New Zealand, against whom no complaint whatever was made as to his character or morality?

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Was he born in New Zealand?

Mr GARDEN:

– Yes. He has been prosecuted simply because of his new ideas. I am glad that. our young men have new ideas. I should think less of my own sons if they were conservative and devoid of progressive ideas. We should all disdain a rising generation that was conservative. It is strange that the operations of section 7 of this act should be used against people of the AngloSaxon race simply because they hold certain unspecified political views. I recollect that when Dr. Mannix, the distinguished Archbishop of Melbourne, and a great democrat, went abroad to visit Ireland, the land of his birth, he was denied admission to it.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– He was also stopped from landing at Liverpool.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– And at Plymouth.

Mr GARDEN:

– All of us like to feel that we can enter our native country without restriction, but Dr. Mannix was not allowed to do so; and upon his re turn to Australia his right to land here was questioned. Proposals of the kind now before us invariably put people in a false position. I am surprised that the Minister in charge of this bill should, in the declining years of his life, advocate such principles as it contains, for I recall the wonderful things that he did in his youth and young manhood, when he was fired with a great and infectious enthusiasm. Had section 7 been in force then the right honorable gentleman might have found himself denied admission to Australia and so would not have been able to do the great things he did in his pioneering days - things of which he himself must be proud, and of which I am proud to read. I trust that as he recalls those days he will refuse to associate himself any further with restrictive legislation of the kind now before lis-. If the expression of progressive ideas is prohibited in this country, stagnation will overtake us. Every nation which has attempted to suppress the free expression of progressive ideas has declined. That remark applies not only to Italy, and Spain, but also to many other countries. Great Britain, as the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has said, is supreme because the youth of the world have always been able to find asylum there. The free institutions of the old country deserve to be duplicated in Australia.

Mr McBride:

– Egon Kisch was prevented from landing in Great Britain.

Mr GARDEN:

– Kisch did a good deal of work in the old country. I remind honorable gentlemen that M. Litvinoff, the Russian ambassador, was at one time refused entry into Great Britain, but subsequently was received by His Majesty the King and is to-day recognized as one of the greatest diplomats of modern times. Legislation of the kind we are now considering is quite likely to have effects not intended by those responsible for its appearance on the statute book. For instance, a Labour government might have refused entrance to Australia to that great friend of honorable members opposite, Sir Otto Niemeyer. Unhappily, he was allowed to come here and influence the government of the day to implement a policy which has brought financial ruin and loss to thousands of people. A Labour government might also have refused entry to this country to Sir Maurice Hankey, whose mission was undoubtedly to stimulate preparations for war. It is significant that the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill) allowed his colleague (Senator Pearce) to visit New Zealand to confer with Sir Maurice Hankey with the object of developing warlike preparations in this country such as are a marked feature of the activities of certain nations overseas. War, as we all know, has done more damage in the world than anything else.

I regret that any action should be taken to prevent respectable and lawabiding people from giving expression to their political views in this country. Every man should have the right to express his opinions. At one time I belonged to the conversative school, but my reading, study, and experience caused me to alter my outlook and I became a radical. The Minister in charge of this bill had a different experience. He began by being a radical and is now a conservative. During my association of 20 years with the industrial life of Australia, I have never disputed the right of a man to express his political views without let or hindrance, for I know that only by the clash of opinion is any real progress made. The Government has shown by the introduction of this amending bill that it desires to suppress the expression of advanced political ideas. Ample provision has been made in the Crimes Act to deal with persons who seek to overthrow the constitution, and I can see no justification for providing in our Immigration Act for the prosecution of people without giving full justification for it. A dragnet provision such as that contained in the proposed amendment of section 7 of the principal act is unworthy of this or any other government. If il had not been for the foolish and childish action of a young man who had suddenly attained Ministerial rank, Australia would scarcely have heard of Egon Kisch, for he would have visited Melbourne, spoken at two conference meetings on a Friday and Saturday in connexion with the anti-war campaign, and departed from Australia the next week; but the action taken by the Government, at the instigation of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) during his short term as Minister for the Interior, actually added 80,000 members to the anti-war organization. The prosecution of Egon Kisch and Gerald Griffin provided exactly the kind of propaganda that stirs the people. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) felt sick at heart when he learned that the honorable member for Wentworth had signed a declaration to the effect that Egon Kisch was a prohibited immigrant. That action placed the Government in a quandary and involved the taxpayers in the loss of thousands of pounds, all because an honorable member sought to stifle the free expression of certain political views. Egon Kisch was never a Communist, for a Communist disdains to hide his views. The moment he does so he becomes a traitor to the Communist cause. Egon Kisch was a pacifist. We san see, therefore, that by its action this Government is prepared to debar pacifists from entering Australia and speaking in support of the anti-war movement.

Honorable members on this side of the chamber have no objection to offer to the proposed amendment of section 5 of the principal act, but they are stoutly opposed to the proposed amendment of section 7, believing that the law, as amended, will be used, not against Chinese, Japanese or other Asiatics, but against people of our own blood who may hold certain political views not favoured by the Government. I believe that if the Minister in charge of the bill expressed his real views to-night, he would even at this late stage repudiate the proposed amendment of section 7, and I hope that he will yet have the courage to do so. We believe that the onus should be on the Government to prove any charge that it makes against a prospective visitor to this country, and that it should not be permitted to state a charge in such general terms that the individuals concerned do not know what they are expected to answer. That is not British justice; it is entirely foreign to the principles of liberty which underlie British freedom. The tactics being adopted by the Government savour of oppression, and indicate a desire to suppress freedom of speech and even freedom of thought. Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) will, hark back to the principle of his earlier years, and will repudiate the unBritish provisions of the amendment of section 7. [Quorum formed.]

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– This bill, which has for its object the closing of a loophole in the Immigration Act, has my hearty support, although I am not quite sure that clause 3 is really as necessary as we have heard. As an Australian, I maintain that Australia has the right to say who shall enter the country and who shall not. It is many years since I read law, but I refer the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) to Ah Toy versus Musgrove where, if my memory serves me right, it is definitely laid down that we in Australia have the right to say who shall, and who shall not, enter the country.

Mr Blackburn:

– We have the right to exclude aliens.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Yes, and I can see no reason why we should not retain that right. As for the cases which have been so frequently mentioned during this debate, I say emphatically that we were right to attempt to keep Kisch and Griffin out of the country. The purpose of this bill is to enable us to keep out of Australia people who attempt to carry messages by word of mouth from organizations overseas whose principles and objects are hostile to those of the majority of Australians. It is of no use for honorable members opposite to try to tell me that the so-called world-renowned author, Herr Egon Kisch, came to Australia with dove-like intentions. If there be any one here who really believes that, I ask him what Kisch was doing in the company of M. Henri Barbusse at Amsterdam before he left for Australia. He was there receiving instructions in regard to his mission, which was to carry information to an emissary from New Zealand, whose duty it was to convey it in turn, to that country. Kisch, who, through a flaw in the law, was allowed to enter and remain in Australia, had been deported from Great Britain because of his communistic opinions. He was received cordially in

Australia by some people because it was thought that he was a great author. His friend from New Zealand, Griffin, is not even a New Zealander by birth, but an Irishman who first arrived in New Zealand some years ago. His record in England was such that he found it advisable to leave that country. The first time Griffin came to Australia he was submitted to a dictation test on board ship, and was sent back on the same vessel. The second time he travelled under an assumed name, and slipped past the customs authorities, leaving his baggage on the wharf to be collected later by some one else. It is the duty of this national Parliament to do what is within its power to keep out of Australia persons who have disruptive opinions, and purposes. The people against whom this legislation is aimed usually come from other parts of the world where conditions are infinitely worse than in Australia, and they try to foster in this country ideas and opinions which are utterly alien to our people. We have set before ourselves the ideal of keeping our race physically white. Why, then, should we not take steps to keep it mentally white, by keeping out of the country those who would seek to spread opinions that are opposed to the principles of the majority of us?

Immigrants of the class to which I have referred come to Australia for the purpose of founding such seemingly innocent organizations as the Militant Minority League. Some of them seek to instil into the minds of young people ideas on religion which are directly opposed to the ideas of the majority. Their purpose is to establish conditions in this country which will tend towards the realization of that impossible Utopia towards which the eyes of the revolutionaries of Europe and Asia are turned. In order that the organizations which disseminate these doctrines should be popularized with the workers of this country, the Workers Sports’ Association has been formed. I know from such a reliable authority as one of the District Councils of the Communist party that these things are being done. Public men are accustomed to the shafts of criticism during an election campaign, but I have to bear what is perhaps the most severe condemnation during periods when no election is even in prospect. That militant publication, The United Front, devotes considerable space in its roneoed pages to describing me as one of the world’s worst blood-suckers and tyrants. However, I do not mind being abused, provided I am able to do what I believe to be the best for the people. Australians should not be placed in danger of being gulled by organizations which describe themselves as “ Friends of the Soviet Union.”. Another organization known as the Pastoralist Workers Minority Union, has for its object the injuring of one of our great pastoral industries, while still another organization seeks to instil communist doctrines even into the minds of school children. It goes so far as to tell them that, if necessary, they must rebel against the authority and discipline of their parents. Then there is a Workers Defence Corps, which has organized forces to intimidate people who desire to carry on what they believe to be their lawful occupations. We have also the Unemployed Workers Union, a body which is responsible for a great deal of suffering throughout the country - sufferingwhich no organization controlled by and for Australians would countenance. There is the Workers Educational Movement, which is insinuating itself into the teachers’ organizations, and is, unfortunately, finding the ground there fruitful for the propagation of its doctrines. This is another attempt to inject poison into the minds of the young who are least able to think for themselves. There is a LabourResearch and Information Bureau, which prepares propaganda, some of which has been used by honorable members of this House. Its efforts are not appreciated by the genuine Labour Movement, which is not dominated by communist doctrines. It is a spurious organization, which is trying to white-ant the great industrial unions. The Workers International Relief Society is affiliated with overseas organizations, and at one time attempted to collect funds in Australia with which to foment revolution in other countries. There are other disruptive organizations in the Commonwealth, but I have mentioned enough to make clear the necessity for legislation of the kind now under consideration. I am convinced that this bill will assist us materially to prevent Australia from being turned into a happy hunting ground for the agents of overseas revolutionary organizations.

Mr HUGHES:
Vice President of the Executive Council · North Sydney · UAP

– in reply - The time at our disposal is very limited, and, in order that we may do that part of this business which must be done in any case, and about which we are all agreed, I propose, with the approval of honorable members, to drop the averment sub-section, which by clause 3, is proposed to be inserted in section 7 of the principal act, upon the distinct understanding in all quarters, first, that it is the intention of the Government to recast the whole immigration legislation and bring it before the House when it meets again, when there will be ample time to discuss it, and, secondly, that my assurance be accepted that it was not the intention of the department to apply that provision except in relation to facts within the knowledge of the accused.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section seven of the principal act is amended -

by inserting after the word “act” (first occurring) the words “and every person who, by virtue of this act, is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this act”; (b)by inserting at the end thereof the following sub-section: - “ (2.) In any prosecution under this section, the averment of the prosecutor that the defendant is a prohibited immigrant entering or found withinthe Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this act, or is a person who, by virtue of this act, is deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary by the personal evidence of the defendant either with or without other evidence.” ; and

by omitting from the proviso thereto the words “ Provided that the imprisonment” and inserting in their stead the words -

Section proposed to be amended - 7.Everyprohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention orevasion of this Act shall be guilty of an offence . . .

Provided that the imprisonment shall cease for the purpose of deportation, or, subject to authority being granted by the Minister, if the offender finds two sureties each in the sum of One hundred pounds . . .

Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyMinister for Health · UAP

– I move -

That paragraph (b) be omitted.

The onus will now be on the Crown with regard to all these offences. I think that meets the whole case put forward by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr Blackburn).

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP

.- I quite appreciate the spirit in which the right honorable member has moved the amendment, and I readily understand that probably, true to form, the Government will come down with some comprehensive measures on immigration at a later stage. We shall meet that difficulty when it arises. In the meantime, I must express my personal pleasure, and I think I may do so also for the Opposition, that this objectionable provision has been dropped in the meantime. I take the opportunity of saying that I think the speech of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has not been answered, and, in fact, is unanswerable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment: report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1225

NAVIGATION BILL 1935

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendment) :

Clause 4.

Section 231 of the prinicpal act is amended -

Senate’s amendment. - Before “ seagoing “ insert “ foreign going or Australian-trade ship and every “.

Mr HUGHES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · North Sydney · UAP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Senate has extended the provision in paragraph a relating to wireless telegraph installation to include foreigngoing or Australian trade ships. That is a wider expression, and has been found necessary in order to include certain classes of ships that were inadvertently omitted.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported ; report adopted.

page 1225

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LOANS (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT) BILL 1935

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th April (vide page 1055), on motion by Mr. Casey -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Approval of agreement).

Mr CASEY:
Acting Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I may remind honorable members briefly of the terms of this measure. I made the second-reading speech on it yesterday, and explained that it was merely a bill to ratify an agreement which has been already entered into by the six State governments and the Commonwealth Government. The terms are agreeable to all the State governments, and a similar bill has had a rapid passage, with relatively little discussion, through each of the State parliaments. During my second-reading speech the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked me by interjection why Queensland was excepted from clause 12 of the agreement. The position is that the Commonwealth allowed the States an interest concession of 2½ per cent. This concession applied to loans made to the States by the Commonwealth for soldier settlement, and also to loans raised by the States for soldier settlement. The reason Queensland is excepted from section 12 of the agreement is that Queensland wholly financed its scheme from the Commonwealth advance, and issued no bonds itself for that purpose. It is therefore omitted from clause 12, but is included in clause 11, which deals with Commonwealth advances. I have with me the Hansard report of the Queensland Parliament, in which the Premier, Mr. Forgan Smith, expressed himself in specific terms as being entirely satisfied with Queensland’s position in respect of the agreement. The measure is not in any way a controversial one. It has already been accepted by all the State parliaments, and I commend it to the favorable consideration of honorable members.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I do not oppose this bill because it embodies an agreement arrived at between the Premiers of the different States. However, this measure opens up quite a number of questions which, if time permitted, I should like to deal with at some length. It revives memories of the shocking waste of public funds in the maladministration of soldier settlements. There is no doubt that large areas of land were sold to governments at extravagant prices for soldier settlement. Men who returned from the battle zone fired with enthusiasm to make good in a new life, were placed on land of the poorest quality. They were the victims of the sordid greed of grasping land-owners and speculators. The South Australian royal commission of 1925 which inquired into these soldier settlements found “ that there was an entire lack of business acumen and foresight in regard to the opening up of the areas “. Many governments, including the anti-Labour Federal government, did little or nothing to protect the returned men from being fleeced in this execrable manner, and the report of the commission of inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Pike discloses heartrending cases of ruined soldier settlers. It was impossible for them to make a living on the poor soil on which they were placed, and as each year passed the load of debt around their necks became greater. This chapter on land settlement in Australia is one of the saddest in our history. The extravagant and untruthful propaganda disseminated throughout Britain by the Bruce-Page Government attracted thousands of settlers, ex-soldiers and others to Australia, and many of them returned to their homeland, after years of work, ruined and disappointed men. The history of the Victorian soldier settlement schemes need not be recapitulated here. However, this bill is noncontentious and I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- I would like to be assured that when values in connexion with soldier settlement are written down, the persons who originally took up the blocks and worked them will get the benefit from such writing down. The Government should ensure that the soldiers will not be treated in this matter as were the purchasers of war service homes. To-day many of these are still being thrown out of their homes, because they cannot pay 30s. a week for them. Yet these homes are being let to other people at 8s. and 9s. a week rental. I want to be sure that this measure will not provide an opportunity for a second exploitation of any section of the people in this country by land sharks, such as was the case when soldier settlements were established. It seems to me there is no provision in the agreement ratified by this measure to provide against such a contingency.

We know what is happening in this respect in New South Wales. In many cases, owing to financial stringency, men who have borne the burden of developing property have had their values written down to such an extent that they have been forced off their holdings, and no sooner has this been done than the land sharks have stepped in. The land sharks are in a position to get the benefit of any aid given these people by the Government. I ask the Minister to give the assurance that nothing of this nature will arise as a result of the application of this measure.

Mr CASEY:
Acting Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I will remove any doubts existing in the mind of the honorable member on the point he has raised by informing him that this agreement refers entirely to the financial relations between the State governments and the Commonwealth in respect of money loaned. According to Mr. Justice Pike, a total sum of £24,000,000 has been lost in soldier settlement, and the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for half this loss. I assure the honorable member that this measure does not in any way affect the administration of soldier settlement either in the present or the future. That duty is entirely in the hands of the States. This bill is solely to effect a formal ratification of the payment of moneys still owing by the Commonwealth under an agreement entered into with the States when it undertook the responsibility for £12,000,000 of the total loss incurred on, soldier settlements. Actually, in practice, the only amount remaining to be dealt with under thiB agreement is a sum of £221,000. This at present is in a Commonwealth trust fund, and when this bill goes through that amount can be distributed in proper proportions to the different State governments. This measure is a final overall, umbrella ratification of the whole scheme followed in order to carry out the recommendations of Mr. Justice Pike, who inquired into soldier settlement. The only action which can be taken as a result of the passage of this bill is that the amount of £221,000 can be distributed to the different States.

Mr Lazzarini:

– For what purpose?

Mr CASEY:

-For the final wiping out of this debt.

Mr Lazzarini:

– And the soldiers are going to get the benefit of this expenditure?

Mr CASEY:

– Yes. This measure, as it were, is the final dotting of the last “ i “ of this agreement, which was made many years ago.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.- I agree with the principles of this measure, but-I think the Government should have provided that the returned soldier should get greater benefits under it. I draw the Minister’s attention to a case which quite recently was referred to in the Parliament of New South Wales, in which it was alleged that an ex-Minister of the New South Wales Government, a Nationalist ex-Minister, had practically robbed a soldier settler in New South Wales of his settlement. This matter was raised in that Parliament and the ex-Minister is the Nationalist member for the State constituency of Goulburn. It was proved conclusively that this soldier settler had suffered as was alleged.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– Nothing of the sort was proved.

Mr MULCAHY:

– I am prepared to do anything in my power to assist the returned soldiers of this country. It is the duty of the Government to do something for them in the re-appraisement of their land. Further, I contend that the Government should do something also for the ordinary purchasers of homes whose re-appraisement has caused losses as serious to these purchasers as have been the losses suffered in recent years by soldier settlers and farmers. This Parliament has been in session for over three weeks and the only legislation of importance which it has passed has been with the object of handing out millions of money to farmers, many of whom do not deserve or need such assistance. We did not treat the returned soldier in that manner. Honorable members on this side of the House endeavoured to get the Government to see that such money was given only to deserving cases. However, there are honorable members in this House engaged in rural industries who do not deserve or need any assistance from the governments of this country because their holdings are showing profits, yet are prepared to sit here and vote grants of millions of money from which they themselves will benefit. Much legislation has been promised along similar lines to returned soldiers and the purchasers of war service homes, but those promises have not been honoured by this Government. Now, the House is preparing to -rise, and the Government does not hesitate to go into recess, leaving those people in need, being prepared to leave the promises made to these people at the last election unhonoured. I take this opportunity to protest against any adjournment of this House until the legislation promised by the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister at the last election, has been enacted.

Progress reported.

page 1228

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr. WHITE laid on the table reports and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: -

Apparel

Bags, Baskets, Boxes, Cases, Trunks, Purses and Wallets

Compressed or Agglomerated Corkboard; Compressed Cork Sheets

Sheepskins fellmongered in Australia.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1228

DAIRY PRODUCE BILL 1935

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendment) :

Senate’s amendment -

After clause 1 insert the followingnew clause: - “1a. Section four of the principal act is amended -

by omitting from the definition of “ dairy produce “ the words ‘, but does not include processed cheese’; and

) by omitting the definition of ‘ processed cheese’.”.

Section proposed to be amended -

In this act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Dairy produce “ means butter and cheese, but does not include processed cheese; “ Processed cheese “ means any cheeese manufactured and sold in the Commonwealth which has been subjected to any further prescribed process of manufacture.

Mr HUNTER:
Assistant Minister · Maranoa · CP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The principal act defines “ dairy produce “ and “ processed cheese “ respectively as follows: - “ Dairy produce “ means butter and cheese, but does not include processed cheese. “ Processed cheese “ means any cheese manufactured and soldin the Commonwealth whichhas been subjected to any further prescribed process of manufacture.

The effect of the deletion therefrom of all reference to processed cheese is that the transfer of this class of commodity from one State to another will be permitted only under licence.

When the principal act was passed in 1933, all processed cheese was, so far as was known, made from cheddar cheese purchased at the ruling Australian price and consisting of the whole or portion of the quota which the maufacturer was entitled to sell on the Australian market.

In these circumstances, the exemption of that processed cheese appeared to be justified, because it was not intended that the processed article made from home consumption cheddar cheese should be subjected to a further export quota. Since then, however, at least two of the largest makers of processed cheese have decided to manufacture their own cheddar cheese, and under the act as it now stands these processors are permitted to market within Australia the whole of their production of cheddar cheese in the form of processed cheese. This gives the processors a distinct advantage over those who are engaged solely in the manufacture of cheddar cheese and are required to export a substantial percentage of their output. The present export percentage is 39 per cent. It is possible that the practice will rapidly expand if the exemption of processed cheese is allowed to continue, with the result that an increasing percentage of cheddar cheese will be automatically displaced from the Australian market, and that will throw the onus of additional export on to those who manufacture cheddar cheese only. Honorable members will agree that this is an anomaly which should be rectified without delay. In the case of those processors who still purchase their requirements of cheddar cheese, that is, homeconsumption cheese, from other manufacturers, an exemption from the exportquota provision of the interstate licence will be provided for in the regulations.

The proposal to bring processed cheese within the provisions of the act is strongly recommended by the State dairy produce boards, which act as prescribed authorities for the Commonwealth in connexion with the issue of licences for the interstate transfer of butter and cheese. At the same time, the proposal will bring the federal act into line with the State dairy produce acts, which do not provide for any exemption in respect of processed cheese, except in cases where the cheese is processed from homeconsumption cheddar cheese.

Mr McEWEN:
Echuca

.- As the amendment draws no distinction between processed and bulk cheddar cheese, it seems to me that it will be possible under the bill to impose the levy first upon the bulk cheddar cheese and secondly upon the processed cheese. Will the Minister (Mr. Hunter) give the assurance that processed cheese manufactured from bulk cheese, which has already borne its export quota, will not be subject to any additional export quota ? I should also like to know whether any difficulty will be experienced in obtaining licences to permit of interstate trading in such processed cheese.

Mr HUNTER:
Assistant Minister · Maranoa · CP

– The Government readily gives the assurance asked for by the honorable member in regard to processed cheese manufactured from bulk cheese that has already borne its export quota. The honorable member may also rest assured that there will be no interference with interstate trade in cases in which licences are held by the manufacturers of processed cheese.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- No objection can be offered to the amendment made by the Senate in this measure. As I said at the second-reading stage, the bill is designed to assist the dairying industry. The proposed alteration has the approval of the dairy produce boards. They represent the industry, and it is to them that we look for guidance. The committee should, therefore, agree to the amendment, particularly in view of the fact that processed cheese would throw an additional burden on the industry, and that, if possible, should be avoided.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1229

LOAN (FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1935

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments) :

Clause 7-

Any moneys granted to a State under the last preceding section shall be paid upon the following conditions: -

No payment under a composition or scheme of arrangement shall be made in respect of any debt due to the Commonwealth or the State or to a governmental authority;

Subject to the conditions prescribed in the foregoing provisions of this section, the State shall undertake the complete administration and distribution of the moneys.

Senate’s amendment -

After the word “due”, paragraph (e), insert the words “ or accruing due.”

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Acting Prime Minister · Cowper · CP

– The purpose of the amendment which the Senate has made to this measure is toset out more clearly the intention of Parliament, and, in the case of the transposition of one of the clauses, to make certain that the intention of Parliament will be given effect by the States. Under the amendment that we are now considering, not merely the debts that are already owing, but also those that accrue, may be compounded. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Senate’s amendment -

After paragraph (/) insert the following paragraph: - (fa) For the purpose of enabling the Auditor-General for the Commonwealth to comply with the provisions of the next succeeding section, the Stateshall give him access to all buildings, places, documents and papers of the State, and shall permit him to make extracts from or copies of any such books, documents or papers;’.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Acting Prime Minister · Cowper · CP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This addition was considered necessary notwithstanding the fact that the Commonwealth Auditor-General was given the power to investigate the whole matter, because most of the documents are in the possession of the States.

Mr Lazzarini:

– He will have access to the buildings, places, documents and papers only of the governing authorities?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Yes.

Motion agreed to.

Senate’s amendment -

After paragraph (g) insert the following paragraph: - “; and(h) That the State shall furnish to the Minister within fourteen days after the first day of January and within fourteen days after the first day of July of each year a certificate by the AuditorGeneral of that State as to the compliance or otherwise by that State with the conditions specified in the foregoing provisions of this section “.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Acting Prime Minister · Cowper · CP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This provision replaces another that has been omitted, which placed the control of the matter in the hands of the AuditorsGeneral of the Commonwealth and the States. The effect is to confine the control to the Commonwealth AuditorGeneral. The States will be obliged to render their accounts to him.

Motion agreed to.

A verbal amendment, and . consequential amendments, agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1230

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL 1935

Second Reading

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this measure is to give effect to a convention for the standardization of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, and for other purposes.

Recently, at Warsaw, a convention was held at which a set of regulations applicable to the carriage of persons, luggage and goods by air was drawn up and subscribed to by representatives of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of South Africa, and twenty other nations. Australia comes into the matter because of the growth of civil aviation in this country, and of the international aspect which civil aviation has assumed. The bill embodies no other principles.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee-‘

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– The bill contains no important provisions that call for debate. The regulations for the carriage of goods, persons and luggage are mostly of a formal character. I shall explain one or two of them, so as to give honorable members an idea of their nature.

Article .1 applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward, and also to gratuitous carriage by aircraft by an air transport undertaking. “ International carriage “ is defined in this article. Under article 2, the convention applies to carriage performed by the State, or by legally-constituted bodies; but it is not applicable to carriage performed under the terms of any international postal convention.

Mr Ward:

– Why are we permitted to discuss this measure when we were not permitted to discuss much more important measures yesterday?

Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL.That has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr LAZZARINI:
I am not prepared to agree to the rushing through of this bill after the cavalier and airy fashion in which the Minister (Mr. Parkhill · Werriwa [8.1].

has thrown it in front of us. This is not the way to conduct the business of the country. On previous occasions we have accepted international conventions of one kind and another involving agreements in regard to oil and other products on the assurance of a Minister that nothing controversial was contained in them, and afterwards we have had to go back over our tracks. Honorable members should be given an opportunity to read this bill. We have been told that a convention was held at Warsaw and that a certain agreement was reached, in which the interests of Australia are preserved. My view is that Australian interests are the very last to receive consideration at conventions of the kind referred to by the Minister. I protest against further discussion of this bill at this stage. We should not be asked to pass it simply to enable honorable members ‘ who support the Government to jump ona bus a little later in the evening and, at the expense of the tax-payers, travel to Goulburn to catch a train instead of catching it here in the ordinary way.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– The bill is not very important. What the honorable member has said has no more reference to the bill than it has to cheese. I have no objection to reporting progress.

Progress reported.

page 1231

SPIRITS BILL 1935

In committee (Consideration of Sen ate’s amendment) :

Clause 3 -

Section11 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the proviso to that section.

Senate’s amendment. - After “ section “ second occurring, insert “ and inserting in its stead the following proviso: -

Provided that on and after the first day of October, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five in thecase of imported whisky the period of maturity bystorage in wood shall not be less than three years.’ “

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Tariff Board recommended that a two years’ period of maturation was sufficient for Australian whisky, and its recommendation was incorporated in the bill. The members of another place, while accepting that recommendation in respect of Australian whisky, considered that imported whisky should undergo a minimum maturation period of three years. The Government is prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.- I am sorry that two years has been regarded as a sufficient period of maturation for Australian whisky. I should be prepared to provide a minimum period of five or even ten years for the maturation of imported whisky. A few years ago, during the period of prohibition in the United States of America, a great deal of moonshine whisky and other spirit, made overnight, was consumed by the people, with the result that many of them were committed to lunatic asylums. I have had a good deal of experience in the liquor trade, and think that three years is too short a period for the maturation of imported whisky; but in the hope that the provision of a longer period for imported than for Australian whisky may encourage the consumption of Australian whisky, I shall support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1231

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL 1935

Second Reading

Mr. HUGHES (North Sydney- Vice-

President of the Executive Council) [8.8].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill, which follows upon a visit by the Minister for External Affairs (Senator Sir George Pearce) to Norfolk Island, is to amend the principal act to provide a larger measure of self-government for the people of the island. I shall not make a long discourse upon the picturesqueness and agreeable climatic conditions of life on the island. It is sufficient for me to say that into this Eden several serpents have entered, and that, as the result partly of the world depression, partly of an embargo imposed by the Government of New Zealand on exports from the island, and partly of a lack of control by the islanders of their own affairs, conditions have arisen which in a less highly-civilized and happy community might have caused a revolution. The Government proposes to give the islanders a much greater share in the management of their own affairs. At present an Administrator appointed by the Governor-General, and an advisory council with extremely limited power, confined practically to the control of roads and noxious weeds, has charge of the affairs on the island. It is the settled conviction of the inhabitants that their autonomous rights are unduly limited, . and the purpose of this bill is to remedy, in part at least, that complaint. Provision is made for the island to be divided into four areas, the residents in each of which are to be empowered to elect representatives to a council which will have much wider powers than those exercised by the existing council. It is hoped that, in consequence of the passage of this measure and the extension of the right of selfgovernment to the people, such a happy state of affairs will develop as will lead to a spirit of brotherhood and goodwill such as that enveloping all the people of Norfolk Island.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- As the Minister (Mr. Hughes) has said, the inhabitants of Norfolk Island have, for a considerable time, endeavoured to obtain a greater measure of control of island affairs. Although their dissatisfaction with the existing conditions has been manifested by every report made on their behalf in this House for some time it has always been denied by the responsible Minister. Discontent has arisen in the community there, not only against the form of administration, but also against the Administrator himself because of the cavalier treatment that has been meted out to islanders and visitors alike. Seeing that the Government desires to give the people a greater measure of selfgovernment, I should like to know why so many restrictive provisions appear in this measure. Some time ago the Lyons Government alleged that it was affording the people of New Guinea a greater measure of self-government, but the proposals of this bill are even more crude in their conception than those of the measure introduced to meet requests for self-government made on behalf of the people of New Guinea. The Administrator of Norfolk Island is appointed by the Commonwealth Government, and aparently that arrangement will be continued even if this bill is passed. I see nothing in the bill to give the residents of the island the right to decide who shall be selected as Administrator It seems that under the present constitution of the island, as well as under this bill, the Administrator is the all-powerful individual. He is appointed by the Governor-General in Council. Six out of the twelve members of the present Executive Council are elected by the residents the others being appointed by the Administrator. The bill provides that the Advisory Council “ shall be constituted as prescribed, and shall have such powers and functions as are prescribed,” but I see nothing in the principal act or the bill to indicate the conditions under which the council is to be elected. “We do not know whether the residents will enjoy adult suffrage or whether a property franchise will operate.

Mr Hughes:

– All that is done by ordinances.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Quite so, and these are formulated by the Administrator or the Advisory Council. The first council to be elected might frame ordinances to make sure they were not defeated at the following election. For instance, the members elected to the first new council might all be property owners, who desiring to remain in control of the island may institute a property franchise.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The council will act in a purely advisory capacity.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– But under certain circumstances it will have the right to submit regulations.

Mr Hughes:

– The bill provides for a council that is wholly elected, instead of comprising partly nominee and partly elected members.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– But subsequently the council may submit regulations which are accepted by the Government.

Dr Earle Page:

– These may or may not be adopted.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The Commonwealth Government may then be at loggerheads with the residents of the island and where would the matter end?

Mr Hughes:

– The value of their exports has fallen from £33,000 to £6,000 a year. What they require is not a vote, but markets for their produce.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I do not know whether this bill will improve their position in that respect. Most of their difficulties seem to have arisen through the Governments of the Commonwealth and New Zealand being unable to agree as to the exportation and importation of certain primary products. That is definitely stated in the report of the Administrator for 1934.

Mr Hughes:

– We are endeavouring to remedy that difficulty almost immediately.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– According to the report of the Administrator, the responsibility for the falling off in the export trade of Norfolk Island rests with the present Government, which has not arranged an amicable trade agreement with New Zealand. If the people of Norfolk Island are to be granted a measure of self-government, this bill should indicate the conditions under which the council is to be elected, and its powers in regard to ordinances.

Mr Thompson:

– The ordinances would have to be submitted to this Parliament.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Yes, but honorable members know as much about Norfolk Island as the Norfolk Islanders know about us. On numerous occasions reports have been circulated as to the dissatisfaction which prevails among the residents, and recently the Minister for External

Affairs (Senator Pearce) visited the island, and submitted a report regarding this dissatisfaction, the existence of which was previously denied. I suppose that ordinances submitted from Norfolk Island will receive about as much attention as reports submitted to a minister in charge of a government department. The minister usually signs such reports and that is about all he knows concerning them. Although the Advisory Council will have certain rights, 30 days must elapse before an ordinance can have the force of law ; but this provision would prevent the council from dealing with a situation that needed prompt attention. Surely the council should be in a position to take effective action at a moment’s notice. This bill contains the same provision as was in the New Guinea Bill. Once the Advisory Council comes to a decision the Administrator has the right to interfere. Like the Administrator in New Guinea was, he is a little Czar, with the right to veto anything done by the Advisory Council. By that means we are driven back to the situation as it exists to-day. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the island, the cause of which, according to the Minister in the Senate, is that the Administrator is not in touch with the people here at all but holds himself aloof from them.

Mr Hughes:

– From the fact that he holds the dual office of Administrator and Judge. That system is to be put an end to.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Nothing in the bill puts an end to it. That may be the Minister’s intention, but the bill dees not say so. Changes are constantly taking place in the Government, and in a month’s time the Minister’s successor may hold a different view.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member has my assurance that the Administrator is no longer to be the Judge as well.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The Minister’s assurance does not prove anything. It should be provided for in the bill, for the satisfaction of the islanders themselves. The bill sets up a new form of administration, namely, an advisory council and an Administrator. After the Advisory Council is given a limited right to make proclamations and regulations for the government of the island, it is told that, although it can do certain things, it must wait 30 days before any of its ordinances or regulations have the force of law. Then we say to it : “ Although you are elected by the people, the Administrator, who is. not elected by them, will have the final say, after you have waited 30 days, as to whether your decisions shall have the force of law or not “. Furthermore, the Administrator himself has the right tosuggest certain regulations and proclamations. He may decide on something which is quite against the wishes of the council, and if the council will not accept his suggested proclamation or regulation, he appears to have the right to go behind its back to the Commonwealth Government. The bill says he can appeal to the Governor-General, which means the Commonwealth Government. He can, therefore, go behind the back of the Advisory Council and make his suggestions to the Commonwealth Government, whether the Advisory Council approves of them or not. Thus we have the Commonwealth Government, 1,000 miles away from Norfolk Island, acting as the balance on the see-saw in. a dispute, on a matter of principle, between the Administrator and the council. If the Government intends to set up an Administrator who is not elected by the people, he should not be given greater powers than are given to the Advisory Council which is elected by them.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member is mistaken as to the powers of the proposed council. Amongst other things it can take the same exception to ordinances as this Parliament can do, and within the same limit of time.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– All I say is that if the Government gives the control of the island to a council elected by the people of the island, that council should have clear and undivided control.

Mr Hughes:

– I suppose the honorable member will suggest next that a republic should be set up there.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The pioneers of the island set up a republic, and did very well until we interfered with them. The Government sent a Minister to the island to investigate and report. He came back and reported that the Government was making a mess of governing the island.

The position in a nut-shell is that the Government has misgoverned the island, and is now recommending a new constitution for it. The Minister would do well to withdraw the bill and redraft a constitution for Norfolk Island in the light of the criticisms which have been offered.

Mr Hughes:

– “We will appoint the honorable member as Administrator.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– What the Minister has said in jest may very well take place in reality. That is to say, the job of Administrator may be given to some politician who is out of a job, or whom it is desired to get rid of. If an Administrator with great powers is to be chosen, he should be the choice of the people of the island who know his capabilities, and not the choice of this Government. The Government might appoint a local man who would not have been the choice of the people of the island, or it might select a broken-down politician. I urge the Minister to withdraw the bill and recast the whole of the proposed new constitution.

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- The Minister for External Affairs (Sir George Pearce), in the Senate, and the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Hughes) in this chamber, have put forward this bill to deal with the administration of Norfolk Island. I was fortunate enough to visit the island within the last eighteen months, at the same time as two other members of the Opposition. I realize that there is a feeling in the island that alterations should be made in the system of administration. Like other dependencies of the Commonwealth, the island is in a most unfortunate position in that it has no representation in this Parliament, in which its affairs are, therefore, seldom mentioned with any interest or enthusiam. I agree with the statement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the blame for the present position of affairs on the island lies largely with the system and not with the Administrator. I take up the position, rightly or wrongly - but I believe rightly - that criticism of public servants comes very easily. Two classes in the community which seem to be readily subjected to criticism, whether it be favor able or otherwise, are public servants and members of Parliament. The Administrator of this dependency has met with considerable criticism in the past. In company with two other honorable members of this Parliament I visited the island, and we had a considerable discussion with the Administrator on matters affecting the general welfare of the island. It may be argued by some that on that occasion the Administrator had an opportunity to put his side of the case to us more strongly than his critics had in presenting their case; but I think the Administrator is at least entitled to as much consideration in this matter as the residents of the island. During my stay there I also learned, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that the residents of that dependency are not of as high mental calibre as might be expected. I do not want my remarks in this respect to be misconstrued. I would point out that a great many of the present residents are descendants of Pitcairn Islanders, and that very little new blood has been introduced into the population. The greatest number of outsiders to settle on the island have come from New Zealand. A small number has gone there from Australia. As a result the population has not had an opportunity to ‘maintain as high a standard as is to be found in the Commonwealth, where we have a large and varied population.

I agree that it has been necessary for the Government to introduce a bill of this nature. That does not mean that I agree with the measure in toto. For instance, the Government should make certain of what it intends to do. Section 6 of the act reads -

The Executive Council of Norfolk Island, as existing at the commencement of this act, shall continue in existence, but may be altered or abolished by ordinance made in pursuance of this act.

The Government has introduced an amendment to this section because at present the constitution of this particular executive council cannot be altered except by means of an ordinance. But this does not detract from the fact that this Government should have laid down definitely in statute form what it intends to do. I agree with what the Acting Prime Minister (Dr. Earle Page) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate have stated are the intentions of the Government. I am not suggesting now that they do not intend to carry out such intentions; but I would like to see the Government commit itself more definitely. For that reason I contend that this measure should have contained several more clauses dealing with particular matters, such as the election of representatives, which are of great importance not only to the people of Norfolk Island, but also to the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr Hughes:

– Everything could not have been put into the bill

Mr BAKER:

– I admit that every little unimportant detail could not be covered in this or any other bill, and I am not suggesting otherwise. I am merely suggesting that all major matters should be covered in this measure. The previous speaker has made the point and I now stress it that certain important matters which could have been, and should have been, covered in this bill are not so covered. It would be much more to the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth and of Norfolk Island if this course were followed. I hope the Government will bring this about. I understand that the vote for Norfolk Island for the ensuing year has been increased considerably. For instance, an amount of £2,000 has been provided to relieve unemployment on the island. I am pleased to see that such action has been taken by the Government; as a matter of fact I regret that the Government did not provide a proportionate sum for the relief of unemployment in the Commonwealth. I hope that this measure, though not of as detailed a character as we might wish, will prove successful and will be operated to the benefit of the people of Norfolk Island. I trust that the Administrator and the people will co-operate with one another to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 16

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 15

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 (Short title and citation).

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman -mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 15

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- Mr. Chairman -

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That the question be now put -

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E.F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put.

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3.

After section 2 of the principal act the following section is inserted : - 2a. In this act, unless the contrary intention appears - prescribed ‘ means prescribed by this act or by ordinance made in pursuance of this act;

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- I move -

That the words “ or by ordinance made in pursuance of this act,” proposed new section 2a be omitted.

The object of this amendment is to provide that the word “ prescribed “ shall apply only to the act, and not to any ordinances made in pursuance of it. The word is used in the bill only in respect to the council, and I desire to see it limited to that extent.

Mr Hughes:

– I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Baker’s amendment) stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 13

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived.

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1934; ALP from 1936

.- Sir-

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in tie affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Advisory Council).

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- Mr. Chairman-

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (TemporaryChairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority . . 10

In division:

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. E. F. Harrison). - The honorable member may not thus raise a point of order during a division.

Mr Gander:

– Would I be in order in adding the name of the Acting Prime Minister to the “Noes”?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The right honorable gentleman should be recorded as voting with the “ Ayes “. He had crossed the floor before the tellers had been appointed.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Baker:

– I ask for a ruling on a point of order. Suppose a number of strangers happened to be in the chamber, and voted in a division. If a point of order could not be raised during the division, their names would have to be recorded among the “ Ayes “ or the “ Noes “. Therefore, I submit that your ruling cannot possibly be correct.

Mr Ward:

-i draw attention to a precedent established in this chamber. Some time ago, Mr. Speaker ordered that my vote should be counted as having been recorded on the opposite side from that on which I desired to vote. It was ruled that I hadcrossed the floor too late.

Dr Earle Page:

– I crossed soon enough on this occasion.

Mr Ward:

– The Acting Prime Minister has made a fool of himself.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! While I am in the Chair such language will not be tolerated.

Mr Ward:

– In my opinion, the Acting Prime Minister acted foolishly in remaining on this side of the chamber after the tellers had been appointed. I know that the vote of the Acting Prime Minister is important to the Government, because it cannot carry the closure unless his vote is counted on that side. That is why the Standing Orders are being flouted. I ask you, Mr. Harrison, to preserve the rights of private members by giving impartial decisions.

Dr Earle Page:

– I desire to indicate what occurred. When you, sir, asked the “ Ayes “ to pass to the right of the Chair and the “ Noes” to the left, I was on my way across the chamber, and was among the “ Ayes “ before the names of all the tellers had been called.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I have already explained to the committee that the right honorable gentleman had crossed the chamber, and that, in accordance with the Standing Orders, his name was added to the “ Ayes “. I had not completed the announcement of the appointment of the tellers when he crossed over.

Mr Rosevear:

– During the division, I raised a point of order as to whether the vote of the Acting Prime Minister could be recorded with the “ Ayes “. I drew attention to the fact that the right honorable gentleman was on the wrong side of the chamber after you had appointed the tellers. Whether I am right or wrong is beside the point. You then ruled that I had no right to take a point of order during the progress of a division. If that ruling be correct, any number of members could break the rules of the House and cross the floor. But the vote having been taken, and the Chairman having declared the result of the division, it would then be too late to take the point of order. Yesterday evening, when the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) was in the chair, I took a similar point of order concerning the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill), who left the chamber before the result of the vote had been announced. The Temporary Chairman stated that he would give his ruling after the vote had been taken. Then, after the vote was taken, he ruled that it was too late to give a decision. If that class of ruling is going to stand, it is purely and simply a case of Rafferty’s rules. If the Temporary

Chairman’s ruling was right last night, anything could happen during a division, and there would be no redress.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.In accordance with practice. I am prepared to accept a point of order during the progress of a division, and to decide it after the division, as has happened in this case. The point of order now taken by the honorable member is similar to the point of order already taken by the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker), and therefore cannot be repeated. The question is that clause 4 be agreed to.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Have honorable members no rights at all? I have been on my feet for two minutes. I called “Mr. Chairman “ for ten seconds before you put that question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The closure has already been carried.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I wished to speak to the point of order. However, I shall settle the matter by moving a dissent from your ruling.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 14

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Laws for Norfolk Island) .

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr Lazzarini:

– Unless they want deliberately to lie, they know it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I shall name the honorable member if he does not pay attention to the call from the Chair.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I could not hear you on account of the noise coming from the other side.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The statement which the honorable member has made is not in accordance with what I ruled. I ruled that an honorable member is permitted to cross the chamber before the tellers have been appointed.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I am not disputing that, but I submit that the honorable member for Reid was appointed a teller, and was on the other side of the chamber preparing to take the vote, when the Acting Leader of the Housecrossed the floor.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Although the honorable member for Reid may have been there, the tellers for the “ Noes “ had not been nominated.

Mr Garden:

– On the point of order-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The point of order has been settled.

Mr Garden:

– Then I hand in a dissent from your ruling.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I cannot accept the motion of dissent which has been handed in by the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Garden). It states that I ruled that a point of order cannot be taken and ruled on by the Chair during a division. I ruled that a point of order could be taken during a division and ruled on after the division. The question is that clause 5 be agreed to.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E.F. Harrison.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 15

Majority …… . 8

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.There not being sufficient affirmative votes as required under Standing Order 262b, Part A (c), the question is not resolved in the affirmative.

AYES

NOES

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- Honorable members on this side of the House intend to oppose this clause, lock, stock and barrel because of the determination of the Minister not only to refuse to consider amendments hut also to refuse to allow any discussion on the details of this particular clause. This clause contains practically the whole of the machinery of the bill and by defeating it this committee can indicate to the Government that an advisory council with real powers should bc appointed to govern Norfolk Island. We do not want to have repeated in the future such incidents as were associated with the administration of the last regime. The attitude adopted by the Minister (Mr. Hughes) indicates a general lack of knowledge on his part of the contents of the bill. He related a bed-time story of what one of his colleagues had learned when visiting the island and he painted a glorious picture of the conditions which, as he claimed, would exist on this island as a result of this measure; but judging by his remarks and his failure to explain the real provisions of the bill, I contend that few members in this House know less about the bill than does the Minister himself. Although this is really a machinery clause to set up the proposed advisory council its details seem to indicate that the proposed council will have no power at all. No method will be provided for the election of members to the council, and in all probability the relevant regulation will be framed in such a way that the real intentions, or feelings, of the people on Norfolk Island will be disregarded. The members of the council will probably be elected or nominated by the Government through the Administrator. The Minister does not desire that the bill be discussed. Perhaps he is adopting such an attitude because he is a little piqued over the fact that the committee is not prepared to accept everything he says of the bill at its face value. For that reason alone the position will be best served by voting against the clause.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- If honorable members had been given an opportunity to consider in detail the amendments which were foreshadowed by the honorable members for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) and East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and by myself at an earlier hour we should not be opposing this clause now. However, owing to the ruthless application of the “gag” we have had no opportunity to insert in clause 5 amendments which would have brought that clause more into conformity with our ideas in this matter. If we had been given an opportunity to do that, two or three consequential amendments might have been necessary, but the measure would have been finalized by now. Section 2 of clause 5 gives the functions of the Advisory Council. I object to the council being given only advisory functions; it should be a deliberative body which would give the people on the island a proper measure of self-government. On the second reading the Minister (Mr. Hughes) endeavoured to make us believe that this objective would be achieved by the measure as if stands. However, there is no provision in the bill to give the council the powers of a deliberative body. I can see no reason why Norfolk Island should not be placed in the same relative position to Australia as the Channel Islands and Guernsey Island are to Great Britain. Norfolk Island should be given complete self-government. The Minister in charge of the bill claims to stand for democracy yet, apparently, he intends to deny democratic rights to this dependency. I shall vote against this clause and against every measure dealing with this dependency until a bill is presented to this House which will give the people of Norfolk Island a full measure of self-government. Sub-clause 5 of clause 5 reads - (5.) Those representations, suggestions and observations shall be taken into consideration before the ordinance is finally settled, and, after the expiration of those 30 days the ordinance may be made, either as originally drawn, or with such amendments as the GovernorGeneral thinks fit.

This clause, I submit, wipes out any semblance of self-government which it might be claimed this measure will afford to Norfolk Island. Under the provisions of the bill it will be optional for the Government or for the Administrator to act on the advice of the council, or to give effect to any ordinance which may be recommended by it. Thus, I claim, the bill so far as honorable members contend it extends self-government to Norfolk Island is a sham, and the claims made by the Minister in this respect are simply hocus pocus. Australia certainly should not arrogate to itself the right to govern a people who live hundreds of miles from our shores. The day of Crown colonies should have vanished long ago. Although this is only a small island, its inhabitants have every right to live their own lives in their own way, and to look after their own interests. The Great War, I remind honorable members, was supposed to have been fought for the self-determination of small communities. For the reasons I have stated I am opposed not only to this clause but also to the whole of the measure. It is hocus pocus from beginning to the end.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Alcoholic liquor).

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

.- I wish to make a few remarks on this clause.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. F. Harrison.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing orders suspended.

Bill read a third time.

page 1243

WHEAT COMMISSION BILL 1935

Second Reading

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Acting Prime Minister · Cowper · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to confer on the Wheat Commission appointed last year the full power of a royal commission under the terms of the Royal Commissions Act. The necessity for this action is consequent upon a decision of the Privy Council given many years ago affecting the authority of the Parliament to pass the Royal Commission Act. It is now considered desirable by the Government that the Wheat Commission should have conferred upon it, in express terms, the powers, rights and privileges specified in the Royal Commission Act. This course was adopted in 1914 in respect of the commission appointed to inquire into the meat export trade, and in 1933 in respect of the royal commission appointed to inquire into the petrol industry. The reasons actuating the Government to take this action in connexion with the Wheat Commission are similar to those which actuated the Government of the day to take similar action in respect of the commissions that I have mentioned.

Mr Ward:

– Will the commission still be able to take evidence in camera?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It can take evidence in camera and otherwise according as it desires.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- In view of the explanation of this bill given by the Acting Prime Minister, the Opposition offers no opposition to its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill read a third time.

page 1243

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LOANS (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT) BILL 1935

In committee (Consideration resumed from page 1227) :

Clause 2 agreed to.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment;: report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1244

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1933-34

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions,New Works, Buildings, &c., for the financial year ended the 30th June, 1934, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s messages) :

Motions (by Mr. Casey) agreed to - supplementary estimates, 1933-34.

That the following further sums be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1933-34, for the several services hereunder specified, viz.: -

Supplementary Estimates for Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc., 1933-34.

That there be granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1933-34 for the purposes of Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c., a further sum not exceeding £45,081.

Resolutions reported.

Standing Orders suspended ; resolutions adopted.

Resolutions of Ways and Means founded on resolutions of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Casey and Mr. Parkhill do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 1244

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1933-34

Bill brought by Mr. Casey, and read a first time.

Mr CASEY:
Acting Treasurer · Corio · UAP

.-In moving -

That thebill be now read a second time,

Imay say that these Supplementary Estimates, which have been tabled, include the items of expenditure during the financial year ended the 30th June, 1934, which have been met under the authority of the vote for Treasurer’s Advance.

It should be borne in mind that parliamentary authority for this expenditure has been given by the appropriation in the Estimates in chief of a lump sum, under the designation of Treasurer’s Advance. This provision enabled the Treasurer to make advances to the various departments to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were presented and for which provision was obviously not included under the ordinary divisions of the Estimates. Details of the expenditure met in this way must be set out in Supplementary Estimates and the items are now submitted to Parliament for covering appropriation. Copies of the Supplementary Estimates are being circulated among members and I, therefore, do not propose to refer at length to the items of expenditure for which parliamentary approval is now sought. The vote for Treasurer’s Advance for 1933-34 was £2,000,000. The expenditure therefrom was £543,203 made up as follows : -

Parliament has already been fully appraised of the expenditure now submitted for covering appropriation. Full details were furnished with the Estimates and Budget Papers of the current year. In the Estimates the actual amounts expended are set out alongside the votes for the previous year, and it can be seen at a glance whether the Votes have been exceeded and what call there has been on the Treasurer’s Advance. Details are also included in the Auditor-General’s Report and Treasurer’s Finance Statement.

The Treasurer’s Statement for the year 1933-34, as required by the Audit Act, was sent to the Auditor-General on the 29th October, accompanied by a statement of the amounts to be included in Supplementary Estimates. It is the practice to await the report of the Auditor-General before submitting these Estimatesto Parliament. The AuditorGeneral’s report was tabled on the 14th March.

I submit to the House this bill for ordinary departmental expenditure out of Treasurer’s Advance.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1245

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1933-34

Bill brought up by Mr. Casey and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CASEY:
Acting Treasurer · Corio · UAP

.- I move-

That the bill be read a second time.

This bill, as I have already mentioned, provides for expenditure on additions, new works and buildings totalling £45,000, which has been made from Treasurer’s Advance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Thebill.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I bring under the notice of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Hughes) the case of an ex-soldier, Mr. G. Day, of 282

Oxford-street, Paddington, who has unsuccessfully applied for a war pension, and has consequently been unable to obtain a habitation fit for himself and his children to live in. This unfortunate man is now on his death bed, and the most tragic aspect of the case is that his daughter, aged fourteen years, and his son, aged twelve years, have contracted tuberculosis, while another child, aged ten years, has symptoms of this dread disease. The eldest child has been removed to Thirlmere, near Picton. I have supported numerous “appeals on behalf of ex-soldiers, but this is a particularly sad case, the unfortunate children have been compelled to live under circumstances which led them to contract the disease. Although the father is now beyond human aid, the Government should by granting him a pension, at least assist the children to obtain accommodation in more healthy surroundings.Possibly the family could be moved to a district where they would have a chance to recover. Therefore, I suggest that immediate action be taken. The eldest daughter, who is now married, has not resided with her father since his return from the war, and she is not suffering from the disease, proving that it is not a hereditary complaint.

Regarding the next case to which I direct attention, an extraordinary decision has been given by one of the tribunals to which the ex-soldiers have to appeal in their efforts to secure a war pension. I refer to the case of Mr. J. T. Evans, of 420 Park-road, Paddington. The tribunal decided that shell shock and nerves, from which he is suffering, are not attributable to war service. His appeal was heard at Sydney on 26th October, 1934. I should like the Minister for Repatriation to consider how any ex-soldier could become the victim of shell shock other than through service at the front. Any reasonable person who saw this man’s present condition would be prepared to come to his assistance, and I hope that his case will receive immediate attention by the Minister.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– A paragraph appears in today’s Sydney Telegraph headed “Mobilize Army, urges M.H.R. “, and I desire to correct the statement contained in itdue, no doubt, to a slip of hearing - that I advocated that the Australian army be “ mobilized “. Honorable members will recall that the word I used was “motorized “. I do not desire to see war, and I trust that it will never come. I hope that it will never be necessary to mobilize our army.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

.- Mr. Renfrew J. Craig, of Cairns, claims that he has forwarded £30 to the Defence Department to have a Royal Commission appointed to investigate an allegation that cyanide was placed in the Cairns reservoir about the year 1914 or 1915. I have had correspondence on this subject, and have discussed it on several occasions with the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill). The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens), I understand, has also dealt with the matter. Will the Minister inform me whether there is any justification for the statement that £30 has been paid to the department? Mr. Renfrew, who is now a very old man, claims that Senator Sir George Pearce was Minister for Defence at the time, and that he has been robbed of this money.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– I support, in a general way, cases such as those specifically mentioned by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Hughes) has made certain definite promises to the House that he will have inquiries made, and try to do something to assist ex-soldiers suffering from tubercular disease. Dozens of these cases come under my notice every week from the Waterfall Sanatorium and other places. I urge the Government to make up its mind during the recess whether it intends to recognize the claims of these unfortunate men, or whether no hope ca?i be held out to them. Their cases are tragic, and, whatever the circumstances may be, it must be recognized that they were prepared to pay the supreme sacrifice on the battlefields of Europe. I am sure that the Government does not want to humbug them. I trust that this matter will be considered seriously during the recess, and that when Parliament meets again, a definite pronouncement will be made regarding it.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– In reply to the matter raised by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) concerning a man named Craig, of Cairns, I find that there is nothing on the files to justify his claim. The matter extends as far back as December, 1914,, and January, 1915, when the Cairns Council requested that a military guard be supplied to protect the Cairns water supply. The department replied that as it was entirely a State matter the request could not be complied with. I have received a letter from Craig in which he addresses me as “ Dear Parkhill “, but no details are given concerning the £30. No record can be found of any claim having been made to the department for that amount. There was a further communication in December, 1934, but there are no details in the department of the grounds upon which the claim is made. If the honorable member for Kennedy has any information to support the request, and he brings it under my. notice, the matter will, if necessary, be further investigated.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.-] should like a definite assurance from the Government that all evictions from war service homes shall be suspended until the Minister (Mr. Thorby) returns from Great Britain. At present a number of evictions are under consideration by the Commissioner, and as winter is approaching, the persons concerned, many of whom have families, should be relieved of the anxiety of the possibility of eviction. I trust that the Government will see that no persons are evicted while Parliament is in recess.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

.- A few days ago the Minister for External Affairs (Senator Pearce) made an interesting statement on external affairs. I ask the Government if a similar statement, with special application to Australia, could not be made available to honorable members fortnightly or monthly so that they may follow the European situation more closely.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I support, the request of the honorable member for Corangamite that a periodical statement concerning external affairs be made available to honorable members. Insufficient attention is given by this Parliament to the trend of international affairs, and particularly those affecting Australia. The Government should keep honorable members informed concerning new developments, as at present they have to depend upon what appears in the press, which is not always reliable.

During the short time I have been a member of this chamber I have listened to a lot of stuff from a particular quarter concerning war pensions. While I cannot recall an instance of those who have been on active service being accused of delinquency in matters of this kind, I am obliged for the kind consideration shown by some, especially when we remember that many of the men claiming pensions would not have been injured or had their health impaired overseas had their friends assisted in obtaining reinforcements. Had they done so, the responsibilities would have been distributed more equitably. This is a. very serious question. It is extremely distasteful to certain honorable members to have to listen to all this political propaganda–

Mr Lazzarini:

– You are a contemptible liar, and a cur as well.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the honorable member for Werriwa to withdraw that remark.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I will not. He is a liar and I will not withdraw it. You can do your damndest.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I name the honorable member for Werriwa.

Dr Earle Page:

– I ask the honorable member to withdraw the remark so that I shall not have to perform a very unpleasant duty.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I made the statement because of the deliberate and uncalledfor misrepresentations of the honorable gentleman. Honorable members cannot receive any protection. I repeat that he is a liar. I will not withdraw the remark.

Dr.Earle Page. - I move -

That the honorable member for Werriwa be suspended from the service of the committee.

Question put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. Nairn).

AYES: 17

NOES: 11

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the House:

Mr NAIRN:

– I have to report, Mr. Speaker, that in committee I had occasion to name the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) for the use of an unparliamentary expression. The committee accordingly resolved that the honorable member should be suspended from the service of the committee.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- Before the House deals with this matter, may I be permitted to say that, although the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) used an offensive expression, he did so under extreme provocation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I can pay regard only to the report that I have received from the Temporary Chairman of Committees.

Question -

That the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) be suspended from the service of the House. (Mr Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

Ayes . . . . . . 18

Noes . . . . . . 11

Majority . . . .7

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The honorable member for Werriwa thereupon withdrew.

Other honorable members having withdrawn,

Mr Ward:

– I direct attention to the state of the House.

There being no quorum present,

Mr. Speaker adjourned theHouse at 11.23 p.m.

page 1248

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Royal Australian Airforce.

La Perouse Defence Area.

Commonwealth Public Service Officers’ Furlough

Dr Earle Page:
CP

e. - On the 14th March the honorable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) asked me the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What number of officers in the Commonwealth Public Service has been granted furlough or pay in lieu of furlough, prior to retirement, since the operation of the financial emergency legislation ?
  2. What was the number of instances in which salaries bo paid were below the salaries appertaining to the officers concerned before the operation of the Financial Emergency Act?
  3. What saving was effected as the result of remunerating the officers referred to in paragraph (2) at the reduced rates of salary instead of at the unreduced rates, excluding the amount which the reduction in the cost of living would involve?

I am now in a position to furnish the following reply : -

  1. 1,185.
  2. The number of instances in which salaries so paid were lower than the salaries payable but for the Financial Emergency Act was 1,037.
  3. £31,922.

Fruit Crop Returns

Dr Earle Page:
CP

e. - On the 8th April the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What was the total production in each State, for the last year for which figures are available, of citrus fruits, apples and pears, respectively ?
  2. What was the total Commonwealth export and the value of such export of citrus fruits, apples and pears, for the last year for which figures are available?
  3. What amount of bounty or reimbursement for loss was paid, for the year for which figures are given, in respect of the production of citrus fruits, apples and pears?

I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following reply : -

Post a l Department - Temporary Employees.

Mr Hunter:
CP

– On the 4th April the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. “Ward) asked, without notice, a question pertaining to deprivation of leave for temporary employees of the Postal Department, by terminating their employment just prior to the completion of twelve months’ service.

I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following reply. It is not the practice of the department to. dismiss temporary employees just prior to completion of twelve months’ service. As a matter of fact, every effort is made to keep the men employed in cases where they would become eligible for leave within a short period, provided there is useful work on which they may be employed.

Tasmanian Shipping Services

Mr Hunter:
CP

r. - On the 9th April the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What were the rates of freight and the minimum passenger fares operating at the date of the signing of the contract dated 20th September, 1934, between the Postmaster-General and Tasmanian Steamers Proprietary Limited?
  2. Does this contract provide any increase or decrease over the freights and fares obtaining during the previous contract; if so, what are the details of such increase or decrease?
  3. What was the total cost in Australian currency of the new steamer Taroona?

I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -

  1. Freight rates for general cargo from Melbourne to Launceston, 18s. per ton; from Launceston to Melbourne, 18s. per ton; from Melbourne to north-west ports, 18s. per ton; from north-west ports to Melbourne, 16s. 6d. per ton. Minimum passenger fares - first Class, £2 8s.; second class, £1 13s.
  2. No.
  3. The information is not yet available.

Wireless Broadcasting : Station at Kalgoorlie.

Mr Hunter:
CP

– On the 9th April the honorable member forKalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. Can he indicate when the building of the proposed National Service Broadcasting Station at Kalgoorlie will be commenced?
  2. What are the difficulties that have until now delayed construction?

I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following answer : -

Consideration is being given to the next phase of the broadcasting construction programme, and finality in the plan has not yet been reached. It is, therefore, impracticable to say at this juncture when the building will be commenced.

Access to Secret Information

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

son asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice: -

  1. Whether he can inform the House by what authority a private citizen named Frood was able to obtain access to information in official documents in the AuditorGeneral’s Department, as reported in paragraph 983, page 97, of the minority report of the Royal Commission on Mineral Oils and Petrol and other Products of Mineral Oils?
  2. Is information in this department available to all other Australian citizens?
  3. What steps does he propose to take to safeguard the secrecy of information supplied to the Auditor-General ?
Dr Earle Page:
CP

– The reply of the Auditor-General is that he takes such steps as in his opinion are necessary and desirable to carry out the duties entrusted to him by Parliament. The AuditorGeneral further states that he did not divulge any secret information.

Petrol Commission

Mr Forde:

e asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. When was the Royal Commission on Mineral Oils and Petrol appointed, and when was its report submitted to the Government?
  2. What remuneration was paid to each member of the commission?
  3. What was the total cost of the commission ?
Dr Earle Page:
CP

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

  1. The date of the commission was 6th April, 1933. The joint report of Messrs. Gunn and Hancock was presented to His Excellency the Governor-General on 11th February, 1935. The report of the chairman (Mr. S. Ernest Lamb, K.C. ) was presented to His Excellency the Governor-General on 29th March, 1935.
  2. Mr. Lamb, £2,205 (fees). Honorable John Gunn was paid salary as Director of Development, and no part of his remuneration has been charged to the royal commission. Mr. Hancock, £2,7399s. (fees).
  3. £10,394 (to date).

Sales Tax : Recovery of Penalty

Mr Blackburn:

n asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been directed to the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Starke, in his judgment in the recently-decided appeal of Commissioner of Taxation v. Cleeves, that, if the penalty inflicted upon the company, in respect of an incorrect return under the Sales Tax Assessment Acts, is recovered, the Commissioner should not exact or should remit the penalty imposed upon the director in respect of the same return?
  2. Can he tell the House whether the Commissioner will act on this suggestion?
Mr Casey:
UAP

– The Commissioner will give effect to His Honour’s suggestion provided payment is made, or satisfactory security is given for payment of the outstanding balances of tax and fines owing by the company.

Papua and New Guinea : Annual Reports.

Dr Earle Page:
CP

e. - Yesterday the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) asked me a question, without notice, in regard to the annual reports of the territories of New Guinea and Papua.

I now desire to inform the honorable member that the report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of the Territory of New Guinea has been despatched to the SecretaryGeneral of the League of Nations, and copies cannot be made available until it has been received and examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission which meets about the first week in June.

The annual report on the Territory of Papua for 1933-1934 is being laid on the table of the House to-day. It is hoped that copies will be available for honorable members at an early date.

Wireless Broadcasting : Establishment of Additional Relay Stations

Mr Forde:

e asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. In view of the unsatisfactory wireless reception in what is known as “ fading zones “ or” blind areas” throughout Australia, what action is being taken by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to have a survey made by experts, with a view to the establishment of additional relay stations?
  2. Can the Minister say what is the Government’s programme of expansion of broadcasting stations?
Mr Hunter:
CP

– The broadcasting situation throughout the Commonwealth has already been comprehensively examined by experts, and the post office plan of construction has been based on the result of the investigations and prolonged studies. As the honorable member is aware, seven additional stations are in course of construction and a further group of stations is under consideration in connexion with the next progressive stage in the carrying out of a general programme. When the whole of the work is complete, which obviously will take some time because of its great magnitude and cost, practically the whole of the populated areas of the Commonwealth will then receive a satisfactory and highquality service.

Lighthouse Services

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

n asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. What is the name of the officer in the Lighthouse Department who is responsible for furnishing replies to honorable member’s inquiries regarding lighthouse services?
  2. When may the honorable member for Kalgoorlie expect to receive a reply to an inquiry made by him, of the Minister some time ago, regarding the desirability of establishing lights in the vicinity ofEsperance Harbour ?
Dr Earle Page:
CP

– The inquiry to which the honorable member refers was addressed by him to the Minister for the Interior, who transmitted it to my department. It is regretted there has been some delay in replying to the honorable member’s inquiry, but a full reply will now be furnished as early as possible.

Case of Gerald Griffin.

Mr.rosevear asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

Will he inform the House whoinstituted the proceedings against Gerald Griffin?

Will he state what will be the amountof costs the Government will have to bearas a result of this prosecution?

Will he obtain better legal advice in future before cases suchas this and the Kisch case, involvinga waste of public money, are launched?

Mr Hughes:
UAP

s. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. The prosecutor was Mr. R. W. Wilson, an officer of the Department of Trade and Customs. The prosecution was launched on the instructions of the Government.
  2. At the present time the amount of costs payable by the Commonwealth is not known.
  3. It isthe regular practice of the Commonwealth to obtain thebest legal advice available in all cases. It may be mentioned, however, that in the Griffin case the High Court pointed out that the law was in a confused state, a matter for which the Parliament and not any particular government must accept the responsibility.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 April 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1935/19350410_reps_14_146/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant