House of Representatives
7 June 1949

18^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

DR V. H. WEBSTER
- Petition
MR. A. W. FADDEN”, M.P
HOUR OF MEETING
QUESTION
- PETROL
QUESTION
- BROADCASTING
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
NORTHERN TERRITORY
- Pastoral Leases
QUESTION
- GERMAN REPARATIONS
QUESTION
- EGGS
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE MORATORIUM
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
IMMIGRATION BILL 1949
WAR-TIME REFUGEESREMOVAL BILL 1949
MOTION OF CENSURE
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. J. J. Clark) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 532

DR V. H. WEBSTER

Petition

Mr. BLAIN presented a petition from 400 citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia and electors of the Northern Territory, praying that the circumstances of the dismissal of Dr. V. H. Webster, Medical Officer-in-charge, Tennant Creek Hospital, he investigated.

Petition received and read.

page 532

MR. A. W. FADDEN”, M.P

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I hope that the Leader of the Australian Country party will make the matter easy for the Chair by accepting its direction, otherwise I shall have to take otheraction.

Mr FADDEN:

- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I regret if I have reflected on the vote of the House, and on the Chair, and I withdraw.

page 533

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.

– What the right honorable gentleman said was as follows : -

However, in New Zealand within the last few weeks, I am informed that the Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, when receiving a deputation from motoring interests seeking abolition of petrol rationing, agreed that dollars were no longer the cause for continuation of rationing. He is also stated to have agreed with the deputation that petrol rationing should now be abandoned, but as New Zealand had agreed to comply with the request of the British Oil Trade Advisory Committee to continue rationing, he would now seek to have New Zealand released from that agreement.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Estimates have been given by a number of people, with what knowledge or authority I do not know. Certain figures were quoted recently by the Leader of the Australian Country party which were said to have been supplied by a former official of the Liquid Fuel Control Board. I have also seen estimates made by certain officials of motoring organizations. Naturally I do not take much notice of estimates made by people who are not in a position to make any precise judgment of the matter. In fact, I do not know that anybody i3 in a position to make a precise judgment of it. I dealt with this subject at some length recently when the House was good enough to permit me to read a statement about it. I shall supply to him a copy of that statement, which indicates the estimate made of the possible increase in the use of petrol as a result of the abolition of rationing if, at the same time, import licensing were abolished and all the petrol available were allowed to enter Australia. I shall let the honorable member have a copy of that statement, although I do not know whether he will read it or not.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– by leave - Last week, the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) made a powerful, reasoned, statement on petrol rationing which involved, of course, an examination of prospective imports of petroleum products into this country. The Prime

Minister (Mr. Chifley) replied. Indeed, the right honorable gentleman has made two or three statements on this matter. He has told the House that the reason for the continuance of rationing is the shortage of dollars and the dollar obligations that might arise from increased petrol purchases. After his last statement, the right honorable gentleman offered to show certain figures to me in confidence. Although I appreciate that offer, I have not availed myself of it, because I do not care to be the recipient of confidential information on a matter that has become of such widespread interest and importance. Since the statements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Australian Country party were made - they attracted, quite properly, a great deal of interest throughout the community - the High Court has delivered a judgment, in the course of which, I gather from the press, it has by a unanimous decision found that petrol rationing by the Commonwealth under the National Security Regulations is no longer valid. That is not a matter, I pause to remark, which is affected by any referendum, because the referendums of 1946 and 1947 had no relation to the problem. In other words, petrol rationing by the Commonwealth has throughout been a matter which must some day come to an end when the defence power ceased to support it. Now the High Court has unanimously found that the defence power can no longer support petrol rationing, and so it has come to an end. I have observed also in the press that the Prime Minister has communicated with the Premiers of the States and invited them to replace the Commonwealth rationing, now invalid, with State rationing, which, it is suggested, might be valid. I point out to the Prime Minister that it is unreasonable to suppose that any State Premier or Government will undertake the business of establishing a rationing scheme for petrol without being informed by the Prime Minister of the facts which, in his view, sharply to be distinguished from the cogent arguments advanced by the Leader of the Australian Country party, make the continuance of rationing and other controls desirable. I cannot suppose for one moment that a State

Premier or Government will enter upon this disputable ground without having possession of facts adequate to support such action. Therefore, I have assumed that the Prime Minister proposes to put before the State Premiers facts which so far have not been put before this House. I point out to him that it is unreasonable that every member of the National Parliament should be denied information on this subject, which, as far as I can judge, must be given to State administrations if they are to take over the problem from the Commonwealth. If this were a matter of security, nobody in the House would discuss it. But there is no hint of any question of security. It is quite true that the economic security of Great Britain and other non-dollar countries is very much involved, and we all appreciate that. The Leader of the Australian Country party and I are completely at one with the Government in our desire to co-operate with Great Britain. No question of challenging that has ever arisen. But surely there can be no good reason why we should not be told in this House what the position is in relation to dollars, what particular transactions in relation to petrol from sterling areas are involved, and what effect those transactions would have upon the overall dollar position or the dollar position of Great Britain or Australia. Until we are put in possession of those facts, I greatly fear that this problem will be discussed by many people in the light of prejudice. It ought not to be discussed in the light of anything less than real knowledge. As the Prime Minister knows, the cancellation of Commonwealth petrol rationing at once produces a reaction in the public mind. People begin to form certain views about it. The Prime Minister’s reaction has been to say to the States, “ Now, you go ahead and take over this job I emphasize that the right honorable gentleman cannot reasonably ask a State to do that unless he gives it the case in support of rationing and that means all the figures. We have not had all the figures. We have had statements but the closest examination of figures that we have had in this House was the one submitted by the Leader of the Australian Country party.

We have had from the Prime Minister a sort of blanket answer, “Well, it cannot be done because of dollars”. If that is not a mere phrase, but means exactly what it says, the reason must be that there are the factors in the international balance of payments which render that conclusion necessary. We in this House will not be satisfied on this matter until we are informed of those facts. No State Government could reasonably be supposed to be willing to undertake this task unless it has the facts. Neither can the Australian public be expected to accept, either from a State or the Commonwealth, a continuation of shortages unless, it is put in possession of the facts. So far there has been no real reason advanced in this House why the facts, if and as they exist, should not be made known. This problem is not merely a problem of movement across this table but it is one which concerns millions of people in Australia. It ought to be settled on a sensible basis. The only facts that the people have been given so far are those that were put forward by the Leader of the Australian Country party to the limit of the resources available to him. There is no reason why the facts available to the Prime Minister should be secret facts. They should be made known.

Mr. CHIFLEY (Macquarie- Prime Minister and Treasurer). - by leave - I had prepared a statement on the subject of petrol rationing which has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). A unanimous decision of the High Court delivered yesterday has ruled the National Security (Liquid Fuel) Regulations to be invalid. The High Court was not, of course, called upon to express any view on the relationship of petrol rationing to the sterling area dollar problem or on the necessity for limiting consumption of petrol in order to save dollars. The issue before the court was to determine whether the control of internal distribution of liquid fuel under the National Security (Liquid Fuel) Regulations represented a legitimate exercise of the Commonwealth’s defence power. In setting out the reasons for the judgment invalidating the National Security (Liquid Fuel) Regulations, the High Court made the following comment: -

The invalidation of these regulations will not reduce the power of the Commonwealth Government to co-operate with the Government of the United Kingdom in relation to problems arising from the dollar shortage. The Commonwealth Parliament by suitable legislation and the Commonwealth by administrative action can completely control imports into Australia. The power of the Commonwealth enables it to determine bow many dollars can be spent from Australia in buying either liquid fuel or other imported commodities. Federal control of dollar expenditure is not in question . . . The distribution and use and price of petrol within Australia can be controlled under State legislation.

The High Court judgment does not affect in any way the general financial situation which has made it necessary to limit the consumption of petrol and other petroleum products in Australia. I dealt with this situation in considerable detail in the statement that I made in the House on the 25th May and do not propose to repeat the details now.

In the course of his personal message to which I referred in the House on the 25th of last month, the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer said quite categorically - and I quote his own words -

Immediate increases in the consumption of oil generally in the sterling area are bound to lead to an increased dollar drain on the sterling area reserves . . . While a large expansion programme for sterling oil is proceeding, this will not bear fruit for a considerable time. In the meantime, I should be grateful for your co-operation in ensuring that petrol is not increasingly used for less essential purposes.

I am satisfied that at the present, and for some considerable time to come, it will continue to be necessary to exercise economy in the consumption of petrol and other petroleum products in order to avoid a further drain on the central gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area. It is the firm policy of the Government to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the United Kingdom Government in the measures which are necessary to meet the sterling area dollar shortage. There is no question of any challenge to the Commonwealth’s power to control imports of petrol and other petroleum products. It i9 clear, however, that chaotic conditions could develop rapidly if no effective system of rationing is provided by the State governments to take the place of the Commonwealth rationing scheme which has now been declared invalid by the High Court. Accordingly I sent a telegram last night to each of the six State Premiers in the following terms: -

As a result of High Court decision announced to-day petrol rationing by the Commonwealth Government is no longer effective. To meet the extra demand for oil products generally, which is likely to result from this decision, would undoubtedly require a considerable increase in imports. However, despite recent reports to the contrary, any additional oil consumption by Australia would add to the net dollar cost of oil supplied to countries of the sterling area. The present acute dollar shortage, and. our obligation to the United Kingdom to playour part, as a member of the sterling area, inkeeping dollar expenditure to a minimum,, necessitates the continued limitation of oil imports to about the present level. In myview, therefore, it is most important that theStates should immediately consider instituting an effective system of petrol rationing as soon? as possible, otherwise chaotic conditions emnid! develop rapidly. The constitutional position is such that this matter can now be dealt with only by the States. I should be glad if you would give this question immediate, consideration and advise me of your views.

A meeting of representatives of the Commonwealth Government and the oil companies has been called in Melbournt for to-morrow afternoon to consider the situation.

I hope that another meeting will he held to-morrow morning. I am quite sure there are many people in this country, particularly those with vested interests and the spokesmen of vested interests, who do not realize how critical is the position with relation to dollars, and the necessity for the continued limitation of oil imports to about the present level. I point out that when a dollar deficit has to be met, it is not our own dollars we use, but it is the dollar reserve of the United Kingdom Government.

I shall make a further statement to the House as soon as the position has been clarified with the State Premiers and the oil companies. In the meantime I make a strong appeal to all users of petrol and other petroleum products not to buy greater quantities than those to which they would have been entitled had the Commonwealth rationing scheme remained in operation. Companies and retailers engaged in the distribution of petrol and other petroleum products will be acting in their own interests as well as in the interests of the community at large if they confine sales to normal quantities and continue to ration available supplies as equitably as possible. As I intimated to the Leader of the Opposition the other day, the information supplied to me confidentially by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer was based on figures prepared by the Bank of England, which controls foreign exchange. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to doubt such information. If it were desired to disprove those figures it would be necessary to analyse the trading of every country dealing in petrol and also the sterling and dollar cross-payments, and to study the private affairs of various companies. Banks always endeavour to avoid disclosing the affairs of their clients, and I follow a similar policy in respect of private companies. The Leader of the Australian Country party stated last week that I had received an offer of petrol from a new oil company at 10.30 p.m. one day, and was able to make an involved prepared statement to the House at 4 o’clock on the following day on that subject. The right honorable gentleman used those times as the basis for a conclusion that I had not made a sufficiently detailed verification or investigation of that offer. However, the position was that I knew the name and the exact ownership of the company, so that when I received the letter, I knew the firms that the company represented.

I did not intend originally to make this statement to the House. I proposed to issue it to the press, because I know that the House does not like long state.ments. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that I realize the difficulties which are associated with the point that he has raised. Last week, I said that it would suit me nicely to be able to disclose all the detailed figures. I should do that with the greatest pleasure, because I agree with the comment by the right honorable gentleman that a few figures are more informative to the public than general statements on a particular subject. Therefore, I should like to be able to release the precise figures computed by the Bank of England and supplied to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the public does not want detailed statements about crosspurchase actions, particularly in relation to the European recovery plan, which if also involved in this matter. What 3 have done is to intimate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in view of the decision of the High Court yesterday, this Government is not in a position, by means of local rationing, to keep down the consumption of petrol. However, the High Court has made it perfectly clear that the Commonwealth’s power to control imports is not questioned, and, therefore, the quota of petrol that is admitted to this country can be, and will be, controlled by the Government under the provisions of the Constitution. But the Government is anxious to ensure a fair distribution of petrol within Australia. I informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I had asked the State governments to consider taking control of petrol rationing. I said almost precisely what the right honorable gentleman has stated. I think that the States would hardly agree to institute rationing unless they were in possession of the relevant figures. I certainly feel that in order to convince the State Premiers, that is, if they can be convinced, I must give them those figures confidentially. Naturally, I do not disclose information that has been given to me confidentially, although very often I should like to be in a position to do so. It would be politically advantageous for me if I could publish information that has been given to me confidentially about certain matters. However, one cannot break a confidence, and continue to enjoy the confidence of other countries. This morning, J spoke to the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr, and intimated to him that if that State were prepared to carry on petrol rationing, the Commonwealth would meet the cost. A similar intimation will be conveyed to the other State Premiers. Petrol rationing is carried on principally by State officers, and only a small percentage of Commonwealth employees are engaged in it. I require the permission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make available the relevant figures to the States if they desire some proof about the need for continuing petrol rationing and are not prepared to take our word on the matter. I should also like to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those figures may be released to the public of this country. I assume that the Bank of England and the other authorities to whom I have referred, know their business, and I believe that a two-line statement of the position 19 sufficient to knock the bottom out of the argument advanced by the representatives of vested interests.

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– In view of the report that the High Court has decided that the petrol rationing regulations are bad in law, does the Prime Minister propose to return to those people who have been prosecuted the fines imposed upon them, and to compensate those who were imprisoned for breaches of the regulations? Many of those who were prosecuted had to close their businesses and have suffered considerable worry and trouble.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Naturally I shall refer the honorable member’s question to the Acting Attorney-General, but I should not like him to be optimistic concerning the answer. The mere fact that the petrol rationing regulations were declared invalid by the High Court yesterday does not indicate that those who broke the law while it was in force should not be subjected to whatever penalties they incurred for breach of the law which was in force at the time.

page 539

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General say whether the inquiries at present being made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board concerning the broadcasting of political talks over commerical radio stations are being undertaken with a view to restricting such talks?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am not cognizant of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board making any inquiries of the nature indicated, and so far as I am aware no report concerning any such inquiries has been made to the Postmaster-General. However, I shall convey the honorable member’s question to my colleague, the Postmaster-General, and obtain a reply for him as soon as possible.

page 539

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Immigration aware that a large number of American ex-servicemen who married Australian girls while in Australia are anxious to return to this country? Has the honorable gentleman taken steps to ensure that they are covered by the Government’s immigration policy? Having regard to the recession that is taking place in the United States of America, will the Minister inquire whether it is possible to bring these men to Australia quickly ?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I should be most happy for all the people in the United States of America who want to come to Australia to come here.

Mr White:

– What about Gamboa?

Mr CALWELL:

– I would even swop Gamboa for certain honorable gentlemen opposite, though it would be exchanging one nuisance for another. I shall inquire of the Australian Consul-General in the United States of America to ascertain how many Americans are anxious to come to Australia immediately. The great problem is that of shipping. No American shipping line has been operating on the Pacific run for many months past.

Mr Conelan:

– What about ships from Vancouver?

Mr CALWELL:

– We tried to get a number of berths allocated to us on Aorangi, on its first and subsequent sailings, but we had less success with the British-owned line than we were having with the American line regarding the allocation of berths. Some people have adopted the practice of going to the United Kingdom and travelling on vessels leaving British ports for Australia. We are doing our best to help those who try to come here via the United Kingdom. We could secure many more immigrants from the United Kingdom and the United States of America if sufficient ships were available. I shall take the matter up and see what information I can give to the honorable gentleman later.

page 539

QUESTION

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister say whether the word “ British “ is to be deleted from the expression “British Commonwealth of Nations”? Would that be contrary to the terms of the second paragraph of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster? If the word “ British “ is. no longer to be used, is it the intention of the Government to introduce amending legislation? If amending legislation is not to be introduced, will a debate on the subject be allowed before the end of this sessional period?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The term “British Commonwealth of Nations” has no legal significance. Those who speak on behalf of the Dominions are free to use whatever term they choose to use. I have already said in answer to a question addressed to me in this House that I ;propose to continue to use the expression

British Commonwealth of Nations “. Other dominions may or may not continue to use the word “ British “. When the House is considering the item on the notice-paper which deals with the declaration that was made at the conclusion of the recent conference of Empire Prime Ministers, the question to which the honorable gentleman has referred will be open for discussion. The Government does not intend to introduce legislation covering the matter and, as far as I know, there is no necessity for such legislation. Three very distinguished lawyers were present when the matter was discussed in London, but apparently they did not regard legislative action as being necessary. It was agreed generally at the conference that each dominion should use the term that it considered to be appropriate. I do not know of anything in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster that affects this question. The term “ British Commonwealth of Nations “ does not appear in Commonwealth legislation or on bills submitted for the royal assent. On behalf «f Australia, I intimated at the conference of Empire Prime Ministers that we should continue to use the term “ British Commonwealth of Nations “.

MR. w. m. j. Mcnamara.

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs say whether Mr. William Morris Judson McNamara, Australian representative on the United Nations sub-commission appointed to deal with discrimination against and protection of national minorities, left Australia last Saturday to attend a meeting of the sub-commission at Lake Success? Has the attention of the Government been directed to Mr. McNamara’s condemnation of its actions in the O’Keefe and Gamboa cases, which he voiced at a meeting of the United Nations Association of Australia held in Sydney within the last fortnight? Will Mr. McNamara he briefed on the official Government viewpoint, or will he, as an Australian delegate, be free to join in any United Nations action designed to protect the interests of individuals, like Mrs. O’Keefe and Sergeant Gamboa, against the Minister for Immigration, if the subcommission decides to intervene to carry out its obligations under the Charter of Human Rights?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I understand that Mr. McNamara holds an office in an overseas organization, of which he is either the vice-president or a committee member. He has not, however, any authority to represent Australia. He is an Australian citizen and was originally elected to a position in an overseas organization. As the honorable member will remember, I answered a similar question some time ago regarding Mrs. Jessie Street, and I then intimated to him that such persons did not represent the Australian Government and carried no credentials whatever to represent it. That position obtains regarding Mr. McNamara. He is certainly an Australian, but the views that he will express will be his own. Mr. McNamara was issued with an ordinary passport and we have no control over him. I shall examine the latter part of the honorable member’s question regarding any credentials or any brief that might be given to Mr. McNamara. Nobody should be briefed for the Government who is not an official delegate.

page 540

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Pastoral Leases

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– In view of the statement in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald that four choice pastoral leases on the

Barkly Tablelands, in the Northern Territory, had been allocated after applicants had been waiting since the 24th April, 1948, can the Minister for the Interior say whether the Northern Territory Land Board exercised its right to choose the most suitable applicant for each block, or whether it was unable to separate the qualifications of desirable applicants, and resorted to the ballot system? In view of the fact that at the conference of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, which was held at Townsville last Tuesday, delegates from Western Australia submitted proposals urging the Queensland Government to allocate at least 50 per cent, of newly opened land in that State to returned servicemen, will the Minister instruct the Northern Territory Land Board to grant a similar concession to ex-servicemen when allocating choice pastoral leases in the Northern Territory?

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is true that the newly created Northern Territory Land Board has recently dealt with a number of applications for blocks on the Barkly Tablelands. As the honorable member knows, the board was created in order to avoid the necessity for holding ballots. While I have not seen the board’s decisions regarding the blocks recently dealt with-

Mi’. McEwen. - They have been published in the newspapers.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I am answering this question. While I have not seen the official decisions, I take it that the board would make a firm recommendation to the Administrator regarding applications. There has never been any bar to the application of ex-servicemen for land.

Mr Blain:

– That is not an answer to my question.

Mr JOHNSON:

– If ex-servicemen who apply for blocks can satisfy the board that they have the necessary qualifications to enable them to develop the land, they will in every instance receive preference. That policy has been announced in the Parliament on several occasions, not only by me, but by other Ministers also, and is neil known to the honorable member for the Northern Territory.

page 541

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Defence state what is the present position regarding reparations to Australia from Germany ?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– Shortly after the end of hostilities we sent a technical and scientific mission to London and, at a later stage, a mission was sent to Germany to deal with the reparations there. Such reparations as are available are submitted to a committee of the Western allies, and those countries which are competent to participate in them are then asked to make bids for the items in which they are interested. Australia has made, bids from time to time. In fact, reparations to the value of approximately £750,000 already have been received in Australia. An additional 1,000 tons of machinery items is on the water at present. While Australia was entitled to only approximately 1 per cent, of the total reparations made available, up to the present it has already received about li per cent. These cover a very wide diversity of articles, ranging from small machine tools to very large items, such as a big steel press, of which there are few equals in the world. This has been received and set up at Newcastle. We have also received a modern diesel-engined coastal vessel which will soon be operating in the Australian coastal trade. When the items now on the water have been received they will he distributed to industry in the usual way.

page 541

QUESTION

EGGS

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– On the 19th May, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture announced that a survey, which had been carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, showed that the cost of the production of eggs was 2s. 7d. a dozen, which figure included 3.39d. attributed to marketing costs. In assessing the f.o.b. cost to producers of eggs for export, will the Minister take into consideration charges incurred in getting the eggs from the grading floor to the ship, including cartage, oil and cool-storage charges, and the levy and pulping charges imposed by the Australian Egg Board ? No allowance has been made for those charges in the survey. If the Minister will give consideration to the inclusion of those charges, as I trust he will do, will he also see that full consideration is given to the recent increases in those charges?

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– The report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on the cost of production of eggs has been received. It indicates that the cost of production is 2s. 6id. a dozen. That figure, I understand, assumes that all the eggs marketed are first-grade eggs and it includes the handling charges of the respective State egg boards. It is based on a low production figure of 10.07 dozen eggs per hen per annum. Might I explain to the House that that figure Ls based on deliveries to the State egg boards. It is known that, apart from deliveries to the State egg boards and sales by produce agents, there is a leakage which may or may not amount to a quantity in excess of one dozen eggs per hen. These leakages find their way to retail shopkeepers and others and include sales from roadside stalls and consumption on commercial egg farms. In view of the opinions expressed t.y those engaged in the commercial egg industry it is not unfair to suggest that a reasonable assessment of the production per hen per annum in Australia would be approximately twelve dozen.

Mr McEwen:

– Perhaps !

Mr POLLARD:

– If the honorable member made a calculation, on the basis of twelve dozen eggs per hen per annum he would be able to ascertain that the commercial cost of production of eggs does not amount to 2s. 6$d. a dozen. My view is that, to help commercial egg producers in this country, and, at the same time, to assist the British Ministry of Food, it is reasonable to assess egg production throughout the Commonwealth at eleven dozen per hen per annum and at the same time to make compensating allowance for leakage and down grading in quality.

Mr Ryan:

– What about the extra charges?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! There is far too much “ cackling “ by honorable members.

Mr POLLARD:

– I have pointed out to the British Ministry of Food that it may be necessary to give consideration to a higher payment for Australian eggs.

The honorable member may rest assured that the Government is not unconscious of the necessity to assist both the Australian egg producers and the United Kingdom Ministry of Food in its endeavour to obtain increased quantities of eggs.

Mr Ryan:

– The Minister has done everything but answer my question.

page 542

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My attention has been drawn to the fact that an English widow who came to this country under the assisted passage immigration scheme had to forfeit her widow’s pension upon arrival here. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services whether a reciprocal agreement for the payment of social services has been reached between Australia and the United Kingdom? Is there any special provision whereby immigrants to this country must forfeit their pensions upon arrival?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– So far, only Australia and New Zealand have reached a reciprocal agreement on social services. A conference on this subject, was held in London in 1947 between representatives of the United Kingdom and Dominions, and delegates agreed to endeavour to work out a formula for a reciprocal agreement, but so far no agreement has been concluded and British immigrants lose their pensions when they come to Australia..

page 542

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr WHITE:

– In reply to a question that I asked last year, the Minister for Repatriation stated that the benefits applicable to the widows and dependants of ex-servicemen in Australia also applied to the widows and dependants of former civil servants in New Guinea who lost their lives in the Japanese invasion of that territory. I wrote to him in March, and pointed out that the concessions were not fully in operation; and he promised to make an early reply. To-day is the 7th June and I have not yet received a reply. Will he ensure that the matter is adjusted at once in order to relieve from further hardship worthy people who have already suffered greatly?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– The honorable member has raised this matter on a number of occasions, and I have pointed out to him that all those persons who come within the province of the Repatriation Department have received all the benefits to WhiCh they are entitled. If there are any gaps in the provisions which cause hardship to people who have suffered as the result of the ravages of war, that matter comes within the province of the Minister for External Territories. I shall ascertain whether I can provide the honorable member with any additional information on the subject.

Mr SPENDER:

– I address to the Minister for Repatriation a question relating to the cancellation of a pension that had been paid to the widow of an ex-serviceman on the ground that it was not desirable to continue to pay it. What is the principle and what are the circumstances in which a widow’s pension may be discontinued on that ground? fs the Minister responsible for the adoption of that principle? If not, will he inform me who is responsible for it? What particular investigations did the honorable gentleman make into the case to which 1 refer in order to ascertain whether an injustice has been perpetrated? Did he, in particular, seek evidence from the widow herself and, if so, what evidence?

Mr BARNARD:

– The widow to whom the honorable member has referred enjoyed a war widow’s pension, until very recently, when certain information concerning her was received by the Victorian branch of the Repatriation Department. The local repatriation board, which is the appropriate authority to consider claims -for pensions or to review pensions already granted, reviewed her case, and the pension was cancelled. When the matter became public I called for a report, which I have now obtained. I have also examined the departmental file, and to-day I read twelve pages of a letter which I received from the widow. I propose to give further consideration to her case. I have already pointed out that if the lady concerned is able to satisfy the Victorian branch of the Repatriation Department that she complies with the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act and regulations, which have been operative ever since repatriation pensions have been granted, and that she is a proper person to receive a pension, it will he restored to her immediately.

page 543

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE MORATORIUM

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General explain to the House the effect of the recent decision of the High Court which invalidated regulations that prevented the eviction of ex-servicemen and gave them certain other privileges in relation to housing? A statement has appeared in the press that the Government of Victoria has proclaimed regulations to replace the defunct Commonwealth regulations? Is the Minister in a position to inform me whether any other States have been able to take immediate action?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– The same position will arise in this matter as that which has arisen in relation to petrol rationing. I do not know whether any action has yet been taken as the result of the decision of the High Court, but the Minister for Works and Housing administers the few remaining Commonwealth regulations relating to the housing of ex-servicemen, and I assume that he will negotiate with the States for the purpose of endeavouring to strengthen the position, and protect the interests of exservicemen.

page 543

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– I remind the Minister for Labour and National Service that on several occasions I have sought to have female rates of pay adjusted so as to remove certain anomalies, and I ask the honorable gentleman whether he recalls the replies that he made to me and to the honorable member for Cook, who has also asked questions of the Minister concerning this matter? Can the honorable gentleman now say what awards relating to female rates of pay have not been reviewed and incorporated permanently in awards by the courts will be affected by the recent decision of the High Court?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– The brief answer to the honorable member’s question would be “ No “, but I do not think that such an answer would be satisfactory to her.

Mr White:

– Well, say “ Yes “.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I am afraid that such an answer would be equally unsatisfactory. I remember the questions asked by the honorable member and similar questions asked by the honorable member for Cook. I said that the defence power of the Constitution, under which the female rates were fixed, was becoming weaker and that sooner or later the High Court would invalidate the relevant regulations. For that reason I continually warned the unions concerned to approach the courts to have the special rates obtained for their female members incorporated in awards. I discussed the matter with some of the judges of the Arbitration Court, and they said that that could be done and that they were quite willing to do it. I should say, at a guess, that approximately 90 per cent. of the unions concerned accepted my advice and approached the court. A small minority of unions did not do so, and now that the regulations have been declared invalid, they have lost the legal backing which maintained the female rates at 75 per cent. of the male award rates, but I doubt whether any employers will take advantage of their right to reduce female wages now that the regulations have been declared invalid.

page 544

IMMIGRATION BILL 1949

Bill presented by Mr. Calwell, and read a first time.

page 544

WAR-TIME REFUGEESREMOVAL BILL 1949

Bill presented by Mr. Calwell, and read a first time.

page 544

MOTION OF CENSURE

Parliamentaey Procedure

Debate resumed from the 3rd June (vide page 531), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the Government -

by the use of its majority in this House is unreasonably and improperly restricting the Tights of private members and the electors they represent;

is disregarding the status of the Chair by permitting to remain for months on the notice-paper, partly debated, but undetermined, a motion of no-confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker;

is permitting and encouraging personal defamatory and threatening attacks upon Opposition members by Ministers, and so violating the decencies of political controversy;

is exhibiting a contempt for the institution of Parliament and its function as the democratic forum of the nation; and therefore that the Government is deserving of the censure of this House.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · Corio · ALP

– The motion of censure moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) becomes “ curiouser and curiouser”, to quote from Alice in Wonderland, the more one analyses it and, in fact, the Opposition parties were as far removed from reality when they drafted the terms of their motion as was “ Alice in Wonderland “. I begin my remarks by directing the attention of the House to paragraph c of the motion, and I propose to subject its terms to some analysis. That paragraph recites -

That the Government -

is permitting and encouraging per sonal defamatory and threatening attacks upon Opposition members by Ministers, and so violating the decencies of political controversy:

Consider the use of the word “permitting “. Every honorable member knows that no government can either permit or prevent any member of the House, irrespective of whether he happens to be a Minister or a private member of its own party or of the Opposition from saying anything that he pleases. Subject to the Standing Orders every honorable member is entitled to say whatever he thinks fit. The inclusion of the word “ permitting “ implies that the motion of censure is directed not so much against the Government as against the Standing Orders or against the manner in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have conducted the proceedings of the House. It is clear, therefore, that the word “ permitting” has no proper place in the motion. Next, I invite attention to the use of the word “encouraging” in the same paragraph. For a government, or an individual, to encourage a certain course of action is a very different thing from permitting such a course to be adopted. However, the fact is that no evidence has been adduced that the Government has encouraged any member of the Ministry or any of its supporters to adopt a particular course of action. The only statement that might be accepted as evidence in support of that charge was the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition that my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), was “ put up “ to reply to the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann). If that is the only evidence in support of the allegation that the Government has encouraged its members and supporters to adopt a particular line of action, it does not substantiate the charge. In any event, I say that the assertion that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture was “ put up “ to reply to the honorable member for Maranoa is completely false. I was sitting very close to the Minister when he decided to speak on the matter. His action was quite spontaneous. It did not require any encouragement by anybody, and every honorable member who knows the honorable gentleman personally is aware that he does not need any prompting by any one. On most of the occasions when the honorable gentleman has risen to speak in this chamber, he has done so quite spontaneously. So it was on this occasion. My reaction was the same as that of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. If he had not risen to make a statement then I should have done so, also spontaneously.

Mr Spender:

– To make the same statement?

Mr DEDMAN:

– It would have been much to the same effect. I shall give my reasons for saying that. The reaction of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and myself was a reaction to the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, who painted a picture of the honorable member for Maranoa as a saint with a halo around his head. I do not accept that description of the honorable gentleman, although I have nothing against him. When he first entered the Parliament, I thought that he presented his arguments very fairly, hut since then he has spent a long time in the company of a number of honorable gentlemen opposite who persistently misrepresent facts in this chamber. The honorable member for Maranoa has learned quite a lot from the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen), the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony), the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) and other members of the Opposition. I am not prepared to accept the picture of the honorable member for Maranoa that was painted by the Leader of the Opposition. I would describe the honorable gentleman’s standards of integrity, honesty and sincerity in this House as “ f.a.q.” and nothing more.

No evidence has been adduced by the Opposition to prove that the Government has encouraged Ministers or other honorable members to take a particular line of action. It is alleged in the motion that the Government has permitted and encouraged personal defamatory and threatening attacks upon Opposition members by Ministers. The rank and file are excluded. They are quite innocent. The motion refers only to “ Ministers “. No Ministers are mentioned by name. Is the allegation intended to cover two or more Ministers or all of the Ministers? The only evidence that has been adduced by the Opposition in support of the allegation is that on one occasion certain statements concerning the honorable member for Maranoa were made, and in my opinion justifiably made, by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell). All that my colleague did then was to read a letter containing allegations from which the inference could be drawn that the honorable member for Maranoa had been guilty of certain misdemeanours. Instead of alleging that one Minister has been permitted and encouraged to make personal defamatory and threatening attacks upon honorable gentlemen opposite, the Opposition has made a general charge against all Ministers. At any rate, the motion uses the words “ by Ministers “, and we are left to draw our own conclusions on whether the charge is laid against two or three Ministers or all Ministers. An allegation that Ministers are making personal defamatory attacks upon members of the Opposition when the only evidence, for what it is worth, adduced in support of the allegation concerns one Minister only is a persona] defamatory attack upon every Minister with the exception of the one to whom the evidence relates. The Opposition is therefore, guilty of the very offence with which it has charged the Government in this censure motion.

Having disposed of some of the propagandist trimmings in this part of the motion, I pass to the words, “ personal defamatory and threatening attacks “. I have never heard language used in the House or outside it by any Minister or honorable member on this side of the chamber which has threatened any member of the Opposition. It is apparent that there never has been any utterance of a kind that could be said to constitute a threat against honorable gentlemen opposite. Therefore, the word “ threatening “ has been included in the motion as padding, and in order to make it read a little better than it otherwise would read. I find it very difficult to differentiate between a personal defamatory attack and what honorable members opposite would probably argue was a legitimate political attack. I make bold to say that no such distinction could be drawn. Honorable gentlemen opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden), have at times been guilty of making upon honorable members on this side of the House political attacks that were in fact personal defamatory attacks. I say, therefore, “ He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”. A considerable time ago the Leader of the Opposition coined the slogan, “ The eyes of Hitler are on Corio”. It might he argued that that was a legitimate political attack, but is it not true to say that it could also be described as a defamatory attack upon the character of the Labour party candidate for Corio at that time, who was myself? The inference to be drawn from that slogan, which was coined deliberately by the Leader of the Opposition, was that the Labour party candidate for Corio was a traitor to Australia. Is that inference worse or better” than the inferences that can be drawn from the statements concerning the honorable member for Maranoa that were n-ade by the Minister for Information?

The coining of chat slogan by the Leader of the Opposition was as much a personal defamatory attack upon me as the statements made by the Minister for Information were a personal defamatory attack upon the honorable member for Maranoa. When the slogan was coined I was nol a member of the Parliament. Therefore, 1 did not have an opportunity to denounce in this House the statement* that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. If I had said that the public could judge whether I was a traitor to this country or the British Commonwealth of Nations by comparing the records of the Leader of the Opposition and myself in relation to military service in two world wars, and had gone into the details of the military record of the right honorable gentleman, that would have been said to be a personal defamatory attack upon him.

Mr Turnbull:

– It is now.

Mr DEDMAN:

– I am not making any attack.

Mr Turnbull:

– Of course the Minister is doing so.

Mr DEDMAN:

– All that I am saying is that if the use of that slogan was not a personal defamatory attack, hut a legitimate political attack upon me, and if my answer to it had been to invito a comparison of the records of the right honorable gentleman and myself in relation to military service in two world wars, that would have been alleged to be a personal defamatory attack upon the right honorable gentleman. It is impossible to make a clear-cut distinction between what constitutes a legitimate political attack and what constitutes a personal defamatory attack. I shall quote a. statement made by the Leader of the Australian Country party during the course of this very debate, following an interjection that I had made. The purport of the interjection does not matter. After my interjection the right honorable gentleman said - and his word9 were broadcast to hundreds of thousands of listeners and will be printed in Hansard -

There is another interruption-

Mr Turnbull:

– Did the Minister take notes of that, too ?

Mr DEDMAN:

– Yes, I took a note of it. The statement by the Leader of the Australian Country party was -

There is another interruption, this time by the Minister who cannot be believed because he speaks the truth only for an ulterior motive or by accident. [f that is not a personal defamatory attack on a Minister I do not know what is. So the Leader of the Australian Country party, who has taken part in this debate and has alleged that what was said about the honorable member for Maranoa was a personal defamatory attack, himself has used phrases in this debate in which he made a personal defamatory attack upon me. Therefore, [ consider that we do not require to pay very much attention to the arguments advanced by the two Opposition leaders during the course of this debate.

I shall leave paragraph c of the motion and turn to the first paragraph, which alleges that the Government -

by the use of its majority in this House is unreasonably and improperly restricting the rights of private members and the electors they represent ; [t is assumed that this allegation is based on the fact that the Prime Minister moved a motion last week that had the effect that Government business took precedence over private members’ business, and that on “ Grievance Day “ only two private members were able to address the House. We then returned to consideration of the bills on the noticepaper. Let me point out that the bills under discussion were Supply and Approbation bills, during debates on which honorable members may discuss anything in the wide world. In fact, anything that they could discuss on “ Grievance Day “ they could also discuss in debating those particular bills. Honorable members were therefore not curtailed or restricted in their remarks by the fact that “ Grievance Day “ was allowed to continue for only a short period of time and that the House then reverted to the discussion of the bills that were on the notice-paper. Every government with a majority has always used its majority to ensure that government bills, and particularly urgent government bills, receive prior consideration. On looking back through the Hansard records I found that the Leader of the Opposition himself, immediately after he became Prime Minister in 1939, did exactly what this Government is doing, and of course, with the same justification, on the first “Private Members’ Day” to which Parliament was entitled after he had become Prime Minister. The occasion to which I refer occurred in April, 1939. The House divided when the right honorable gentlemanmoved that government business should take precedence over private members’ business. He was supported by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) and the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson). At that time there were a number of motions on the notice-paper. There was one by the then honorable member for Lilley who sought to revive the Public Accounts Committee. That was regarded as a very important matter. There was also a motion by the present honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the administration of the Repatriation Commission. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) will be interested to know that dissatisfaction with the operations of the Repatriation Commission is evidently not new. There was also a motion by the present Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford) for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the Commonwealth Public Service. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition take the action that I have indicated when he was Prime Minister, on the first “ Grievance Day “ to which the Parliament was entitled after his assumption to office, but he also took the same action on the second “ Grievance Day “. The plain fact, as I have said, is that any government which has a majority naturally uses it to see that urgent measures on the notice-paper are given priority, and nobody can blame this Government for taking that particular line of action. Other incidents to which I shall refer show that Opposition members, when they have been on the treasury bench, have taken action that has been very restrictive of the rights of private members. I shall cite figures relating to the number of sittings of this House while the present Opposition parties were in office. In nine years of antiLabour government, from 1932 to 1940 inclusive, the Parliament was allowed to sit for only 496 days, or an average of 55 days a year. In the last seven years of Labour government the average number of sittings has been 69 days a year. That is to say, in a period of seven years, Labour governments have given honorable members almost the same opportunity to express their own and their constituents’ views on legislation and administration, as anti-Labour governments vouchsafed them in nine years. It is interesting to note also that there was a time when honorable members opposite, while occupying the treasury bench, “guillotined “ measures through this House at a much faster rate than this Government has ever done. There was an occasion when the honorable member for Balaclava applied the “ gag “ about 30 times in one night. Those were the days, also, when a former anti-Labour Prime Minister, the late Mr. Lyons, was afraid to call the Parliament together because he was not sure how his own supporters would react to a particular international crisis that had arisen. I remind honorable members that when Czechoslovakia was seized by Germany in 1939 this Parliament was not in session, and as I have said, the then anti-Labour Prime Minister was not game to call it together because he did not know what action his own followers would take about that crisis. So it ill becomes honorable members opposite to criticize this Government, which has given the representatives of the people in the Parliament far greater opportunity to discuss problems, both domestic and international, than anti-Labour governments have ever given them. Another part of the motion states that the Government -
1. is disregarding the status of the Chair in permitting to remain for months on the notice-paper, partly debated, but undetermined, a motion of noconfidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The fact is that the Opposition has got into the habit of submitting motions of want of confidence against Mr. Speaker, and it does this so frequently that the Government is entitled to treat the motions as frivolous. Let me make a comparison between the practice in Australia in this matter and that in the House of Commons. In Australia, the Opposition seems to think that it is a very small thing to make a motion of censure against Mr. Speaker, and it does so even if its charge against him is no more than that he has departed somewhat from customary procedure. In the House of Commons, however, the making of such a motion is regarded as a very grave matter, indeed, and is resorted to only when the circumstances are regarded as almost unprecedented. The last occasion upon which a motion of censure of Mr. Speaker was submitted in the House of Commons was in 1902. The time before that was in 1882, and for a third occasion we have to go as far back as 1777. Thus, during a period of 175 years, the Opposition in the House of Commons has on only three occasions moved that the ruling of the Speaker be disagreed with, or that his conduct was worthy of censure. In the Australian Parliament, the Opposition has submitted motions of that kind on four occasions in the last five years. Members of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament have at times been very unruly in their conduct. That is why I took notice of the remarks of the Leader of the Australian Country party. He apologized for them to-day, and therefore, I suppose, I should make no further reference to them. It is because members of the .Opposition are at times so unruly, and their conduct so disorderly, that Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker have had to take action. Had they not done so, they would have been recreant to their duty. Thus, it has been the misconduct of members of the Opposition themselves that has made action by Mr. -Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker necessary, and such action, when taken, has become the subject of motions of censure from the Opposition. Therefore, it is in order for the Government to treat as frivolous the motion, .of censure now on the noticepaper. Indeed, the Minister for Repatriation interjected to that effect when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, and the Leader of the Opposition replied to this effect, “ Well, if the Government thinks that the motion is frivolous, why not discharge it from the notice-paper? Why allow it to remain there for so many months ? “ In order to get the motion discharged from the notice-paper, the Government would have to move to that effect. If it did so, obviously the Opposition would contest the motion, and the ensuing debate would cover the very same ground as if the original motion were being debated, and time would be wasted. Therefore, the Government is entitled, since it came to the conclusion that the motion was frivolous, to ignore it by allowing it to remain on the notice-paper until a later date.

– What did I say?

Mr SPENDER:

– In defending the Minister for Information, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said, in substance, first that the Minister for Information had not levelled any charge against the member for Maranoa, and secondly, that the Minister for Information had only repeated something that he had been told in a letter. That is all, and it is enough. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture nods his acquiescence. The Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon), too, is silent. The words of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, were, substantially, those of the Minister for Defence also. When a

Minister of the Crown who receives a letter from some scurvy nameless person is prepared to be the mouth-piece of that person to traduce another member of the Parliament, the standard of politics has indeed sunk to a low level in this chamber. It is not unusual for Communists to employ just that technique. I recall an occasion on which the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) drew the attention of the House to the activities of a certain individual and charged him with being a Communist. The Minister for Defence used the privilege of the Parliament, not merely to endeavour to prove that the person was not a Communist, but also to read a letter from him proclaiming his own integrity, and saying how vile the honorable member for Reid was to have made, such an allegation. Subsequently, the charges made by the honorable member for Reid were substantiated. On more than one occasion, information that has come into the hands of honorable members opposite, anonymously or otherwise, have been used to vilify and intimidate members of the Opposition. Every one of us on this side of the chamber knows that the Government has a dossier on him, prepared presumably by government employees whose salaries are paid by the public. I have no doubt that the dossiers contain every libellous statement that can be gathered from muck-raking letter writers. The attack by the Minister for Information on the honorable member for Maranoa was not something that came out of the blue in the heat of the debate. His words were not hasty utterances which, having been made, were withdrawn. The attack was premeditated. The Minister’s attitude was not, “ Here is something I have heard; it may or may not be true “. That would have been bad enough. He intended to convey the impression that what he had heard was true. He said that the honorable member for Maranoa had a few friends in Queensland who did not like the methods which he had adopted in regard to a number of matters. What did that mean? Clearly that was a charge that the honorable member for Maranoa had adopted certain methods which were not liked by certain people. The Minister then quoted from a letter that he had received, containing the two charges to which I have referred. Then he said -

Wl] at I have said is what was stated to rae in the letter to which I have referred. I have made those remarks in answer to the charge of dishonesty that was laid by the honorable gentleman. I lay those charges only in a counter-attack.

So he did make charges. Does any honorable member of this chamber suggest that the Minister, when he rose to speak on that occasion, did not intend to vilify the honorable member for Maranoa personally? Of course that was his intention and we all know very well that any one who attacks the Government in this chamber will receive the same treatment. Honorable members opposite believe that if they can intimidate their political opponents they will prevent criticism of the Government. It is quite a common technique these days and it is strange indeed that the Labour party, which pretends to fight communism on all occasions, should use in this House the technique of the Communists who engage in a sinister sabotage of democratic institutions. I venture to say that before this debate has concluded, other personal things will be said by honorable members opposite. It is one thing in a parliament to hit hard, but only in terms political. It is an entirely different thing, although apparently the Minister for Defence does not understand the difference, to attack a man personally. The attitude of the Prime Minister to the incident was, “ What can I do? “ I suppose he thought that he should “ let the boys have a go “. I regret very much to say that, when personal attacks have been made in this chamber, I have seen the Prime Minister sitting on a back bench not merely unconcerned, but on occasions apparently quite amused with what was going on. I recall one occasion when the Prime Minister himself made a personal attack on the private secretary to the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). Those things should be remembered. Only by precept and example will debating standards be improved.

It is significant that during the lifetime of the 17th and 18th Parliaments there have been 21 suspensions, of which eighteen have concerned ex-Ministers of the Crown. Probably there is no need for me to stress that every one of the 21 members suspended has been a member of the Opposition parties. The assumption must be that we on this side of the chamber are guilty of disorderly conduct justifying the penalty of suspension, and that Labour supporters are never guilty of such conduct. Fortunately, for the Opposition, however, parliamentary proceedings are broadcast, and people are able to form their own judgment on such matters. I venture to say that the Opposition always endeavours to deal in strictly political terms with matters that come before this chamber. We may hit hard, but we do not make personal attacks. The contrary approach is made by honorable members opposite.

On the notice-paper there is a motion stating that Mr. Deputy Speaker has not the confidence of the House on a number of grounds. The first is -

That, in the discharge of his duties, he has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government members.

The second is -

That he regards himself merely as the instrument of the Labour Party…..

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Sheehy). - Order! The honorable member cannot discuss something that is on the notice-paper.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am not discussing it; I am reading it. I shall read the motion that is now under discussion. It states -

That the Government -

is disregarding the status of the Chair by permitting to remain for months on the notice-paper, partly debated, but undetermined, a motion of No-Confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker; and therefore that the Government is deserving of the censure of this House.

I am not canvassing the matter. I how to your ruling, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker. I know that I must do so. I am drawing attention to the fact that one of the grounds of this motion of censure is that the motion of no confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker has been allowed to remain undebated for many months. That motion states -

That this House has no further confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker on the grounds -

That in the discharge of his duties he has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;

That he regards himself merely as the instrument of the Labour party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of this Parliament;

That he constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and (fi) Of gross incompetency in his administration of Parliamentary procedure.

The Minister for Defence said that, in the last five years four motions similar to that which we are now discussing had been placed on the noticepaper. Because of that, he said the Government was entitled to treat this motion as being of no consequence. The honorable gentleman sought to draw the most extraordinary parallel between the Mother of Parliaments and this Parliament. It is well, therefore, that the difference between the conditions applying respectively in the United Kingdom Parliament and in this Parliament should be pointed out so that the people will not he confused by the Minister’s obvious attempt to mislead them by claiming that the two are comparable. The Speaker in the British House of Commons represents a constituency, it is true. But when he has been elected to the high office of Speaker, he holds that office, subject to good conduct, and is unopposed in his constituency by any political party. Consequently, he is in office, in effect, for life as a man who sits as a judge over the assembly of the Parliament. This Parliament, on the contrary, has an entirely different procedure, and that is quite sufficient to justify us in submitting a motion of no confidence in Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker whenever we feel inclined to do so. It may be assumed that when the honorable member for “Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) submitted a motion of no confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker some months ago, he did so with a sense of responsibility, which was indicated by the grounds on which it was suggested in the motion that the House had no confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened with amazement to what the PrimeMinister had to say. As -I understoodhim, he said, “ The Parliament elected him “. Technically, that is true. In truth, only one election takes placefor the appointment of Mr, Speaker, and that takes place outside this Parliament. The right honorablegentleman’s view apparently was, “ We elected him and, whatever he does,, we are going to support him”. Therefore, I gather that it does not matter, as far as the conduct of this Parliament is concerned, whether Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speakerdoes or does not reveal seriouspartiality, does or does not support the Government and crack down upon the Opposition, does or does nol regard himself as the instrument of theLabour party instead of as the custodian of the rights and privileges of this House,, and does or does not interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member is proceeding to discuss a motion that is already on the notice-paper, He is entitled to refer to the attitude of the Government in not debating that motion, but he is not entitled to discuss its rights and wrongs.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am not attempting to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely repeating what the Prime Minister has said upon the matter and seeking,, in my own way, to answer his statements. 1 understood him to say that, once an honorable member is placed in the chair as Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the Government to uphold him in all circumstances. With great respect, that is a proposition which I very strongly resist. I am not speaking of any individual case,, nor am I seeking to canvass the motion on the notice-paper. ‘ At any time in this Parliament, if a question arises as to whether the Speaker for the time being is deserving of the confidence of the House, he should not be blindly supported by the government of the day. Indeed, there was an occasion when the parties now in opposition, but then in power, did not support a Speaker who had been their own nominee. When the late Sir George Bell was Speaker, the Prime Minister of the day, the late Mr. Lyons, moved disagreement with the ruling of Mr. Speaker and the motion was carried. That was an indication that it was not the function of a government to support the Speaker in all circumstances whatever his qualification or disqualification might be. In point of fact, the Standing Orders provide that any motion by any individual member who claims that the Speaker has lost the confidence of the House may come before the chamber at any time.

I shall say only a few more words about this matter, as it is not possible to deal with the entire motion within a period of 35 minutes. I refer briefly to the proposition that this Parliament is being brought into contempt by the action of the Government in .preventing it from functioning as a democratic parliament should function. I shall mention a number of matters. In the first place, this House has appointed a number of Deputy Chairmen of Committees. Some of these gentlemen have been drawn from the Government side of the House, and some have been drawn from the Opposition. I shall ask only one question and leave the subject at that. Can anybody remember how many times in the last ten years any of the Deputy Chairmen of Committees from the Opposition side have been asked to act as a Deputy Chairman of Committees ? I make no more comment. Secondly, I draw attention to the denial of information to members of Parliament who, in the pursuit of their public duties, are entitled to obtain information. This is of prime importance. As an example, I refer to one recent occurrence in connexion with a report upon the Northern Territory medical services. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) has asked for a copy of that report, not once, but a number of times. He went to the Parliamentary Library and sought to obtain a copy by using the facilities that are open to every member of the Parliament. But he could not obtain a copy. A public document to which, by some means, the press gained access is denied to a member of the Parliament. Why? There is one reason and one reason only. The object is to stifle criticism of the Government. The report reflected gravely upon the Government’s conduct of medical services in the Northern Territory.

Mr Menzies:

– It is awkward, and therefore confidential.

Mr SPENDER:

– That is so. Whenever members of the Government quote from such a document in this House, the Government - in my opinion quite unwarrentably - claims that it is priviledged. It does so, not because the document is in fact confidential, but in order to prevent members of the public from reading it. We have experienced such conduct time and time again. Information sought by honorable members on this side of the House has been refused. In truth, when we seek information at question time, which is a very ancient privilege, we rarely obtain any real information from the Government. Apparently Ministers consider that they are here, not to dis; charge their duties to the country, but instead to engage in propaganda. Therefore, this Parliament now acts merely as a rubber stamp. It no longer has control over the finances of the country. It no longer functions as a deliberative assembly. We, in opposition, are here merely because the Constitution demands that we be here in order to pass legislation, whatever the word “ pass “ means. It is true that we have met in this House on 230 days during the life of this Parliament, but it is not the length of time that we spend in debate that matters. It is what we do in debate and how debates are conducted that is important. I contend that this motion has been fully justified. To-day we are witnessing a great deal of degradation of the functions of the Parliament. That degradation has been principally due to the fact that the Australian Labour party has permitted some of its Ministers - although I excuse the majority of them - to engage in vilification, personal abuse, and intimidation of honorable members for the purpose of preventing criticism and advancing, so they think, the interests of the party. If the Government does not clean out the Augean stable, I hope, the public will do so very soon. I believe that the public will demand a better standard in the conduct of the business of the Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– The indignation of honorable members opposite could be understood if they had practised in the past what they now preach. This criticism applies particularly to the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). Although the honorable member has spoken about the degradation of the Parliament honorable members can recall many instances of repeated interjections and misbehaviour by him when members on the Government side of the House were endeavouring to put a case or place facts before the House that were unpalatable to him. He has repeatedly been called to order by the Chair. I admit that in the past I have similarly offended. In this instance, however, I am defending the charge, not making it. In many instances the honorable member for Warringah has advanced second-hand information when addressing the House, and he has one of the worst records of attendance.

Mr Spender:

– I rise to order. I submit that the Minister is contravening the Standing Orders by making such a statement.

Mr Lemmon:

– What the Minister says is quite true.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think that the Minister is slightly out of order.

Mr POLLARD:

– If the records of this House were examined I am sure that the record of attendance of the honorable member for Warringah would be found to be among the worst. This is a statement of fact and is relevant to statements that have been made by the Opposition during this debate. The honorable member for Warringah has said that the Parliament is merely a rubber stamp for recording decisions. So far as he is concerned that may be so, because in his absence he is paired with a Government member who, in respect of this motion, has not protested. En that sense the honorable member brands himself as a party “ rubberstamper “ so far as this Parliament is concerned. The honorable member re ferred to the inability of the Parliament to discuss the motion of censure of Mr. Deputy Speaker that was moved during a previous sessional period of the Parliament. Honorable members opposite are experiencing an irritation because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) was suspended from the service of this House last week.

Mr Abohie Cameron:

– That is not true.

Mr POLLARD:

– In the past the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has taken a fiendish delight in either being suspended from the service of the House himself, or helping towards the suspension of other honorable members. Some honorable members can take suspension without protest. Last week the Leader of the Opposition was warned by Mr. Deputy Speaker to cease interjecting. As the right honorable gentleman continued to interject, Mr. Deputy Speaker took disciplinary action. I recollect an incident that occurred in this House in 1938 or 1939 concerning myself. The then Speaker, Sir George Bell, although a rigid disciplinarian, was a very just Speaker in every way. During the course of a debate he warned me to cease interjecting.

Mr Holt:

– Sir George Bell was a very good Speaker.

Mr POLLARD:

– Yes. The necessity to maintain discipline is something that the Opposition is not now prepared to admit when its members offend against standing orders, thus bringing down on their heads the disciplinary rules of this House. On the occasion to which I have referred, Mr. Thorby, the then Minister for Agriculture, was addressing the House. Under provocation, I ignored Mr. Speaker’s warning and was duly suspended from the service of the House. However, I took my medicine and did not complain. It is evident that some honorable members opposite are incapable of taking their medicine. During this debate the honorable member for Warringah has accused me of reflecting adversely on Australian prisoners of war. Although he mentioned specifically the debate in this House on the 25th March, 1947, a reference to Hansard proves that the honorable member is a “ mud-slinger “ of the worst kind. Speaking to the motion by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull), for the formal adjournment of the House on that date, as reported in Hansard, volume 190, at page 1101 I said -

This is a matter on which one speaks without any relish or enthusiasm. It is a difficult subject to speak on impartially and factually, if one takes a certain point of view, without being described aa unfair and unsympathetic towards the prisoners of war. I am convinced that the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull), in stating the claims of the prisoners of war as ho has persistently done, is sincere, and that he believes that they have a legitimate claim against the Government; but I point out that all the men and women involved have been back in Australia for a considerable time after their trying experiences. Subject to correction, I say that they were all back in Australia prior to the last general election; yet not one political party, nor one candidate - unless it was the honorable member for Wimmera himself, for whom I have great respect in this regard - included this issue in a policy speech, nor stated that if his party were returned to power it would pay sustenance money to the persons concerned.

Et is proper that I should remind the House at this stage that when the honorable member for Warringah was Minister for the Army in a previous government he appointed himself a lieutenant-colonel. The honorable member for Warringah, who is a disorderly individual, interjected -

What relevance has that!

The Hansard report of my speech continues -

I am now stating the facts. This was a vital question, and it had been raised in this House previously, I think. There were in the parties represented by honorable members opposite some very eminent generals arid other officers who had served in the two wars. Apparently, they were unmoved by this claim, and did not bring any pressure to bear on their leaders to include it in the party platform.

The honorable member for Warringah interjected -

I cannot see what this has to do with the matter.

He was at it again. The report of my speech proceeds -

This is a subject upon which I could very well have dodged expressing an opinion. As for the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) we know that he never took, any risks of being a prisoner in any war.

The honorable member for Warringal! had provoked me, and I admit that my remark was not very nice. I continued -

Notwithstanding that, he promoted himself to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I speak with a considerable amount of emotion on this subject.

The honorable member again interrupted, and said -

And with a good deal of stupidity.

He had no hesitation in expressing the view that I was a stupid person. Then you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, informed the honorable member for Warringah that he must remain silent, and I continued -

The honorable member for Warringah bought into this, and now he does riot like it. After the 1914-18 war and again after the recent war, the parties opposite consistently pointed to the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act as a measure which provided full compensation due to all returned soldiers, whether prisoner* of war or not. If, as the result of his war service, an ex-serviceman suffers physically from wounds, sickness, or disease which prevent him from resuming his civil occupation as efficiently as he would otherwise have resumed it, he is entitled to the compensation provided under the terms of the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act.

The honorable member ran out of the Army and never went back to it to fight for his country. If he reflects upon my motives I am justified in indicting him. The plain fact is that the military authorities may view-

I emphasize the words “ may view “ - a demand for compensation of this kind as a precedent which may encourage men to become prisoners of war, perhaps in the hands of an enemy more merciful than the Japanese. These factors cannot be overlooked. I am willing and anxious-

The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) then interjected, and, therefore, was unruly. He said -

To besmirch the name of your fellow Australians-

The honorable member tried to put into my mouth words that I had no intention of using, and, indeed, would never think of using. However, I continued -

During the last few weeks the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) has besmirched the names of many decent citizen? under the cover of parliamentary privilege. Honorable members will realize that this is a difficult question which must be tackled without bias. I have just as much sympathy for the men and the women concerned as has the honorable member for Wimmera, but we have to consider the degree of misery and suffering endured not only by those held in durance vile in the prison camps of the Japanese, but also by those who served right throughout the war on the battlefronts in which our forces were engaged. We must also consider the precedent established during World War I., when men similarly circumstanced were not compensated for the loss of their ration allowance.

At that stage, the time allotted to me expired. However, honorable members will realize from the speech that I have read that not once did I reflect on the prisoners of war concerned. Following that speech, I received a letter from the New South Wales ex-Prisoners of War Association, and on the 29th May, 1947. I addressed to that organization the following reply : -

Your letter of 26th instant to hand, conveying the text of a resolution carried at a meeting of members of your association and relating to a speech I. made in the Parliament in respect to a proposal to pay subsistence In ex-prisoners of war.

I note also the comments stated to have been expressed by those at the meeting and th* expressions of opinions over your joint namoi.

I naturally regret the attitude adopted b your organization and feel it can only have occurred as a result of a lack of opportunity on the part of all the members present at thi meeting to read exactly what I did say at reported in Ilansard. It may be that some members had only heard quoted And/or lead part of my remarks and consequently consider them out of their relationship to other portions of my speech.

I then referred to certain passages in my speech, and continued -

My expression of opinion as to the view point that may be held by military authorise* is, after all, only an opinion - perhaps an unjustifiable opinion and in no way a reflection on such authorities who may or may not hold such an opinion.

Your statement in reference to portion of in; speech “ you take shelter behind them and parliamentary privilege to justify your attitude “ - is uncalled for. I have never sheltered behind parliamentary privilege. A tactic of that type is not one of my characteristics. Every word of my speech, if necessary, 1 would willingly repeat outside the Parliament, conscientiously believing that I made no reflection on any one. particularly not prisoners of war. many of whom, both of the last war and this war, are my very close personal friends.

Notwithstanding the direct accusation contained in the final paragraph of your letter and which, on reflection I hope you will withdraw, f write you in the hope that your officers and members, after further and calmer considerawill realize your attitude is based on an incomplete analysis of my remarks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member for Indi has the floor, and I will see that he is heard in silence.

Mr McEWEN:

– Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your remarks seem to have had the desired effect. I was saying that I was not going to put my interpretation on the remarks made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture concerning the prisoners of war, but merely proposed to remind the House that the prisoners of war have placed their own interpretation on them I leave it to the people to judge what interpretation should be placed on the Minister’s remarks. A circular letter was sent to me and to all my colleagues on this side of the House, and, apparently, to the Minister also, by the New South Wales Ex-Prisoners of War Association, Sydney. The circular, which is dated the 20th May, 1949, reads-

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the members of this Association I am forwarding a copy of letter sent to Mr. Pollard, M.H.R.

You will no doubt recall the implications made by Mr. Pollard on the floor of the House of Parliament as reported in Hansard, No. 7, dated25th-27th March, 1947. The letter to Mr. Pollard was as under - 17th May, 1949.

Mr. R. T. Pollard, M.H.R.,

Parliament House,

Canberra

Sir,

The Executive and Members of this Association still await your reply to our letter dated16th July, 1947.

We are of the opinion that you have had sufficient time to think of a reply, and we once again demand that you unreservedly withdraw the implication of your remarks made on the floor of Parliament as reported in Hansard, No. 7, dated 25th-27th March, 1947.

I notice that the Minister, who was so prompt to draw attention to the retirement from the chamber of the honorable member for Warringah while he was speaking, has now left the chamber. The circular continues -

. We make this demand of you as (a) an Australian; (b) a returned soldier; (c) a Cabinet Minister. During this final session of Parliament, before the federal elections, we expect of you a duty fitting of all three callings and trust that you will advise us of the date on which you will withdraw those statements in sufficient time to enable us to advise all Associations, not only in this State, but in all States, of your intentions.

We trust that sane thinking on your part will bring to a close this unpleasant incident and clear the name of such a fine body as the Australian Imperial Forces,who were, and are, like yourself - Australian.

Yours faithfully,

H.R.Lovejoy. President

Shadlow, Hon. Secretary.

That circular is addressed to the respective members of the Parliament, and it concludes with the following words : -

I shall be glad to have the assurance of your personal support to achieve the result demanded therein. Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours faithfully,

Shadlow, Hon. Secretary.

That is the construction that the New South Wales Ex-Prisoners of War Association has placed upon the remarks of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture concerning men who were prisoners of war. If it is necessary to choose either the Minister’s or the association’s interpretation of the remarks, I and my colleagues on this side of the House prefer to accept the association’s point of view. Until the Minister complies with the request to withdraw the charge in the chamber in which it was made, a blemish will remain upon his reputation. Those remarks may seem to be rather wide of the motion that is now before the House.

Mr McEWEN:

– If they are wide of the motion, I remind the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) that the entire speech that was made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture was equally wide, if not very much wider, of it.

The motion that is before the House claims that the Government is deserving of censure. The first charge contained in it is that the Government, by the use of its majority in this House, is unreasonably and improperly restricting the rights of private members and the electors that they represent. We know that that is so. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has referred to two glaring examples of the suppression of the rights of members of this House by the Government shortly before he gave notice of his intention to propose a motion of censure. It is not often that a private member introduces a bill into the Parliament. In fact, I can remember only two or perhaps three such bills being introduced during the last fifteen years. It is the right of members of the Parliament to introduce private members’ bills.

The Leader of the Opposition is now seeking to avail himself of that right, not only in his personal capacity but also on behalf of the whole of His Majesty’s Opposition. The right honorable gentleman has given notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to deal with a matter of the utmost urgency and importance. It is within the competence of the Government, recognizing that an Opposition in a British Parliament has certain rights, to provide an opportunity for that bill to be brought before the Parliament and at least to be explained if not debated to a conclusion. However, upon the decision of the Government, and, I believe, the personal decision of the Prime Minister, the bill that the right honorable gentleman desires to introduce has been placed in such a position on the notice-paper that there is no earthly hope of its objects even being explained to the Parliament. If that is not a suppression of the rights of private members by the use of the Government’s majority, I do not know what is. The Leader of the Opposition referred to other instances of the rights of private members and the electors they represent being negatived by the Government’s use of its majority in this House. I shall return to that matter shortly.

– In order to appreciate the reason for such a strongly worded motion of censure, honorable members ought to consider the character of this Parliament, how it is composed and what its functions are. In a parliament elected under the British democratic system there is a Government and an Opposition, the House itself being presided over by a Speaker. Members of the Parliament, whether they be Government supporters or members of the Opposition, have their duties, and what is no less important, their rights. The Opposition, as such, has certain established and positive rights, a fact which distinguishes our form of government from the totalitarian systems. Out of this situation arises the fact that the Parliament consists officially of His Majesty’s Government, and also of His Majesty’s Opposition, the latter possessing rights, limited it is true, but just as clearly recognized as those of the Government. Of all the duties that devolve upon the elected representatives of the people, none is more important than that of preserving the character of the parliamentary institution that we have inherited, and which ha9 evolved through the sacrifices of our forefathers, many of whom suffered imprisonment, and some even death, in asserting their rights.

This censure motion does not come out of the blue; it results from a long series of incidents which, taken together, provoked the Opposition to protest against an attitude of the Government. The cumulative effect of those incidents has been a lowering of the status of the Parliament, and a loss of that respect in which it should be held, together with a loss of efficiency. Those incidents culminated the other evening in the suspension of the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition, an almost unique occurrence, which finally caused the Opposition to draw public attention to the arrogant behaviour of the Government towards the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition was ejected from the chamber because he made three interjections. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), in the course of his speech, said that not one Communist was installed in the “ cooler “ by the Menzies Government, and not one had been prosecuted. We know that that statement was not in accordance with fact, and I should be very surprised if the Minister for Information was not also aware of that. The Leader of the Oppo=sition interjected to say -

We put quite a few in the “ cooler “.

That was not a particularly devastating interjection. It was certainly a statement of fact. Then, after some further exchanges, Hansard records, in italics -

Mr Menzies:

Mr. Menzies interjecting,

The fact that the words were originally recorded in italic type indicates that the remark of the Leader of the Opposition was not audible to the reporter, and so was not . recorded, but everyone who is familiar with, the behaviour of the right honorable gentleman in this House will know that his interjection was not offensive. Finally, after the Minister for Information had repeated his statement, the Leader of the Opposition said -

The Minister must not tempt me or lie will get me into trouble.

Upon which, Mr. Deputy Speaker said -

Order! The right honorable gentleman will get into trouble if he does not desist.

The Leader of the Opposition then said -

Well, I do not want to be tempted by the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker then said ;

Order! I name the right honorable member for Kooyong.

That is the form of words used as a preliminary to the suspension of a member and that was the incident for which the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament was thrown out of the chamber. Every one who is familiar with proceedings in this Parliament knows that practically every speech evokes more interjections than those which lead to the ejection of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Indi must now return to the subject before the Chair.

Mr McEWEN:

– In deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make no further reference to that matter, other than to say that the Leader of the Opposition was deprived of his rights-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honorable member knows that interruptions during the course of an honorable member’s speech are disorderly. I ask him to discuss the subject before the chair.

Mr McEWEN:

– The Standing Orders provide that if an honorable member is suspended from the service of the House for a second time during a session, the suspension shall be for a week, and if for a third time, the suspension shall be for a month. It may not be important to an honorable member or his constituents for him to be suspended for a day, but it would be a serious thing for him to be out of the Parliament for a week. It would certainly bc a serious thing for the Leader of the Opposition to be out of the Parliament for a week, particularly in the short period during which the Parliament will be sitting before the next general election, which will be of a critical character, a factor which has important bearing on the incident. Members of the Opposition are familiar with the attempts made to intimidate them. Only this afternoon, a Minister of the Crown attempted to make reflections on a former Minister for the Army with no purpose other than to frighten him into silence. Fresh in our memories is the attempt to intimidate the honorable member for the Northern Territory into silence. I have a vivid recollection of an attempt to intimidate the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) into silence by saying that, during World War I., he was not a fighting soldier, hut was a clerk in the stores. The honorable member had to come into the Parliament, recount his military record and explain that he had served as a sergeant in a fighting unit. We are accustomed to attacks of that kind. One of the most recent examples of such conduct was the attempt made by the Minister for Information to intimidate and silence the honorable member for Maranoa by alleging that the honorable member had engaged in unscrupulous practices. I, too, have been the subject of intimidatory attacks of that kind. These attacks are part and parcel of the technique of the Australian Labour party, at the head of which stands the Prime Minister of Australia. Whenever we have a Blain incident, a Menzies incident, or any similar incident, the Prime Minister comes into the House to justify the intimidatory attacks of his own Ministers and, by so doing, incite them to continue their practices. The classic example of intimidation was the attack made on my leader, the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden), when he made a revelation which was inconvenient to the Prime Minister. Within 24 hours after he made his revelation two Commonwealth investigation officers, acting under the direction of the Prime Minister called upon the right honorable member for Darling Downs and attempted to interrogate him.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– No arrest has been made even yet.

Mr McEWEN:

– We knew the purpose of the Prime Minister then, just as we know the purpose of other Ministers who engage in these nefarious practices. They hope to silence the Opposition but they will never succeed, no matter how often they try to do so. Consider the change that has been brought about in the procedural course followed in the Parliament on the naming of an honorable member by the Chair. Before the regime of the present Prime Minister, when an honorable member was named, all business ceased until the Prime Minister came into the chamber to move for the suspension from the service of the House of the honorable member concerned. That practice was followed by the late Mr. Lyons and by the late Mr. Curtin. Indeed, it was followed by every Prime Minister in the Commonwealth Parliament until the present Prime Minister took office. The present Prime Minister, however, signifies his contempt of parliamentary precedent and practice, and of the very institution of the Parliament itself, by not bothering to come into the House, even when a very prominent member of the Opposition has been named by the Chair. I cannot refrain from referring to the fact that during the regime of the present Prime Minister, without whose consent and approval no member of the House should be ejected from the Parliament, 21 honorable members have been ejected from the House, every one of them a member of the Opposition. Of the 21 honorable members ejected no fewer than eighteen were former Ministers or Prime Ministers of this country, which shows that the penalty of suspension has been imposed not on irresponsible or inexperienced honorable members, but to a large extent on those who have been members of the Executive Council of His Majesty. We take this opportunity to draw attention to this Chifley contempt for the Parliament. The motion of censure proposed by the Leader of the Opposition has the solid support of all honorable members on this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr. Harrison) put -

That the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) be granted an extension of time.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WILLIAMS:
Robertson

.- It is quite obvious that this motion of , censure has been moved because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) was ejected from the House last week for disorderly conduct. Until that incident occurred matters had been proceeding very smoothly in the chamber. This motion is being used as a counter-attack upon Mr. Deputy Speaker and upon the Government because Mr. Deputy Speaker has done his duty in the high office that he occupies. This is the usual technique of the Opposition. Last November, three Opposition members, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) and the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) were suspended from the services of the House within a relatively few minutes ‘ for disorderly conduct arising out of the same incident. Immediately, the Opposition moved a motion of no-confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker which has never been excelled for malice, rashness and spite. Later, two Opposition members spoke to that motion. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) said that the motion was the strongest ever moved in this chamber on that subject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable gentleman is not entitled to comment on that motion.

Mr WILLIAMS:

– I am merely making passing reference to it. I do not intend to go further into the matter except to say that the Government is being charged to-day with having reduced the status of the Chair; yet, Opposition members, by their own action in attempting to hold Mr. Deputy Speaker up to public hatred, ridicule and contempt, have done more to reduce the status of the Chair than anything that the Labour Government could ever do.

Opposition members do not confine their attacks to members of this legislature. Public servants and private citizens have been the subjects of their calumny and vile innuendoes. Let us consider this newest piece of political humbug on the part of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has accused Government members and supporters of being character assassins. That is a fine phrase. According to the right honorable gentleman, we can all be roped together and branded as character assassins because last week the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) cast some reflection on the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann). That honorable member immediately denied the Minister’s allegations flatly, and there, apparently, the matter ended. Later, however, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) was asked whether he would appoint a royal commission to inquire into the Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister said, as he had always said on such occasions, that members of the Parliament make their own rules for their own guidance and for the conduct of the business of this House, and that they must be prepared to abide by those rules. The Opposition has made some play on the fact that the Prime Minister refused to appoint a royal commission or a select committee. Notwithstanding the humiliation that honorable members opposite have attempted to cause Mr. Deputy Speaker by the motion now on the notice-paper, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking to this motion of censure, again inferred bias and partiality on the part of Mr. Deputy Speaker. He said, in effect, that the Minister for Information had used words that were offensive to the honorable member for Maranoa, and that he should have been ordered to withdraw them. He then proceeded to deal with Standing Order 272. The House will recall that, when the incident occurred, the Minister for Information was reading a letter which he said he had received from a constituent of the honorable member for Maranoa. The honorable member for Maranoa interjected, “ That is a lie “. J do not think that any honorable member inferred that the honorable member for Maranoa was calling the Minister a liar. He was referring to what the person had written in the letter. What he meant was that the statement contained in the letter was a lie. Without reflecting on the subsequent action of Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that the words were offensive not to the Minister, but to the writer of the letter. However, the honorable member for Maranoa was called upon to withdraw the words. It is suggested now that after the honorable member for Maranoa had been called upon to withdraw his offensive epithet, the Minister, too, should have been asked to withdraw his remarks. But I point out that the Minister was not using offensive epithets. He was making statements. Rulings given in this chamber since my membership of it lead me to the conclusion that offensive epithets must not be used, but that matters can be raised by a statement of facts. Such statements may, of course, be most humiliating to the honorable member about whom they are made. They may hurt him, but he cannot ask that they be withdrawn. If he so desires, he may later rise and make a personal explanation. Some people say that that ruling is wrong. It is a matter of opinion, but it is the precedent that has been established in this Parliament and it was followed by Mr. Deputy Speaker at the time in question. The matter, seemingly, was then ended. But what happened after that? The Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of censure of the Government based on the charges made against the honorable member for Maranoa. Further, when speaking to his motion, he altered certain words that were used by the Minister. He magnified them, wrapped them up in his own cogent oratorical phrase “ fraudulent rogue “ and broadcast them throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Does the honorable member regard the words as a reference of good character?

Mr WILLIAMS:

– I know the meanings of words just as well as does the honorable member for Barker. He will realize that it was objected by the Leader of the Opposition that the honorable member for Maranoa had been, referred to as “ a fraudulent rogue “. Those were tho words used by the right honorable member. He altered the meaning of the Minister’s words, magnified them and broadcast them. The honorable member for Maranoa can scarcely be beholden to the Leader of the Opposition, who has done him a great disservice indeed. The Minister’s charge against the honorable member, if it were a charge, was vague and indefinite. It was something that had been mentioned in a letter written by a person who so far remains anonymous to this House. The charges wore denied in a personal explanation, but the Leader of the Opposition, seeking to emphasize the importance of his censure motion against the Government put forward in his rhetorical manner, the cogent phrase “fraudulent rogue”, and repeated his misinterpretation in a voice that made the words ring like a tocsin around the country. The Opposition has published the slander, if there was one. It has defamed itself by spreading the slander. What the Minister for Information said about the honorable member for Maranoa is the Minister’s own affair. He does not consult the members of the Government party about what he proposes to say in the House. We did not encourage him to say what he said. Nevertheless, it is charged against us by the Leader of the Opposition that we did encourage him. That is not so. Furthermore, since Mr. Deputy Speaker has charge of this House and controls its conduct, we cannot bo said to have permitted the Minister to make the charge. It i3 a unique and strange situation that a government should be the subject of a censure motion because of some action taken by the presiding officer. The Opposition is carrying on a feud against you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a most unedifying spectacle that is degrading to our parliamentary institution. The technique is simple and it may be stated in the following way: - “Quarrel with Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if you do not get your way, move a vote of no confidence in him. If you do not get satisfaction that way, then move a censure motion based upon the complaint and holding the Government blameworthy because rulings from the Chair do not suit you.”

The Opposition alleges that the Government is improperly restricting the rights of honorable members in this House. In answer to that, I say that the Government is very sensitive about the rights and privileges of honorable members and has constantly gone out of its way to arrange that the Opposition leaders should have the limelight in the House at hours nominated by Opposition members themselves. They have demanded and have been accommodated, like prima donnas, with the most favoured broadcasting hours. Yet they say that the Government is restricting the liberties of honorable members! Every honorable member with a knowledge of the Standing Orders knows that it is possible for him to be heard in Parliament on any subject that he may care to raise. Furthermore, the present Government has met on an almost record number of days. Like most honorable members, I deplore personal attacks on individuals. There is too much of that sort of thing from .both sides in all ‘parliaments. But I do not think that the Government can reform politicians overnight. That sort of thing has been going on ever since democratic government has been established. What we can do is amend the Standing Orders to provide for disciplinary action to be taken against any honorable member who makes false statements regarding any person outside this House. I do not think that the people regard very seriously what one honorable member may say about another honorable member inside this House, because an honorable member who is maligned, can answer the charges on the spot. He has the right to counter attack here and make his reply immediately. But persons outside the House have not the same rights and privileges as we have. Irretrievable harm might be done by statements relating to people outside the Parliament. Fortunately, in my opinion, this does not often occur. However, as a member of the Standing Orders committee, I should welcome an opportunity to suggest some amendments to the Standing Orders of this House that are badly needed. Members of the public might very easily get a wrong impression of the Parliament from what they hear over the air and what they read in the newspapers. Generally there is a splendid feeling of friendship and understanding between honorable members of this House, whatever their political views happen to be, and there is no man in Australia with a more amiable, pleasant and charitable nature than that of the Prime Minister. I am sure that he would not condone an injustice of any kind. He has told honorable members opposite that, if they do not like the Standing Orders, he will be very accommodating and help them to reform the rules of conduct and debate. The censure motion is really an attack upon our Standing Orders, and the matters that have been debated have no great significance except in relation to much-needed amendments of the Standing Orders As I have said, honorable members opposite, with a knowledge of the Standing Orders as they are, can raise almost any subject that they want to air in this House. This Parliament has sat on almost a record number of occasions, and Opposition mem- bers have had plenty of time and opportunities to discuss matters in which they are interested. A member cannot be prevented from raising any matter that he wants to raise. The passing of motion; is another matter. But can honorable members opposite complain that the Government is blame-worthy because the electors did not return them with a majority in this House? The censure motion is unwarranted, unjustified, reckless, ill considered and ill advised. It deserves to be dismissed with contempt.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

. ‘ - I have never before listened to so much humbug and nonsense in this House as was contained in the address of the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Williams). The honorable member went to great length to explain his contention that the censure motion now before the House was intended by the Opposition to destroy the dignity of the Chair. He suggested that the Minister had every right to rely on the contents of a scandalous anonymous letter when attacking the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann). I remind the House that the Minister prefaced his remarks by saying that he had waited for a long time to “get” the honorable member for Maranoa. That proves .conclusively that the Minister was making a premeditated attack upon the honorable member’s character. The honorable member for Robertson endeavoured to show that that remark by the Minister was made merely by chance and did not mean anything.

Mr Ward:

– It was not an anonymous letter.

Mr HARRISON:

– As lots of things have had a flavour of anonymity about them recently, perhaps I had better not deal too deeply with that aspect of the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member for Wentworth should not encourage interjections.

Mr HARRISON:

– I am merely defending myself because the Chair did not take notice of the interjection.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I , ask the honorable member to withdraw that reflection on the Chair.

Mr HARRISON:

– I withdraw the remark and hope that I shall be protected by the Chair from any further interjections. The honorable member for Robertson then made play on the fact that when the honorable member for Maranoa used the expression, “ It was a lie “, he was forced to withdraw the remark. I shall parallel that occasion with an incident that occurred earlier in this debate to-day. When the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) made a certain statement concerning the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, although the Minister replied that it was a dastardly lie he was not called upon to withdraw that remark. If the dignity of the Chair is to be destroyed it will be done either by the Chair itself or by the Government. The honorable member for Robertson said that the Leader of the Opposition had applied his own interpretation to the statement of the Minister for Information concerning the honorable member for Maranoa and had used the words “ a fraudulent rogue “. The honorable member for Robertson then said that the term “ a fraudulent rogue “ was not to be compared with the expression “ Its a lie “ which was used by the honorable member for Maranoa. He then asked what other inference could be drawn from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition than that the honorable member for Maranoa was a “ fraudulent rogue “. The honorable member for Robertson therefore appeared to be using the very technique which he asserted the Opposition was using.

I point out that all of the 21 suspensions from the service of this House during the present session have involved Opposition members,eighteen of whom were ex-Ministers. It is apparent that if there is any intimidation of Opposition members, it must be attributed to the government which takes such action with relation to the suspensions. Moreover, we have noticed repeatedly the cunning and knowing leers of honorable members on the Government side of the House when something happens to the detriment of the Opposition. In fact, this leering combined with the subsequent action usually taken by the Government, has come to be accepted by the general public. This technique and form of intimi dation is well recognized as being adopted by Ministers particularly. Not long ago the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) was warned that if he persisted with a certain line of attack, matters associated with him would be exposed in this House. That was an attempt to prevent the honorable member from carrying out his duties. It matters not whether the implications inherent in these incidents are true or otherwise. I also recollect that on one occasion the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) was told by a government official who is now occupying a high post overseas that if he did not remove a certain question from the notice-paper he would be subjected to some form of exposure with regard to his actions whilst a prisoner of war. The in timiddatory action that has been taken against the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang), who is subjected in this House to great personal attacks by Government members, is well known. An attempt has been made to intimidate him because- he dares to attack the Government on political lines. The honorable member for Reid has been forced to take action on his own behalf to protect himself. In the past censure motions have been moved by the Opposition against the Government ‘because of acts of omission and commission. At times they have been moved because of lack of administrative action, and at other times because of some specific administrative action that has been taken. Censure motions have also been launched against the Government because of the way in which it has implemented its policy. But this is the most serious form of censure motion that can be directed against any government. It is a censure motion directed against the Government for attempting to interfere with parliamentary procedure. Indeed, the destruction of the Parliamentary institution itself is involved in our attack. There is no more serious form of censure that can be levelled against a government than that which has been adopted on this occasion. It is epitomized in the last paragraph of the motion which accuses the Government of exhibiting a contempt for the institution of Parliament as the democratic forum of the nation. Although this is the most serious form of censure possible it will not be given serious consideration by the Government. I am only the fifth member of the Opposition to be afforded an opportunity to speak on this motion, and I am confident that the Opposition will be gagged before the debate has run its full course. Being fully aware of the Government’s technique, I shall be astounded if the debate is not gagged later this evening. Judging by the expression on the face of the “ Minister for Gags “, he appears to be sharpening his teeth in anticipation. I am quite sure that this serious matter will be passed over in a cavalier fashion as being of no great moment.

It has been suggested by honorable members on the Government side of the House that this motion has been moved in a fit of pique because last week the Leader of the Opposition was suspended from the service of the House. That is entirely untrue. The moving of the motion may be regarded as the culmination of numerous incidents in this House which have caused the Opposition to view with concern the trend in connexion with parliamentary procedure and the maintenance of the parliamentary institution. I shall now examine the terms of the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. The first paragraph of it reads -

That the Government -

by the use of its majority in this House is unreasonably and improperly restricting the rights of private members and the electors they represent;

We have had some experience of the way in which the Government has used its majority in this House to restrict unreasonably and improperly the rights of private members and the electors whom they represent. The Leader of the Opposition has already made a dissertation in this matter. He pointed out that as the representative of the political parties constituting the Opposition in this chamber, he gave notice of his intention to introduce a private member’s bill to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The bill relates to a matter of considerable public importance, because it is directed against control of unions by Communists. But this Government, true to its policy and technique, decided to deny the Leader of the Opposition the right to introduce the bill, and resorted to political tactics to achieve its end. By the use of its majority, the Government ensured that government ‘business should take precedence over private members’ business, although only one day a month is allotted to private members to introduce bills or discuss matters of importance to their constituents. The Government also restricted the debate on “ Grievance Day” last week. On such an occasion, private members have an opportunity to ventilate the grievances of their electors, but after the debate had proceeded for about an hour, the Government gagged it. Those examples demonstrate the way in which the Government is unreasonably and improperly restricting the rights of private members and the electors whom they represent. In my opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of most thinking people, responsible government rests upon certain fundamental principles, such as the obedience of a government to the people; obedience to the tradition of collective Cabinet responsibility, and the recognition of the Parliament as the body in which the will of the people may be expressed and obeyed. But this Government has completely disregarded that principle, and it is treating the Parliament with the utmost Contempt. In a speech in this House recently, the Prime Minister said that he would determine what was to he debated and how long such a debate should proceed. Honorable members opposite may claim that the Prime Minister, as the leader of the Government, has the right to determine those matters, but I submit that the right honorable gentleman uses that right to excess. Repeatedly when bills are introduced, honorable members are told that the Government will not accept any amendments, because caucus has already considered and approved those measures. Under such conditions, this Parliament is no longer a responsible deliberative body, because supporters of the Government are pledged to follow the dictates and decisions of caucus. When the Prime Minister says that he will determine this matter and that matter, he is disregarding the rights of His Majesty’s Opposition, because he is assuming the role of a dictator, and saying, in effect, “ I will determine these matters and members of the Opposition have no right whatever in this chamber, even though they represent a large number of people “.

The time allotted to me in this debate is rapidly running out, and I know that the Government will not grant me an extension of time. Therefore, I hasten to make a few observations about the second paragraph of the motion, which reads as follows: -

That the Government -

is disregarding the status of the Chair by permitting to remain for months on the notice-paper, partly debated, but undetermined, a motion of no-confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I have an excellent reason for referring to that matter, because I submitted that motion of no-confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker. After a brief discussion, the debate was adjourned and the Government has not permitted the House to continue it. Is it to be wondered that a member of the Opposition has submitted such a motion? I remind the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Williams) that the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), who is Mr. Speaker, has violated the Standing Orders by criticizing very bitterly the justices of the High Court. The honorable member for Dalley - I speak of him in that capacity, not in his capacity as Mr. Speaker - is reported as having said in this House on the 9th October, 1947-

In defiance of the mandate of the people, the trading banks had appealed to the High Court against the order to public bodies to bank with the Commonwealth IBank. The Government and the people had been knocked back by seven incompetent septuagenarians.

My comment is that if the source of the stream is muddy, the stream can never run pure. I mention that matter in passing, because I have not derived any pleasure from submitting a motion of noconfidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I consider that I should make that observation because it gives some indication of the reasons that prompt the Opposition to criticize the Government on this occasion.

Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that some honorable members of ‘this chamber, including myself, had made charges in the House against public servants, and had gravely reflected upon private citizens. The right honorable gentleman then stated that an honorable member who made such statements in this chamber should be subject to the ordinary processes of the law. In his anxiety to defend the defamatory statement by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), and while he was still smarting under the attack by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister forgot his own vulnerability. If his suggestion were adopted, the Prime Minister himself might be forced to defend utterances that he has made in this chamber, which ho described as a “ coward’s castle in Canberra “. Honorable members will recall that, after seeking to intimidate the Leader of the Australian Country party in the secret documents . case, the Prime Minister referred to a public servant, the private secretary of the Leader of the Australian Country party, as an “ urger “. The victim of that attack did not have the right to defend himself in this chamber. The general meaning of “ urger “ is a low-down heel “, the “ lowest of the low, found on race-courses “, or a “ tout “. The Prime Minister was well aware of the implication that might be placed upon his use of that term. But the right honorable gentleman did not stop there. This Simon Pure of politics referred to Mr. Simon Isaacs, who was conducting tha defence of Mr. “Jock” Garden in the New Guinea timber lease case, as a “ larrikin lawyer “. The Prime Minister made that statement, not outside the House, but in this so-called “ coward’s castle”. What is a “larrikin”? _ The dictionary states that a larrikin is an Australian hooligan. If the Prime Minister were to repeat outside the Parliament the remark that he made concerning Mr. Isaacs he would probably find himself in a court of law. His scathing reference to Mr. Isaacs not only antagonized the bar but also aroused resentment in five members of the jury that was empanelled to try Garden on a charge of forgery. The jurors concerned said that Mr. Isaacs did his job well, and commented favorably on his conduct of the case. I venture to say to the Prime Minister that if the parliamentary privilege that he has criticized had not been operating when he made those references he would in all probability have been the defendant in an action for defamation. The right honorable gentleman, who visualizes himself as an Australian edition of the homespun Lincoln, and sets himself up as a Simon Pure, would establish one rule for himself and another for other honorable members. The right honorable gentleman should reflect upon his own utterances before he castigates other honorable members for the statements that they have made in this House.

How did the Prime Minister react to the Mountjoy case? Honorable members will remember that in 1945 Mr. Mountjoy, who was then a member of this House, and is now a member of the Executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, placed a question on the notice-paper which implied that Mr. A. R. de Barclay, the secretary of the Sane Democracy League, held an interest in a select house of assignation in Sydney, and that he was also financially interested in what was described as “ a similar business at King’s Cross”. Can any one imagine a more dastardly assertion, particularly when Mountjoy must have realized that the tenant, apart altogether from the owner of the premises, must suffer for the libel? Indeed, the tenant wrote to me and said that he had no knowledge whatever of Mr. de Barclay and, of course, indignantly repudiated the other allegations. The statement was defamatory, not only of de Barclay, but also of the owner of the premises. How did the Prime Minister react to that incident? Did he discipline Mr. Mountjoy? No, he gave him a position on the former Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which was a position of trust and one of the highest posts in the public service. When the incident to which I have referred took place I attacked Mr. Mountjoy in the House. Do honorable members suggest that conduct such as his should go unchallenged ? The Prime Minister made no attempt to dis- cipline the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) for the slanderous statements that he made concerning the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain). Indeed, the Prime Minister went out of his way to advise the honorable member for Lang that he should not speak in the House on the matter because he alleged that the Leader of the Opposition had “ double-crossed “ him. The right honorable gentleman knew perfectly well that there was not the slightest foundation for the statements made by the honorable member for Lang concerning the honorable member for the Northern Territory, who was a man of excellent character and possessed an impressive record of service in two wars. Eventually, of course, the honorable member for Lang had to retract his baseless allegation, but I emphasize that he did so only after the Privileges Committee had inquired into the matter and made a certain recommendation. The Prime Minister did not emerge too well from that incident. The right honorable gentleman, also criticized me for having made statements in the House from time to time concerning certain matters. I made those statements because I believed that the matters to which they related were scandals that should be exposed in the public interest. The duty of revealing such matters devolves more upon members of the Opposition than upon supporters of the Government because, as the Prime Minister appears to have forgotten, the purpose of the official Opposition is to exercise a check upon the activities of the government of the day. I remind the right honorable gentleman that had I not exposed those scandals, which reflected most unfavorably upon the Government and some of its members, the public might never have learned of them. Take, for example, the Keane trunks case. Trunks containing £1,230 worth of dutiable goods were seized by the customs. Those goods belonged to the late Senator Keane, who, until his death a short time previously, had been Minister for Trade and Customs. I first raised this matter during the election campaign, and outside the House. I was liable to the full force of law.

Mr Calwell:

– The man. concerned was dead!

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– But there were others alive who could easily have taken legal action against me, as the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) knows.

Mr Calwell:

– The honorable member did not name them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister must not interrupt the honorable member who has the floor.

Mr HARRISON:

– I made a number of statements in connexion with the Keane trunks case outside the House, and my allegations were not challenged. I asked questions in the House concerning the matter, and the Government admitted that the information on which my questions were based was correct. The Government has taken no action to make a thorough investigation of that matter, which can only be regarded as a public scandal. The reason why I revealed that scandal was that it was a matter of very serious public concern, and it was necessary that it should he exposed. However, the Prime Minister suggested that we should have remained silent about it. To have done so would have been to betray the trust that we hold as the official Opposition, and indeed to have condoned the offence.

Consider the case of the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein), which was another matter that probably irked the Prime Minister. In 1945 or 1946, the honorable member, who is a barrister-at-law, was given a licence to import £2,700 worth of Swiss watches. At that time regular jewellers and watchmakers could not obtain watches or watch parts. Does the right honorable gentleman suggest to-day that I should not have exposed that matter? If so, then I should like to know exactly why the Prime Minister, as head of his political party, took action to withhold from the honorable member the endorsement of the Australian Labour party for the forthcoming election. I am not dealing in any detail with the matters that I have mentioned, but they are most pertinent to the criticism that the Prime Minister has made of my actions. Let me deal for a moment with the dismissal, in April, 1947, of four officials of the Prices Branch. Some of those officials were prosecuted as the result of the revelations that I made. Had I not exposed the malpractices of the officials concerned, who were employed to protect the public by ensuring that butchers did not retail meat at more than the fixed price, a number of housewives would ultimately have had to pay higher prices for their meat to offset the cost of the bribes given to the officials concerned. Does the Prime Minister suggest that I should have remained silent and permitted the housewives to be exploited? Let me recall another scandal connected with the sale by the Commonwealth Disposals Commission of surplus military clothing. That clothing was sold to a dealer as rags. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini), who was a member of the Government at that time, was involved in the matter, .because the commission was under the control of the department that he administered. The malpractices of certain individuals were exposed by the materials officer, who gave me permission to use his name. When I referred to the matter in the House I quoted his name, and his allegations were supported by members of the Minister’s own advisory panel. The officers responsible for disclosing those dishonest practices were dismissed, and although some of them were subsequently reinstated, the honorable member for Werriwa had to admit that most of the allegations made against his administration were justified. Furthermore, the operations of the Commonwealth Disposals Commission were severely criticized in a report of the Auditor-General. Because of that criticism the Government appointed an officer to investigate matters, but he did not even deem it worth his while to get in touch with my informant before he furnished a white-washing report. Does the Prime Minister suggest that rackets of that kind by which the Australian taxpayers were defrauded should not be exposed ?

I turn now to the disclosure that I made that the Commonwealth Disposals Commission had sold aircraft to an individual who was one of the legal owners of Marx House, which is the head-quarters of the Australian Communist party. That individual was then the managing director of an airline company known as Asian Airlines Proprietary Limited. I remind the House that for some time Asia has been the hunting ground of Communists, and that as the result of their activities, revolt and murder were at that time replacing the orderly rule of law in Malaya. Does the Prime Minister suggest that that disclosure should not have been made? The articles of association of the company that I have mentioned are available for inspection at the office of the Registrar-General in Sydney, where any one may inspect them after payment of a search fee. An examination of those documents revealed that the company intended to conduct an air service to Asian countries. Let me recall the incident that arose following the disclosures that I made. As I explained to the House on a former occasion, I was misled by an officer of the Commonwealth Investigation Service, who led me to believe that four individuals who were associated with the company were Communists, and I made that assertion in this House. Later, when I learned that I had been misled concerning those four individuals, I made amends by revealing the facts to the House, and I tendered a public apology to the men concerned. The statements that I made in the Parliament were, of course, privileged, and I was under no compulsion to apologize for them. Yet, in justice to the individuals concerned I declined to take advantage of a “ coward’s castle “ to let the mud, which I had thrown, stick, and I took the honorable course of withdrawing the allegations that I had made.

A peculiar psychology appears to have been developed in Government circles since Labour has been in office. The policy pursued by members and supporters of the Administration is : “ Save the Government’s name at all cost, even if it involves covering up malpractices and irregularities. Above all, never hold a royal commission into anything, no matter how bad it seems, because royal commissions can call evidence on oath, and some nasty facts might be adduced against us in that way “. The only occasion when an exception to that rule is made occurs when the Government feels assured that if a royal commission is appointed its report will be favorable to it. The present Government, which is pledged to implement socialism, and intends ultimately to replace the Parliament, which is a democratic institution, by a supreme economic council to rule the “ planned state,” has no sympathy for an Opposition in the Parliament. In its view the Opposition is a stumbling block to the fulfilment of the Government’s plans to socialize completely the means of production, distribution and exchange. The kernel of thi9 motion is that the Government is exhibiting a contempt for the institution of Parliament and its function as a democratic forum of the nation. This is the most serious censure motion that has ever been launched against an Australian Government. It transcends administration and policy and goes down to the root of the matter. Does the Government intend to preserve the procedures and traditions of parliamentary institutions, or does it intend to destroy them? I believe that every action that has been taken by this Government, every leering look of honorable members opposite that has accompanied a decision unfavourable to the Opposition and every form of intimidation of members of the Opposition that it has indulged in form part of a pattern. This motion should be carried. I believe that the people are fed up with this Government and wish to see the institution of parliament restored to democratic lines.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information and Minister for Immigration · Melbourne · ALP

They have deprived the Opposition, strictly termed His Majesty’s Opposition, of its right to criticize . . . and the traditional British parliamentary system no longer exists.

As a matter of fact, Parliament meets more frequently now than when the Opposition was in power. If honorable members attended the sittings more regularly, and gave their attention to the business of the House, they would have opportunity enough for discussion. Honorable members on this side of the House have much better records for attendance than have members of the Opposition. They have, by and large, attended better to the business under consideration.

Mr Spender:

Mr. Spender interjecting,

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable member for Warringah ought to be the very last to interject when the attendance of honorable members at sittings of the House is under discussion. He is not here very often, and when he is not here he is looking after his profession. I have no objection to the honorable member for Warringah looking after his profession, because he will need it before very long. I could quote some of the things the honorable member has said in this House and outside it. I could quote some of the things that have been said on the subject of communism, and I could refer to the smear campaigns against honorable members on this side of the House. When the honorable member for Warringah mentioned the Keane trunks case outside this House, he did not have the courage to name one public servant who, it was claimed, had been guilty of malpractice. The honorable member knows, of course, that the making of airy charges in general terms does not carry with it any risk of having to defend an action in the courts. The honorable member is one of the most vulnerable in this House when it comes to mud-slinging and the besmirching of characters.

Let me now say something about the incident which ostensibly inspired the framing of the motion now under discussion. The other evening, I said that the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) had made a statement which was reported as follows in the Gympie Times of the 5th April last: -

Without a shadow of a doubt, this country requires the overthrow of irresponsible dishonest government if it is to be saved from the chaos into which it is being led.

He made that statement in an address to a meeting after he had been recommended for endorsement as an Australian Country party candidate. The newspaper did not misreport him, and the only interpretation that can be put on the statement, in the circumstances in which it was made, is that he was referring to the Australian Labour Government. This irresponsible, dishonest Government! But he said, “ Oh ! I was not referring to this Government; I was talking about the Queensland Government, which had allegedly gerrymandered the electorates “. Where is there in his statement anything which by inference, innuendo or any other interpretative process could be regarded as referring directly or indirectly to the Queensland Government? He undoubtedly meant this Government, and he ran away from the charge. It is said that he is an honorable man, but I do not believehis statement that he was referring to the Queensland electoral redistribution scheme, nor does any honorable member of this House believe it, except those who want to do so.

Mr Turnbull:

– I know that I must not debate it, but I am making clear the purpose of the proposal. A discussion of that proposal in this House would, of course, embarrass the Labour Government, which professes to stand for the rights of working men. It knows that enactment of the proposed bill would liberate the unionists and let them regain proper control of their organizations. Therefore, the Prime Minister moved that government business should take precedence and scurvily had the matter removed from its position on the noticepaper and listed for debate at some future date. That is the way in which the Labour Government behaves in this Parliament. It is afraid to face criticism of its administration. In my opinion, we could improve the Parliament a great deal by ensuring more frequent discussion of private members’ motions. I quote from Brown’s Guide to Parliament, written by a man who, though not a distinguished member of the House of Commons, speaks with authority -

There must always he in Britain, if the native genius of the British is not to be frustrated, not only Government initiative, but the initiative of individual citizens and members of Parliament. In the Hou°e of Commons we need to preserve the proper balance between private member and Government, not merely in the interest of the private member, but in the interest of good government itself.

That applies to the Australian Parliament also. It is a fair statement, but it is ignored by the Prime Minister who, having attained power and living on the frustrations of the past, would sweep aside what he considers to be the mere formalities of the Parliament when he thinks that he ought to be free to do as he chooses.

I want to be constructive in my criticisms, and I suggest that this House could well adopt a standing order that applies in the British House of Commons. If a member of that House is maligned by another member he may rise in his place, taking precedence over the man then speaking, and make his explanation there and then. We have seen what happens in this Parliament. The Minister for Information defamed the well-esteemed honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann), than whom there is no more popular person in the Parliament. When the honorable member interjected in his own defence, he was forced to withdraw what he had said and was not permitted to make a personal explanation until later. The report of his personal explanation will appear in Hansard at a much later page than the attack made by the Minister, and the broadcast of his remarks may not have been heard by many of th» people who heard the vituperative assault by the Minister. The Standing Orders Committee would be well advised to consider an amendment of the Standing Orders to provide honorable members victimized in that way with an opportunity to make an immediate explanation. Our own Standing Order 272 states -

No member shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any member thereof, or against any statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly.

How often is that standing order ignored in this House ! Almost every speech made by an honorable member on the Government side of the House’ in this debate has included a vilification of some honorable member on this side of the House, or has referred in scathing terms to statements that may have been made years ago. There is a saying in the armed forces that bad troops indicate bad officers. That applies in this Parliament. The Prime Minister cannot remain aloof. By his silence he has condoned the action oi every Minister who has made defama tory statements in this House. He must share responsibility for those statements with the men who uttered them; he countenances their calumnies if he does not reprove them.

Efforts are made by the right honorable gentleman’s publicity officer to portray him as an Abraham Lincoln. I am not being unduly critical when I remind him, as kindly as possible, that Abraham Lincoln, who certainly was not a socialist, said that government of the people by the people, for the people, should not perish. The emphasis in that famous statement was upon the people. Lincoln had no thought of government of the people by the caucus for the Labour party to please Communists. But that is the sort of government that we have in Australia to-day ! The right honorable gentleman might well take to heart some of Abraham Lincoln’s maxims, which recently came to light when his son, upon his death, released many historic papers. I commend these samples to the Prime Minister in the hope that he may adopt a different attitude towards the Parliament -

Yon cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

The Prime Minister’s answer to the notable speech made by the Leader of the Opposition was more or less to say, in his characteristic way, “It’s all in the game “. That was not the sort of answer that the Prime Minister of a great country should have given. He should uphold the dignity and decorum of this Parliament. Instead, he has allowed the prestige of this institution to decline and be debased by many utterances that have fallen from the lips of members of his Government, including some of the very senior Ministers. Unfortunately, it seems useless to read homilies or to exhort the Prime Minister, who, incidentally, is not in the House at present, haying left only a handful of his followers to play the game and help to conduct the pro ceedings of the House as they should be conducted. Only an election can influence the right honorable member. We shall have a vital election soon. This Government has already taken us a long way along the road, of socialism without having a proper mandate to do so. If it achieves a mandate at the election, there will be a swift acceleration of ite pace and the people will soon learn their fate and will deserve it. The next election will, in fact, be a referendum on our liberty. The Parliament is in the twilight. In 1921, when the Labour party adopted the Marxist maxim about socialization, it also declared that it would approve of the establishment of a supreme economic council to replace this Parliament. That is the Soviet system. Yet it was adopted in principle by. the Labour party in this country, not by Russia or any of its satellite .states, and it is reaffirmed by the Labour party every year. The declaration was included in that infamous decision that the Australian Labour party made at Brisbane in 1921. Therefore, the sooner an election is held the better it will be for Australia. I say, in the words of Warwick to Plantagenet, in Shakespeare’s Henry VI. -

This blot, that they object against your house,

Shall be wip’d out in the next parliament.

Then the Socialist Government, misnamed Labour, will be removed from power, and in this Parliament we shall return to proper Government and decorum.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden

. -Having listened carefully to the remarks of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), I can find nothing in them which ought to be taken sufficiently seriously to warrant rebuttal. Surely this House has never witnessed a more ludicrous spectacle than has been seen during the two days of this debate, with members of the Opposition putting themselves forward as champions of the parliamentary system and defenders of its healthy working. The height of absurdity in that respect was reached -to-night when the honorable member - for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) who is Deputy Leader of the Opposition supported the motion deprecating personal and baseless attacks upon other people. He is the man who has wallowed in mud and mire from the very first day of his membership of the Parliament! He has regarded himself as a licensed retailer of every bit of irresponsible gossip, libel, and slander that he could find to put his tongue to. He has covered himself in mud and picked up handfuls of it to throw at anybody who has come within sight of him. Yet that honorable member asks to be taken seriously as an advocate of restrictions on personal attacks on other honorable members. How can an Opposition, in whose ranks 21 suspensions have occurred, seriously put itself forward as the champion of the parliamentary institution? Each of those suspensions was for disorderly conduct and refusal to obey Mr. Speaker, who represents the supremacy of the Parliament. There have been 21 suspensions of Opposition members because they have shown themselves unwilling to abide by the standards of parliamentary conduct.

In considering this motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) to deal with unreasonable and improper restriction of the rights of private members we have only to recall the first action of the right honorable gentleman when he became Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, which was to dispense with private members’ day. To make sure that is was not an accident, on the very next occasion of private members’ day he did so again. Now he puts himself forward seriously as the champion of the rights of private members. Although the honorable member for Wentworth complains about the pending application of the “ gag “ he was a Minister of a government which applied the “gag” to the Opposition as many as 30 times on one night, and an average of once every three days during the life of that Government. Yet he puts himself forward seriously as objecting to the “ gag “. Members of the Opposition have claimed to be horrified at statements regarding the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann). Although the Leader of the Opposition, may not have launched personal attacks he has sat silently by while his colleagues in the House week by week and month by month have launched most scurrilous attacks. He has not said one word by way of rebuke, and has been prepared to take every bit of political capital that may be gained by the launching of such personal attacks. Although Opposition members talk about the need for maintaining the rights of the Parliament and its members when they themselves were in office they restricted the sittings of the Parliament to an average of 50 days in a year. In my opinion no motion that has ever been put before this Parliament has been moved with such obvious hypocrisy as has the motion before the House. Although it is a four-pronged motion, there is only one reason why this House has for two days been debating this most futilemotion, when it could have been dealing with urgent and important legislation such as that to establish the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. That is the suspension of the Leader of the Opposition from the service of this House last Wednesday night. When an acorn fell on the poor bald pate of Chickenlicken she thought that the sky had fallen and made such a commotion that a farmyard deputation set off to report the terrible happening to the king. There appears to be an exact parallel between that nursery fable and the happenings of the last two days. Many honorable members have been suspended over the years and never has there been such a hullabaloo as on this occasion. Some honorable members have been suspended after they have been given every latitude, when ultimately they have exhausted Mr. Speaker’s patience. Others have been jumped on rather severely and have considered themselves sharply and unjustly treated, but all have managed to smile and take it on the chin and have not felt themselves bigger than the Parliament itself. They have not adopted the attitude, “ I will show you that you cannot do this to me”. When they thought that Mr. Speaker’s ruling was over-harsh or wrong, they have recognized that in life people get lots of lickings for things that they do not do, and have got on with the next business. But not so the present Leader of the Opposition. He has often seen his closest colleagues suspended from the services of the House. ite has seen his Australian

Country party and Liberal party supporters tumbled out one after the other for disorderly behaviour and he has not turned a hair. But when it happened to him then, indeed, the political sky had fallen. In fact the spoilt darling had received a slap in the place where it hurt most, and the end of the world had come. Majesty had been outraged. Anxious groups assembled in the lobbies, the joint Opposition executive was consulted and the matter was discussed by the Opposition parties in caucus assembled. Then the great censure motion was launched. What happened to the Leader of the Opposition is something that has happened to hundreds of members of Parliament in the history of federation and in the hundreds, of years of history of the British House of Commons. The whole thing smacks of the ridiculous. It is indeed making a mountain out of a molehill. It is a demonstration of an egotistical personal conceit which shows indeed that the holder of that conceit is totally unfitted for national leadership. It is true thai the right honorable gentleman is a brilliant man. There is nobody to deny that, and he certainly would not deny it himself! But brilliance is not everything. It does not of itself earn respect, confidence, loyalty or devoted service. To get these momentous happenings of the lust few days into perspective, let us consider what has happened. The Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) said things which the Leader of the Opposition found it hard to take. He interjected repeatedly, despite the warning of Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was suspended because he disobeyed that warning. I admit that he was a little bit unlucky. From time to time other honorable members have succeeded in getting away with more than he succeeded in getting away with, while other honorable members have been suspended for very much less than was the orrance in this instance. But there cannot be laid down any exact ruling in such matters. Mr. Speaker must be the judge, according to the atmosphere of the House. He knows whether he must maintain control at any particular time with a loose or tight rein. Even if the Leader of the Opposition considered himself severely treated he could not complain of unfair treatment, because he was suspended only after repeatedly interjecting and having been warned by Mr. Deputy Speaker of the consequences. It might have been expected in those circumstances that if he were a champion of the parliamentary institution, desiring to uphold the authority of Mr. Speaker, he would have accepted the penalty imposed upon him, just as hundreds of other members have been compelled to do, even when they thought themselves harshly or even unjustly treated. It might have been expected that he would emulate the example set by his predecessor, Sir Joseph Cook, the only other Leader of the Opposition to have been suspended from the service of this Parliament. Sir Joseph came back the next day, expressed his regret to Mr. Speaker, and took his place again in the House. It might have been expected that the Leader of the Opposition, as a champion of the parliamentary system, and as a man required to set an example to his followers, would adopt that course. Instead, however, the Leader of the Opposition has submitted a motion of censure, and, for two days, the House has debated matters entirely irrelevant to the real issue, which arises only from the hurt dignity of the right honorable gentleman.

I believe that many of the matter? which are mentioned in the motion of censure are worthy of the serious attention of honorable members, but the Opposition parties, when in office, completely disregarded the rights of private members. In the last two days, the Opposition has shown itself to be concerned with those rights only in so much as it can make party political capital out of them for electioneering purposes. From that point of view, it has done far more harm to the parliamentary institution than could possibly be achieved by bringing those matters to the attention of the House by means of a motion of censure. One cannot conceive a more hopeless way of obtaining a calm and reasoned examination of our Standing Orders than to make them the basis of a party political motion of censure against the government of the day. They are, in fact, matters for the calm consideration of a parliamentary committee. If members of the Opposition really had any regard for the institution of Parliament or for the highest standards of conduct in debate, they would have taken steps, when they were in office, to establish the rights of private members. Instead of doing so, they, as a government, took every step to injure those rights. To-night, I heard the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) predict what will happen if the Liberal party is returned at the next election. One thing that ought not to be allowed to happen, no matter what views one may hold of the abuse of privilege in this Parliament, is any diminution of the right of an honorable member to say what he will, whether he is ill-advised, or whether he uses badly the privileges that he has. Without privilege, there is, and can be, no parliament at all. What is necessary, perhaps, is that there should be consideration of some means of providing a remedy for those who feel themselves unjustly or wrongly attacked under privilege, but there should never be in a British parliament any suggestion that privilege itself should be curtailed. But the men who have launched this motion of censure against the Government on these spurious grounds are persons who, I believe, have no concern whatever for the parliamentary institution. I am convinced that, if ever again they succeed in obtaining the reins of government in this country they will say, “ Having warded off the threat to the financial institutions and the vested interests which we represent, we will take steps to ensure that the Labour party shall never again have the opportunity, by a democratic election, to achieve the government of the Commonwealth “. I sincerely believe that if, by any chance, the next election should place our political opponents in power, far from protecting or maintaining the rights of this Parliament, they will close this democratic institution, and Australia will never again see a free election.

Motion (by Mr. Scully) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 516), be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 33

Majority…… 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 589

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Defence - A. S. Storey.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Banking purposes - Rosebery, New South Wales.

Department of Civil Aviation purposes - Llanherne, Tasmania.

Department of the Interior purposes - Cloncurry, Queensland.

Postal purposes -

Belmont Park, Western Australia.

Bendigo, Victoria.

Rosebery, New South Wales.

Tumby Bay, South Australia.

House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.

page 589

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Commissions and Inquiries

Mr Lang:

g asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

Will he furnish particulars of (a) allowances paid to members of State judiciaries for inquiries or commissions carried out on behalf of the Commonwealth and (b) allowances paid to members of the Commonwealth judiciary for commissions conducted for international organizations or in connexion with government missions abroad?

Mr Holloway:
ALP

– The Acting AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following information : -

Members of the State judiciaries have from time to time been made available by the States to conduct inquiries on behalf of the Commonwealth for the pact 30 years or more. Members of the Commonwealth judiciary have likewise carried out commissions on behalf of the Commonwealth over a period of many years. If the honorable member furnishes particulars as to the specific inquiries in respect of which he seeks information, it will be supplied to him as soon us it can be obtained.

Acquisition of Buildings and Floor Space.

Mr.Fadden asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

How many buildings and how much floor space in buildings were acquired by the Commonwealth in Brisbane in 1947, 1948, and to the latest available date this year?

What is the location in each case?

What were the terms of acquisition ?

For what purpose are the buildings or floor space being used in each instance?

Is it proposed to acquire any further buildings?

If so, where are they situated and for what purpose are they required?

Mr Johnson:
ALP

n. - The answers to the right honorable gentleman’s questions are as follows: -

1. - Ozanam House, Gotha-street, Fortitude Valley. Acquired and under the compulsory provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act.
1906-1936 for postal purposes - engineering workshop area. Floor space 6,000 square feet. Continues to be tenanted by original tenant; anticipated tenure for further two years. 1948. - Property corner Barry-parade and Gotha-street, Fortitude Valley. Acquired under the compulsory provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 for postal purposes -engineering workshop area. Floor space 6,334 square feet. Continues to be occupied by original tenant who has been assured of showroom space for two years subject to vacation of balance of the area within three months. Coronation House, Edward-street, Brisbane. Acquired under the compulsory provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936 for Commonwealth offices (Department of Supply and Development). Floor space 29,723 square feet. Has been occupied by the Commonwealth for five and a half years. Two original tenants continue to occupy6,531 square feet. Space was found for all other tenants by direct negotiations by officers of my department. 1949. - Denhams Building, Roma-street, Brisbane. Acquired by agreement with owner, who is transferring his factory to other property at the end of July, 1949. Floor space 31,853 square feet. This property was acquired for postal purposes (Parcels Post Office). Property at corner of Adelaide and Wharf streets, Brisbane: - (a) “Adelaide House” acquired by agreement with owner (Brisbane City Council). Tenants of one residential and ten shops still in occupation. Total floor space 12,4(30 square feet. (6) Property in Wharf-street abutting Adelaide House. Acquired by agreement with owners (Ilco Proprietary Limited). Seven shops and one residential - total floor space 4,820 square feet - continue to be in occupation. The properties at the corner of Adelaide and Wharf streets have been acquired to permit of the erection of Commonwealth offices thereon (Federal Taxation Branch). The tenants will not be disturbed until the land is required for constructional purposes.
The compensation money payable in respect of the “ Coronation House “ property has not yet been agreed upon, but in all other cases an amicable agreement has been reached with the former owners. It is anticipated that it will be possible to reach an amicable agreement at an early date as to the amount of compensation money to be paid for “ Coronation House “.
Sec No. 1. 5 and G. It is not the usual practice of the Government to disclose proposals which may be in the initial stages only.

Postal Department: Opening of Registered Letter; Annual Report

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

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

At which post office, when, and by whom, was there posted a registered letter containing ionic £7,000 in - treasury notes?
To whom and to what post office was it addressed?
How long was it held before being sent to the Dead Letter Office?
What steps were taken to locate and identify the person who posted it and to whom it was addressed?
What amount of money was paid into Consolidated Revenue from this letter?
What were the denominations of tha notes and how many of each denomination did it contain?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information: -

The questions apparently refer to the case of an unregistered parcel regarding which the right honorable the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on the 30th November, 1948. It is considered undesirable to quote the actual name of the addressee as the information may give rise to some danger of later fraudulent claims in the matter. Subject to these reservations the answers to the questions asked by the honorable member are -

The article was posted as an unregistered parcel at the William-street Post Office, Sydney, in February, 1948.

It was addressed to a person at an institution in Brisbane, and was delivered to that address. The addressee was unknown at the address, and after retaining the article on trial for some time the authorities at the place of address returned it to the General Post Office, Brisbane.

It was held for approximately two months at the General Post Office, Brisbane, but as the addressee could not be identified or located, the parcel was returned to the General Post Office, Sydney, as undeliverable, in June, 1948.

The measures taken to locate the addressee include a search of current electoral rolls for the Commonwealth, inquiries through the appropriate foreign consul as the name suggested a particular foreign origin, inquiries through the Commonwealth Bank, Deputy Master of Lunacy for New South Wales, police authorities, &c. The parcel contained no information as to the identity of the sender, and in spite of much press publicity at the time no further information is yet available as to the sender.

The contents of the parcel (£0,910) were paid into Commonwealth miscellaneous revenue.

The amount of £6,910 was made up by 091 treasury notes of £10 each.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

l. - On the 3rd June, the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following question: -

When is an up-to-date report regarding the activities of the Postal Department likely to be available to this House and to the country. The latest available annual report of the Postmaster-General is for the year ended the 30th June, 1947?

The Postmaster-General has now supplied the following information : -

In reply to the right honorable gentleman’s question, the Postmaster-General has informed me that he expects that the report on the activities of his department for the financial year 1947-48 will shortly be ready for presentation to the House. The Minister has explained that it is very difficult to secure the early completion of a report and financial statements of a business of the size of the Post Office as it is necessary to obtain financial and business statistics from all over the Commonwealth. These must be co-ordinated and analysed before the data furnished in the report can be made available. The matter has also been complicated by the shortage of staff in the various State branches. I understand that the draft of the 1947-48 report ia now in the hands of the Government Printer, who has indicated that he will do everything possible to expedite the printing. However, under the present pressure of work in the Government Printing Office it is difficult to give any firm estimate of the date on which the Postmaster-General’s report will be available The Postmaster-General does not expect that the detailed report for 1048-49 will be available before the end of the present calendar vear.

Broadcasting: Assistance in Recruiting Campaign; Australian Broadcasting Commission News Service.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– On the 19th May last the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, this following question : -

Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral say whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission assists the service departments in their recruiting campaigns. If not, will the Minister request that the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Defence Department should give consideration to the advisability of utilizing the national broadcasting system to assist the recruitment of servicemen?

The Postmaster-General has now advised that the Australian Broadcasting Commission regularly assists the service departments in their recruiting campaigns.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

l. - On the 25th May the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following questions : -

Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral any whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission is completely reorganizing its independent news service following a report by Mr. W. T. Harris 7 - 2. Is Mr. Harris an experienced journalist or press executive or compentent to recommend such sweeping changes?
Will the control of the new service pass from one man to three men?
Has the Director of News been relegated to an administrative position at a Tower salary?
Is the officer who held the post nf Director of News for many years, the post having now been abolished, identical with the officer who gave evidence before the Broadcasting Committee in 1940 in favour of an independent news service?
Will the Minister request the Broadcasting Committee to inquire immediately into the re-organization of the news service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission with a view to ascertaining whether or not the former Director of News has been victimized?

The Postmaster-General has consulted the Australian Broadcasting Commission concerning the honorable member’s inquiry and the commission has supplied the following information : -

No sweeping changes have been made in connexion with the commission’s news service. In conformity with a recommendation of the Fitzgerald Committee, the commission decided on an investigation of certain aspects of the administration and control of the service and this was undertaken by Mr. W. T. Harris.
Mr. Harris is not a journalist. He is an investigating accountant, who was a member of the Fitzgerald Committee of Investigation appointed by the Government to inquire into’ the administrative and financial organization of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
No. But the functions of the three senior officers responsible for the news service have been more clearly defined.
No. Under the re-arrangements proposed, the former Director of News will occupy the position of Federal News Executive and he will suffer no financial loss from the change.
Yes.
The commission’s view is that the allocation of duties of its offices is essentially a matter of domestic administration. The right of the commission to determine what duties its officers, discharge is in its opinion, essential to the well-being of the organization. There is no question of victimization. The reallocation of duties waB unanimously agreed to by the commission after the fullest consideration.

In the circumstances, the PostmasterGeneral docs not feel that any useful purpose would be served by referring the matter to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting.

Commonwealth Wah Loans and Was Savings Certificates Organization

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Treasurer upon notice -

When was the Commonwealth loans and war savings certificates . organization established ?
What was (a) the total cost of the. organization and (6) the total staff employed in each financial year since that date?
What is the estimated cost for the current financial year?
What staff (a) permanent and (6) temporary are employed at the present time?
What are (a) the names, (6) occupations and (c) salaries of all employees in receipt of £300 a year or more, indicating who are temporary mid who are permanent public servants?
Were any reductions in staff -effected following the cessation of sales of savings certificates and stamps at the end of January last?
If so, what were they, and what financial saving has resulted?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

April, 1940.

£90,000.
(a) Five; (b) 100.

The limit of £300 would involve compiling a list of practically all the staff and this does not appear to be justified. The following officers are in receipt of £600 per annum or more: -

6 and 7. Staff reductions were made following the spring loan of 1048. These represented an annua] saving of about £7,000. No further reductions were made at the end of January because of the necessity to use the staff in connexion with the formation of national savings groups in conjunction with the various savings banks. The staffing of this organization is constantly under review.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490607_reps_18_202/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 7 June 1949

DR V. H. WEBSTER

Petition

MR. A. W. FADDEN”, M.P

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr FADDEN:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr FADDEN:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr SPENDER:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr SPENDER:

Mr Fraser:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr Fraser:

Mr Menzies:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr FADDEN:

HOUR OF MEETING

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr EDMONDS:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr McEWEN:INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

Mr DEDMAN:

Mr Fadden:

Mr DEDMAN:

Mr Fadden:

Mr DEDMAN:

Mr McEwen:

Mr Holt:

Mr McEwen:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr McEwen:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr DEDMAN:

Mr Bowden:

Mr DEDMAN:

Mr HOLT:

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MENZIES:Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr FALKINDER:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CONELAN:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:ALP

Mr White:

Mr CALWELL:

Mr Conelan:

Mr CALWELL:

QUESTION

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

Mr HAMILTON:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Pastoral Leases

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr JOHNSON:Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Blain:

Mr JOHNSON:

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

EGGS

Mr RYAN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr McEwen:

Mr POLLARD:

Mr Ryan:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

House of Representatives
7 June 1949

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · Corio · ALP

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehy

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP