House of Representatives
14 November 1947
18th Parliament · 1st Session
- QUESTION
- MINISTERIAL DUTIES
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- CUSTOMS BILL 1947
- NEW ZEALAND RE-EXPORTS BILL 1947
- TARIFF PROPOSALS 1947
- BANKING BILL 1947
- PAPERS
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear; took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 2078
QUESTION
BACKING
Nationalization : Petitions
Mr. ANTHONY (Richmond) [10.31J. - I have a petition from certain elector* in the divisions of Richmond and New” England protesting against the nationalization of the banking system and asking that before it be implemented the people of Australia, including themselves, of course, be given the opportunity of expressing an opinion for or against the proposal by means of a referendum. Because it has been suggested from time to time that these petitions are not freely signed, I emphasize that in my opinion, from the information that I have received, all signatories of these petition? have signed freely of their own accord and, indeed, have been most anxious to put their signatures to them. They ask that they be given the privilege that they feel they are entitled to as electors.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order ! The honorable member may not discuss the merits of the question. He may affirm that the petition is genuine.
Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES
– In affirming that it is genuine-
Mr Sheehan:
– How many names?
Mr ANTHONY:
– Upwards of 30,000 names have been presented.
Mr SPEAKER:
– On that petition?
Mr ANTHONY:
– No; on this and other petitions.
Mr SPEAKER:
– The honorable member may refer only to the petition he is now presenting.
Mr ANTHONY:
– The petitioners comprise every section of my electorate - farmers, business men, .workers and members of the various religious denominations, and they therefore represent a considerable cross section. I move -
That the petition be received.
Question resolved in the affirmative. Petition received and read.
page 2079
MINISTERIAL DUTIES
Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP
– I desire to inform honorable members that I will act as Minister for Defence as from the 14th November during the absence abroad of the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman). I have asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) to act as Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Riordan) to act as Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific a nd Industrial Research, also from the 14th November for the period of the Minister’s absence.
page 2079
QUESTION
COAL
christmas Supplies - Queensland Resources.
Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES
– In view of the fears of a coal shortage at Christmas time, notably in Victoria, where it is reported that no extra trains will run during the holiday season unless 30,000 tons of coal in excess of normal consumption is received in the next five weeks, has the Minister for Labour and National Service yet discussed with the Minister for Supply and Shipping, following the question I asked yesterday, a report that the Joint Coal Board has asked the miners not to take the normal extra five days holiday at Christmas time so that essential supplies may be built up ? If not, in view of the urgency of this matter, will the Minister confer with his colleague without delay so that this House may be advised of coal supply prospects for the Christmas period?
Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936
– Yes, I have conferred with the Minister for Supply and Shipping and he has assured me and the Prime Minister that he has the matter well in hand and has arrived at understandings with the Premiers of the States which obtain coal from New South Wales. Although the weekly shipments to the various States are sometimes smaller than provided for in the allocation of tonnage, the deficiency is made up in succeeding weeks, and thus the monthly average is being maintained. The Minister still has the matter of Christmas supplies in hand and is doing everything possible to prevent a shortage.
Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND
– Has the Prime Minister seen the report in this morning’s press that an impasse has been reached in the negotiations between the Queensland ‘Government and the Australian Government for the development of the vast coal reserves of Queensland? The report states that the announcement by Mr. Hanlon that he intends to establish a State coal authority has not been favorably received in Canberra, and will cause the provision of financial assistance by the Australian Government to be a matter of serious conjecture. Is the action of the State Government in exercising its undoubted right to develop its own resources likely to result in the withholding of financial aid by the Australian Government? Will the Prime Minister outline the present state of negotiations between the two Governments on this matter?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– I have not seen the press report to which the honorable member referred, but I did write to the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Hanlon, a week or two ago. Prom time to time, a good deal of correspondence has passed between us on this particular subject, and, in addition, we have had personal discussions on the matter. The Joint Coal Board now operating in New South Wales is not regarded by the Australian Government as being a State body. Its particular task is to so organize and rehabilitate the coal industry that ample coal will be available for industries throughout Australia which require black coal. For that reason, we do look upon the Joint Coal Board, not as a State body, but as a federal body interested in the production of coal, which all States require. We have had discussions with Mr. Hanlon regarding the establishment of a coal authority in Queensland. The Government has also received representations from Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria on this subject, and we have agreed to enter into discussions for the establishment of a central coal authority in each of those States. However, they do not matter quite so much as Queensland, which has large potential sources of coa!. In the making of the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, it was evident that if the coal industry was to be rehabilitated, the work would have to be done in the first place largely with money provided by the Commonwealth, because the State probably could not carry that financial burden. As the objective is to provide coal for all the States, the matter becomes a Commonwealth responsibility. We are prepared to allow the Joint Coal Board to act as the coal authority for the organizazation of the Queensland industry. I do not object to the attitude which the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Hanlon, has adopted. He is perfectly entitled to take the view that the coal authority operating in Queensland should have a majority of Queensland representatives.
Mr Abbott:
– Hear, hear ! We are in favour of decentralization.
Mr CHIFLEY:
– If that is Mr. Hanlon’s view, I do not make any complaint. Let it be understood at once that the Australian Government did not make the original request to Queensland for the establishment of a coal authority in that State. The request was made in the first place by other people. But if the Commonwealth is expected to make a fairly large financial contribution, I must confess that we are material enough to consider that we should exercise the major control in directing expenditure’. Some time ago, I intimated to Mr. Hanlon in a letter, or in personal conversation, that I considered that the Joint Coal Board should have control of the rehabilitation and reorganization of the Queensland coal-mining industry, and that the Australian Government would be prepared to agree to the appointment of two Queensland representatives to that body. The statements in the press report to which the honorable member referred have not been conveyed to me in an official form. I have obtained some information from newspaper reports, and from what the honor able member said this morning, but J hare not received from the Premier of Queensland an official communication rejecting the proposal. If Mr. Hanlon has rejected it, that is his business.
Mr Davidson:
– I did not say that Mr. Hanlon had rejected the proposal.
Mr CHIFLEY:
– Coal derived from sources in Queensland is used largely in that State, and our only interest in that coal-
Mr Abbott:
– Cannot Queensland coal be used elsewhere?
Mr CHIFLEY:
– Very little; but we hope to be able to send some of it later to Noumea and similar places.
Mr Abbott:
– What about Blair Athol coal?
Mr CHIFLEY:
– I am afraid that 1 shall occupy too much of the period which is allotted to honorable member? to ask questions without notice if I discuss this subject fully. I can make a long story about all these matters. We are interested in building up the coal industry, and we believe that Queensland if one of the States which offers the greatest possibilities for the absorption of large numbers of immigrants, and the maintenance of a vastly increased population. We believe that the mining of coal in Queensland should be developed, not only to assist the industries of that State but also to meet the needs of other States. My reply has been a somewhat lengthy one, and in order to avoid taking up further the question time available to honorable members I shall have a written reply prepared and forward it to the honorable member.
page 2080
QUESTION
HOUSING
Strike at. Metters Limited - Tenancy Advisory Committee.
Mr SHEEHAN:
– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether there has been a strike extending over many weeks at Metters Limited, Sydney, a company which manufactures many household commodities, thus seriously impeding the completion of many homes which are under construction in the Sydney metropolitan area? Is the
Minister in a position to state whether any action has been taken for the settlement of this dispute?
Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP
– Yes, I know that a dispute has been in progress for a considerable time at Metters Limited. I am not sure whether it is a dispute in the ordinary sense about conditions or rates of pay or whether the men refuse to work for the firm because they can get work elsewhere, but it is holding up supplies of articles necessary for house construction. The matter was referred to Mr. Mooney, a conciliation commissioner. He dealt yesterday with the general metal trades trouble left over after the making of the last metal trades award, and he decided to deal with the Metters Limited dispute in conjunction with that matter. He sat all day yesterday, according to a message that I received this morning from Melbourne, and is considering his decision to-day. Representatives of the employers and the employees in the Metters Limited dispute have returned to Sydney, having promised to see what they can do to bring about an immediate resumption of work.
Mr ABBOTT:
– I have received a letter from the secretary of the Dungog and District Business Men’s Association enclosing a public advertisement which appeared in the Dungog Chronicle on the 5th September last. The advertisement, in part, is as follows: -
Six cottages are being erected at Dungog for the Housing Commission of New South Wales, and are to be the subject of a public ballot to be held in Dungog at a later date . . .
A Tenancy Advisory Committee is to be formed by the Housing Commission to determine on a “ needs “ basis those applicants eligible to participate in the ballot ….
The Dungog Tenancy Advisory Committee will comprise representatives of the following bodies : -
The Dungog Municipal Council.
The Dungog Branch of the Australian Labour party.
The Dungog Women’s Organizations.
And a representative of the Dungog Servicemen’s Organizations.
Clive R. Evatt.
Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer.
Will the Minister for Works and Housing say whether instructions were issued by him, as Minister, to the State Minister for Housing that representatives of the
Australian Labour party should be appointed to act on tenancy advisory committees? If not, will the Minister issue instuctions that no political party, as such, shall have direct representation on these very important committees?
Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
– No such instructions have been given, nor will be given. The Commonwealth Government, under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, has no power to issue instructions of the kind. The allocation of houses built under the agreement is a matter for the States, provided that at least 50 per cent. of the houses are allocated to exservicemen. The general practice in all the States has been to allocate more like 70 per cent. to ex-servicemen. In the main, allocation is on a needs basis. The actual allocations are made by the State authorities, which are doing a first-class job.
page 2081
QUESTION
INTERNATIONAL BANK AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Is the Prime Minister able to inform the House whether an Australian will be appointed to the board of the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund? If so, what salary attaches to the position ? Has the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. S. G. McFarlane, been considered for such an appointment? Can the Prime Minister also inform the House whether Dr. Coombs has applied for an appointment to the International Trade Organization ?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– When the thirteenth director was to be appointed to the board of the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund at the end of last year or at the beginning of the present year the Government nominated Mr. S. G. McFarlane for that position. However, Australia’s nominee did not receive the appointment. When a sufficient number of new members join the fund I presume that an additional director will be appointed. When that eventuates I believe that a nominee of the Australian Government may , be appointed. No nomination has been made because the new position has not as yet been created.
Mr Lang:
– An Australian is to be appointed if an additional director is required ?
Mr CHIFLEY:
– Yes. I repeat that the Government nominated Mr. McFarlane when the thirteenth directorship was to be filled. With regard to the second part of the honorable member’s question, I have no knowledge of Dr. Coombs having applied for an appointment with the International Trade Organization. However, he was one of the outstanding representatives during negotiations which took place at Geneva, which culminated in the trade agreement, the schedules of which will be before the House next Tuesday, and because of the outstanding ability he displayed during those negotiations, it may be that one of the major countries has seen fit to offer him a position.
page 2082
QUESTION
SUPERPHOSPHATE
Manufacture in South Australia.
Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
– Has the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture seen a copy of a recent publication issued by the South Australian Department of Mines entitled, Sulphuric Add and Superphosphate Manufacture, which discloses that sulphur power gas is now being manufactured at Port Pirie? In view of the importance of this development in the production of superphosphate for South Australia, and realizing that a great deal of it will be required in two years time for the removal of excrescences from Government departments, will the Minister inform the House whether the Australian Government is able to assist the venture?
Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP
– I have not seen the publication in question, but I shall be glad to read it and to assist in any way scientific research intended to develop agriculture in this country. I treat the honorable member’s comment on the Public Service with the contempt which it deserves.
page 2082
QUESTION
FOURTH SECURITY LOAN
Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND
– Although the Fourth Security Loan has not yet closed, can the Treasurer say what subscriptions to it have so far been received, and whether or not a new record for over subscription is likely to be established, thereby expressing the complete confidence of the people of Australia in the Government and its banking proposals?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– Two loan transactions are proceeding at the moment. The people are being asked to subscribe new money to a total of £48,000,000, and that portion of the loan will close tomorrow. There is also a very substantial conversion loan which, from memory, I believe amounts to £32,000,000. Although I have not seen the figures since Wednesday, it is apparent that the cash portion of the loan will be substantially over-subscribed. When conversions have to be made, it is always very difficult to obtain from holders of stock an intimation as to whether they desire to convert or to redeem and receive cash. The Treasury has had the experience of having received notification of intention to convert as late as two months after tinconversion operation has ceased. 1 hope to be able to announce the exact figures on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
page 2082
QUESTION
THE PARLIAMENT
Disqualification from Membership.
Mr ANTHONY:
– The Constitution, by section 45, paragraph iii, provides -
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives - (iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State: his place shall thereupon become vacant.
It has been reported in the press and over the air that a person occupying a very high position in this country has alleged that members of the Opposition in this House are in receipt of remuneration for their services in the Parliament from outside interests, particularly those associated with private banking. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of the honour of this House, whether you, in your official capacity, have any knowledge of any member of this House having acted in such a capacity? If you have such knowledge, will you take the necessary action to have his seat declared vacant ?
Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– The question is based on a provision of the Constitution. My duty is to interpret, not the Constitution, but the Standing Orders of this House.
page 2083
QUESTION
IMMIGRATION
Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA
– In the absence of the Minister for Immigration, I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen the press report that a party of 50 American ex-servicemen left Sydney for the United States of America yesterday, the reason given for their departure being that they did not like the political set-up in this country? The report went on to state that of 350 members of an American club in Brisbane, consisting of exservicemen, one-half had already returned to the United States of America and the other half wanted to do so, the reason given for this sudden exit being, “ too rauch socialization, too much red tape and too much taxation in this country. “. Will the Prime Minister say whether intending migrants are told that the Government intends to socialize this country, so that they may know what they have to look forward to upon their arrival here?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– I apologize for the absence of the Minister for Immigration, but I arranged for him to go to the aerodrome this morning to bid farewell to members of the Indian food mission of which Sir Raghunath Paranjpye is a member. Before he left the Minister left a note on my table. Perhaps the honorable member for Flinders had told him that he intended to mention this matter in the House, or it may be that the Minister anticipated a question on the subject. In his note the Minister for Immigration informs me that there was a statement in the Sydney Baily Telegraph that two Americans were returning to the United States of America because there was too much socialism in Australia. I wonder why they left the United States of America in the first instance, and think that it might have been due to there being too much capitalism there. The Minister for Immigration supplied some information which I think would have been included in his reply to the honorable member for Flinders had he been here this morning. He has drawn my attention to a report in the Sun Pictorial in which Mr. L. J. Hartnett, who was formerly general manager of General Motors-Holdens Limited, is credited with saying after making a world tour of twenty countries that, in his opinion, Australians are better off than the people of any other country in the world.
Mr Ryan:
– In spite of the Government.
Mr CHIFLEY:
– If I may say so, that happy state of affairs is because of the Government, and also because a kindly Providence has given Australia a good season. My general impression is that world travellers who have come to Australia - I have spoken to a number of them - are of the opinion that, in all the circumstances, Australians are well placed economically and otherwise. Although I suppose I should not engage in propaganda in answer to the honorable member’s question, I should like to add that they are well placed politically also. As I have said, the Minister for Immigration evidently anticipated a question on this subject, and so he left a little propaganda for me to make use of on his behalf.
page 2083
QUESTION
MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr CONELAN:
– Can the Minister for Transport say whether there is any truth in the report that there are to be no further importations of American cars to Australia for some time? Can he say also what stage has been reached in connexion with the production of an Australian car, and whether it is correct that new car permits are to be abolished?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– The general tenor of the honorable member’s question indicates that it covers a larger field than the particular aspect of transport under the control of the Minister for Transport. The number of cars - I refer to chassis rather than complete cars - which can be brought to Australia from dollar currency areas is largely dependent on the volume of dollars available for their purchase. From information which I have received from authoritative sources, I do not expect great difficulty in obtaining British chassis, but difficulty will be experienced in meeting the demand for bodies forthem,not so much because of a lack of materials as of the equipment necessary for making bodies to fit those chassis, and also because of a shortage of fittings. Speaking from memory, I understand that there are about 6,000 British chassis and about 14,000 or 15,000 American car chassis in Australia at the present time. The Government hopes to encourage Australian manufacturers of bodies for motor vehicles to utilize as much of their plant as possible for the making of bodies to fit British chassis. The difficulty in connexion with American chassis isnot due to any reluctance to meet the requests for American cars, but is due solely to the serious dollar position. I understand that there are applications for about 100,000 utility vehicles and passenger cars to be satisfied. Many difficulties are associated with the issue of permits, and the Minister for Transport has discussed them with me on several occasions. The provision is difficult to administer because the Minister for Transport has no staff in his department to attend to this work, and he has been using the staff of State departments to investigate applications for permits. Discussions are now proceeding, particularly with the authorities in New South Wales, regarding the carrying on of that arrangement. In spite of the difficulties, we believe that it is better to retain the permit system. If it were abandoned persons who did not deserve to get cars would be getting them, while primary producers, who really need cars, would be unable to get them.
page 2081
QUESTION
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
Public Galleries - Lighting and Ventilation
Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA
– I wish to direct a question to you, Mr. Speaker, as ex officio chairman of the Joint House Committee. In view of the regular and welcome visits of tourists to the public galleries on the right of the chair, and the consequent unavoidable noise when they are entering and leaving, would it be possible to have some suitable floor covering placed in that section of the galleries?
Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
– The Chair will examine the matter; but up to date I have not experienced any inconvenience due to persons entering and leaving the public galleries. Indeed the visitors to whom the honorable gentleman refers have been well conducted.
Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA
– I wish to ask you Mr. Speaker, a question concerningthelighting and ventilation of this chamber. It is sufficient to say that in respect of the lighting the eyesight of an undue proportion of honorable members and pressmen engaged in the gallery has been adversely affected. With respect to the atmosphere of the chamber, all honorable members recognize that it is conducive to sleep; and, possibly, the atmosphere explains why at the end of eachweek many of us are not so tolerant as we might be. Will you look into these matters with a view to ascertaining whether the lighting and ventilation of the chamber can be improved?
Mr SPEAKER:
– With respect to the ventilation of the chamber ] have no doubt that the honorable member, within the last few days has read the information given to the House some months ago that the ventilation plant in the building is to be modernized. With respect to lighting, we have already experimented with fluorescent lighting in the library and ministerial offices. If necessary, similar experiments will be undertaken in party rooms in which the lighting has been the cause of complaint. At present, the experts are considering the best manner in which the lighting of the chamber can be improved. Structural alterations to the building are already being made for the purpose of installing the initial section of the modernized ventilation plant.
page 2081
CIVIL AVIATION
Intra-State Services
Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA
– Is the Minister for
Civil Aviation aware of the proposal of the New South Wales Government to introduce legislation to tax intra-State air services? Does the Government intend to intervene in any way in this matter, because, as the Minister, as an ex-railway man, must know, railway services at present are curtailed owing to the shortage of coal? Willhe seek a conference between the
Government and the Government of New South Wales in order to ensure that civil aviation shall not be restricted as the result of proposals of this kind?
Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP
– All that I have seen with respect to the matter raised by the honorable gentleman is that which has appeared in the press, and as incorrect reports are published so frequently, I am generally disinclined to take notice of them.
Mir. White. - The Minister can read the bill.
Mr DRAKEFORD:
– I have not seen a copy of the bill. At the last conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr, made a statement on this matter, and we are awaiting a communication from him on the subject. The honorable gentleman can rest assured that the interests of civil aviation will not be subordinated to any other interests. Within the limits possible for expansion, having regard to the availability of petrol, and also the restrictions placed upon the Commonwealth under the Constitution, we shall do all we can to foster civil aviation. I, personally, shall do my utmost in that direction.
page 2085
QUESTION
WHEAT
Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA
– Has the Prime Minister seen the statement made by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr, in the Parliament of that State yesterday that the right honorable gentleman had rejected the request that wheat-growers be permitted to deduct for taxation purposes expenditure incurred in the erection of silos? If so, in view of the shortage of bags, the importance of grain conservation and the need to provide the greatest possible quantity of foodstuffs, will he explain the reason for his refusal, and will he reconsider the matter ?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– I have not seen the statement to which the honorable member refers. I was in touch by telephone last night with the Premier of New South Wales, but he did not mention that matter to me. In fact, I have no knowledge of it. I take it that in accordance with the taxation law, the Commissioner of Taxation will make determinations in respect of this subject It is not a matter for decision by me. However, as the honorable gentleman hatraised this subject, I shall ask the Com missioner of Taxation to let me have a reply setting out the manner in which the existing taxation law applies.
page 2085
QUESTION
WAR SERVICE HOMES
Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– During the debate on the War Service Homes Bill 1 referred to the high rate of interest charged to purchasers of war service homes and to the fact that certain employees of the Commonwealth Bank were able to obtain housing loans at much cheaper rates. I then asked if the Minister for Works and Housing would give consideration to the desirability of reducing the rate of interest charged to the purchasers of war service homes, and the honorable gentleman indicated that he would do so. Has the mattei been considered, and if so, with what result ?
Mr LEMMON:
ALP
– Interest rates artconstantly under review by myself and by’ the Government. Whenever the opportunity arises it has been the consistent policy of this Government to reduce interest rates generally. Following a recent examination of this subject, it has been decided that it is not possible to reduce interest rates charged to borrowers under the War Service Homes Act at the present time.
page 2085
QUESTION
YEAR-BOOK
Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA
– A correspondent has informed me that the latest issue of the Year-Booh went out of print one month after its issue. Will the Prime Minister ascertain the number of copies of thi* publication now printed with a view to having it increased, so that those who desire to have accurate and detailed information of the resources and activities of the Commonwealth may do so without undue inconvenience?
Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP
– I was not aware that the latest issue of the Year-Booh is out of print. The Government Printer has had great difficulty in coping with the work entrusted to him because his staff is not ample to meet the demands made upon his establishment. I had intended to apologize to honorable members for the inability of the Government Printer to supply more expeditiously copies of the daily unrevised Hansard reports. These are delayed because of staff shortages. The Year-Book is regarded by many people as providing a valuable addition to the information available to them. Unfortunately, most people want to secure copies free of charge, which, of course, does not appeal very much to a Treasurer. I shall look into the matter and ascertain whether it is possible to make arrangements to meet the demands of genuine applicants for that publication.
page 2086
CUSTOMS BILL 1947
Assent reported.
page 2086
NEW ZEALAND RE-EXPORTS BILL 1947
Assent reported.
page 2086
TARIFF PROPOSALS 1947
Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2.) ; Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 1.) ; Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 1.) ; Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1.)
In Committee of Ways and Means:
Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP
– I move - [Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 2.).]
- That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 be amended by omitting every provision providing for an additional duty calculated upon each £1 by which the equivalent in Australian Currency of £100 sterling is less than £125 at the date of exportation.
- That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 be amended by omitting the words, figures and letters set out in the second, third and fourth columns of that Schedule opposite to each of the items and portions of items in that Schedule which are specified in the first column of the First Schedule to these Proposals and inserting in their stead the words, figures and letters set out in the second, third and fourth columns respectively of the First Schedule to these Proposals opposite to the reference to that item or portion of an item.
- That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 be amended as set out in the Second Schedule to these Proposals.
- That on and after the fifteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, the .Duties of Customs be calculated in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 as affected by these Proposals.
- That in these Proposals “ the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 “ means that Schedule as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the fourteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six.
_r. Pollard.
[Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals (No. 1.).]
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong -- I did not intend to intervene in the debate again so soon after having opened it at 9.30 last night, but a speech made since then calls for some very blunt comment from me as Leader of the Opposition. I refer, of course, to the speech made to the committee by the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear).** I describe it unhesitatingly as a scandalous speech. It acquired more significance than it otherwise would have acquired because it was followed by a speech by the Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward).** In the course of his speech, the Minister said, " I have no hesitation in supporting every "word said by the honorable member for Dalley". Therefore, what fell from the ^honorable member for Dalley has secured the public endorsement of the Governnent. I am glad, therefore, that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley)** is here to listen to what I shall have to say. I hope that the right honorable gentleman will read with great care what was said last night, because we have come to a pretty pass, indeed, if a scandalous and outrageous attack upon His Majesty's judiciary having been made by an honorable member in his place, that attack instantly receives the endorsement of the Government. The honorable member for Dalley, not for the first time, has thought fit, notwithstanding the rules and conventions of this place, to make the grossest personal attack upon members of the judiciary. The part of the bill that we are discussing is designed to set up a Federal court of claims. In the course of discussing it the honorable member for Dalley seized the opportunity to offer once more defamatory, false and malicious remarks about the justices of the High Court of Australia. He said, first of all, that the High Court justices voted themselves a life tenure, and his whole suggestion was that they did it improperly and illegally. I am not going to waste time on that, because the honorable member for Dalley raised it once before and was prepared to pit his understanding of the legal questions involved against that of the High Court itself. But he came back to it to suggest, not so much to honorable members as to those outside who are unwilling to like law and authority, that the High Court justices falsified the law to their own advantage: He then went on to say, " I have a fundamental objection to people in a state of senility being continued in positions where they can frustrate the will of the people as expressed in a popular vote ". I pass over the utter hypocrisy of his reference to a popular vote. This Government i9 the last Government that ought to talk about a popular vote. But here are allegations of senility made against all the justices of the High Court. {: .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr Burke: -- That is not correct. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- If the honorable member for Dalley wishes to retract some part of his statement, I shall be very interested to hear him do so. I still say that the oldest member of the High Court Bench could, at this very moment, buy and sell the honorable member for Dalley in mental ability and knowledge. The third thing he said was, " This Parliament has no power to take over other industries ". I turn to that for just a few minutes, because I take the statements as they come. That statement, of course, is incorrect. It has abundant power to take over insurance, as the honorable member should know, and it has already shown in one field of interstate transport that it is quite prepared to assume a great measure of public responsibility which falls short of a. monopoly. But I content myself with saying as an aside that, if the Government has no power to take over other industries, I want to have explained to me why, to assess compensation, every claim for which will be disposed of within two years, it proposes to appoint three judges for life. {: .speaker-KEU} ##### Mr Falstein: -- The right honorable gentleman will get the answer to that. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- I hope to have an answer. So far we have not had it. I come back to the speech of the honorable member for Dalley, who exercises his privileges of speaking in committee very freely and his authority as Speaker equally freely and is supposed to set some example in decencies of controversy in this place, and in the course of his speech what does he say? He says, with the approval of the one Minister who spoke, that Opposition members who have devoted their time to argument on this bill are the paid agents of the private banks. If the Prime Minister thinks I am the paid agent of the private banks, let him say so. Do not let him leave it to his " heelers " to say so. Do not let us have this damnable position in which junior Ministers can make filthy, defamatory statements however they like and then have some one say, " I wash my hands of that. That is only the Minister for so-and-so ". That is an intolerable position. The allegation that there are in the Parliament people acting as paid agents of the private banks is detestable and should never have been made. Then he went on to say that the *Banking* case was a political decision by the High Court. He said that he thought the court would be prepared again, in order to suit the convenience of the Opposition parties, to destroy legislation for which the Government is responsible. What is that charge if it is not a charge of incapacity, dishonesty and corruption in the highest court of the land ? There are two comments on those statements that I want to make in my extremely limited time apart from the almost unnecessary comment that they are grossly false. Every man who occupies any position whatever in the judicial world, in the legal world, or in decent society in this country, knows that these charges are utterly false. They are charges made against men of outstanding honour and outstanding repute. Put apart from that, they are first of all - and I take the lesser one first - a gross breach of the Standing Orders of this Parliament, a gross breach of all our practices which have been time after time laid down as amounting to this - that whilst one may refer to judgments and canvass judgments, one may not attack judges. The man who normally sits as Speaker in this chamber, who exercises authority and calls members to order and enforces the Standing Orders, comes into this place in committee and tears up the Standing Orders ! The second comment that I make, which is much more grave, is that this speech of his was a wicked and monstrous attack upon the High Court itself, that basic institution which lies at the very heart of our Constitution, and, therefore, was a deliberate incitement of the foulest and most revolutionary elements in this country. I do not mince my words about this matter. We all know perfectly well, nobody better than the Prime Minister, that there are in this country certain people - fortunately a minority, I grant - who are well disposed at all times towards tearing down its basic institutions. The Parliament is only one of them. Executive government is only one of them. The judicature is the third. These people who hate the law, who hate the authority of the law, who have never got to understand that the only real security we enjoy is security under the law, are at all times willing to have their fancies tickled, willing to have their passions aroused, against those great institutions. The last place in which they ought to be encouraged, the last place in which they ought to find help and aid in their malicious designs, is in the supreme Parliament of Australia. And the last person in that Parliament who ought to encourage these things and those elements is the man who, as Speaker, presides over the deliberations of the House and is supposed to be the spokesman of the Parliament in relation to the rest of the community. Anybody who could make the speech that was made last night is unfit to be in any position in this House which requires a sense of responsibility and an understanding that in the authority of the law is the true safety of the people. {: #debate-18-s1 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP -- The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies)** has lashed himself into a very great fury about this matter. I do not propose to deal with the particular clauses that he mentioned; they will be dealt with quite ably by other speakers. I refer to the position in regard to the High Court, and I speak on behalf of the Government. I have no desire to canvass any decisions of the court, whatever they may be. Quite frankly, this Government has always held the view that there should be a retiring age for judges. I think that is borne out- {: .speaker-KZJ} ##### Mr Lang: -- Put it in the bill. Air. Abbott. - It is not in the bill. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- 1 understand that most of the States have a provision Which specifies a retiring age for judges. It has been said, I think, that High Court judges are appointed for life. That is a decision of the High Court itself. It is something which apparently is not explicitly stated in the Constitution and has been taken from a judgment of the court. That was the judgment in the case *The Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia* versus /. *W. Alexander Limited,* as reported in 25 *Commonwealth Law Reports* at page 434. I shall quote what the Chief Justice said in that judgment. The High Court itself, not the average man, apparently decided that that should be the interpretation of the Constitution. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- That all federal judges are appointed for life? {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- That is right. This is what the Chief Justice said - >The Constitution also provides (section 72) that Justices of the High Court and of the other Courts created hy the Parliament shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council, and shall not be removed except by the same authority on address from both Houses of Parliament praying for such removal on specified grounds. These words, which apply to all Federal Courts alike, have always been assumed- Assumed ! and I think rightly- That is, he agrees that the assumption is correct-- to mean that the tenure of all Federal Judges shall be for life, subject to the power of removal. He said that it had been assumed, and he thought rightly so, that the judges were appointed for life. Apparently that was an assumption prior to this judgment. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Is this an attempt to justify the observations of the honorable member for Dalley? {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- I have not taken much of the time of the committee during this discussion, and I do not propose to do so now. I am trying to make this point clear; I understand that the honorable member for Dalley said yesterday that he believed that there should be a retiring age for judges- {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- He said a lot more than that. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- I say that that is the Labour party's view - that there ought to be a retiring age for judges, as there is in most of the States. I have nothing more to say about that. I only want to add that at no time in these discussions have I canvassed the decisions of the High Court. Eminem constitutional lawyers have said to me that the judgment made by the court in connexion with the *Banking* case took the court back to the outlook of 25 years ago. That is merely an opinion of outside constitutional lawyers. I was rather surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that it is quite proper for the Parliament to criticize judgments made by the courts but not for the Parliament to criticize the judges. Let it be understood that I am not criticizing them, I have no comment to make about them. I know three judges of the High Court, whom I have met personally. They are the Chief Justice, **Mr. Justice** Dixon and **Mr. Justice** McTiernan. There can be no question about their honesty and integrity of character. I might differ very widely from the views of that former member of this Parliament, the Chief Justice, but I have very great respect for his honesty, however much I may disagree with him. I do not think that there has been any charge of corruption. I heard no charges of corruption made last night. However, I refer honorable members to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber the other day, and to this fine distinction which he draws between criticism of the judgments and criticism of the judges. He made a very impassioned statement here some days ago about the 40-hour case, and referred to the judgment in that case as " drivel ". {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- That is untrue. The right honorable gentleman might as well be fair over this matter. I was not making the speech. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman)** quoted one sentence which he said was taken from the judgment. I said that that sentence, wherever it came from, was drivel. That was my statement. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- I do not care how many fine distinctions the Leader of the Opposition makes. What I am saying is that the Leader of the Opposition, who has a great regard for the dignity of the courts, did make a comment upon a judgment of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Whatever his exact words were then, I accept his own words now that a portion of the judgment was drivel. Only fools engage in drivel, and one can draw his own inferences- {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- We all have our moments. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- This was not a moment. This determination was a considered judgment of three judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-L1A} ##### Mr Williams: -- A reserved judgment. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- One of those judges had been a member of the political party which the Leader of the Opposition now leads. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- This does not do the Prime Minister justice. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- From the public platform the Leader of the Opposition advocated violence. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- Quite right. I did. The **CHAIRMAN (Mr. Clark).Order!** The Leader of the Opposition has made his speech and was heard in reasonable silence, and I insist upon the Prime Minister being heard in the same way. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** and the Leader of the Opposition are not improving the position by having a debate across the chamber. They should show to the Prime Minister proper courtesy by allowing him to be heard. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- I merely rose to deal with this particular matter, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I repeat my view. As the Leader of the Government, I am not canvassing the decisions of the High Court, and I have not heard any charges of corruption against the justices of the High Court. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- If the Prime Minister had been in the chamber last night, he would have heard such charges. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- I do not hear every speech that is made in this chamber. It is true that the Government believes, as many other people believe, that there should be an age limit for judges. With that, I leave that particular subject. The Leader of the Opposition also complained that the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** had stated that some members of the Opposition were the paid agents of the private banks. I am rather surprised to find in this chamber that the people who pile out dirt and attack other people, just cannot take it themselves. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- That is a weak one. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr CHIFLEY: -- Some members of the Opposition associate members of the Government with Communists, saboteurs, and all kinds of undesirable persons, and, indeed, defame the characters of persons outside this chamber who have no redress. -That practice is quite common. Yet, when a remark of the kind about which the Leader of the Opposition complained is made members of the Opposition are filled with indignation, and protest that some one has said something disparaging about them. I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has not acquired more armour-plate and has not lost his sensitivity in regard to these matters, in view of the capacity of some of his own followers to malign other people outside the chamber or honorable members on this side of the chamber with their accusations and implications. All I can say to honorable gentlemen opposite is that if they give it, they should be able to take it. That is all. As to the allegation that honorable gentlemen opposite are the paid agents of the private banks, I assume that some of them feel that they have interests which are associated with those institutions in some way, and, therefore, they consider that they are justified, and acting with perfect honesty, in submitting their case. So far as I am concerned, I have no feeling about that attitude. {: #debate-18-s2 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava **.- Mr. Chairman--** {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- Should not you, **Mr. Chairman,** have called a member of the Australian Country party? {: #debate-18-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** received the call last night immediately before progress was reported, and the Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley)** requested that the honorable member be given preferential treatment in receiving the call this morning. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Prime Minister has an extraordinary' technique. He is able to commune with himself, make a mumbled accusation and conclude by believing that he is the injured party. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- Right. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- How hypocritical that attitude is - I did not desire to use the word hypocritical, but I am not able to think of a more apt one - is shown by the fact that the judges of the Federal Court of Claims, which will be established under this bill, will be appointed for life. Yet the right honorable gentleman has criticized the appointment of justices of the High Court for life! Evidently he agrees with the statements of the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear),** who is also **Mr, Speaker.** He did not denounce the utterances of the honorable member. He explained that the Australian Labour party believed that there should be a retiring age for judges. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- Yes, an age limit. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I am glad that the Prime Minister has made that qualification, but he has not denounced the attacks which the honorable member for Dalley made on the justices of the High Court. Those accusations last night were a further chapter in the honorable member's campaign against the High Court. He was merely repeating what he had previously said in the Sydney Domain. The Prime Minister has not protested against those utterances. Similar attacks have been made on the judiciary by the Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward)** over a period of years. Nothing is more damnable than to attempt to poison the minds of the people against the judiciary. Yet the Prime Minister has not made any protest. Obviously, what the Government intends to do under this legislation is to set up a court of appeal, and thereby completely by-pass the High Court and the Constitution. The High Court is established under section 73 of the Constitution with jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from all judgments {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- The Constitution also provides for such other courts as the Parliament creates. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Constitution can be altered only by the vote of a majority of the people in a majority of the States at a referendum. The justices of the High Court are men of integrity, judgment and legal experience. To defame them is to adopt the Nazi technique. Indeed, Hitler described this technique in *Mein Kampf,* in which he advised his followers to follow a vilification and " smear " campaign. He learnt that from the Viennese Communists, and adopted it in the Nazi policy. If honorable members will refer to the most authentic work on Hitler's rise to power, *The House that Hitler Built,* by the Australian, Stephen H. Roberts, they "will find an apt description of how Hitler set up new standards of justice, and new conceptions of right and wrong. That is what this Government intends to do by pulling down the High Court and appointing the Federal Court of Claims. The High Court would be left derelict. Already the Government has done this with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court by appointing a number of conciliation commissioners, all of whom, with one exception, are of its political colour. Hitler used the law as a political instrument, and the Labour Government is endeavouring to follow suit. Whether it knows it or not, it is imitating Hitler's doctrine of national socialism. ' Professor Roberts, in *The House that Hitler Built,* wrote - >The Nazi theory is that law is merely a weapon in .the political struggle. . . . > >One of Hitler's first acts was to institute special courts for political offences - courts where the offence did not have to be legally proved and from which there could be no appeal. . . . "National Ethics as the Source of Law". This boasts that ",the distinction between law and morality is done away with". . . . That theory, for the moment, happens to be National Socialism, and law is but its maidservant. " The law and the will of Hitler are one", said Goring. The Prime Minister, who is no "sheep in sheep's clothing", is steadily leading us along the same path. This inoffensive shepherd is pulling democracy down and undermining the ethics, to say nothing of the liberty, of the community, which has been laboriously built up over many centuries. When I asked him whether his masters, the executive of the Australian Labour party, which is to meet next Monday, were considering further nationalization proposals - and I based my question on a report in the press that **Mr. Kennelly** had stated that there would be other nationalization proposals- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The clauses which the committee is at present considering deal with the court proposed to be established. The honorable member must confine his remarks to those clauses. Air. ARCHIE CAMERON - I rise to order. The clauses under discussion also state specifically that the court proposed to be established shall deal with cases other than those arising under this bill. Is not the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** in order in referring to possible functions nf that court? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I quite agree with the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron),** but there is no need for him to occupy the time of the honorable member for Balaclava. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Prime Minister was most antagonistic when I mentioned that other plans for socialization were in train and that his masters- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member must not again refer to the executive of the Australian Labour party. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Prime Minister replied that he was not obliged to answer my question at all, but that he proposed to do so as a matter of extreme courtesy. That indicates the way he is heading. He has to condescend in order to answer questions regarding matters of such importance as the socialization of the country, yet he readily condones the utterances of rabble rousers like the Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward),** who has been attacking members of the High Court for years. The Prime Minister allows utterances of that type to go unchecked. Aristotle said : " The insolence of demagogues is the ruin of democracy ". Let us examine the substance of the criticism of members of the High Court made by the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear).** He said that members of that court were senile and politically dishonorable, and he went on to impugn their impartiality. The fact is that the average age of members of the High Court compares favorably with that' of members of the Government. Amongst supporters of the Government there are honorable members who are considerably older than the oldest member of the High Court; yet, the honorable member for Dalley has the audacity to criticize the age of members of the High Court. The party opposite is represented in the Senate by a senator who is S3 or 84 years old. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: **Mr. Beazley** *interjecting,* **Mr. Rankin.** - I rise to order. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** who is continually interjecting, is not occupying his proper seat in the chamber. When members of the Opposition interject from places other than their own they are told peremptorily that they must not do so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Interjections from any place in the chamber are disorderly. The honorable member for Fremantle is not confined to any particular seat in the chamber; he may address the Chair from any part of the chamber except the Treasury bench. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- If age were to be accepted as the 'criterion to be adopted, then William Pitt would answer the requirements of the Australian Labour party, but not Winston Churchill. But age should not be the criterion applied; what is required in members of the judiciary is wisdom, experience, judgment and integrity. The average age of members of the High Court is less than 60 years, so that the criticism of them uttered by the honorable member for Dalley and others is merely an attempt at character assassination and an endeavour to destroy one of the safeguards of democracy. Edmund Burke wrote in 1790 - >You will observe that from Magna Charta to the Declaration of Eights, it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties, as an entailed inheritance derived_ to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity, as an estate especially belonging to the people . . . Yet this Government, which has no mandate from the people, and against whose policy more than half the people have demonstrated their hostility, persists in carrying out its tyrannical and totalitarian policies in defiance of the will of the people. The British people have opposed tyranny from within as well as from without, and the Australian people are entitled to oppose, by every means, the present proposal of the Government. In its determination to by-pass the courts of the land, which are the safeguard of the people's liberties, it proposes to establish new courts. That is one of the reasons why the Opposition believes that its duty is to criticize every clause of the bill and to delay the passage of the bill by every means in its power. I agree with every word of the criticism uttered by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies),** and with him I deplore the fact that there are in the Parliament honorable members like the honorable member for Dalley. As the interpreter of the Standing Orders, the honorable gentleman is expected to maintain his place with dignity, but he prefers to enter into controversy on the floor of the chamber in order to vilify gentlemen who occupy the highest positions in the land. I deplore even more the fact that the Government takes its pattern from the honorable gentleman and from the Minister for Transport, who is well known as a rabid opponent of all that is democratic. Parliament has never been at a lower ebb than it is to-day. The path which we are following will lead us to chaos and anarchy and will spell the end of democratic government. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-18-s4 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .- "We have listened to-day to an exhibition of bad temper from the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies).** It is not difficult to get "under his skin " these days, because most of the things which he characterizes with great propriety as "' sins " against the Constitution, the people and the Parliament, are " sins " of which he himself can be accused. When it comes to an outright debate he has a yellow streak a yard long and a foot wide, as he demonstrates whenever his vanity is offended. His habit in this chamber is to bolster up the virtues of the legal profession and the courts. But he has been guilty himself, on more than one occasion, of the offences of which he accuses others, as was shown by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley)** this morning. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a judgment of a member of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration as " drivel ". Of course, he seeks to cover himself by arguing that, although it is permissible to criticize a judgment, it is not permissible to criticize the member of the judiciary who wrote the judgment. Can any one tell me any difference in principle between criticizing a judge, and asserting that his judgment is " pure drivel " ? This is the right honorable gentleman who is so anxious at all times to protect the virtues of the courts! He also champions the ethics of his profession, but. I remember the occasion when the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** charged him with having accepted a fee of 2,000 guineas from the Victorian Government, when he appeared before the Privy Council as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. As Attorney-General he was not entitled to draw any fee, hut that did not prevent him from accepting a 2,000-guinea brief from the Victorian Government, which had entered a similar plea to that of the Australian Government, and did not, in fact, need to be represented at all before the Privy Council. This is the right honorable gentleman who talks so much of. the ethics of the legal profession, and the impropriety of criticizing the courts! He reserves to himself, however, the right, not to criticize the courts, but to criticize the judgments of the courts. I remember another occasion when, for hours, the Leader of the Opposition, the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** and other prominent members opposite castigated a certain legal gentleman and tore his character to rags because they believed that he was about to be appointed to the High Court. If all the things which they said about him at the time were true, they must possess a strange sense of loyalty and propriety for them to contend that a few days after his appointment no one would be entitled to say a word in criticism of him. The public questions loyalty of that kind and it doubts the morality of ethics of that character. The ethics displayed by the right honorable gentleman, both in his profession and in the appointments made by his government, are open to question. He has referred to the Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward)** and myself as " rabble rousers ". Here is a report that was published in the press - > **Mr. Menzies** interrupted his meeting to say, amid cheers. " That statement is contemptible. That is a statement ' li would justify assault and battery by the man who received it ". That was a rabble rouser at the Ballarat Town Hall, inciting assault and battery against the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** because that gentleman had seen fit to reply in ;i certain way to a local bank manager who had sought to dominate his political thoughts. Objection also has been taken to my having said that honorable gentlemen opposite were in the pay of the banks. I'f that has been taken personally to be my opinion - that honorable gentlemen opposite are in the pay of the banks - I assure them that no such implication was intended. What I sought to convey was that both of their parties are being fed with funds from the banks ; therefore, in a secondary way they are in the pay of the banks. In an initial way, I should be the last person in the world to say that they are in the pay of anybody, because, as debaters on this bill, they' are not worth "two bob". I do not think that the banks are so flush with money that they would be prepared to throw it away on some of the " drivel " that I have heard from the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** and others. I come now to the next point - the inference to be drawn from what I said last night, after covering a previous discussion I had had on the subject of the age of retirement of the justices of the High Court. I mentioned that matter again in order to emphasize the difference between my technique in dealing with the High Court and the technique of not only the Leader of the Opposition but also the leaders of his party in the States. I pointed out that, before this bill has been passed, every anti-Labour Premier in Australia has been publicizing the fact that, for one reason or another, he is going to take it to the High Court. There is to be a meeting of those Premiers in order to see whether they can agree upon some joint grounds on which to attack this legislation. Is there not a clear indication that they are trying to influence the court with that propaganda? The latest stupid suggestion in the press is that they are going to challenge members of the Senate on the ground that they had not met within two months of the date on which they were entitled to be sworn in. They are confidently predicting that they can get rid of the Labour majority in the Senate by approaching the High Court. My argument was - and this does not affect the ages of the justices of the High Court, with which I had dealt previously - that the worst impression that could be put into the minds of the people of Australia is that the High Court is merely an instrument or a tool of the anti-Labour forces in Australia, to be approached on every conceivable point, with the idea of defeating Commonwealth legislation. That is the position which honorable members opposite have to live down. Every speech that has been made by anti-Labour Premiers, as well as by the Leader of the Opposition, every anticipatory forecast of the methods by which this legislation is to be attacked with a view to having it thrown out by the High Court, has left indelibly in the minds of the people the idea that, no matter what the issue may be, so long as they approach the court they can induce the court to support them. That is the impression that is in the minds of the people to-day, and the more discussion there is about approaching the High Court with frivolous objections to this legislation the lower in the minds of the people will the prestige of the High Court become. The Leader of the Opposition has made no contribution to a better understanding of the functions of the High Court. He has used his position to-day, of course, to attack me in the time-honoured way, because I exercised my right as the honorable member for Dalley to speak in committee on this bill. I propose to continue to exercize that right, and I am always hopeful when I do so that I can get well "under the skin " of the Leader of the Opposition and force him into some sort of reply, and into a display of bad temper and bad taste in committee which he would not be game to exhibit in the House. {: #debate-18-s5 .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond .- The honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear),** who is the Speaker of the House, has stated that he has got " under the skin " of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies).** He has also got " under the skin " of every decent-minded person in Australia, and I hope that those who are listening will have noted what he has said. He has made his attack upon the Leader of the Opposition, upon members of the committee, and upon the judiciary. Having delivered himself of his venom, he sneaks out of the chamber, and in a few minutes will resume the Speaker's chair. The **CHAIRMAN (Mr.** Clark).Order ! The honorable member must speak to the bill. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I am dealing with an attack that has been made upon the judiciary, and I propose to direct attention to the similarity between the functions of the judiciary and those of other offices under the Constitution, including the speakership itself; because it i9 laid down in interpretation of the Constitution by no less an authority than Lord Bryce, that once **Mr. Speaker** assumes his office he divests himself of his former political opinions and .acts with impartiality towards both sides of the chamber. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- As **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- As **Mr. Speaker.** But how can a man who has made poisonous attacks upon honorable members preside impartially over their deliberations a few minutes later? How can honorable members expect impartial treatment when that is done? {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- But they do not. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I return to the attacks on the judiciary. "Who are the people outside this Parliament, who, in particular, aim to destroy the institution of the Parliament, and respect for the other institutions that have been set up under the Constitution? The first step in destroying an institution is to destroy respect for it. In order to destroy respect for the High Court, it is necessary first to destroy respect for the justices who compose it. Never previously in this Parliament has an attack of this character been made upon the judiciary. Last night, attacks were made by one Government member after another. The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Falstein)** started them, and he was followed by the honorable member for Dalley. -o is the charge that was made by the second honorable member - >If ever there was a political decision given by the High Court it was given recently on the *Banking Act* case. If any proof of that were needed, it is to be found in the fact that every anti-Labour leader has been stating publicly that as soon as this legislation is proclaimed, it is intended, upon one pretext or another, to contest it in the High Court. The honorable member has repeated that statement in his second speech to-day, the implication being, of course, that the High Court will give another political decision. The Speaker is supposed to be impartial in his control of the House, and accordingly he should weigh his words carefully, especially when referring to the judiciary. On this question the people of Australia have certain rights under the Constitution. If any government dares to exceed its constitutional powers its legislation can be declared to be invalid. There is one authority in this country to which any person in the community - the most exalted or the humblest citizen - can appeal. That is the High Court. The court exists for the express purpose of guarding the Constitution: it can say whether or not the Government of the day has exceeded its powers. What other authority is there to which a person who desires to contest legislation can appeal ? Yet, last night the Speaker of the House of Representatives left the chair and made a slanderous attack on the High Court. The next speaker from the Government benches was the Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward),** a senior Minister, who said, " I support every word uttered by the honorable member for Dalley". The Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley)** himself comes into this matter. Others participate in the debate while he says nothing; but by his silence he condones what they say. The right honorable gentleman has not disowned the statements of any member of his party on this matter. I ask him now whether he, like the Minister for Transport, supports the views expressed by the honorable member for Dalley. If he disapproves, let him say so. We know the tactics that he has used in the past. He waits for the " guillotine " to fall, and does not reply to charges made by Opposition members. Many people in Australia want to know the reason for setting up a Federal Court of Claims. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- Why not get back to the subject before the Chair? {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I am dealing with the matter before the Chair. The right honorable gentleman wants to destroy the court which already exists, namely the High Court. He wants to set up another court of his own choice. That is what this proposal amounts to. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the new Federal Court of Claims is to consist of three judges, with the status of High Court judges, who will therefore be appointed for life. It is obvious to anyone who reads the bill that their functions under this legislation will not last more than a couple of years. What, then, is the reason for appointing them for life? On other occasions the Prime Minister has said that the Labour party is opposed to the life appointment of judges. If that be so, why does he not take this opportunity to place a limitation on the period of the services of the three judges whom he now proposes to appoint ? {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- That cannot be done constitutionally, on the High Court's own ruling. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- The position can be met by appointing judges for a special period, or by appointing referees. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- If the judges were appointed for a limited period, the honorable member for Richmond would be the first to say that they had been appointed to do a certain job for the Government. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- For what other purposes will they be appointed? Both the Prime Minister and the AttorneyGeneral **(Dr. Evatt)** have disclaimed any intention on the part of the Government to nationalize other industries. I have before me a copy of the Constitution which makes it clear that insurance is in the same category as banking. In their book on the Australian Constitution, Quick and Garran say that in respect of insurance the federal control is the same as over banking. Are the insurance companies to be the next victims of nationalization? Is that why these three judges are to be appointed for life? When the judges have finished with the matters arising out of this legislation, will they be called upon to assess claims in connexion with insurance companies? Is every policy-holder to be brought under Government domination? *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! There is too much interruption. The honorable member for Richmond is entitled to be heard in silence. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- No more vicious or violent speech could be made by any " back bencher " in any parliament than was made yesterday in this chamber by the person holding the highest office in the gift of the Parliament. I want to know how it is possible for any man to divest himself of the qualities which a Speaker should possess and immediately indulge in a violent party political discussion as a private member. Not long ago the honorable member for Dalley delivered a speech in the Sydney Domain. That speech was reported as having been made by **Mr. Rosevear,** not by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but I understand that he drove to the Domain in the car provided for **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member must not indulge in personalities. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Has the honorable member for Richmond never driven to his banana farm in a government car? {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- It would appear that the person holding the high office of Speaker of the House of Representatives can divest himself of the attribute of impartiality and in a second, as a private member, descend so low as to say that there is a " yellow streak " in the Leader of the Opposition, and then, a few moments later, resume the chair and dispense impartial justice! {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- And act with dignity. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The conversation in the chamber is too audible. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- I have no more to say on that subject. The proposal to set up a Federal Court of Claims consisting of three judges to be appointed for life is evidence, if evidence were wanted, of the intention of the Prime Minister and his Government to fulfil the pledge signed by every member of the Labour party to socialize the means of production, distribution and exchange. As the Prime Minister has not convinced us of the necessity for appointing these judges for life, there can be only one interpretation {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- I have already told the committee that federal judges cannot be appointed for a limited period. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- On one occasion President Roosevelt attempted to pack the High Court of the United States of America, but he did not succeed. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- I again remind the honorable member of the High Court's own ruling that federal judges must be appointed for life. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- According to the speech of the honorable member for Dalley, there are other considerations governing these life appointments. An attempt is being made to pack the High Court by indirect methods. We have been told that these judges will operate in the federal jurisdiction. Knowing the views of the Government on this subject, and the limitations imposed by the Constitution, I submit that the proposal of the Government means packing the High Court by indirect methods and thus attempting to circumvent the constitutional necessity to hold a referendum on certain matters. What other explanation is there for these life appointments? Why did not the Prime Minister allow the banking claims to go direct to the High Court, which is there to determine such matters. There is no need to appoint judges with life tenure to hear claims in respect of this banking legislation, and nothing else. The intention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues is clear. They are determined to give effect to Labour's policy of socialization of all industries, including insurance, over which the Commonwealth has as much power as over banking, and to evade the necessity for holding a referendum by getting an interpretation of the Constitution favorable to their own ideas. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- Prom whom? {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- By packing the High Court. {: .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley: -- This is to be a court of claims, not a court for the interpretation of the Constitution. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- The Prime Minister is not so naive that he does not know that the number of judges of the High Court can be increased. The number is not limited by the Constitution. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired {: #debate-18-s6 .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr BURKE:
Perth .- The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr.** Anthony) made the amazing suggestion that the setting up of a Federal Court of Claims to handle special subjects would, in effect, destroy the Court. The practice has always been that, in setting up a tribunal to hear claims against governments, or government instrumentalities, men are chosen with a special knowledge of the matters to be considered. It is only natural that men with such knowledge should deal more competently with claims than could men who did not possess that special knowledge. It is touching to note the solicitude of honorable members opposite for the preservation of the impartiality of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to note their anxiety that this impartiality should be maintained. Have we not a vivid recollection of how the Liberal party and the combined Opposition parties brought pressure to bear on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria to leave the office to which he had been elected? Then there was the infamous suggestion that, because he had discharged the duties of his high office, he should be refused endorsement by the Liberal party. The Opposition parties were not game to go as far as that, but they were very anxious that he should yield to party pressure. The fact is that when an issue arises which affects their own interests, or the interests of their party, members of the Opposition are quite prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Speaker to desert the principle of impartiality. We know that there is no rule against the Speaker coming into the chamber and speaking in committee. En the Parliament of Western Australia, the Speaker has come into the chamber in the robes of his office, and voted. The honorable member spoke of packing the High Court Bench. That is an example of the loose use of terms. What is meant by packing the High Court Bench? Is it not a fact that a majority of the members of the High Court to-day were appointed by anti-Labour governments? Does that constitute packing the Bench? The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies)** said that the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** had made a vicious attack on the judiciary. No more vicious or discreditable attack could be made on any one than was made by the Leader of the Opposition upon the honorable member for Dalley and the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Falstein).** He spoke of them in slighting terms, which were clearly intended to discredit (hem. The right honorable gentleman's speech was evidence of a dangerously inflated ego, or of the fact that he is a paltry, party politician. He can make his own choice. As the honorable member for Dalley pointed out, it is only when he has been stung by his opponents that he resorts to such tactics. Usually he leaves that sort of thing to somebody else - to the honorable member for Richmond, for example. The honorable member for Dalley said that, when judges were appointed to the Bench for life, they had to be retained in their positions even after senility had overtaken them, unless Parliament took the grave step of removing them. The whole purpose of his argument was to show that there were dangers in the principle of life tenure. That was twisted by the Leader of the Opposition into a charge by the honorable member for Dalley that the present judges of the High Court were senile. Nothing could be more discreditable, and nothing more calculated to damage the prestige of the court. The honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** quoted Edmund Burke. I, too, could quote the great Edmund Burke - I think from his speech at Bristol - to show his consistent view was that members of Par liament, because of their specialized knowledge, are better able to make decisions on some matters than are their constituents. The Leader of the Opposition has,, on previous occasions, suggested that men have been appointed to the Bench merely to find jobs for them. We remember that he objected to the appointment of a resident judge in the Australian Capital Territory on the ground that there was not enough work for him to do. The Leader of the Australian Country party **(Mr. Fadden),** apparently, did not agree with the Leader of thu Opposition, because he pointed out that there was so great a call upon judges in federal jurisdiction that assistance had to be obtained from the States. He said - >Some pertinent remarks were made recently by **Mr. Justice** E. A. Douglas who lodged an emphatic protest, from Iris place on the bench, against the utilization of members of the Queensland judiciary to carry out functions which appertain to Commonwealth administration . . . > >Much dissatisfaction exists in the States whose judges have been seconded by the Commonwealth. Indeed, deputations have waited on the Queensland Department of Justice to draw attention to the arrears of work and the cases still unheard after many months. The deputations asked that the arrears be overtaken and that Queensland judges he relieved of other duties. The arguments of the Leader of the Opposition are a mere repetition of those he has advanced at every previous opportunity. The right honorable gentleman has sacrificed his prestige as a lawyer and his reputation as a reliable public figure in the life of this country by the manner in which he attempted', this morning, to gain some miserable partypolitical advantage. He said that the remarks of the honorable member for Dalley were an incitement to revolutionary movements in this country. What does present a. danger to constitutional government in Australia, more pressing and urgent than any threats that can be offered by the paltry Communist movement, is the campaign now being carried on by the private 'banks. The activities of the banks are an incitement to violent revolution. I have never attacked the private bankers. They are the victims of their own system. The position is not that they, of their own volition, are causing ruin and hardship, but rather that because the machinery they administer is archaic, they are forced to impose great hardship on the Australian people. They do not run the system; it runs them. But the strongest words are not sufficiently strong to condemn the methods by which the private banks are endeavouring to maintain their privileges of which they should long since have been deprived in a democratic .country. Their activities are an imminent threat to democratic government in this country. Their activities can have only one effect, as honorable members on this side of the chamber so often repeated, and that is the growth of revolutionary movements. The financial powers seek to thwart the will of the democracy. The establishment of the Federal Court of 'Claims, proposed to he set up under this measure is more than justified, because it will enable the justices to be appointed to specialize in the important issues that will arise in this particular sphere and in other claims under existing acts. To-day, the justices of the High Court have no opportunity to specialize. They are called upon to deal with issues ranging from matters of constitutional import to litigation between individuals. Is it not common sense and in line with modern practice to encourage specialist jurisdiction? Canada has established a court of this character, whilst a similar court has been in existence in the United States of America since 1855. The latter court sits daily during congressional sessions in Washington. The American people are not concerned about the cost of maintaining that court, because their primary objective is to ensure that justice shall be done. We say that whatever the cost, justice shall be done. That is the most important consideration. If the work arising under thi9 legislation be not sufficient to engage the full-time attention of the judges to be appointed, it is obvious that their services will be in demand to deal with other matters appertaining to Commonwealth administration. There is an imperative need to establish jurisdictions specializing in certain spheres. Claims before the court may arise from government activities, including acquisition of land, telecommunications, aviation and a host of other subjects in respect of which claims may be made against the Government. The establishment of the proposed court is long overdue. Had such a course been followed previously we should not have had the complaint which arose with respect to the resumption of land at Essendon for aerodrome purposes and the numerous complaints that arose when the Government acquired properties at valuations which owners claimed were far below just levels. In the past, however, because of the lack of courts specializing in such matters, the Government has been obliged to set up temporary bodies, or to drag judges away from their ordinary jurisdiction, to deal with them. The Government does not intend to deal with this vital matter in that haphazard manner. Does anyone contend that this new approach will not strengthen the respect which every member of the community should hold for the courts of this land? The answer is obvious. {: #debate-18-s7 .speaker-KXB} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Watkins:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-18-s8 .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP -- The present debate has arisen very largely out of an attack by thehonorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** in this chamber, and outside, upon the justices of the High Court and their competence. Last night he saw fit to make some of the most astounding statements I have ever heard made by one who is alleged to be a responsible man in a political party in Australia. Amongst other things he referred to the senile condition of some of the justices of the High Court. He said that a royal commission should be appointed to inquire into the competency of some of the justices of the court to discharge their duties. The honorable member and some of his colleagues are endeavouring tohave a bit both ways. Therefore, I now propose to call their bluff by moving an amendment to the relevant clause. {: .speaker-K0K} ##### Mr Conelan: -- Has the honorable member consulted with his leader? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- I havenot consulted with him, or any one else; but I shall make honorable members opposite vote on this matter. I do not care whether any member of the Opposition supports me, but I intend to force honorable members opposite, as the representatives of the Australian Labour party, and particularly those who are always saying that the justices of the High Court should be retired, to declare where they stand on this matter. Clause 27 reads in part - >The Chief Judge and each other judge of the Court - (&) shall not be removed except by the Governor-General . . . I move - >That, in clause 27, paragraph (6), after the word " removed the following words be inserted : - " until they reach tie age of 05 years ". Under my amendment the Government of the day will be given discretion to remove justices from the High Court when they reach the age of 65 years, or it may say to justices, "We consider that you are competent to .do your job, and you can stay there". There should be at least one member of the Opposition to join with me in demanding a division on my amendment. I have not consulted any of my colleagues on this matter, but I am determined to have recorded that the Labour party has voted for the imposition of an age limit on justices of the High Court, or that they refused to do so and, therefore, voted in favour of those justices exercising their functions until they were as old as Methuselah. It is time that this pernicious bluff of the Australian Labour party was called and that honorable members opposite were brought to book Last night we heard a good deal about the Federal Court of Claims. {: .speaker-KSD} ##### Mr McLeod: -- Will the honorable member make his amendment retrospective? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- If the honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. McLeod)** believes what I think he believes, he will vote in favour of the amendment. The Federal Court of Claims has been provided for in this bill only because the Labour Government wants to get away from the High Court altogether. The honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** said last night that the High Court had given political decisions. Had the Government claimed that the High Court was already too overburdened with work to deal with these claims, I could have understood the necessity for the establishment of a special court; but I cannot understand why the Government has incorporated in this bill a provision which makes a judgment or order of that court final and conclusive, which means that any person who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court shall have no right to appeal to the High Court. Much as I dislike litigation, or involving people in litigation, after all a litigant has a right to decide whether or not he is satisfied with the judgment of a court to which he has submitted his case. In this case the Government says, " It does not matter whether or not you are satisfied; this is the only redress you shall have. If you do not like the decision of the Federal Court of Claims, that is too bad; you will not get any more from us ". I know very few of the justices of the High Court but I believe them all to be men of great prominence in their profession. Adopting the assessment of the judiciary of the honorable member for Dalley, one might reasonably say that the Government has recalled **Mr. Justice** Webb from Japan merely because it is well known that that gentleman is regarded as being more or less in sympathy with the Australian Labour party. I do not know **Mr. Justice** Webb, but I have no reason to believe that he is not competent and impartial. He has not yet been sworn in as a justice of the High Court. If honorable members opposite cast aspersions on members of the judiciary simply because their political ideologies differ from their own, we are entitled to do likewise; but we set our faces against that. The personalities of the members of the judiciary should not concern us. The judgments they give are open to discussion and criticism, and that is as it should be. The very fact that a person has a right of appeal from one court to another is in itself an acknowledgment of the right of that person to criticize the judgment given by the court from whose decision the appeal is made. {: .speaker-K0E} ##### Dr Gaha: -- That is quite right. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- I point out to *tb.2* honorable member for Denison **(Dr. Gaha),** who agrees with my view in this connexion, that the provisions of the bill dealing with the Federal Court of Claims provide no right for a litigant who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court to appeal to another judicial body. Such a litigant is compelled to be satisfied with the decision of one tribunal only, and no matter what may be at stake, he is to be given no right to appeal to a higher tribunal. That right of appeal is of the very essence of the Australian Constitution. The Constitution provides that matters at stake between the Commonwealth and the States, between the Commonwealth and private individuals, or between the Commonwealth and foreigners shall be dealt with in the final instance by the High Court of Australia. Often they are dealt with in the first instance by the High Court, no State court being entitled to hear certain cases because the States are not implicated in them. Matters between individuals and the Commonwealth are heard before what is virtually the only Commonwealth court to-day, namely, the High Court of Australia. The honorable member for Dalley also referred to other nationalization proposals which are clearly envisaged in clause S3 of this bill. The powers of the Commonwealth, as defined in section 51 of the Constitution, include control of insurance. The language used in paragraph xiii. of that section relating to the control of banking is repeated in paragraph xiv., which relates to the control of insurance. If the Commonwealth succeeds with its present banking proposals it will be equally entitled to deal with insurance when it feels so disposed. Under section 51, paragraph xx., of the Constitution, the Commonwealth has power to make laws with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. Under that power the Commonwealth may decide to nationalize every trading and financial corporation in the Commonwealth. Paragraph xxxi. vests in the Commonwealth power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the acquisition of property. We have already witnessed acquisitions of property to which we have objected, but they have been upheld by the law of the land. TheConstitution empowers the Commonwealth to nationalize quite a few thingsif it is so inclined. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- It could nationalizethe land. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- My friend the honorable member for Franklin. **(Mr. Falkinder)** reminds me that it could even nationalize the land. When the president of the South Australian; Labour party opened the State Labour conference in Adelaide, on the 8th September, he stated that, once havingnationalized the banks, the next objective was the nationalization of the land of Australia. We cannot but take notice of the public statements of a man of such prominence in the Labour movement. {: .speaker-KXB} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Watkins: -- Order! The honorablemember's remarks have nothing to do with, the clause. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- Thesethings give one furiously to think. If the president of the State Labour party in South Australia - a man who enjoys the same surname as my own - did not speak with the authority of the Australian Labour movement, the Prime Minister should say so. However, I can see nomore likelihood of the right honorablegentleman repudiating his remarks than; of repudiating the speeches of the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear);** and the Minister for Transport **(Mr.. Ward)** which were delivered in thischamber last night. It is high time that the Prime Minister " came to earth ". I have always said in public, and I say it now to his face, that the Prime Ministeris one of the worst socializers this country has ever seen, because he is a sincereand convinced socialist. There are, however, certain members of his party who; for years, have signed the socialization pledge of the party, but who go down ontheir bended knees every night and pray, " Socialization - but not in our time, 0: Lord ". There are a few such members in this chamber. As custodian of the laws of this country, the Prime Minister should repudiate the statements derogatory of the High Court made by his followers. As the administrative head of the Government, the right honorable gentleman must accept responsibility for.- the utterances of his Ministers. The speech made by the Minister for Transport last night, in justification of everything that was said by the honorable member for Dalley, was not one that should have been made by any man holding the King's commission as a Minister of State. Having heard that speech, the Prime Minister was in duty bound to ask for the resignation of the Minister. If the judiciary of this country is to be so dragged down as to be accused of having made a political decision in respect of section 48 of the Banking Act of 1945 merely to suit the Opposition, the sooner the High Court is reconstituted the better it will be. The Prime Ministerhas an alternative, hut I do not think that he will take it. In the near future, he intends to introduce legislation for a referendum on the retention of prices control. If he believes that the Constitution should be amended to prescribe a retiring age for judges, he can make provision for the holding of a referendum on this matter simultaneously; but I have a strong suspicion that be will no more do that than hold a referendum on the legislation now before the House. I am rather tired of the manner in which the Australian Labour party is trying to "have a bit both ways " on the question of the retirement of the judiciary, and for that reason I have moved my amendment. I shall be interested to see whether I shall be able to get even one supporter from the Labour party, because I can hardly expect support from this side of the chamber. I am determined this time members of the Labour party shall either vote publicly for a time limit on the services of these new judges, or for their appointment for life. Government supporters may make their choice, and they will be judged by the people of this country according to how they vote to-day. If the honorable member for Dalley fails to attend in this chamber to vote one way or the other, he will carry with him the brand that he put on himself and his Government. If he sincerely believes what he has said in the Sydney Domain, and in this chamber time after time during committee debates, he will vote for the imposition ofa time limit upon the services of judges. {: #debate-18-s9 .speaker-KEU} ##### Mr FALSTEIN:
Watson .- The amendment moved by the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** is patently absurd and clearly unconstitutional. No member on this side of the chamber, nor do I think any honorable member opposite, could support something that was obviously illegal. Let us introduce some common sense into this debate on the question whether judges of the proposed Federal Court of Claims should be appointed for any period other than life. In framing clause 27, the draftsman has obviously copied, word for word, two portions of section 72 of the Constitution. That section was interpreted by the High Court in *Alexanders* case as meaning that tenure of office shall be for life. Section 72 provides - >The justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament - > >Shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council; > >Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, onan address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session. praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity ; The wording of paragraphs 1 and 2 is identical with that of paragraphs *a* and *b* of clause 27 of the bill. Whether the Opposition likes facing facts or not, the plain position is that a judge appointed to the High Court or to other courts created by the Parliament, according to the Constitution, shall hold office for life. It is true that 'provision is made for pensions for High Court judges, and for judges of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, the Bankruptcy Court and the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Similarly, this measure provides for pensions for judges for the Federal Court of Claims. It is unfortunate that some judges do not realize that they should avail themselves of the pension provision that has been made for them. The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** said that this measure proposed to set up a new kind of court altogether, namely the Federal Court of Claims. The honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Burke)** referred to the existence of a similar judicial authority in the United States of America, and I can give the committee some information in regard to that tribunal. I quote from *Haskin's* *American Government,* at page 345 - >The Court of Claims was established in 1855. It consists of a chief justice and four judges, and holds annual sessions in Washington, beginning on the same day that Congress begins and continuing as long as there is business on its docket. On the first day of the regular session the court is required to transmit to Congress a full report of all judgments rendered during the previous year, the amounts thereof, and in whose favour rendered, together with a brief synopsis of each claim. No member of Congress is allowed to practise before this court, and if one does so during his service in that body he is subject to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for two years. Moreover, he shall thereafter bc incapable of holding any office of honour, trust, or profit under the Government of the United States. That summarizes briefly the powers of that court. They clearly resemble, I suggest, the powers that will be exercised by the Federal Court of Claims which is to be established under this legislation. The honorable member for Richmond wrongly ascribed certain motives to the Government in providing for the appointment of these three judges. I direct attention to the fact that these will not necessarily be new appointments to the judiciary, but could be appointments of existing judges to the Federal Court of Claims. They would not be judges of the High Court, I admit, because it is clear from clause 29 that they would not have the standing of High Court judges ; but they might well be judges of other Federal courts. Clause 29 provides - (I). The Chief Judge and each of the other judges of the court shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, receive salary at the same rates as the respective rates of salary of the Chief Judge and of the other judges of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The honorable member for Richmond implied that the Government was endeavouring to "stack" the High Court. To be generous to the honorable member, all I say is that he is either ignoring the facts or, what is more likely, he has not read the measure now before the committee. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- He is also insulting **Sir William** Webb. **Mr. FALSTEIN.** Yes. It has been clearly demonstrated that the Labour Government has only made one appointment to the High Court during its six years of office, and the honorable member for Richmond implied that the calibre of the gentleman who was appointed was not up to standard. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- I did not mention **Sir William** Webb. {: .speaker-KEU} ##### Mr FALSTEIN: -- The honorable member did. He cast a slur on that honorable gentleman's appointment. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- I rise to order. The honorable member for Watson has stated that I cast a slur on a member of the High Court, **Sir William** Webb- The **CHAIRMAN (Mr. Clark).Order!** There is no point of order. {: .speaker-KEU} ##### Mr FALSTEIN: -- What the honorable member for Richmond said was that the High Court was being " packed " and the inference was that the appointment made by this Government was a " packing " appointment, and not one merited by the qualifications and the calibre of the gentleman concerned. The Opposition has not a sole right to defend judges of the High Court, and it is quite obvious that these tactics fit in very well with what is being planned in the very nature of the litigation that will go before the High Court and will have to be decided by this gentleman amongst others. If they want to engender emotional stress in this legal battle, what they are doing is calculated directly to achieve that object. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The time allotted for the consideration of clauses 26 to 36 has expired. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- I desire to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Falstein)** said that I had cast a slur on **Sir William-.** Webb before or after his appointment tothe High Court. That is utterly untrue. I have never mentioned his name eitherbefore or after his appointment. Question put - >That the words proposed to be inserted1 **(Mr. ARCHIE Cameron's amendment)** beso inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.) AYES: 3 NOES: 50 Majority . . 47 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Question put - That clauses 20 to 36 be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.) AYES: 36 NOES: 20 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2161 {:#debate-19} ### PAPERS The following papers were pre sented : - >Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of the Treasury - A. H. Simpson. Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Prices) Regulations -Orders- Nos. 3136-3149, 3151-3163. National Security (Tea Control) Regulations - Order - Tea and coffee control - Revocation. Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Regulations - 1947 - No. 2 (Public Service Ordinance). House adjourned at 1.13 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2161 {:#debate-20} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Prices Control {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When a firm selling goods at the permitted price finds that, as a result of good patronage by its customers, its profit for the year is in excess of what the Prices Commissioner declared is a reasonable margin on the funds employed, what action is taken by the Commissioner or what action can be taken by the firm? 1. Is the effect of price stabilization to penalize the enterprising firm which develops a large turnover as against an unenterprising firm, which sells the same goods at the same prices but does not establish such a large percentage of profit on the capital employed ? {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard:
ALP -- The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. If the trader concerned is the sole distributor of the goods in question and, as the result of increased demand, increases his turnover beyond the level on which his cost estimates, and thus his price, were based, and thus makes very high profits, the Prices Commissioner may require him to reduce his. prices. If, on the other hand, he is selling in competition with other traders, at prices fixed by the Prices Commissioner, and by greater effort increases his turnover and profits, he is not required to reduce his prices below the industry level. The Prices Commissioner fixes *maximum* prices only, and the proper action for a trader embarrassed with high profits is to reduce his prices. 1. No. {:#subdebate-20-1} #### Rail Transport: Commonwealth Payments to New South Wales Government ; Canberra Services {: #subdebate-20-1-s0 .speaker-K2A} ##### Mr Rankin: n asked the Minister for the Interior, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that theCommonwealth makes a payment, to the New South Wales Government for certain railway facilities? 1. If so, what is the nature of the facilities provided by that Government? 2. What payments were made during the past threefinancial years, and what is the estimate for the current financial year? 3. If such payments are made, will he communicate with the appropriate Minister in *Sew* South Wales, and ascertain why the journey from Melbourne to Canberra should take up to seventeen hours? 4. Will he also take appropriate action to ensure that visitors to Canberra from New South Wales and Victoria are given a speedier train service? {: #subdebate-20-1-s1 .speaker-K9G} ##### Mr Johnson:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. -Arrangements were completed in 1936 for an additional train to be run from Goulburn at 6.40 a.m. to Canberra on Wednesday of each week. This was designed to give a better service, particularly to persons travelling on parliamentary business to Canberra from the southern States. At the time the arrangement was made, this special train arrived in Canberra considerably earlier than the normal timetable, which still applied to other days of the week. For this service it was agreed that the Commonwealth Government should pay the New South Wales Railways Department the sum of £1,000 per annum. Subsequently, the New South Wales department agreed to run the special early train on Tuesdays without cost to the Commonwealth. This was in addition to the early train on Wednesday. Until the early war "years this service was carried out regularly. Later it was discontinued for lengtny periods due to coal shortages and other causes. It was discontinued in June last due to the general coal shortage. It was also found necessary, from time to time, to arrange for the running of the early train on other days of the week. On those occasions the train was provided by the New South Wales department on a mileage basis, the cost to the Commonwealth for the journey amounting, until recently, to £22 15s. This charge has since been increased to £26 per journey. Consideration was recently given to the re-institution of the early trains on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The New South Wales Railways Department indicated that the withdrawal of the early train from Goulburn had not affected the department's capacity to deal with traffic offering on the line, and that the special service would not be re-introduced without payment of £1,000 per annum by the Commonwealth. It was decided to arrange as an alternative for the running of the early train as required on the basis of £26 per journey. Under this arrangement one early train was run each week for the six weeks ended the 4th November last. The check showed that the parliamentary passengers travelling by the train did not warrant the expense involved. In the last three weeks of the period the number of passengers carried on each occasion was two. three and two, respectively. Further, the departure of the early train from Goulburn had been put back from 6.40 a.m. to 7.5 a.m.. resulting in the train arriving in Canberra at 0.17 a.m., a saving in time of a little more than one and a half hours. The normal timetable train arrives at 10.52 a.m. In the circumstances, it has been decided not to request the running of the early train until conditions change materially. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. £1,000 per annum has been provided each financial year for the running of the early train on Wednesdays. Payment to New South Wales has been made only in respect of actual periods during which the trains were run. No payment was made in 1944-45, £404 in £1945-46. £692 was paid in 1947, while £192 has been paid this financial year. In addition, in 1944-45 £2215s. was paid for one additional special train, and a similar amount was paid for a further train in 1945-46. £1,000 ha? been provided on the estimates for this year. Out of this amount payment for six trains mentioned previously at £26 each must bemet. 4 and 5. It is clear from the result of earlier representations that the New South Wales department is satisfied that the service provided, to Canberra is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, and that the full cost of any improvement asked for must be borne by the Commonwealth Government. The availability of air travel to and from Canberra has considerably reduced the number of parliamentary and official travellers by train. Any heavy expense for the provision of an improved train service with the reduced numbers travelling could not be justified. I will, however, take up with the New South Wales authorities the possibility of effecting improvements in the existing running schedules which would result in a speedier service. Commonwealth Disposals Commission: Sales by Tender. {: #subdebate-20-1-s2 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr Harrison: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon *notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the policy of the Disposals Commission to refuse to disclose to tenderers the accepted price in cases where tenders for contracts are publicly called. If so, what is the reason for this policy ? 1. By what process may unsuccessful tenderers be assured that the accepted tender price accords with the terms under which tenders were originally called? {: #subdebate-20-1-s3 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway:
ALP -- The Minister for Supply and Shipping has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is the practice of the Commonwealth disposals Commission to advise unsuccessful tenderers on application by them, the name of the successful tenderer but not the accepted price. The reason is that it is not considered mi be desirable nor in accordance with normal business practice to disclose to competitors or other parties the price at which goods have been sold particularly since a large proportion of the goods are purchased for resale. 1. The procedure followed in the examination of tenders has been designed to preclude the possibilityof collusion or irregular practices. Full consideration of all tenders is given by the Contract Board, Department of Supply and Shipping and by higher authority if outside Contract Board's delegated power. VII Commonwealth transactions are subject to inspection and investigation by the Commonwealth Audit Department. Text-books. {: #subdebate-20-1-s4 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway:
ALP y. - On the 12th November, the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** asked a question concerning the sale by auction of 30,000 books on behalf of the Commonwealth Disposals Commission. The Minister for Supply and Shipping has supplied the following information: - The books to be sold byauction have been offered to all Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities including the educational authorities. In addition, the lists have been examined by the Director, Commonwealth Office of Education with a view to selection of any books considered suitable to authorities concerned with adult education. Books not taken up were then offered to trade for distribution through book-Belling houses. Balance now being offered for sale by auction represents residue not required by the foregoing authorities or the trade. Tobacco Pipes. {: #subdebate-20-1-s5 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard:
ALP d. - On the 28th October, the honorable member for Bourke **(Mrs. Blackburn)** asked the following question : - From what countries are smoking pipes being imported and under what wage conditions arc such pipes being manufactured? To what degree does the Minister believe these importations will affect Australian workers employed inthe manufacture of smoking pipes? Is the Minister aware that some anxiety is felt in some quarters because of the great increase of these imports? The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : - The importations of smoking pipes during 1940-47 were as follows: -
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 November 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1947/19471114_reps_18_194/>.