House of Representatives
30 June 1949

18^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- COAL STRIKE
QUESTION
- COMMUNISM
QUESTION
- CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- ARMED FORCES
QUESTION
- POPULATION
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- SIGNOR MAMMALELLA
QUESTION
- HYDRAULIC FORGING PRESS
QUESTION
- EILDON RESERVOIR
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- CONTROL OF POWER AND MATERIALS
QUESTION
- BUTTER
QUESTION
- NAURU
QUESTION
- MARX HOUSE
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
PRINTING COMMITTEE
YELLOW FEVER
QUESTION
- DOLLAR DEFICITS
CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY (COAL STRIKE) BILL 1949
THE PARLIAMENT
- Broadcasting of Proceedings: Report of Committee
CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL 1949
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1949
- Second Reading
POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL 1949
- Second Reading
ASSENT TO BILLS
WHALING INDUSTRY BILL 1949
- Second Reading
PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS BILL (No. 2) 1949
- Second Reading
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1949
- Second Reading
GENOCIDE CONVENTION BILL 1949
- Second Reading
IMMIGRATION BILL 1949
- Second Reading
WAR-TIME REFUGEES REMOVAL BILL 1949
- Second Reading
SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC POWER BILL 1949
LIQUID FUEL (DEFENCE STOCKS) BILL 1949
ADJOURNMENT
- Friday, 1 July, 19^9
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Department of External Affairs

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. j. j. Clark) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

– I shall not give the honorable member any assurances on that point.

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Can the Prime Minister say how many of the miners who are employed on the coal-fields voted at the recent meetings that were held to discuss the present coal strike? Of those who voted, how many recorded votes in favour of the strike? Was the voting by a show of hands or by ballot? If it was by ballot, was the ballot secret or open?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Over 20,000 members of trade unions represented on the Combined Mining Unions Council were entitled to vote at the stop-work meetings that were held recently in the coal-fields. I understand from press reports that 8,000 men voted in favour of the strike and that 500 voted against it. The great majority of those who were eligible to vote did not in fact do so. I understand that the voting was by a show of hands and not by a secret ballot. It was as a result of that vote that the Combined Mining Unions Council, on which the miners’ federation and other trade unions are represented, made the decision to call a general strike in the coal-fields.

page 1803

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister gay what action the Government proposes to take to prevent the publication of the Communist organ Tribune and the Communist-controlled newspaper Common Cause, which, incidentally, is edited by Mr. Edgar Boss, the brother of Dr. Lloyd Boss, because both publications are inciting the coal-miners?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The Government has not considered suppressing any newspaper. I remind the honorable member that a great deal has been written lately about the necessity for preserving the freedom of the press.Whilst I do not read either of the publications mentioned by the honorable member, I know that they regularly criticize the present Government, as also does the newspaper which is published by the honorable member. I repeat that the Government does not propose to suppress any newspaper unless its contents are seditious or subversive. However, I shall ask the Attorney-General to have a look at the two newspapers mentioned by the honorable member in order to ascertain whether they come within that category.

page 1803

QUESTION

CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

” The Safety Whistle “ - Canberra Activities.

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

– Can the Treasurer inform me whether his department has contracted to purchase a song entitled The Safety Whistle in order to publicize the national savings campaign? If so, what did the song cost, and what was the cost of making orchestral recordings of it? How many other songs have been purchased by the Treasury? What are their names and what was the cost of making the recordings? Have those songs been recorded by the Canberra City Band, and is that band subsidized by the Prime Minister himself, who is its patron?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I do not know to what the honorable member’s first question relates. Subsidies are granted by the Treasury to promote the cultural development of communities, and it is correct that the Treasury subsidies the Canberra City Band. Since Canberra is the national capital, it is considered that the Government should play some part in promoting its cultural development.

Mr Francis:

– To what degree?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Government subsidizes the Canberra City Band by from £700 to £750 a year to defray the salary of the bandmaster and certain minor expenses. A small additional payment is also made by the Government In addition, the Government defrayed the capital cost of establishing the band by purchasing the necessary instruments Following representations by the citizens of Canberra, a special committee was appointed by the Government to ascertain the increasing cultural requirements of Canberra, and the Government has agreed to make available £2,000 a year to encourage various cultural activities, such as the production of orchestral works and plays by repertory societies. SirRobert Garran is chairman of that committee, and he submits recommendations for the expenditure of the money. I shall let the honorable member have a written statement about the matters that he has raised, including the matter of The Safety Whistle.

page 1803

QUESTION

QUESTION

SIGNOR MAMMALELLA

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral say whether it is a fact, as reported in the press some days ago, that

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– On Tuesday I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel whether he would Ascertain what action had been taken to fettle- the waterfront dispute at the Queensland port of Mackay, where the Port Committee had suspended all members of the local branch of the Waterside Workers Federation. I ask the Minister now whether he has had an opportunity to confer with the Minister for Shipping and Fuel on this matter, and if so, whether he lias any further information about the dispute.

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– After the honorable member asked his question on Tuesday, I consulted the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and, on the following day, he was able to inform me that, as the result of the good work that had been done - and I include the activities of my colleague - the dispute had been settled and work had been resumed at the port by 10 o’clock that day.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Labour and National Service. At Launceston, 250 waterside workers have been on strike for three weeks because of the refusal of the board of reference to grant them 9d. an hour extra for unloading coal from Kekerangu. The board recommended an extra l£d. an hour, hut the nien would not accept it, and walked off the ship. In view of the fact that all ships in the port are idle as a result of the dispute, and that perishable cargo remains unloaded, and in view of the fact that all efforts to settle the dispute have failed, will the Minister consider arranging for a conciliation commissioner to meet the parties in Launceston at an early date?

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

– The responsibility for settling disputes associated with waterfront employment throughout Australia rested upon the Stevedoring Industry Commission which is now inoperative and upon the port committees. The port committees still operate, therefor* I doubt whether a commissioner could b» sent to intervene in that dispute. However, if a commissioner could be of any use, I am certain that the Chief Judge of th». Arbitration Court would make oneavailable. I shall discuss the matter with the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and ascertain whether we can help in any way to resolve the dispute.

page 1806

QUESTION

CONTROL OF POWER AND MATERIALS

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Government any control over the allocation of power to essential industries during tha national emergency? If so, will the Prime Minister ensure a high priority for power and materials used by the manufacturers of kerosene cooking appliances?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The Commonwealth has no control over the allocation of power and materials. I have, however, made frequent representations to State Premiers regarding such matters, and sometimes, with the consent of the Premiers, to other Ministers who control the commodities in question. We are keeping in touch with the Government of New South Wales, and with other government* when necessary. I shall make inquiries about the specific matters mentioned by the honorable member.

page 1806

QUESTION

BUTTER

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether the Joint Dairy Industry Advisory Committee, which, for a considerable time has been investigating the cost of producing butter, has recommended that the price of butter be increased by 2d. or 3d. per lb.? Ha» that recommendation reached the Minister, and if so, when will it be put into effect ?

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

– A recommendation from the Joint Dairy Industry Advisory Committee has reached me. Action has been taken, and a message has been sent to the various State governments regarding the matter. The honorable member knows that, because of the defeat of the Government’s referendum proposal on prices, the States now control prices.

– As Chairman, I present the second report of the Printing Committee.

Report read by the Clerk, and - by leave - adopted.

page 1807

YELLOW FEVER

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Moreton referred to the possibility of an outbreak of yellow fever in Australia, and asked whether the Department of Health knew of the existence in Australia of the stegonuya fascial a mosquito, which is known to carry yellow fever. I promised to discuss the matter with the Minister for Health and to obtain for the honorable member all the information that is available. It is true that certain types of mosquitoes which are known to be dangerous carriers of yellow fever are prevalent in certain districts in Australia, principally in the north-west of Western Australia and in Queensland extending down to the border of New South Wales. There has not been a case of yellow fever in Australia since 1890, when a member of the crew of a vessel which was era route to Brazil was found to be suffering from the disease. That was an isolated case. The only two known sources of yellow fever are West Africa and South America. No trace of the disease exists in Australia. . The health authorities are fully aware of the danger of the introduction of yellow fever and they are taking all possible precautions to guard against the possibility of its importation into this country. The mosquito is quite harmless unless the disease is imported into Australia so that it can play upon it. It Lj widely recognized that the Australian and Queensland Government health authorities have some of the best tropical disease experts in the world. They have kept Australia clear of yellow fever in the past, and intend to keep it clear in the future.

– In that event we were foolish to put the money in.

page 1808

CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) asked me last Tuesday whether a conference of Prime Ministers of the British Commonwealth was being summoned to meet in London to discuss currency and exchange problems. The British Government to-day issued the following statement in London: -

The dollar situation, which is engaging the close attention of the British Government ia one that affects the Governments of all Commonwealth countries. In accordance with the practice of consultation between members of the Commonwealth on matters of common concern, the British Government has thought it right to suggest to the other governments that Finance Ministers should meet at London for discussions towards the middle of next month. Correspondence is still proceeding, and a further announcement will be made when arrangements have been completed.

The position in regard to dollar deficits has deteriorated. The deterioration is not due to the over-importation of goods from dollar areas, but to the inability of Great Britain and the Dominions to earn by the export of commodities the same amount of hard currency as they earned previously. That remark applies to a number of commodities, one of them being Australian wool sold in the United States of America. Australia will be represented at this conference. If it is possible for me to attend it, I shall do so. If I cannot attend, arrangements will be made for the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction to attend in my place.

Mr Abbott:

– Will the House be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before the Australian representative leaves this country?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The international affairs debate will be resumed next week. The matter may be discussed then.

page 1809

NATIONAL EMERGENCY (COAL STRIKE) BILL 1949

Assent reported.

page 1809

THE PARLIAMENT

Broadcasting of Proceedings: Report of Committee

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

– I present the fourth report of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee which reads as follows : -

The Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings submits the Fourth Report for presentation to each House of the Parliament and recommends its adoption.

The Joint Committee has further considered the general principles upon which there should be determined the days upon which and the periods during which the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast, which were specified in the First, Second and Third Reports adopted by both Houses on 5th and 17th July, and 15th November, 1 946, respectively. In accordance with section 12 (1.) of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, the Joint Committee has now resolved that paragraph (4) of the general principles should be amended by the addition of two subparagraphs. Paragraph (4) at present reads as follows: - “ (4) Re-broadcast of questions and answers. - Within the limits of time available, the following Parliamentary proceedings shall be re-broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission between 7.20 p.m. and 7.55 p.m. on each sitting day: -

Senate proceedings - Questions without notice and on notice and answers thereto;

House of Representatives proceedings - Questions without notice and answers thereto.”.

The sub-paragraphs to be added are - “ (b) When a member makes a personal explanation in rebuttal of misrepresentation contained in a question asked that day or an answer thereto, the question and answer shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-paragraph, be excluded from the re-broadcast.

The Presiding Officer may, in his discretion, refer any case to the Joint Committee for decision as to whether such question and answer shall be excluded from the rebroadcast.”. gordon brown, Vice-Chairman. 29th June, 1949.

Honorable members are aware that, under the terms of paragraph 4 of the general principles, only questions and answers have been included in the re-broadcast which is made at 7.20 p.m. on each sitting day.From time to time honorable members have raised the question of rebroadcasting personal explanations made in rebuttal of alleged misrepresentation contained in questions or answers included in the re-broadcast, and the matter has now been reconsidered by the committee.

The effect of the recommendation now submitted to the Parliament for adoption would be that whilst the re-broadcast will continue to be limited to questions and answers, and personal explanations, points of order, &c., will be excluded, any question and answer which give rise to a personal explanation would be excluded from the re-broadcast. It is provided that the presiding officer may, in his discretion, refer any such case to the committee for decision.

It is not contemplated that there shall be any departure from the present practice under which personal explanations are deferred until the end of the 35 minutes question re-broadcast period, and honorable members are requested to continue to observe this procedure. In addition, and for reasons connected with the technical operation of the re-broadcast, it will be of considerable assistance if an honorable member who proposes to make i personal explanation will do so immediately at the conclusion of the period of 35 minutes referred to and will give ;he Chair prior notification of his intention.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) - by leave - agreed to -

That the report be adopted.

page 1810

CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL 1949

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an et to amend the Census and Statistics Act

1005-1946.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Post-war Recon.struction · Corio · ALP

, - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill is designed to simplify procedure in the gazettal of forms for the collection of statistics and to make completely watertight the existing provisions requiring the observance of secrecy about the contents of individual returns furnished to the Statistician for purposes of census and statistics. As the act stands at present, section 17 requires that all forms except those relating to “ factories, mines and productive industries generally “ shall be prescribed by regulation and such regulation shall be notified in the Commonwealth Gazette. This procedure involves long delay and is proving so unwieldy as to render it very difficult to make changes in statistical forms necesary to meet changing circumstances. The Statistician, the Government Printer and the legal draftsmen all desire relief from a great deal of unnecessary work involved in this regard. Moreover, the effect of the present section is to require that the Minister shall personally sign each of numerous forms each year in order to indicate his approval of them. Successive Treasurers have found it almost impracticable to comply with this requirement on all occasions in the past. Under the tedious and difficult process of defining by regulation exactly which persons are required to complete each particular return, it is becoming well nigh impossible to arrive at specific verbal definition of persons coming within the scope of certain of th» activities for which statistics are required.

The amendment proposed to section 17 does not change its substance. It will however, eliminate the considerable volume of work involved in prescribing, signing by the Treasurer, printing ana gazetting statistical forms every time any amendment, however small, is made to a prescribed form. The amendment will provide a more effective working arrange ment by placing upon the Statistician the onus of compiling lists of person* required to complete returns and ensure that each relevant person will be individually made aware by the Statistician of his liability to furnish a return. Thi* procedure is considered to be more effective than the mere publication of a notice in the Gazette. A firmer control by the Treasurer has been provided by an added subsection that a prosecution without the consent of the Minister shall not be instituted for failure to supply return* under this section. The proposed amendment is urgent at this stage in order to facilitate arrangements whereby the Commonwealth may collect certain statistic* for both State and Commonwealth purposes. One immediate result will be that in Victoria only one quarterly statistical return will be required from builder* instead of two. The Victorian Builder* and Allied Trades Association has asked for this and the Victorian Minister for Housing has agreed to one joint return, being used for both Commonwealth and State purposes.

The amendment to section 24 is necessary to make it perfectly clear that the aci: gives an absolute guarantee that all information collected for statistical purposeswill be used for those purposes only and. will not be divulged for any other purpose Previously this principle could have been, impaired by regulation and possibly bydirection of the Minister under section 20.. The proposed amendment of section 20,. which is complementary to that of section 24, means that the Statistician cannot be directed to publish statistics in such a way as to divulge particulars of individual returns.

Taken together, these amendments have two effects. They ensure that the secrecy attaching to individual statistical returns cannot be violated by regulation or by administrative action and they enable the Statistician to obtain information voluntarily from individuals for statistical purposes under statutory guarantee that it will not be divulged. Hitherto the Statistician has relied upon administrative action to ensure that his promises would be honoured when collecting confidential information. These provisions will give the clearest statutory authority for what has always been regarded by successive Ministers and statisticians alike as the unwritten and inviolable law concerning the privacy of information, about individual persons and individual businesses, obtained for statistical purposes by the Statistician. With the proposed amendments, the act will be in conformity with the policy followed in practice by all governments in the past. This is considered to be fundamental to the collection of reliable and complete statistics. These amendments do not place any restriction or limitation upon the Statistician in compiling and publishing statistics for general information. His position in that respect remains as it always has been. Government policy is to facilitate the fullest possible publication of statistics.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 1811

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1949

Second Reading

Dr. EVATT (Barton - Attorney-

General and Minister for External Affairs) [11.32].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House has received this bill from the Senate. The measure makes provision for the prevention of irregularities in connexion with the elections for office in organizations registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and vests in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration additional powers for the prevention of such irregu larities. The purpose of the bill is to ensure, as far as possible, that elections of officers of organizations registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act shall take place, and express the will of those who are entitled to vote in accordance with the rules of those organizations. The fact is that the vast majority of elections in registered organizations and unions have been fairly and carefully conducted, but recently, trade union leaders and members of the rank and file of the trade union movement have been disturbed by evidence of improper practice and irregularities in elections in some unions.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– That evidence has been derived from cases that have been considered by the courts, particularly is Victoria, and from one or two cases in New South Wales. Those irregularities have undoubtedly been brought about in some cases, by minorities in an effort to secure the election of officials to represent their views rather than the views of the vast majority of members. The trade union movement itself has supported the proposal to pass this legislation. The Australian Council of Trades Unions, which represents the opinion of the majority of organized workers in this country, has approved of the principles of this bill.

I come now to the provisions of this legislation. First, the bill provides machinery for investigation by the judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court of elections and of irregularities in connexion with those elections. The court is given power to rectify any vital irregularities, to order the holding of new elections or to take other appropriate measures. The procedure which is indicated in the bill is that the court will act only when the Industrial Registrar, after a preliminary examination, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for such an inquiry by the court. Secondly, the bill includes a provision permitting as organization, of its own free will, to have an election conducted under the authority of the Registrar of the Court That provision is most important. There may be cases in which that would be appropriate, and in such cases, if an election is so conducted, it would not .be subject to challenge in the court.

Mr Fadden:

– That is, if the election is conducted at the request of the organization ?

Dr EVATT:

– -Yes. In that case, there would be an assurance that the election had been properly conducted. Thirdly, the bill prohibits, with very substantial penalties specified, malpractices in connexion with elections. There are two or three other provisions of importance, and one matter of detail in relation to legal costs in connexion with proceedings under the act. The bill not only provides for payment by the Commonwealth in appropriate cases of the cost of an applicant who may be a member of a trade union or registered organization, or who has been such a member within the preceding twelve mouths, but also permits the court to order the payment of his costs. The bill also empowers the court to order the Government to pay the costs of an applicant who has not succeeded, but whose application is, in the opinion of the court, reasonable. It also permits the payment of legal costs of other organizations and persons who have been put to expense which it is not reasonable for them to have to bear. Furthermore, when the court orders a new ballot to be taken the Commonwealth may bear the expense of conducting the new elections, and in any proceedings connected with the matter the Commonwealth may be represented by the Attorney-General or by other counsel. Those are the main provisions of the bill, and they raise important principles.

Objections have been raised to the bill in certain quarters, and I have no doubt that many honorable members have received a spate of telegrams from certain groups which object to the measure on the ground that it interferes with the right of members of trade unions to conduct their own elections. Of course, the bill does nothing of the kind. When one reviews the history of parliamentary elections, one realizes how baseless such a suggestion is. In fact, it is rather useful to consider the history of parliamentary elections in relation to the development of the trade union movement and the evolution of modern trade unions. Let me refer for a moment to the trade unions themselves. A little more than 100 years ago the existence of a trade union was regarded by the courts as constituting almost a conspiracy, and the “ anticombination “ acts that were passed in England in 1824 and 1825 indicate the determination of the authorities to prevent the growth of trade unions. Some ten or fifteen years later, an attempt was made by agricultural workers to form a trade union, but the whole engine of the law was employed to suppress it and punish those who were daring enough to endeavour to form trade unions to improve their conditions. The persistent efforts of the agricultural workers culminated in the Tolpuddle case, when the “ Dorchester martyrs “ were convicted. A few decades later legislation was passed to legalize trade unions. Later still, their importance in the life of the community became recognized, and the history of the development of trade unionism in Great Britain has been substantially duplicated by the development of that movement in Australia. An important factor in the growth of trade unions in this country i» the legislation passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, which has made laws to establish conciliation and arbitration tribunals for the settlement and prevention of industrial disputes. Early in the history of the Australian Parliament, legislation was passed to provide for the registration of trade unions to enable the representatives of those unions to speak for all their members. That legislation also provided for collective bargaining between the unions and the employers, and it has contributed largely to the development of the trade union movement in this country. To-day the trade union movement, which embraces practically all those engaged in recognized callings or industries, is extremely powerful; indeed, in some respects, it is at powerful as the organized community itself. Parallel with that development, employers have evolved into the modern corporation or groups of corporations. On the one hand, we have the organized community, which elects its legislative representatives at parliamentary elections, and, on the other hand, we have the corporation and the trade union. Those organisms are inter-related’, so that the modern trade union bears the stamp of public interest and concern - something which we never recognized 50, or even twenty, years ago.

In Australia we enjoy, except for the present crisis in the coal industry, full employment. Gradually the people are coming to understand that their progress and welfare are bound up with the welfare of each other. The trade unions are bound up with the state, and the powerful corporations of employers are also organized for the benefit of their shareholders. The brief summary which I have given of the evolution of the modern trade unions brings us to a consideration of the democratic control of those great organizations. For comparison we review the history of parliamentary elections. It is only in comparatively modern times that the secret ballot was introduced into parliamentary elections. Indeed, in many countries to-day it is known as the “Australian ballot”. That system was devised in Australia, not because people were ashamed of their vote, but because they were entitled to exercise their vote without being subject to control or pressure, or intimidation, which was proved to exist under the system of parliamentary representation which obtained in England for so many years. From thatwe got the ballot, and the right of the courts to set aside disputed elections where there had been irregularities. In both instances, we have an analogy to the system which the Government now (proposes to introduce for the election of union officials.

I put the bill before the House as an indication that proper control of the affairs of a trade union by its members - not by any individual or body which is not a member, but by all its members - has become essential, not only to the trade union movement, but also to the entire community. That principle may lead in future to other suggestions being made for the development of the trade union movement in the democratic structure of to-day. This bill is an important step forward because it recognizes that the proper conduct of ballots for the election of union officials is a matter of vital public concern. Under present law the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has general authority con cerning the acceptance of the rules of a trade union, but the bill proposes to take a further step to extend the jurisdiction of the court to empower it to entertain an application by any member of a union, or an individual who has been such a member within the preceding twelve months, for the court to supervise an election where it is suspected that irregularities or improper practices have occurred. The courts are given wide powers to deal with the election, and wide sanctions are provided for offences. There is, as I have said, an analogy between the conduct of elections in a registered trade union and those of the National Parliament. We put this bill forward as a step that has been approved by the trade union movement, which has gradually come to appreciate that trade union elections are entering a sphere which is as important to the well-being of the community as are elections for the Commonwealth or a State parliament.

Debate (on motion byMr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 1813

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th June (vide page 1749), on motion by Mr. Calwell -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Fadden had moved, by way of amendment -

That all words after “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ the bill be referred to a select committee of this House appointed to inquire into and report upon the deterioration in the finances of the Postmaster-General’s Department which has resulted in the imposition of these heavy increases in charges at a time when revenue from other sources is at a record high level.”

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

– in reply - Idesire to reply to the ersatz arguments of honorable gentlemen opposite in criticism of the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill. To the motion for the second reading of the bill, the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fad den) has moved an amendment, the effect of which would be to delay further consideration and passage of the bill until it had been considered by a select committee of the Souse and a report had been made by it upon the alleged deterioration of the finances of the Postmaster-General’s Department at a time when, the right honorable gentleman claims, the revenue from other sources is at a record high level. It is not constitutionally possible for the Government to accumulate in a special fund the profits made by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Section 81 of the Constitution provides -

All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

– That is not so.

Mr CALWELL:

– Oh, yes it is! A government made up of people like the honorable gentleman sold the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers to private enterprise. It sold or gave away a lot of other government enterprises. At a recent conference of the federal executive of the Liberal party of Australia in

– Very close when allowance is made for the extra expense of two £12 cost-of-living adjustments. Obviously the Treasurer cannot estimate the degree to which the cost of living will rise, if at all. However, as I have said, allowing for that necessary provision, the expenditure has been very close to th* estimate.

The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) talked about a change in the finances of the Postal Department from a substantial surplus in 1946-47, to a loss this year. I explained’ in my second-reading speech that labour costs had risen considerably since 1947. A total of £7,000,000 ha* been added to the annual wages hill by wage determinations.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The point is that the present Opposition parties were able to record a surplus in the depression years, whereas Labour has produced a deficit in a boom period.

Mr CALWELL:

– I agree that the present Opposition parties recorded a Postal Department surplus in the depression years. They did that by sacking as many postal employees as they could. That is one way to produce a surplus, but this Government does not propose to follow that bad example. Do honorable members opposite not favour wage increases? Do they want the Government to ignore the decisions of wage-fixing tribunals? They have been telling the miners to obey the decisions of their own tribunals; but now they are complaining about other tribunals, established under the same Commonwealth authority, giving to postal employees increased wages, which have resulted’ naturally in a change in the financial position of the Postal Department. There has been a further £7,000,000 increase of the annual costs of the department owing to the employment of additional staff required for development work, improvements in mail services and payments to non-official postmasters, and increased costs of materials required for maintenance work. All honorable members of this House, Government and Opposition alike, continually make representations for improved mail services. They ask also for increased payments to non-official postmasters and for further developmental work. To meet those requests, obviously additional staff is required. I do not object to the requests, and they are met wherever possible.

Mr Falstein:

– The Opposition is asking now that all first-class mail be carried by air.

Mr CALWELL:

– It is true, and if material deliveries are good the number will be exceeded. The honorable member for Wimmera asked how many rural automatic exchanges had been provided in Victoria. What he wanted to know, of course, was how many had been installed by this great socialist enterprise in the electorate of Wimmera. In the last two years alone, eight rural automatic exchanges have been constructed in Victoria, yet the programme is only just getting under way. [Extension of time granted.] I thank the House for its courtesy, but I think that I am entitled to answer the arguments that have been advanced and state the facts to the people.

The honorable member for Wentworth referred to the services that are rendered by the Postal Department on behalf of other authorities. The Leader of the Australian Country party also raised the same issue. The burden of their argument was that the Postal Department was not being compensated adequately for its work for other departments. The position is that, in its commercial profit and loss statements, the Postal Department is given full credit for work that it performs for other departments. In arriving at the estimated deficits that have been quoted, appropriate credits have been made in the department’s accounts for special services.

Mr Fadden:

– What about the Treasurer’s statement?

Mr CALWELL:

Mr Fadden:

– That is not true. I said that investigations should be undertaken to ensure that there shall be no over-staffing. That is quite a different thing.

Mr CALWELL:

– As I have said the staff of the department, exeluding mail contractors and n on.official postmasters, has grown from 34,785 in 1039 to 65,032, including thousands of men engaged on the vastly expanded works programme, in 1949 - an increase of approximately S6 per cent. Postal business, however, has also increased very greatly. For example, the annual turnover rose from £.186,000.000 in 1939 to almost £400,000,000 in 1949, an increase of 115 per cent. That rise constitutes at least a prima facie case for a much greater increase in staff. There is no doubt that staffing is on a sound footing in the department. Scientific bases are used for determining when increases are justified and for relating staff to work volume. Every proposed increase is thoroughly examined, not only by the department, but also by the Public Service Board. No industry or undertaking is, I venture to say, staffed on a more economical basis than is the Postal Department.

The honorable member for Swan referred to telephones installed for the use of starting-price bookmakers. He instanced a case where seventeen telephones are at present being used for starting-price purposes, and aid that the department is unable to withdraw them. The department has no legal power to withdraw such telephone services unless a conviction is secured by the police for a breach of the State gaming laws.

Mr Hamilton:

– I mentioned that point in my speech.

Mr CALWELL:

– T emphasize that point now for the purposes of the record. The department is co-operating to the utmost possible degree with the police authorities in their efforts to stamp outillegal betting. If convictions are obtained, telephones are withdrawn.

Mr Hamilton:

– Only from those occupying registered premises. ‘

Mr CALWELL:

– The Leader of the Australian Country party has said that the wireless branch showed a surplus when a previous Government was in control. It is easy to show a surplus when revenue from licence-fees is collected but little is done to develop and expand the broadcasting facilities. The Labour Government has not followed that course. It is extending the broadcasting services in a practical way, with the result that listeners generally now receive a much better deal than they did under previous governments. I am unable to furnish full details of the programme but it includes the provision of additional stations, particularly of regional stations. The programme will be carried out as soon as labour and materials become available. It is expected that the programme will be completed in the course of a year or so.

Finally, I wish to deal with the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Australian Country party. There is no warrant for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon the Postal Department. The facts are clear and unmistakable. The department is soundly organized and its operations are controlled by men of ability, integrity and great experience, who are supported by a loyal staff imbued with a high spirit of service. Its tariffs, even with the increases now proposed, compare favorably with those of other countries with dense populations which have adequate supplies of materials at their doors and are not faced with the problem of serving a sparse population- over an area of more than 3,000,000 square miles. Therefore,- the Government rejects the amendment.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. Fadden’s amendment) stand part of tha question.

The House divided. (Mk. Deputy Speaker - Mr. j. j. Clark.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 12.53 to 2.11 p.m.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (First Schedule).

Mr. FRANCIS (Moreton) [2.161.-I have indicated by my vote that I am opposed to the proposed increases. However, as the Government insists on proceeding with this measure I ask that out of the increased revenue of £6,000,000 that will be obtained, additional emoluments shall be paid to non-official postmasters, who are doing an extraordinarily good job of work. I hope that the Minister representing the Postmaster-General (Mr. Calwell) will bring this suggestion to the notice of the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) as soon as possible. The non-official postmasters perform many duties beyond what they have to do on their own account. They are not adequately remunerated at present. I know many of the senior officers of the Postal Department, and I have a great regard for their judgment. If the value of their work had been fully appraised in the past the PostalDepartment would not now be facing a deficit of £12,000,000.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - Strictly speaking, the honorable gentleman is out of order on this call.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I am happy to have had an opportunity to place my views on this matter before the committee.

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

– In raising the matter of the remuneration of non-official postmasters the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) has gone as far as he feels it safe to go.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- The Chair has ruled that aspect out of order.

Mr CALWELL:

– The increases of charges provided for in this legislation are due, as has already been announced, to cost-of-living increases and the introduction of the 40-hour week. For some reason or other that I cannot understand the honorable member for Moreton has been singularly silent for some time. If he would face the facts he would realize that the increased charges set out in the First Schedule are due to the increased cost of providing postal services to the general public. Additional staff has had to be employed to provide the magnificent service that the Postal Department is giving, and will continue to give in an ever-increasing degree to the people of Australia. The honorable gentleman has emphasized that he voted against the bill. What he is really saying is that he has voted against the increased wages which tribunals have awarded, and also against the 40-hour week.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Second Schedule).

Mr. TURNBULL (Wimmera) [2.181. - In proposed new Part I. the increase of the rates for ordinary telegrams from the 1st July are set out. On an average, nineteen words are contained in telegrams in Australia, although in the country districts the average would be approximately fourteen words. Many large words are used in telegrams that originate in the metropolitan areas.

Mr Beale:

– Does the honorable member suggest that people in Sydney are more long-winded than those in Melbourne?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Yes, and in Canberra, also. The average number of words contained in telegrams lodged at country post offices is usually fourteen because the countryman has to study economy. I object to the increases of telegram rates. It is also provided that double ordinary rates shall be charged for the transmission of urgent telegrams. That means that the charge for an urgent telegram lodged at a post office for transmission to a destination more than L5 miles away shall be 3s. and an additional 2d. for each word beyond fourteen words. That is entirely unjust because urgent telegrams are only sent when urgent messages have to be communicated. If it is necessary to increase the rate for urgent telegrams I consider that 2s. would be an adequate charge; that would be 6d. more than the ordinary rate. Let us consider why people send urgent telegrams. They are usually sent by people to advise the death of close relatives or friends; they may be sent by a person who wishes to obtain the services of a doctor urgently, and to whom a telephone is not available; or they may be sent by a farmer who wishes to communicate urgently with a veterinary surgeon. Urgent telegrams are also sent by people who are travelling through the country districts and wish to book hotel accommodation; they are also sent to advise of probable time of arrival at a railway station, so that the traveller may be met by friends, when there is no other means available for sending a message. Why should the Postal Department take advantage of people who use the urgent telegram service? When I was at Macarthur in the Wannon electoral division some time ago a gentleman there asked me to send a telegram to a veterinary surgeon with relation to sickness in his cattle. I should like the Minister to explain why there is such a large increase in the rate to be charged for urgent telegrams, and why a charge of 2s. would not be adequate. I consider that the Government should assist people who are forced to rely on the urgent telegram service because of circumstances beyond their control. There is no reason why those people should be selected as a special target by the Postmaster-General.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- Some time ago consideration was given to the matter of treating the name of a State, containing more than one word, as one word for the purpose of counting the fourteen words in a telegram. Prior to that, New South Wales was regarded as three words, whereas “Victoria and Tasmania were only one word.

Mr Thompson:

– Multiple words in the names of States only count as one word for telegraphic purposes.

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.- On behalf of Western Australia, I protest against the proposed increased charges for telegrams.

Mr Edmonds:

– I assume that the honorable gentleman is making his protest on behalf of the people who live in the portion of Western Australia that he represents.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I represent 47 per cent, of the electors of Western Australia. I protest against the proposal to increase the cost of telegrams, and I do so because of the effect that the increases will have on Western Australia generally. Western Australia is not as industrialized as are some of the eastern States. If a person wants, say, a bicycle tyre or inner tube for his child, he orders it from the local storekeeper, who wires to Perth for it. If the article is not available in Perth, the merchant there wires to the east and has it sent to Western Australia by air, and the cost of the article is accordingly increased. As most of the business in Western Australia is done along those lines, I protest against the proposal to increase telegraph charges. Incidentally, telephone charges are also to be increased, so the people of Western Australia will be caught both ways. While I am on my feet, I ask the Minister to inform the committee of the meaning of the words “ Other telegrams, accepted for transmission subject to the prescribed conditions “, in sub-clause 2.

In conclusion, I warn the Minister that it will be useless for him to say now, as. he said during the second-reading debate,, that, honorable members on this side of the House are opposed to the 40-hour week and increases of wages and to circulate that story in preparation for the forthcoming general election.

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

F2.281. - I assure the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) that persons in New South Wales who send telegrams from places within the State to other places within the State are not treated differently from persons in Victoria who send telegrams to each other about sick cows or other important matters. The words “ New South Wales “ are charged for at the same rate as the one word “ Victoria “. Therefore, there is no need for any one to believe that there is a differentiation between the States.

Mr Thompson:

– “ Port. Adelaide “ counts as one word.

Mr CALWELL:

– That is so. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr, Thompson) has suggested, the Postal Department exercises a great deal of tolerance and common sense in calculating charges for telegrams.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1830

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Social ServicesConsolidation Bill 1949.

States Grants Bill 1949.

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1949-50.

Supply (Works and Services) Bill (No.1) 1949-50.

page 1830

WHALING INDUSTRY BILL 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 20th May (vide page 132), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– This bill, according to its title, provides for the establishment of an Australian Whaling Commission, but, in fact, it provides for a committee composed of three members, of whom the chairman will be appointed for a period of five years on his first appointment and, thereafter, for a specified period, whilst the other two members will be appointed to hold office at the pleasure of the Governor-General. The functions of the commission are set out in clause 15 and its powers are set out in clause 16. Clause 15 reads -

Subject to this Act, the functions of the Commission shall be -

to engage in whaling in Australian waters ; and

as an aid to the economic and stable operation of its whaling activities in Australian waters, to employ, in whaling in the vicinity of any Australian waters, vessels not required for the time being for whaling in Australian waters.

On the 2nd December, 1 946, at Washington, a protocol was signed for the regulation of whaling for the 1947-48 season. The countries which subscribed to that protocol were Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chili, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa. I shall review briefly the history of the legislation which has led to the introduction of this measure. In 1935, the Lyons Government introduced a measure which was assented to on the 9th December of that year. That measure gave legislative effect to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed at Geneva on the 24th September, 1931. On the 17th November, 1948, the present Government introduced a bill to amend the act passed in 1935 in order to conform to the decisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed at Washington. The main amendments of that measure dealt with definitions of whales for various purposes. On the 20th May last the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) introduced a hill to provide for the establishment of the industry. That measure provided for the appointment of a commission to carry on whaling activities. It is proposed that the commission shall consist of three members who shall be empowered to carry out whaling operations in Australian waters and, where necessary, to employ vessels not required for the time being for whaling in Australian waters in whaling in the vicinity of Australian waters. The Government proposes to erect and operate a shore station which it hopes will be in operation by June, 1950. It does not intend to consider whaling in Antarctic waters until a later date by which time it will have had an opportunity to conduct inquiries overseas. The last serious attempts to establish the industry in Australia were made in the 1936 and 1937 seasons when two factory ships operating off the Western Australian coast captured over 6,000 whales. In 1942, when there was a lack of whale oil in Australia, the Government directed the Department of Munitions to examine the possibility of establishing a small 3hore station at Twofold Bay, New South Wales. Departmental officers, in collaboration with State officials, representatives of the firm of Nicholas Proprietary Limited, and the Pera no brothers, directors of a whaling organization in Cook Strait, New Zealand, prepared plans for a station near Eden. Preparations were well advanced. At that stage an overseas offer was made to supply the oil and the Government accepted it and the Eden project was abandoned. However, after the failure of the Eden project, a syndicate of Australian business men approached the Department of War Organization of Industry with a proposal involving the expenditure of approximately £1,000,000 to acquire a floating factory and all necessary equipment for the capture of whales and the processing and marketing of whale oil and by-products. The Government did nothing in the matter and the syndicate, finding that its plans had been frustrated, lost interest in the project. In 1946, following international conferences at which Australia was represented, the Government announced that it intended to establish the whaling industry. According to report, pressure that was exerted by the trade unions forced the Government to cancel an order that had been placed in 1946 with a British ship-building firm for a 20,000-ton pelagic whaling factory ship. The unions concerned considered that the ship should be constructed in Australia, although the cost would be £1,000,000 in excess of the cost of building the vessel in Great Britain. On the 9th June, 1947, Cabinet approved proposals for participation by the Commonwealth in the whaling industry, and decided to complete negotiations for the employment of an expert. Captain Melsom, a Norwegian, was engaged, and after eighteen months he advised the Government that he was convinced that the industry had a bright future. He envisaged a factory ship, with chaser vessels to operate at various locations off the Australian coast, and occasionally in the Antarctic. Shorebased stations, involving chaser vessels and processing factories on land, could operate either in addition to a factory ship or as a modified alternative. The Government decided to accept the second proposal, and has refused the offer of a mother ship from the United Kingdom because, as the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) stated on the 9th May last, the price of £2,000.000 was too high to pay for such a vessel at the present stage. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated -

The Government has introduced the present bill because it feels that Australia should delay no longer in entering the whaling industry.

Earlier, he had said that with the prevailing high prices of whale products, the cost of the enterprise should be recouped within a short period. I hope that when the enterprise is established, according to plan by June, 1950, it will not be shown that the Government has dilly-dallied too long.

Having successfully discouraged an early attempt by private enterprise to enter the whaling industry and having also made known over a period of years its plans to engage in the industry, the Government, as it has done in respect of many other industries, claims that it has no intention of establishing a government monopoly in the whaling industry. As the Minister has power to issue licences for vessels to engage in the whaling industry, it is open to grave doubt whether a government that has shown itself so addicted to socialist restrictions and monopolistic practices as the present Government has done, will allow this opportunity to continue to do so to pass. The Government may deny this contention, as it was announced last February that a licence would be granted to Messrs. Moore and Sons, a Western Australian firm, to begin whaling in Australian waters from a shore base at Point Cloates. But the issue of one licence at the present stage of the development of the industry is scarcely to be accepted as evidence of the Government’s willingness to provide opportunities for private enterprise generally to engage in it.

With the establishment of the whaling industry the Government will have an opportunity to evolve some form of incentive payment for the employees. The work will be arduous and of an uncertain nature, and, therefore, the adoption of a system of special awards i9 warranted. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) wrote in the foreword of a. publication that was recently released by his department -

Wage incentive systems have a place in Australian industry provided the interests nf the worker and the objectives of the trade union movement are safeguarded.

The International Whaling Agreement contains certain wise provisions for the protection of particular species of whales. The agreement defines the seasons when whaling ‘operations may be undertaken, the waters in which whaling may take place, the size of whales that may be caught, and, generally, the methods, gear and apparatus that may be used. Honorable members may be interested to hear a brief account of the history of the Australian whaling industry. In the early days, Australia was the principal whaling country in the world and it is regrettable that we have ignored the industry during the last 50 years. Other countries have not neglected it. For example, in 1936-37, Norwegian-manned American vessels caught 6,000 whales off the Australian coast. The first whaling operations in Australian waters were conducted in 1804, but what I may describe as the golden era of whaling occurred between the years 1830 and 1860. During that period America alone had 7,000 vessels in Australian and Antarctic waters. That figure is a true indication of the great extent of whaling operations in those days. Bay whaling was the fundamental basis of all operations, and Tasmania was the busiest centre. In 1S.41 there were 35 bay whaling stations in that State. Twofold Bay, in New South Wales, was also a famous centre. Tt is interesting to recall that, at Twofold Bay on one occasion, 21 boats belonging to various companies chased one whale.

Mr Hughes:

– When was that?

Mr FALKINDER:

– In 1840. Eventually, the industry changed over from bay whaling to Antarctic whaling. That began the revival of the industry which, at the turn of the century, was declining. With the advent of Captain Larssen, a famous Norwegian, real efforts were made to exploit the va?t riches of the Antarctic. The development of a harpoon gun and the construction of larger ships enabled those persons who were engaged in the industry to hunt whales in the Antarctic. Thenceforth, whaling was conducted in the Antarctic in a substantial way. The natural result of so much indiscriminate slaughter in bay whaling and Antarctic whaling necessitated the formulation of regulations in order to prevent the whale from becoming extinct! The first action was taken in 1927. when the League of Nations appointed a committee of experts to collect statistics relating to and to investigate the problems of the industry. In 1930 a whaling convention was promulgated. Since then, an endeavour has been made to control the industry, and at present, a wise measure of control- has been instituted.

Mr Hughes:

– By whom?

Mr FALKINDER:

– By the Interna^tional Whaling Convention. I turn now to the more modern features of the industry. One of the very real problems for Australia is the part that the Japanese are to be allowed to play in whaling. As honorable members are aware, General MacArthur gave permission for the Japanese to conduct whaling operations in the 1946-47 season. This Government sent Mr. Coonan as an observer with the Japanese fleet, and he submitted a. lengthy report about his experiences to the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. Mr. Coonan’s report is not entirely satisfactory to the Japanese. He indicated that the Japanese had committed breaches of international conventions, that he himself was not treated particularly well by the leaders of the expedition, that he considered that the expedition was financed with American capital, and that he was blocked on many occasions from obtaining information that he should rightly have had access to. I believe that we have to take a firmer stand than we have taken on the question of the Japanese re-entering the whaling industry. It is true that this Government and the Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania have protested against Japan’s resumption of whaling; but, unless we take a firmer stand, Japan will encroach to a very great degree upon our natural rights.

I turn to a consideration of the future of whaling. Ninety per cent, of the world’s whales are in the Antarctic. The biggest catch was 46,000 whales in 1938. From 1933 to . 1939, 250,000 whales were caught. In 1948, sixteen whaling fleets wore operating. They were owned by Norway, Great Britain, Holland, Russia, Japan and South Africa. We have an advantage over other countries in that we are close to the Antarctic. That makes for cheaper freight and many other incidental costs. It is intended to set up a shore station in Western Australia, where we hope to make ourselves, in the fairly near future, self-supporting in whale oil. Professor Dakin, Professor of Zoology at the Sydney University, sa id -

One becomes more optimistic when one considers Tasmania as a base for Antarctic whaling.

The Eastern World of August, 1947, contained an interesting article from which the following passage is an extract : -

The whaling grounds lie close to Australia’s southern ports. And Australia has a greater stake in Antarctica than any other country. More than a third of the Antarctic Continent - an area of 2,472,000 square miles - is Australian territory. Australiahas done much exploration and research there and is now preparing another Antarctic expedition for 1947- 1948, to open the way for a larger one in 1948-1949.

The natural base for Australian whaling in the Antarctic is Hobart, Tasmania. Thiscity, with its magnificent harbour, lies in 43 degrees south. It was Hobart that the Norwegian whaling pioneer, Captain Carl Anton Larson, used as his jumping-off place in November, 1923, when he sailed to open up the great whaling grounds of the Ross Sea.

At Hobart, Larsen shippeda number of young Tasmanian seamen. With them went Alan Villiers, Victorian by birth and Tasma nian by adopt ion, who wrote the story of the venture in his Whaling in the Frozen South.

Hobart has a long record as a whaling port of the old harpooning days. A century ago it was the greatest whaling port in the British Em pi re, and took second place, in those days, only to the great whaling ports of the United States. As farback as 1832, a whaling vessel from Hobart, the Venus, is reported as going as far south as 72 degrees in the Ross Sea.

Pending a decision on her claim to a whaling fleet as reparations from Japan, the Commonwealth and States in Australia are planning to revive, with modern methods, the shore-based whaling (bay whaling) which longflourished in Australia. Small vessels winking from such bases as Twofold Bay in New South Wales and Albany or Point Cloates in Western Australia, wouldcapture the whales which migrate up and down the eastern and western coasts of Australia. These whales wouldbe brought into the base for treatment.

The yields and the profits from such stations, dealing mainly with black and humpbacked whales, wouldbe small compared to those securedby float ing factories and chasers working in the Antarctic Seas.

It is worth while noting some of the uses to which the by-products of the whaling industry can be put. An astonishing range of articles can be made from the carcasses of whales. The range includes lubricants, paints, candles, cosmetics, soap, glycerine, chemicals for explosives, tempering ofgun barrels, fertilizer, and brushes. Whale meat canbe eaten. One of the mostimportant medical products derived from whales is, of course, insulin, which is so effective in combating diabetes. Before the war, the average price of whale oil was £15 a ton, but, to-day, the top world price is £137 a ton. So, within the next few years, Australia can expect to reap a great harvest from whaling.

One contentious point of the bill is the provision relating to the control of whaling licences. As I have already indicated, the Government has discouraged one enterprising private company from embarking on whaling. Its proposal was rejected during the war by the Department of War Organization of Industry. I should like to receive from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture the assurance that, at all times, it will be open for private enterprise, if it can show that it is capable of doing the job, to obtain licences to conduct whaling operations. The Government is to be castigated for having so long delayed entering the whaling industry. I concede that this Government is not entirely responsible, but Australia has unfortunately allowed Japan to get into the whaling industry far ahead of it. My concluding note is that we have an unanswerable case for the re-establishment of whaling with Tasmania as the centre of operations.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden

[3.11.- I congratulate the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) upon having introduced this bill. The whales will, no doubt, be well content to be caught by socialist methods rather than by the ruthless methods of private enterprise. The Minister has already shown his awareness of the possibility of the revival of whaling at Twofold Bay and has indicated that when a suitable factory ship has been obtained by the Australian Whaling Commission it may well operate off that port. I hope that the commission will not wait until it has obtained a factory ship before it establishes whaling again in the historic port of Twofold Bay. During the war, the Australian Government, in association with Nicholas Proprietary Limited, the Aspro people, contemplated the re-establishment of whaling at Twofold Bay, but the plans did not come to fruition. If the Government again contemplates the establishment of whaling at Eden, I suggest an alternative site for the operations. The site that wa? contemplated during the war was practically in the centre of the town of Eden and there was considerable objection from the townspeople. That is possibly one of the reasons why the plans fell through, A suitable site in Twofold Bay for whaling is Cocora Bay. which is situated 2 miles along the Princes Highway from the town of Eden in the direction of the Victorian border. The bay has all the advantages required for whaling and the area is owned by Eden Canneries Proprietary Limited, which is willing to make it available. It is sheltered from bad weather. The formation of the ground above the water’s edge has been excavated to give two levels for the flenching deck and the handling of offal. A skidway could be built for the taking of the whales from the water’s edge straight up 30 feet on to the first deck, and the oil from the blubber, as it was cut from the carcass, could drain into the settling tanks, and ail oil, offal, meat and other by-products could be quite economically handled. An abundance of water is available. The main road passes within 200 yards of the site. The Bega hydro-electric plant, which is owned and operated by the Bega County Council and which generates power from the waters that flow down the Brown Mountain, could provide all the electric power required. I have discussed with people in Eden the matter of the size of the plant that would be required. Experts tell me that they have seen as many as 25 whales pass Twofold Bay in a day. They suggest that from 100 to 150 whales a season could be handled. I direct the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to a matter of great importance in regard to the establishment of whaling in the seas near Eden. There is already available, at Nimmitabel on the Southern Tablelands, a meatworks which is in perfect condition. It is a very large plant and was built by the use of Commonwealth and State funds and has not operated in the past four years. It would be possible to purchase and use that plant economically for the treatment of whales. The size of the plant suggested as sufficient to handle the number of whales that it is estimated could be caught, would warrant the provision of two chasers. I am told that the kind of chaser required measures 75 feet by 18 feet with a steel hull, and that a number are available for immediate delivery. I understand that they have a low centre of gravity plus the necessary lines under water and are capable of speeds of up to 16 knots. They are singlescrew diesel-powered boats requiring 400 to 500 horse-power direct drive running at 800 to 1,000 revolutions per minute. A small amphibian type of plane is available in the United States for immediate delivery at a cost of about £2.700, according to my information. This kind of plane would be particularly useful for sighting whales along the coast and could also be used for sighting shoals of fish for surface fishing. The amount of time that a plane could save a vessel would be equal to the equivalent of eight vessels operating in the one area. The plane could be kept in the lake at Eden and could land on the Womboyne and Wingham inlets, Twofold Bay, Merimbula and Tuross Lakes. There are many places around the Tuross Lakes that would provide suitable landing places for that kind of plane, and suitable shelter if required. The major problem in the whole organization of whaling is to obtain the kind of employee necessary in a whaling plant. I think that the Government would be well advised to bring a number of suitable people from Norway and to build a small housing settlement where it could establish probably ten or twelve families and then proceed as rapidly as possible with the establishment of the industry. The establishment of the whaling industry, which the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) has said, in a most useful contribution to the debate, is historically situated at Twofold Bay, can be the means of returning a valuable profit to the community.

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.- I rise to oppose this measure because I believe that it represents another step by the Government in its plan for socialism. That was admitted in effect in this House some time ago by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) who said that they were prepared to go on with the Government’s socialistic plans and that the only things that would not be included were ice-cream carts and rag shops. The whaling industry is a very lucrative one, and until such time as the Government informs the House of any serious attempt to encourage private enterprise to engage in it, I must regard this measure as a further step along the path that is being followed by the Government towards the socialism of industry, production, distribution and exchange. It is admitted by everybody on both sides of the House that very little has been done in Australia about the whaling industry up to date.

Mr Barnard:

– Then why has not private enterprise done something about it?

Mr HAMILTON:

– The Minister should not rush in with such interjections. I shall quote from the second- read ing speech made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) when he introduced the measure, lie said -

With the exception of certain private interests which have engaged in whaling activities in a small way at odd points on the Australian coast, no serious attempt baa been made since 19:17.

Let us cast our minds back to what was happening on the other side of the world in 1!)3S. Norway, from which country we were obtaining the labour to carry out whaling projects was very closely situated to Hitler’s Reich. In March, 1938, Hitler started to march into the countries surrounding Germany. Later in the same year the Munich Agreement was signed, and was followed a year later by the outbreak of World War II. So it is quite understandable that no serious activities in connexion with whaling were capable of being undertaken subsequent to 1937.

Mr Fraser:

– I cannot follow that reasoning.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I am sorry aboutthat, but that is the position. The Norwegians were preparing to fight for their very lives and, as I have said, it is understandable that no great whaling activity was carried out subsequent to 1937. In his second-reading speech, the Minister went on to say -

A valuable resource which should logically be available to our country has therefore been> practically neglected for many years.

I consider that it is unworthy of the Minister to have included such a statement in his speech without at least following it with a definite indication that attempts had either been made or not made to encourage private enterprise’ to engage in the whaling industry. I shall quote other parts of the Minister’s speech to prove that the attention that the Government is giving to the whaling industry arises from the fact that it is a very lucrative industry. The honorable gentleman stated that at a time when whale oil was valued at about £20 a ton the catch off the Western Australian coast returned a revenue of more than £850,000. As the honorable member for Franklin has pointed out, the price of whale oil is now £112 to £120 a ton. Why has not this Government, knowing the position, endeavoured to encourage private enterprise to get on with the job? Instead, it appears to be following the example of the Labour Government in Queensland which established and operated’ abattoirs, butchers shops and other enterprises that later on it could not get rid of quickly enough. [ am definitely opposed to the idea of the Government nationalizing this industry without first exploring every avenue of private enterprise that could be used. Provision could be made to ensure that if private enterprise developed this industry it should not make exorbitant profits out of this natural product, whale oil. It is useless for the Government to state that the industry will be more efficiently carried out if operated by the Government than it would be if run by private enterprice. The Minister said in his speech -

As I mentioned earlier, there has been no real attempt by private enterprise to develop this industry.

If the Minister is prepared’ to make such a statement, why does he not go further and give us evidence that nothing has been done by private enterprise? Until such time as the Government produces such evidence, I shall not be prepared to accept the statement. Later in his speech the Minister said -

. the Government feels that the only sound and practical alternative is to establish it as a government enterprise.

I have yet to see any appreciable number of Government enterprises that have proved to be successful. We have government railways and government airways, and we formerly had a government shipping line and are now to have another that, I believe, will be tied up with the exclusion of private enterprise from engaging in the whaling industry. Now we have the Government proposing to establish itself in the whaling industry. The provisions of the bill which refer to the establishment of a commission are almost, word for word, the same as similar provisions in the Shipping Act and other measures. The Government has not given private enterprise an opportunity to engage in the whaling industry. Private enterprise might he willing to engage in it if it was assured that the Government would not hog-tie it with regulations. The Government should give private enterprise such an opportunity, and keep out of the industry itself, because we have seen only too clearly the mistakes that have been made by governments that have engaged’ in this kind of enterprise. I should like the Minister to indicate also whether the Government is permitted under the Constitution to engage in activities that will eventually arise from the operation of this measure. The Government intends to capture whales and then to treat the catch. What does it intend to do with the whale oil so produced? The oil will have to be sold to processing firms for the manufacture of various commodities. I am not sure that the Commonwealth has power under the Constitution to engage in trade of that kind. Yesterday, when it was suggested that a certain commodity should be imported in order to save the community from hardship, the Prime Minister said that the Commonwealth did not have power to import the commodity from overseas and sell it to the States. If the Commonwealth lacks that power under the Constitution, how can it engage in the whaling industry, in the course of which it must either sell the oil to processing firms, or go one stage further in its programme of socialization, and itself establish factories for the processing of the oil ? We know that, ever since 1921, the Labour party has proclaimed that its policy is to socialize more andmore industries. I am convinced that the life of this Government is limited to a few more months, but it apparently intends to use’ that brief period in order to establish as many socialistic enterprises as possible. I intend to oppose such attempts to the best of my ability. The wording of this bill is in keeping with that of certain other measures, which have been recently passed by the Parliament. For instance, sub-clause 1 of clause 21 is as follows: -

The Commission shall have power to borrow money on overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia upon the guarantee of the Treasurer.

That is identical with provisions in legislation concerning the Joint Coal Board, the Commonwealth shipping line, and the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme.

Mr Pollard:

– I suppose the honorable member does not object to a similar provision for financing the marketing of wheat ?

Mr HAMILTON:

– I object to all forms of State enterprise. As for the marketing of wheat, that is supposed to be controlled by the growers, although I admit that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has interfered at every opportunity.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- It is amazing that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton), who represents part of a State upon the shores of which it is proposed to establish the whaling industry, should oppose this bill. I should not be surprised if his opposition costs him many votes. I do not care who organizes or runs an Australian whaling industry, provided it is begun as soon as possible. Private enterprise has had an opportunity for many years to get into the industry, but has done nothing. If the Government does not make a start now, it will be too late. The industry will be captured by other countries, which will send their ships down into the waters south of Australia. Therefore, the matter is urgent. The Government has not acted hastily. Captain Melsom, a Norwegian, has been in Australia investigating the matter for the last eighteen months, and it was largely on his advice that the Government decided to engage in the whaling industry. I congratulate the honorable member for Franklin (Mr.

Falkinder) upon his speech. He and I and other representatives of Tasmania have been pressing the Government for a decision on this matter for eighteen months or more, and we have frequently raised the subject on the floor of the House. We had hoped that it would have been possible to engage in pelagic whaling based on Hobart, but the cost of a factory ship would be so great that the idea had to be dropped. It was first hoped to get a ship from Norway, but this could not he done. Inquiries were also made in Japan for the outright purchase of a ship, but no suitable vessel was available. Whaling can be carried on in two ways. We could send a factory ship down into the Antarctic, together with chasers which would capture the whales. The blubber could then be treated on the factory ship. The second method is to operate from a shore base, the chasers bringing their catches back to the base for treatment. It appears that we shall have to be content with the second method. It is proposed to establish one base at Twofold Bay, in New South Wales, and another in Western Australia at a point not yet decided upon. The Government is justified in embarking on this enterprise for four reasons which I shall outline. The first is that no serious attempt has been made by private enterprise to exploit the industry. The second is that the economic advantages which may be expected to flow from the industry are very important. The honorable member for Franklin outlined some of them, and pointed out that, in addition to oil, fertilizers and other commodities could be produced. It is important that the industry should be established in Australia while the present high price of oil, more than £100 a ton, is maintained. The third reason why we should embark on the industry without delay is that otherwise the trade will be captured by other countries. The fourth reason is that this enterprise is in keeping with the Government’s programme of decentralization, and its plans to spread population and industry as widely as possible. The honorable member for Swan has criticized this proposal as another example of the Government’s attempt to socialize an industry. Such, criticism was only to be expected from the honorable member. I challenge the statement made by the honorable member that any member of this House has ever said - I think that he attributed the words to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) - that the Labour Government intends to socialize everything in this country except ragshops and ice-cream carts. I invite the honorable gentleman to produce evidence that such a statement has ever been made by an honorable member on this side of the House. We have had so many of the Opposition’s half-truths in recent months that we shall not allow such a statement to go unchallenged. Other honorable members have said that the Prime Minister has referred to communism in a certain way when they know that the words attributed to the right honorable gentleman were never used by him. It is not now, and it never will be, the policy of this Government to socialize all kinds of activities in the Commonwealth. The Constitution itself prevents the inauguration of a wholesale socialization programme. Government control of the postal, telegraph and telephone services and of other enterprises which have been under socialist control since 1901 has been subjected to attack by honorable members opposite. Now because private companies have failed to develop the whaling industry and the Government has been compelled to undertake its development, honorable members opposite would have the people believe that the Government is doing a dreadful thing. They may call it what they like. The fact remains that the industry must be developed and the sooner it is developed the sooner shall we be able to share in the world’s market for whale oil. Details of arrangements to be made for processing the product of the industry have yet to be worked out. This Government and past governments have, within the limits of the Constitution, developed industries which private enterprise has neglected. This industry provides another example of the fact that progress is not possible without government aid. The honorable member for Franklin has given us some interesting facts relating to the whaling industry in Australia. Hore are a few additional sidelights which may be of interest to honorable members. For over a century Australia has been a centre of the whaling industry. The first whalersto operate off the Western Australian coast were French and American pirates.. They commenced operations early in 1800,. before the first white colony was founded on the west coast. In 1829 a group of enterprising settlers registered two companies, the Fremantle Whaling Company and the Perth Whaling Company, and commenced whaling operations off Bathers Bay and Carnac Island. After eight years of chasing whales all over the southern Indian Ocean, they made their first catch on the 9th June, 1837. In later years whaling stations were established at various points along the west coast, some being successful and others failing. It was ascertained that the best hunting grounds were at Point Cloates on the continental shelf. For the last fifteen years, however, the station established at Point Cloates has been idle and neglected. The ruins of the station are now all that remain. That station was used for only eleven seasons, between 1913 and 1934. The station was originally established by the Norwegian Bay Whaling Company. In order to show how profitable this industry has been in the past, I point out that in the first four seasons of operation hunters of the Norwegian Bay Whaling Company killed about 4,000 whales, valued at £650,000. The catch yielded about 130,000 casks of oil and 1,500 tons of fertilizer, the latter being a very important by-product of the industry. From 1925 to 1928 hunters in that area killed 3,445 whales valued at £562,296. At that time whale oil was valued at only £15 a ton. These figures show the large profits that may be derived from this industry. Professor W. J. Dakin. Professor of Zoology at the University of Sydney, writing in the magazine Walkabout of the 1st September, 1946, had this to say about the possibilities of whaling -

Some indication of the whale hunt will be gleaned from the following figures for 1037-38. In that short summer 44,152 whales were killed in the Antarctic. In addition, during 1937 (chiefly n the winter) 3,242 humpbacks were killed off the coast of Western Australia (the biggest catch ever made there), 2!)8 humpbacks were taken off the Congo, 3,381 whales were taken off the South African coasts, 4.12(1 were caught: off Chile and Peru, and 1,887 were taken off South Georgia.

These figures show the devastating attacks made by the whale hunters. Dealing with the future of Antarctic whaling, Professor Dakin stated -

It is very questionable whether Antarctic whaling can be considered a probable goldmine, in the future, whatever it has been in the past. The cost of preparation is high even for countries where ships ure less costly *nd expenses more reasonable - any delay in starting off an expedition when the short dimmer season arrives would be disastrous. Furthermore, the number of Whales of reasonable size in the Antarctic have been so steadily reduced .that the future conditions remain somewhat problematical at the moment. On the other hand, a starving world has put up new demand for fats, and even for whale meat.

Although existing world conditions may provide a stimulus for the development of whaling in the Antarctic region, as Professor Dakin has pointed out, the future of Antarctic whaling is problematical because of the tremendous onslaught made on whales in that region, ft is obvious that two excellent whaling grounds in New South Wales and Western Australia are awaiting exploitation. Only very minor whaling operations have been carried out from either of those States during the last ten or twelve years, in the later years mainly because of the exigencies of the war. Robin Hutcheon, in an article on Australian whaling which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 7th May last, had this to say in regard to whaling in Western Australia -

The whales start on their long trek from Antarctica as the Australian summer draws to an end, and make their first appearance off King George’s Sound in May. During June and July the whales pass Point Cloates in an almost unending procession.

The whaling grounds off the coasts of New South Wales and Western Australia offer great opportunities for the development of the industry. I have been advised that not many facilities exist around the Tasmanian coast for the development of shore-based whaling. The greatest number of whales seems to appear off the coast of New South Wales and along the Western Australian coast during their trek from the south. I do not know whether or not the technical advice that I have obtained on that point is sound. As the honorable member for Franklin has said, Tasmania has had a remarkably long whaling history. Evidently deepsea whaling off the Tasmanian coast offers greater possibilities than do shorebased operations. We in Australia will have to be content with the industry in Western Australia and at Twofold Bay.

I congratulate the Minister and the Government upon having the enterprise, which is often regarded as being the monopoly of private individuals, to engage in this industry. The honorable member for Franklin has referred to some administrative features of the .proposals that he does not like. This undertaking will be of the same pattern as the Australian National Airlines Commission which has done a magnificent job despite tremendous opposition. If the Government’s whaling enterprise operates as efficiently as its airlines enterprise it will be a great success. It is up to all members of the House to support this bill, because it will be a means of bringing great wealth to Australia.

Mr. ARCHIE CAMERON (Barker) T3.371. - This is a bill that deserves s lot of consideration by the House. Like other honorable members, I compliment the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) upon bringing it down. However, neither the Minister nor honorable members opposite have told us exactly why it has been brought down, so my wicked imagination will have to be brought into play again. I admit freely that the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) is quite correct in his assertion that the bill has many features that are common to other measures. I refer, for instance, to the Aluminium Industry Act, which was passed by the Parliament several years ago. I would say that we are just as likely to get oil from this industry in the next five years as we are likely to get aluminium from the aluminium works in Tasman a, which are supposed to have been in operation now for about five years.

Mr Duthie:

– It is on the way.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
ALP

– So is the day of judgment, but many of us hope that it will be postponed for quite a while. The honorable member for Wilmot knows as much about the nearness of the day of judgment as I do. I was intrigued by the excellent speech that was made by She honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser). I thought that he did himself and his electorate proud this afternoon. There are, however, one or two matters that the honorable gentleman overlooked. One of the great whaling men in the Eden-Monaro electorate was a gentleman by the name of Boyd. I do not think that he was a socialist.

Mr Fraser:

– He was a buccaneer.

– I have seen it from the ground, but on the day of which I am speaking we could not get closer to it than 7,000 feet. It is an excellent site. The Government of South Australia proposes to erect a freezing works and a superphosphate works there, and a railway is to be built. If we are to consider this matter on the basis of the claims of our electorates, surely to heaven I am entitled to stress the advantages of the Barker division. With regard to the geographical aspect, the honorable member for Wilmot has announced - I am sure after very serious consideration - that Tasmania is not ideally situated for the handling of whole whales brought in from the sea.

Mr Burke:

– Perhaps the honorable member for Barker thinks thar a big whale would drag the island away.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No ; I have a soft spot in my heart for Tasmania. It is a beautiful State. However, if a whaling industry is to be established’, the central position that is occupied by South Australia should make that State the natural choice as the headquarters of the industry throughout the

Commonwealth. I am sure that thu monopoly will never be sufficiently large to warrant more than one large establishment.

The only other matter that I desire to mention is not contained in the bill, although I hasten to add that it should be. I refer to the appointment of a commission to control the whaling industry. The bill does not specify the Minister who will be in charge of the industry. It will not be the Treasurer, because clause 28 provides that the Treasurer, after the receipt of recommendations from the Minister, may determine certain things. I fully expected that the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie), from the depths of his ecclesiastical training, would have gone back to original sources regarding whaling, and referred to Jonah. The chairman of the Australian whaling commission will be appointed by the GovernorGeneral. The last time the chairman of an important commission was appointed the position was given to a member of this House in the person of one of the two Frankenstein brothers, the former member for Henty, Mr. Coles. The Jonah of all time in the Australian Labour party is now in trouble, and I fully expect that when the appointment of the chairman of the Australian Whaling Commission is announced, it will be found that the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein) is not being thrown out of the Labour party for fun. I fully expect that he will be installedas the chairman of the commission to handle the new socialist monopoly, because he has proved in his private capacity, that if there is one thing that he knows anything about, it is business, whether it happens to conflict with socialist principles or not.

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

– in reply - I congratulate the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder), who has been the spokesman for the Opposition on this bill, the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser), the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) upon their speeches, and, incidentally, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) upon his facetious remarks. The speeches that have been made in this debate have been most helpful and complimentary to the Government. Honorable members are unanimous in considering that an opportunity for exploiting our whaling resources should not be ignored. Of course, differences of opinion exist about the locations of whaling stations and whaling fields. The Government regards the support that has been given to this bill as most gratifying. Some doubts have been expressed about the efficacy of the preparatory work that has been undertaken by the Government in connexion with this proposed enterprise. I assure the House that those preparatory steps have been taken after considerable research and exploratory work, and after mature consideration.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Tell me what kind of exploratory work?

– People like the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) would give any one the “hump”. The hump-back whales travel from north to south and vice versa, but they do not travel from east to west.

Mr Gullett:

– Why does not the Government introduce legislation to compel them to travel from east to west?

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member for Henty also has the “hump”.I do not intend to stone-wall this bill. I am gratified that honorable members have shown a keen and intelligent interest in it. One honorable member, who represents a Western Australian electorate, has voiced some carping criticism; but ho cannot avoid taking a narrow-minded view even of a project that will make a substantial contribution to the economy of his State. When I was in Western Australia not long ago, one of the major complaints of poultry-farmers was that they could not obtain proteins for their birds. By the establishment of the whaling industry on the coast of Western Australia we shall have a prolific source of meat meal for poultry and of the vitamins obtainable from whale oil that are also essential for poultry. Another very important aspect of the establishment of the whaling industry on the coast of Western Australia is that of defence. In all its projects, the Government has the defence of Australia in mind. The coast of Western Australia is sparsely settled. When the whaling station is established on the far north-west coast, it will be operated by first-class seafarers, whom we propose to bring from Norway. When they have been happily settled, they will provide an additional defence for Western Australia. This project is one of many that will bring additional settlers to Western Australia to provide more security for the State. I thank the honorable member for Franklin for his interest in the whaling industry and his suggestion about the need for the provision of incentive payments to workers in it. There is a long history of the payment of incentive money in the whaling industry. It is almost certain that the Australian Whaling Commission will apply the traditional policy. The

Labour movement is not irrevocably opposed to incentive payments. Incentive payments are made in the shearing industry and the coal industry. There is no objection to incentive payments if satisfactory safeguards are provided for the workers. The honorable gentleman’s suggestion will be carefully examined. He said, too, that he had heard that the Government would neither build in Australia nor import from abroad a factory ship because of some opposition from a certain trade union. I do not know of any opposition by any trade union to either the building or the buying by the Government of a factory ship. With our shipyards fully engaged in the building of cargo ships and warships, it is impossible for us at the moment to build a factory ship.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

The bill.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

.The International Whaling Agreement provides that the signatory nations may grant licences to their own nationals to engage in whaling. Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) give an undertaking that licences to engage in whaling will be granted to every person who places before the Government a practicable proposition in support of their applications for licences?

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

. - I am not prepared to give an undertaking that would hind the Government in that way. The merits of every application for a whaling licence will be considered. The answer will be either “ Yea “ or “ Nay “. The answer to applications for licences to conduct whaling operations off the coast of Western Australia will probably be “Nay”, if the Government goes in for whaling in a substantial way. If two interests were operating, one governmental and one a private, they would probably clash and the prospects of success for both or either might vanish overnight. I assure the honorable member that every application for a licence will be closely examined.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1845

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS BILL (No. 2) 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 24th June (vide page 1500), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- This bill is one of the extraordinary series of the free medicine flop. The series began in 1943, and is still to be continued. The spate of legislation on this subject indicates that the Government is using a steam-hammer to crack its nut. If the Government really desires to give free medicine, it can do so in five minutes, by. making an agreement with the chemists, which will not involve nationalization of the medical profession but which could make possible the supply to public immediately of the drugs that the Government thinks it ought to have. The method by which it could be done would be by letting the chemist stamp prescriptions for those medicines which are in the formulary that the Government desires to supply, and by paying the chemist for such medicines. No matter what other system is invoked, the chemist must ultimately scrutinize every prescription to see whether the ingredients prescribed come within the formulary, and whether the dosage of the medicine in that prescription complies with the Government’s regulations. If the method involved the chemist in extra clerical work, the Government could compensate him. lt would be able to do so from the money that it would save by the reduction of overhead costs on each prescription as the number of prescriptions increased. Because of the very small number of prescriptions now being made up under the free medicine scheme, it. is said that every prescription costs the Government well over 6.=. Action along the lines I have suggested would save all the endless argument that has been going on for practically six years. It would also eliminate all the antagonism of the doctors. The Government would thereby get back to the position from which it could envisage real progress in a national health scheme which, in the last analysis, is dependent on the willing and enthusiastic co-operation of doctors.

The bill is amazing. It is not necessary. The Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) said, in March, 1949, that the provisions of the bill could be covered by regulations. In his speech, when he moved the second reading of the bill in the Senate, the Minister again admitted that its purpose could be achieved by regulations. For some reason, however, the Government proposes an act of Parliament to achieve its desire.

I shall later examine the possible reasons actuating the Government. It is necessary to find out why the Government, which does everything else that it can by regulation, has introduced this bill. The bill consists practically of two operative clauses. The first repeals section 7a (1) of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act of March, 1949; and the second immediately re-enacts that section and adds section 7a (2). Before dealing with the passible reasons for the Government’s action, I direct attention to the following statement, in the Minister’s speech : -

In such , a case the patient will, of course, pay the cost of the prescription to the chemist who dispenses it.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I can state very briefly my objections to this bill. I do not desire to re-canvass the facts presented and the arguments advanced by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). In the first place, whilst I favour the provision of social services, extending to medical treatment and to medical benefits, I believe that the money which will be expended on the scheme which the bill now before us is intended to enforce could much better be utilized on the provision of diagnostic treatment, X-ray, and pathological clinics and the like. I do not believe that this bill will confer any great benefit on the people. On the contrary, I am satisfied that behind this legislation is an attempt to bring all the people of this country within the ambit of very rigid control from Canberra. I cannot imagine that that would ultimately be of benefit to the people. I believe that modern public hospitals, of the type of the modern repatriation hospitals, which I am glad to say were planned and commenced during the period when I was Minister for the Army, can best attend to (he medical needs of the people. Legislation of the type now before us will do much to increase the number of neurotics in the community, and plays into the hands of unscrupulous people. If the money to be expended on this scheme were devoted to the purposes I have mentioned, greater success would be gained in tackling the ravages of disease. What is this bill designed to achieve? T describe it, and I shall seek to establish my description of it, as a wicked and cowardly measure. I describe it in those words advisedly, for the bill is designed to deal, not with patients, but with doctors, although it throws upon the patient the burden of determining whether or not treatment prescribed for him shall be within or outside of the formulary. That is a responsibility which the patient is absolutely unqualified to discharge. I assume that the Government docs not contend that the average medical man does not treat his patient in accordance with what he believes to be in the best interests of the patient. Although there may be black sheep in the medical profession, as there are in every other walk of life, it must be said of members of the medical profession generally that they observe a very high standard of conduct. A great deal of their efforts is devoted both directly and indirectly to charitable treatment of poor patients. I support the thesis that the medical man’s approach to his patient is based on a desire to give him the best treatment which can be provided for his malady. If Canberra is all-wise, it may be that that treatment can be found in the formulary. From my experience of governments, however, I cannot imagine that it will be found that the Government is always right, and that whatever may be the malady or the condition of the patient, treatment for his complaint can be found in the formulary. That leads to the fundamental proposition that, at least in some cases, for a doctor to treat his patient properly and restore him to health it will be necessary for him to go outside the formulary. Upon whom is the burden to be cast in these circumstances? I have said that this is a wicked measure. It is wicked ‘because, if this proposition is correct, it means that in at least those instances in which an individual can be properly treated only by resorting to uncompound’ed medicines not found in the formulary, the burden rests on the patient to decide whether or not his prescription will be written on the prescribed form. If it is not wicked, it is fantastic. The right honorable member for Cowper said enough to establish that. How can a person whose mind is not functioning normally, because of his sickness, exercise the option that will be given to him under this measure ? If he does not exercise the option, his doctor will be exposed to a risk. If a doctor prescribes outside the formulary for a person who is entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits, by virtue of the proposed new section 7. (1) he will, although he has followed the path of duty, render himself liable to a pecuniary penalty. In some instances - for the purposes of my argument, it does not matter how many - the treatment of a patient may necessitate the use of a drug outside the Commonwealth formulary. In those cases it will not be for the medical man to decide whether it is proper to go outside the formulary but it will be for the patient to do so, though as I have been at some pains to point out, he is hopelessly unqualified to make the decision.

– I am here with a brief for the people. I want my arguments to be answered by arguments and not by cheap sneers. It is quite clear that this bill represents an attempt to dragoon the medical profession into adjusting itself to the socialistic schemes of the Government by forcing patients to bring pressure to bear upon doctors. I want an answer to this question. Does the Government contend that all patients oan. in all circumstances, be treated efficiently within the limits of the Commonwealth formulary? That is a simple question that can be answered with a “Yes” or a “No”. I am referring to cases that admit of treatment by drugs. If the answer that is given to my question is “ Yes “, we shall know that the Government is claiming that it is all-wise and that it will not allow the members of the medical profession to exercise an independent judgment. If, however, the Government concedes, as I believe it will be compelled to do, that the answer to my question must be in the negative, it will have admitted that in some cases - the number may be great or small - patients ought to be treated, not within the limits of the government formulary but outside of them. In such cases, who is to make the decision? Is it to be made by the doctor, who is qualified to make it, or by the patient, who is not qualified to make it.

Let lue read the proposed new section 7a to make it. quite clear that my argument is sound. Proposed new section 7a (1) reads as follows: -

Subject to this section, u medical practitioner shall not write, in respect of a person entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits a prescription for . . otherwise than on a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Act.

I have left out some words that I am sure the Minister will agree do not affect my argument. There is a general prohibition. It is provided that, irrespective of a person’s complaint or condition and no matter whether it can or cannot be treated inside the limits of the Government formulary, if that person is entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits and the doctor uses a prescription form other than one supplied by the Government, the doctor will be liable to a penalty. The Government has courageously included a proviso to that provision which reads as follows : -

The last preceding sub-section shall not apply -

in any case in which the person in respect of whom, or at whose request, the prescription is written requests the medical practitioner not to write the prescription on a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Act.

I have risen for the purpose of directing attention to a matter that I raised in a question some weeks ago in relation to the position of chemists in country districts. There are a number of chemists in small country towns who, like the doctors, have not the slightest desire to work under the Government’s scheme. So far as I am aware, the Government does not intend to coerce them in any way. I have asked’ the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who represents the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) in this chamber, to inform me of the Government’s intentions if the chemists in small country towns do not subscribe to the scheme. What will be the position if the only chemist in a village refuses to provide the free medicine? Before the Minister formulated his reply to my question I believe that he conferred with the Minister for Health. He has informed me that if a chemist is not prepared to supply free medicines under the Government’s scheme, it would be only natural for the doctor to dispense the prescription. The Minister added that even now, many doctors in country districts are dispensing their own prescriptions. That reply is all very well, but. T can name a small village in my electorate in which neither the doctor nor the chemist desires to work under the Government’s scheme. The doctor will not write prescriptions on the government form, and the chemist will not dispense a prescription that is written on the government form.

Mr Holloway:

– Then the situation envisaged in the honorable member’s inquiry could not arise.

– Well, I should not like him to operate on me. Honorable members opposite get hot under the collar whenever the Government’s national health scheme is under discussion, and they repeat the speeches that they invariably make on these occasions. As I have explained, this legislation has been introduced to resolve a legal doubt. There was some doubt whether regulations mad? under the principal act to achieve the purpose sought by this bill would he valid, and it was decided that it was better to try to achieve the purpose by legislation. The right honorable member became excited and made some unf air statements about the social services contribution. Other honorable members opposite did likewise. Any one who listened to them and who did not know the scope of the Government’s social services would have been led to believe that the social services contribution was collected for no more than the mere purpose of providing free medicine for the community. They tried to make it appear that people were paying, on an average, two or three times as much in social services contributions which, as I have said, they tried to imply were collected to offset the cost of the free medicine scheme only, than they would normally pay for medicine. That is a ridiculous way in which to put the matter. Out of the National Welfare Fund, into which social services contributions are paid, the Government provides age and invalid pensions, child endowment, unemployment benefits, sickness benefits and some other social services in addition to pharmaceutical benefits. To use an expression that was often used by the honorable member for Warringah in his speech on this measure, it is a wicked statement to say that people’s social services contributions just go to pay for pharmaceutical benefits. The honorable member for Flinders is most interested in social services. As a member of the Social Security Committee, he did good work. He supports most of what the Government has done in providing social services. But even he can be unfair. Recently, he asked what would happen in a small country town in which there were only one medical practitioner and only one pharmaceutical chemist and the chemist did not want to play ball but the doctor did. He wanted to know how the Government would get over that difficulty. The answer that I gave him was that the doctor would prescribe and also dispense whatever medicines had to be prescribed and dispensed and that he would be paid for both services. To-day, he asked what would happen if neither the doctor nor the chemist wanted to play ball. The answer to that queston is that the patient of the doctor would be in exactly the same position as he is in to-day. If the doctor did not want to prescribe on the government form, the chemist would not come into the matter, because a chemist cannot fill non-existent prescriptions. The British Medical Association is responsible for the fact that the people of Australia are being deprived of the pharmaceutical benefits for which they are paying in their social services contributions. I do not propose to go deeply into the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I do not think that I should be in order if I did so, because the bill contains only one provision, which is that patients of medical practitioners shall have the right, if they desire to exercise it, of having medicine prescribed for them on doctors’ own prescription forms instead of on the Commonwealth forms. That provision will meet the needs of people who are either so biased against the Government or so foolish that they do not want to take advantage of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Without the amendments provided for in the bill, a doctor who prescribed on his own private prescription form for such a patient would be guilty of an offence under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act and liable, upon prosecution and conviction, to the penalty of a fine of £50. I agree that it would be unfair to render a medical practitioner in such circumstances liable to that penalty if he obliged some one who was so fanatically obsessed with a distaste for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme that he preferred to pay for his medicine than get it for nothing

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I desire to say very few words on clause 3 of the bill which contains the vital provision in it. I do so because it is very necessary, I think, for the satisfaction of the minds of honorable members that a question about it should be answered. It was, I think, an open secret at all times that the provision of the proposed new section 7a, which will be enacted by clause 3, was designed to get over a possible legal difficulty. I offer no comment about that, except that it was perfectly clear from the beginning that the new provision was needed and that something had to be done to alter the existing law so as to create the illusion, at any rate, that there is no compulsion on doctors other than that provided in the proposed new section. But there is a most curious form of compulsion on the patient. I do hope that the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Holloway) will see fit to meet my criticism. Proposed new section 7a (1) provides -

Subject to this section a medical practitioner shall not write, in respect of a person entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits, a prescription form . . .

otherwise than on a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Act.

The words are only slightly different from the words of section 7 of the principal act, which is to be repealed. The effect of the provision is that the Government says, “ Medical practitioners are compelled to write prescriptions on the forms provided for that purpose by the Commonwealth, and, if they do not, they will be penalized “. But a new provision is contained in sub-section 2 of the proposed new section. I put it into ordinary words when I say that it provides that the previous provision shall not apply to any case in which the patient requests the doctor not to write a prescription on the form supplied by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. Any prudent medical man desiring to have the benefit of the exception would need that request to be made in writing, not by word of mouth. He might otherwise have to call his patient as a witness. So he will get the request in writing. He will have to have a supply of forms worded like “ I request you not to write my prescription on the government form “ to be signed by patients who wish to make that request. There is no other sensible way in which a doctor could get the benefit of the exception and so avoid the possibility of a fine of £50. It has been submitted repeatedly by critics of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme that the persons for whom prescriptions are written are, in very many cases, in an indifferent state of health. Not all prescriptions are written by doctors for people who reach the doctors’ surgeries under their own steam and are able to sit down and engage in conversation with the doctors. The prescriptions for many patients are written by medical men who visit the patients in their own homes. Sometimes the patients are very ill. It is the most picturesque idea - I use the word “ picturesque “ although I can think of uglier but more apt words - that I have ever heard that a doctor, having examined a patient in a desperate state of health, should then have to explain, as best he can, to the patient that it is necessary for him, if he does not desire free medicine, to fill in and sign a document requesting that the prescription be written, not on the government prescription form, but on the doctor’s own prescription form.

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

– That is too silly for words.

Mr MENZIES:

– I entirely agree with the Minister that that is too silly for words. I could not agree with the Minister more heartily than I do. During the second-reading debate a colleague of mine described the situation as wicked. I content myself with saying that it is preposterous. Is there any real answer, except the answer that I suspect that we shall have, to the effect that, “ It is only a little matter and it is put in because the lawyers, those queer people, who invent difficulties or solve them, have said, ‘ If you put this in, it will be a howling success and will enable you to win in the High Court’”. If that is why the provision is proposed, let the Government say so; but, if it is supposed that the provision will give free medicine, in the real sense, to the community, let the Government tell us how that will be achieved.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– I wish to make some comments on proposed new section 7a (2), which provides that the provisions of proposed new section 7a (1), which prescribe that a medical practitioner who writes a prescription otherwise than on a printed form supplied’ by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act, shall be guilty of an offence for which the penalty, on conviction, is £50, shall not apply -

in any case in which the person is respect of whom, or at whose request, the prescription is written requests the medical practitioner not to write the prescription on a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Act or
in such other cases or circumstances as are prescribed.

The “such other cases or circumstances “ are not stated in detail in the bill, but I understand that one of the cases or circumstances in which the prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth will not need to be used will be when a medical practitioner has to write a prescription to meet an emergency and has not with him a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth. A medical practitioner who writes a prescription in such a circumstance on other than a prescription form supplied by the Commonwealth will, within a certain period, have to rewrite the prescription on the prescribed form. I have heard from a pharmaceutical chemist, who, from the beginning, wholeheartedly supported the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, now has a strong objection to the use of the Commonwealth form, because, as he points out, at present, many chemists are losing heavily because of it. His objection has been the subject of correspondence between him and the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna), copies of which 1. have with me. He points out in the following terms how he has lost : -

We find it difficult to obtain from the doctor (according to the rules) prescriptions on government forms that have either been phoned or written on ordinary prescriptions, forwarded within the prescribed 24 hours, and on going through our file we find that some of these prescriptions date back to December, that is November accounts. The loss on these prescriptions amounts to- about £30.

That is in one pharmacy. Then he talks about the formulary itself before getting back to the subject of the Commonwealth prescription form. The Minister replied to his letter as follows: -

The regulations require that the doctor must indicate that he wishes to prescribe a benefit; that upon the request of the chemist the doctor must furnish within two days, a prescription on the official form. If the doctor fails to do so, the chemist should report the matter, giving full details, to the Senior Commonwealth Medical Officer, who will take whatever action ls necessary. A chemist who has complied with the regulations will suffer no loss.

That chemist shows that he is put in. the position of having to be a police officer laying a charge against a doctor who has failed to attend to the’ details set forth in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act and has thereby rendered himself liable to a penalty. This particular chemist takes very strong exception to that particular point, as I do. I believe that it is probable that this matter has escaped the attention of the Minister, but it certainly should be examined and rectified. If we are to have sections of the community each of which is liable to report regarding the misconduct of another person, under any law, then we shall gradually develop a state of society that closely resembles the police state. We must guard against that in any circumstances. If I am in order in doing so, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I shall speak further on other points that have been raised by this chemist. If any of my remarks are out of order, I trust that you will inform me of the fact. The chemist said regarding the formulary -

. the payment is frequently disallowed for chronic cases where excessive doses are ordered by the doctor, and naturally as ethical chemists we wish to give the best service to our clients in accordance with the doctors’ prescriptions.

During December payment was disallowed for ten units of penicillin of 500,000 each, because according to the book of rules a patient is only allowed 500,000 units a day, and thu has meant a lews to us of some £8 to £0.

Frequently we have a chronic certificate that allows 21 days for repents to be made, and often in these cases we have to refuse repeats because the time has expired, and frequently we have prescriptions presented one or two days overdue’, and then again according to the book of rules we are not allowed to dispense them.

At present we have a case in this town of a child needing special Insulin P. but under regulations this cannot be prescribed although the parent is on a living wage.

The man concerned earns only the living wage, as I know, because I discussed the case with the chemist. The letter continues -

Modern, drugs like Benadrys, anthasin, tha tri sulpha group,. &c, are not included in formulary.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN” (Mr. Burke). - The honorable mem her cannot be permitted to discuss the formulary or the dosage.

Dame ENID LYONS:

– Very well, sir, I shall not proceed with that. When I rose to speak I had not carefully examined the1 clause and I agree that 1 may be out of order. But I desire to point out to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) that I am passing on to him criticism from a man who has been a keen supporter of free medicine, but who has now become extremely hostile to the whole situation. I consider that the following comment by the chemist, merits the Minister’s attention : -

In passing may I draw your attention te the fact that the “hook of rules” with regulations and penalties makes every chemist a thief and robber before he starts work.

In conclusion I desire to point out to the Minister that this clause will make of every chemist, if he tries to protect his own interests, an informer against any doctor who infringes the regulations, and I take very strong exception to that.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– Although the remarks by the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) were not confined to the scope of the bill, I shall see that her criticism, which appears to he fairly strong, is placed before the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) and perhaps he will find some way of dealing with it.

Mr Spender:

– Suppose the Minister does not agree?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr. T. P. Burke.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 22

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 1863

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1949

Bill received from the Senate and (on motion by Mr. Calwell), read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In conjunction with its recent investigations of broadcasting in the Commonwealth, the Government considered the potentialities of the system of distributing radio programmes to listeners’ premises by means of wire lines, the programmes then being heard through loud-speakers installed specially for the purpose. The Government was prompted to make this examination because of the extent to which such a service was being used in Great Britain and European countries, and it was felt that, if any benefits were to be derived from a similar arrangement in Australia, early steps should be taken to plan its incorporation in the broadcasting structure of the Commonwealth. The investigations made by the Government disclosed that the wire distribution system used in some overseas countries had been developed mainly to overcome technical deficiencies existing in the conventional method of broadcasting, brought about by the inadequate number of wave lengths available and certain local conditions such as the incidence of interference to reception. The system finds its greatest application in centres of concentrated population where the erection of the wire lines, which must be connected to each subscriber’s premises, is facilitated. Conditions in Australia are, however, quite different. Listeners resident in capital cities and other large centres of population, where wire broadcasting systems can be used to the best advantage, have available to them a number of alternative programmes free of any technical disabilities. In the circumstances, the Government has been unable to find any justification for the introduction of alternative means of catering for listeners’ requirements. Notwithstanding its extremely doubtful possibilities, several applications have been received from organizations desirous of inaugurating wire broadcasting services in this country. As a result, some concern has been expressed by radio manufacturers and broadcasters, who feel that such a service, for which no real need has been demonstrated, might have unfortunate effects on the industry generally. As the Government is satisfied that the field of use for a wire broadcasting service in Australia has yet to be determined, there is ample justification for adopting measures which will clarify the position, thus removing the doubts which have been raised and, at the same time, preserving the present situation until further information on the subject has been obtained. Accordingly, this short bill to amend the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1946 is submitted for the consideration of honorable members. Its purpose is merely to ensure that broadcast programmes are not distributed to listeners’ premises by means of wire lines. It places no limitations whatever on existing services nor does it preclude the possibility of the Postal Department, whose facilities are, in any case, an essential part of a wire distribution system, from conducting such a service should there be any change of circumstances in the future.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 1864

GENOCIDE CONVENTION BILL 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th May (vide page 93), on motion by Mr.

Chifley -

T hat the bill be now read a second time.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– The Genocide Convention Bill is designed to approve of ratification by Australia of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at Paris on the 9th December. I do not desire to debate this bill. The rather formidable word “ genocide “ was apparently brought into use at the time of the Nuremburg trials, and is defined in the convention as meaning -

. any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, facial or religious group, such: . . .

The article then goes on to define the actions that may be taken in line with such an objective. The contracting parties under the convention undertook to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the convention, and in particular to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide, or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III. of the convention. This bill, I understand, is necessary if Australia is to ratify the convention. Subsequently, no doubt, legislation will be put before us to make genocide a crime inside Australia, if that becomes necessary. All I wish to say about the present bill is that in the last ten years, abominations have been practised in this world, and in no place more terribly than in Germany under the Nazi regime. Every member of this Parliament must view with equal horror the practice of mass killing, and of persecution of people to the death, for reasons of race or religion, or for other reasons of the kind referred to in the convention. Of course, the crime of genocide was not peculiar to Germany; I am not without my suspicions, nor are other honorable members, that it is still going on in some parts of the civilized world, and for all I know may be going on in countries, one or more of which are signatories to this convention.

There will be no dispute in this House about the abominable character of the crime of genocide. Every Australian will agree that in respect of those who enter Australia to become citizens of the country, there must never be any blind prejudice based on their race or religion or other circumstance of the kind. We are all at one in saying that when people become citizens of Australia they become part of one people. Persecution of the kind against which the convention is directed must never be tolerated. However, I hasten to say that persecution of that kind has never been tolerated in Australia, and I am perfectly certain that it never will be tolerated here. The natural feelings of mankind have been put into the form of a convention. I must confess at once that I have no faith in conventions. I take leave to doubt whether, if the League of Nations had framed a genocide convention in 1930, theNazis would have refrained from perpetrating the horrors of the concentration camps. The real answer to this kind of crime is to make peoples and governments all round the world civilized peoples and civilized governments. I do not think that we can get rid of evil of this kind by carrying resolutions against it. However, the last thing I should dream of doing would be to speak or vote in such a way as to cast any doubt on the proposition that in Australia we abominate the crime of genocide. Nobody has ever doubted it. If it needs our subscription to a convention to advertise our feeling to the world, then let us subscribe to it.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I have very little to add to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). It is not a question of whether we should tolerate in Australia the atrocious crime of genocide, or whether we should advertise and declare our horror of the crime perpetrated on such a huge scale in Germany. It is a different matter to which the House addresses itself in deciding whether to adopt this convention. Other things which are now denounced as crimes by the whole civilized world - piracy, the slave trade, traffic in women and children - are all things which we abominate. Nevertheless, they prevailed in many parts of the world, and they were only brought under international law by the acceptance of conventions binding on all civilized nations. It is the same with genocide. Some people say that it is enough that at Nuremburg offenders were convicted and sentenced for crimes against humanity. The United Nations has taken the view that we should mark that step by the adoption of a principle which shall apply throughout the whole world. Therefore, Australia should take its place with other nations in condemning this offence. Indeed, it has already taken an active part in doing so. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, in language on which no one could improve, that we abominate what took place in Germany. We must never forget what took place there. For instance, in an establishment at Birkenau no fewer than 1,765,000 Jews were gassed and killed in order to destroy the Jewish race. In Paris, a monument has been erected to the memory of 197,000 men and women victims in another camp, that at Auschwitz, in Germany. So the horrid tale goes on. Australia will, I believe, ratify the convention, and afterwards this Parliament will pass the necessary legislation to show other countries that we join in the universal condemnation of this horror.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- This measure, which has been put before us at the request of the United Nations, is quite unlikely to achieve any good whatsoever. Much as we all detest the things against which the convention is directed, we cannot ignore the fact that in this country we are extremely unlikely to commit any of those crimes. If there is any virtue in passing a law of this kind, why does not the institution, with which the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) spends so much of his time, devote some of its energy to condemning crimes where they are being committed at the present time? Genocide is being practised now in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia against the leaders of racial and religious groups. They are being persecuted and put to death, but there is no condemnation of such crimes because it might affect a powerful nation. We wait in vain for condemnation of these crimes to come from the United Nations. I say frankly that I regard this bill as nothing more nor less than a piece of pious humbug. After all, what is war? As we all know, war means an attack by one nation on another nation, and, at the present time, unhappily, on all of the men, women and children who comprise that nation. This mighty organization, the United Nations, has been in labour for a long time and has brought forth nothing more than this miserable pigeon’s egg which we now have before us. A particularly unfortunate application of the principles embodied in this bill is now operating in Germany. I have drawn attention on other occasions to the manner in which the war crimes tribunals have been working. The convention embodied in this bill seems to give power to nations to prosecute serving soldiers of enemy nations for the things they did by the order and with the blessing of their governments in the time of war. It is a degrading and miserable spectacle to see German commanders, who may have done many indecent things under the stress of the moment and with the blessing of their government-

Mr Beazley:

Mr. Beazley interjecting,

Mr GULLETT:

– If the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) has anything to say on this subject let him express his views when I have concluded my speech. It is a wretched spectacle to see many German generals, now old men, who, during the war, rendered’ good service to their country according to their lights, being subjected to every possible kind of degradation simply because in accordance with the ethics of their profession and acting under instructions from their government they carried out their duties as best they could.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I have not a great deal to say about this bill. Tt is one of those pious pieces of humbug which the Minister for External Affairs (“Dr. Evatt) so often brings back to this country when be returns from one of his many excursions overseas. The right honorable gentleman knows, as I and other honorable member* know, that genocide is raging in the world to-day just as much as it did during the years when Germany was the paramount nation in the world.

Mr Beazley:

– What rubbish I

Mr ABBOTT:

– Honorable member, opposite, and in particular the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), say, “ What rubbish ! “ Their friends in the Soviet, they say, do not commit, genocide. We have evidence that they do so.

Mr Haylen:

– Prove it.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), one of the great advocates of the Soviet Union, says, “ Prove it “. I shall prove it by referring to the published experiences of Poles who were taken into Russian prison camp* after the conclusion of the pact between Germany and Russia by Ribbentrop and Molotov, which led to the outbreak of World War II. When the former allies of the Soviet turned round and attacked Germany, many of these men were released from prison camps and lagers in Siberia and other parts of Russia and were incorporated in the Polish legions which fought with the Soviet armies for the destruction of Germany. The accuracy of those accounts has been vouched for by Marshal Pilsudski, who was then leading the Polish Government outside Poland. They reveal that the most brutal treatment was meted out to these Polish refugees, who were subjected to the same treatment by the Soviet Government as was meted’ out to Poles taken to German concentration camps. The writer of the book from which I have obtained my information points out that it was estimated by these released prisoners that between 10,000,000 and 15,000,000 people were in prison camps in Russia at that time. Other sources of information state that the number of prison camps now in that country is about the same as it was then. Genocide has raged in Russia as strongly as it ever raged in Germany. We have only to consider what has happened in the satellite countries of Russia. Last year Nicolai Petkov, a man of the greatest attainments and a great Bulgarian patriot, was murdered by agents of the Soviet Government. His extermination was approved by Soviet Russia. This bill is merely a piece of eyewash. It contains no positive proposals for dealing with the crime of genocide, nor does the convention itself provide any means by which genocide may be stamped out. As the result of the making of this convention, it may be possible to prevent genocide from being practised in very small nations, but nothing more. In the United Nations organization there is one law for small nations and another law for big and influential nations such as Russia when they find themselves in disagreement with other members of the organization. I have no objection to the passing of this bill but I do not think that it is worth the paper on which it is printed. I protest against what I believe to be the utterly idle and useless action of the Minister for External Affairs in presenting to this Parliament a piece of legislation which is mere window-dressing and humbug. The right honorable gentleman would be better employed if he stayed at home and looked after the interests of this country instead of beating the big drum abroad and bringing back such humbugging documents as that which is now before us.

Government members interjecting,

Mr ABBOTT:

– It is all very well for honorable members opposite to say -

God’s in his Heaven -

All’s right with the world.

This Government has developed the unfortunate habit of looking at distant scenes and ignoring what is happening at home. We have been told about the great shortage of dollars-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - Order! The honorable member will not be in order in discussing the shortage of dollars.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Then I shall leave that subject. We make gifts to the United Nations-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order! The honorable member may not discuss either gifts to the United Nations or the shortage of dollars or, in fact, any subject but genocide.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Under the convention, action must be taken against any country which commits genocide. ArticleIII. of the convention reads -

The following acts shall be punishable:

Conspiracy to commit genocide;
Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

We are aware that in Poland genocide is at present being extensively practised against those Polish people who are hostile to the Government. Just as we in Australia freeze the funds of the miners-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order ! I shall ask the honorable member to resume his seat if he continues along those lines.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I shall not pursue the subject any further. I protest against the humbug indulged in by the Minister for External Affairs in introducing legislation of this kind. He would do better if, instead of perambulating around the world and bringing back documents of this kind for the Parliament to ratify, he stayed at home and endeavoured to keep Australia on an even keel.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- We have just heard two utterances from two Opposition members in what might be said to be their sturdy and practical mood. I am sorry that their speeches were not broadcast. Nothing could have done more damage to the cause of the Liberal party than the speeches delivered by them. Both of them made a strong point of the fact that there is political violence of an extremist kind in the Soviet Union which is directed against those who are opposed to the Soviet Government. Both have suggested that this bill is useless. For many years conventions have existed for the abolition of slavery, and many nations have acted upon them. If it is true that there is forced labour, amounting to slavery, in the Soviet Union, and the information which I have would indicate that that is so, although I cannot vouch for its accuracy, that fact, of itself, would not invalidate all the anti-slavery legislation under which action has been taken in the past to abolish slavery. Anti-slavery conventions have undoubtedly gone a long way towards destroying the international slave trade, and it is possible that a convention of this kind will go some way towards destroying the crime of genocide. The nations concerned in this convention, however, have never at any stage in their history been able to enforce the articles of an international convention against a great power which has been bent on destroying them. If, when the League of Nations was in existence, there had been slavery in Russia, and the League could have done nothing about it, that would not have altered the fact that the international convention on slavery had some effect. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) has spoken about the practice -of genocide in Russia. In this bill the specific crime of racial extermination is mentioned.

Mr Gullett:

– Or religious extermination.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I have never heard the charge made that any race in Russia has been selected by Soviet Russia for extermination.

Mr Gullett:

– Not racial hut religious extermination.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– A man with an antiSemitic record such as that of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) should keep away from that subject. I know of no case of persecution in which the persecution, bad as it may have been, has been practised on racial grounds. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) and the honorable member for Henty have said that no protests were made on the basis of the allegations that have been made against Russia. The honorable member for New England went as far as to mention the Nicolai Petkov case as an example of failure to protest. His statement was untrue. A protest was made by every great’ power, with the United Kingdom speaking on behalf of the British Commonwealth of Nations, in relation to the execution of Petkov. The nations said that Petkov had been given a trial which amounted to judicial murder and they made strong protests to the United Nations. Protests were also made to the United Nations in relation to the trials of Mindszenty and Ordas and the Bulgarian Protestant pastors. I do not suggest that in that instance the protests were effective; hut honorable members opposite have said that no protests were made. As I have said, that is contrary to the facts. The honorable member for Henty has referred to the position of certain German generals. I think that, unpopular though his line may be, the statement that he made required great courage, and that a case could be made out for it. But the execution of some of the negotiators of German foreign policy, the intended execution of Goering, which he evaded, and the actual execution of Ribbentrop and others, seem to have been a function of victory rather than of international law. It is not a bad thing that there should be an international convention, ratified by all nations. All of these international agreements which we have recently had, if they do nothing else than indicate that under a nation’s law all war criminals will be hanged, under the cover of international law rather than as a function of victory, at least do that good. I did not think that any

Honorable member would wish this bill to be debated at length, because I thought that it had been adequately dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). It is unfortunate that a debate on a convention that obviously has not been originated by the Minister for Externa] Affairs should have been made the occasion for another petty, insulting and psycho-neurotic raving by the honorable member for New England.

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

– I had “hoped that this “bill would have been passed unanimously in a few moments, but the actions of two honorable gentlemen opposite in repudiating the excellent speech that was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) compel me to say something upon it. I have met many of the unffortu nate victims of various kinds of tyranny, all gradations of political colour being involved, who .have come to Australia to seek a new life. It would be a pity, for the sake of Australia itself and also for the sake of the newcomers, if anybody got the impression that anywhere in this country there can be found a single person who is indifferent to what happened in Europe after the rise of Hitler and what is happening there still. In Article II. of the convention, genocide is defined as follows: -

. any of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
1. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
2. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
3. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
4. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Every person in Australia with red blood in his veins and a spirit of humanity in his heart should applaud the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) for supporting a bill of this kind so soon after his return to Australia and for seeking the approval of the Australian Parliament to such a magnificent statement of this country’s intentions to do all in its power to prevent the commission of the acts that are referred to in the convention.We may have no effective force at our disposal to prevent the destruction of the lives of individuals or of groups of individuals, and we may have no opportunity to prevent the infliction of mental harm upon them, but we can at least let the world know that, as far as moral sanctions are concerned, this country gives place to no other country in its desire to uphold the rights of humanity and its respect for the dignity of human beings.

The Minister for External Affairs has been the subject of two attacks this evening. Australia should be very proud of the right honorable gentleman and of the great honour that was bestowed upon Australia and himself when he was elected as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Honorable members are entitled to disagree with what he does, but they are not entitled to sneer at the services that he has rendered to humanity. His services will be recognized in history as being of considerable value. At any rate, most Australians are very proud of the fact that the Minister for External Affairs of this country, one of the small nations of the world, occupies the highest position in the greatest organization for the preservation of peace and the protection of human life that the wit of man has yet been able to devise. The speeches that have been inflicted upon us by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) and the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) can do much harm. They can create the impression in this country and outside it that we condemn some forms of mass murder or genocide or are entirely indifferent to them, depending upon who the victims are. The convention applies to the perpetration of any form of this diabolical tyranny. No matter by whom or where it is perpetrated, and irrespective of whether it is perpetrated under a “ Red “ dictatorship or under some surviving form of fascist dictatorship, we are bound to condemn it. It is idle for the two honorable gentlemen opposite to whom I have referred to sneer at the convention and to say that it does not matter or that they will support it in the same miserable way in which they would do anything that they regarded as contemptible.

Mr Beazley:

– If the convention is pious humbug, they should vote against the bill.

Mr CALWELL:

– That is precisely the position. If they think it is not worth what the Minister for External Affairs has said that it is worth, they should divide the committee so that we may know where everybody stands. I am sure that the honorable member for New England just spoke out of his turn, because he is not a bad sort of a man. I know his foolishness, and I make allowance for it. I am not so certain about the honorable member for Henty, who has some rather violent anti-semitic streaks in his nature. I think it is because he hates the Jew that he has made the observations that he has made to-night.

All that I desire to say in conclusion is that by ratifying this convention we can at least pass an almost post-mortem condemnation of the Potsdam Agreement, under which some of the most dreadful acts in the history of Europe have been perpetrated. Article II. of the convention reads as follows: -

In the present Convention, genocide means anyof the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Under the Potsdam Agreement, 11,000,000 people were pushed from their homes in Europe to somewhere else. There are 3,000,000 of the Volke Deutsch eking out a miserable existence in the land of their ancestors, but it is not a land in which they are welcome because they are regarded as taking the food of the German nationals themselves. In my view, this convention, if adopted, would prevent any further happenings of the kind that have occurred under the Potsdam Agreement. It is not merely a condemnation of the persecution of the Jews, but of the persecution of any people, regardless of race or religion.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

. -I have listened with interest to what the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) and the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) have had to say. I point out that neither the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) nor the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) uttered any word of condemnation of the principle upon which this bill is based. They said that it was pious humbug. The only difference of opinion that 1 have with them is that I object to the use of the word “pious”. The honorable member for Fremantle referred to the slave trade. Nothing that was done to abolish the slave trade was due to the existence of an international anti-slave agreement. The great example for hundreds of years was set by the church, which induced many people to free their slaves as a penance for their sins. That was one reason for the abolition of the slave trade, and it was probably a very good one. To go into the political realm, the first great emancipation of slaves did not occur because of an international agreement, but because the British Government paid £20,000,000 to free slaves in British territories. The second greatest act in the abolition of slavery caused a civil war in the United States of America. The abolition of slavery has been achieved mainly by force. For over 100 years, ships of the British Navy, both sail and steam, sailed the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean, fought Corsairs, Turks and Arabs and prevented the carrying on of the slave trade. Let me point out that in recent years there were vestiges of the slave trade in Africa. The trade was conducted very largely by Arabians, and also by that noble person for whom many of our countrymen seemed to have a great liking in 1936, that is, a gentleman by the name of Haile Selassie. One of the cancers of his kingdom was that the slave trade, in one of the vilest forms ever to be thought of, was being carried on in the years of grace 1935 and 1936.I have mentioned those matters, not because I want to detract in the slightest degree from anything that the Minister for External Affairs has said or done, but because I think that we should view these matters in their true, perspective and realize that such things are not abolished as the result of international agreements but by the application of force or, in the case of the United Kingdom, the expenditure of cash.

Genocide is a modern term. I admit quite frankly that the word was new to me until the last session, when I had to go and look it up in a dictionary. One dictionary did not have the word in it. Those who are historically minded will know that there have been many instances of race destruction in the past. Our late lamented friends, Tamerlane, Genghis Khan and a few of the Turks, were exports at it. It was carried on for hundreds of years and whole provinces were devastated. People were not killed only because of their race. Race destruction was also carried out for the purposes of religion. The test to apply is what effect this convention, once it is accepted by the Australian Parliament, will have on the events that are occurring in Europe and Asia to-day. After the Minister for External Affairs had spoken the other night about what the United Nations had done in relation to Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary and certain Protestant pastors in Roumania, I put it to him, by way of interjection, that the test of the efficacy of the actions of the United

Nations is that those clergymen are still in gaol. Now we have a further test. What has happened to the Archbishop of Prague, Dr. Beran, and to the Catholic clergy in that city? As far as we can ascertain, 1,500 of them have disappeared in the last two or three weeks. I have no doubt that all that the right honorable gentleman will tell me in a few moments will be that the Government of Czechoslovakia is a member of the United Nations. It is probably also a party to this convention.

I invite honorable members to study some of the books in the Parliamentary Library. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has one at the moment that is called Tell the West. It is the story of a Pole with socialist sympathies. When his country was invaded by the late Mr. Hitler and his friend the late Mr. Ribbentrop, upon whom was conferred the Order of Lenin by M. Stalin, Mr. Lenin’s successor, this poor Pole thought that he would get a better deal in Communist Russia than in Nazi Germany. In his book he tells of his experiences. He is one of those who have escaped. That book is only one of many similar books that are available. Honorable gentlemen have read others, and so have I. Every one of us knows that genocide is a very live issue to-day. What was done by Tamerlane, Genghis Khan and all that crowd pales into insignificance compared with what is being done to-day. The ancients slew because they did not usually know what to do with their captives. To-day, the men to whom I have referred slay because it is a deliberate and considered policy that they should slay certain people of certain races, faiths and political opinions. What has happened to the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Roumania and a large part of eastern Germany who were antagonistic to certain of their leaders? What would happen to many of the people of France, the Low Countries and Scandinavia if M. Stalin’s armies were to “liberate” them? They would disappear east of the Urals, not because of anything that they had done against God or man in this life, but because their lives were in compatible with Communist existence. When we examine the meaning of a document like this convention, let us remember that the Ten Commandments have been in existence for much longer than 2,000 years, although I am afraid that they are still honoured more in the breach than in the observance. I ‘ am not attempting to teach the Deity. I have been deterred from any views that I may have had in that direction by some of the examples that I have noticed since I have become a member of this Parliament. The passing of this bill will not mean a “ cracker “ unless the countries that ratify the convention observe its provisions. No one in his right senses believes that the Commonwealth of Australia will be called before the bar of public opinion, if there is such a thing, and asked to answer for any of the things which are enumerated in this convention. But there are many countries to-day that will be required to answer before the bar of world opinion, if there is such a thing, not for what they have done in the past but for what is happening within their borders to-day. I should like the Minister to inform me by what measures - inches, yards, miles or whatever he likes - the passing of this bill by this Parliament will make one whit better the fate and future of people in Russia, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, eastern Germany, Roumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or those parts of Greece in which the minions of M. Stalin are operating. That is the test, and unless the ratification of this convention will assist the people of those countries, then, from the viewpoint of decency or humanity, it will have no effect whatever.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I said all that I wanted to say about this hill in the first instance in the second-reading debate, but I intervene again in committee merely to say that there are, of course, very strong views about certain aspects of this matter. However, it must not be overlooked that there is one view only in this Parliament about the particular crime which is referred to in this measure. There must be no mistake about that. Not only everybody in this Parliament but also everybody in this country detests the kind of thing which is referred to in this bill.

I have risen to say two things. In the first place, as I indicated at the beginning, this is not a measure upon which there is any party division of opinion. This is not a party matter.

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am not so sure about that.

Mr Conelan:

– The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) seems to be out of step.

Mr MENZIES:

– Nobody has pretended that this is a party matter. The second thing that I desire to say is that, as I indicated earlier, I myself have been very troubled about the efficacy of a convention of this kind. That is a doubt which has been expressed by several of my colleagues, not as to whether the crime should he condemned, but as to the efficacy of this particular form of condemnation. So little is this a party matter that I have risen also to say that I, personally, am most indebted to the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) for having put a view on this subject which I find full of material for thought. His view, as I understand it, is that although the ratification of this convention does not, of itself, do anything immediately, and although it has no effect or relevance inside our own country - as, of course, we profoundly hope it never will - it does constitute, by common consent, something that is recognized internationally as a crime, and, in future, war criminals may be prosecuted under a pre-existing law instead of under what some people have regarded as a retrospective law. That, I think, is the substance of the point that the honorable member for Fremantle has made. I, for one, have been most interested in it, and I am indebted to him for placing it before the committee.

Mr. ABBOTT (New England) [8.52’J. t-I desire to reply, in a few words, to speeches by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) and the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell). This chamber is deeply indebted to the honor able member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) for the plain and truthful statement that he made a few minutes ago. He demonstrated-, in expressing his views, a wealth of historical knowledge of happenings in the world pot only long ago, but also at the present time. If he taught any honorable members any history, the honorable member for Fremantle wai certainly among the number. When the honorable member for Barker was addressing .the committee, I felt that I was listening to a historian of great renown. However, when I listened to the honorable member for Fremantle, I gained the impression that he had studied some history books like “Little Arthur’s History of England”. The honorable member for Fremantle said that he regretted that this debate was not being broadcast. I share his regret, because every word that he uttered bore out exactly what I had said. This convention is like a bottle of patent medicine. The label is magnificent, but the contents are of very doubtful value. The honorable member for Fremantle has recalled that there are conventions against slavery, hut that slavery is still in existence in the Soviet Union. The honorable gentleman proceeded to develop that theme by pointing out that no action had been taken against the Soviet for tolerating conditions of slavery within its borders. After having shown how our ally in the recent war was behaving in suppressing liberty and freedom in the satellite countries and within its own borders, the honorable member expressed the view that it had never been possible to enforce a convention against a great nation. I made exactly the. same point in my speech. I remarked that if the people of Australia and other countries thought that the enforcement of this convention against genocide in relation to a great power that had committed a crime against humanity would lead to war, they could rest assured that no action would be taken. I am grateful to the honorable member for supporting my views and debunking this bill. The honorable member also stated that it was not true to say that no protest had been made against the murder of Nicolai Petkov some time ago. I agree with him that the governments of several countries, including the Government of the United Kingdom, protested against that crime. In fact, protests were voiced in the House of Commons. But when some honorable members on this side of the chamber asked whether the Australian Government would protest against the murder of Petkov, they did npt receive much encouragement.

The Minister for Information stated that moral sanctions would be used against countries that committed a breach of the convention against genocide. I was most interested in that statement, because we have had the opportunity to impose sanctions against certain countries which, to-day, are committing the crime of genocide. I refer particularly to Poland where violent and vicious attacks are being made on the Catholic clergy. What is the attitude of the Australian Government towards imposing moral sanctions against Poland? Like Jason of old, the Australian Government has given to Poland many gifts of “golden fleece”. In other words it has made - available to Poland wool worth £250,000.

The Minister, when speaking about genocide, said that much depended on who the victims were. I expressed exactly the same view. If the people of a poor little country are murdered by a powerful country, other countries defer action, and the result is that the convention is not worth the paper on which it is printed. If we accept the fact that this is a document which puts forward a noble code, I shall vote for the bill, and support the convention. I agree with the statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) that every honorable member stands for such a code of conduct in the affairs of nations as is set forth in this bill. But we do not want the people of this country or any other country to be fooled and humbugged into believing that the ratification of this convention will stop genocide in the world. Soviet Russia and its satellites are committing genocide to-day, and they will continue to do so, until they are stopped either by a change of government within the Soviet Union or by pressure exerted by other nations which will demonstrate to Russia that it does not pay to murder the helpless people of the satellite countries whose political views, do not conform to those pf the Soviet.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– I support the bill, very warmly. I agree with the point which has been made that we, by ratifying this convention, are helping to affirm a body of international law for the future. At the same time, we are also reaffirming a great moral principle. We cannot too often reaffirm great moral principles, even though we may see on all sides departures from the practice of those principles, and find within our own borders departures from the practise of certain other moral principles to which we have subscribed. Some honorable members on this side of the chamber, who have spoken in this debate and have been criticized by honorable members opposite, did not condemn this measure as such, but they did speak of it in terms of criticism because of its ineffectually, in itself, to bring about the thing which we claim to be right and proper in the conduct of national and human affairs. As I see it, this measure really stems from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a part of the body of law and statement of principle that has been set forth by the United Nations. We, a3 a government and as a people, have always subscribed to conventions that have been placed before us. Certain articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deal with the right of marriage, which is closely bound up with this convention on genocide. This is not merely a measure designed to prevent the extermination of groups by acts of violence, for it is also aimed at moves to prevent births in certain groups. There is even at this moment discussion of a policy to encourage the prevention of births in Japan and, I concede, in Britain, and in other countries. We must ensure as a subscriber to this convention that that policy shall not be allowed to develop to the point at which it will become an imposition upon people that they shall practise birth control. We in Australia are departing very largely from certain conventions to which we have subscribed and which seem to me to be closely connected with the convention now before the committee. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as finally adopted, reads -

1 ) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the. right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Under certain of our laws, we are cutting right across that principle to which we have subscribed. We are preventing Australians from exercising their lawful right to marry.

Mr Beazley:

– Then, the honorable member agrees that the bill is necessary as a practical measure.

Dame ENID LYONS:

– I do agree. T have contended from the beginning that we should pass the bill, but we must not depart from the spirit of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the administration of our laws. I say strongly that if an Australian lawfully takes unto himself a wife who is not of Australian birth, he should have the right, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which, I repeat, we have subscribed, to maintain that wife in this country.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - Order! The honorable member for Darwin was dealing with the prevention of births in groups of people. She is entitled to touch upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but she is not entitled to do more than that. .

Dame ENID LYONS:

– There is a distinct connexion between the convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights opens up a wide field, and the honorable member would not be in order in going too far into it.

Dame ENID LYONS:

-I bow to your ruling, sir, but the nations that have subscribed to the convention should ensure that their practice shall accord absolutely with the principles enunciated in it.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– The bill proves to me that the shapers of Australia’s foreign policy have mistaken ideas about the prospects of bringing about world order or world government. Before I develop that theme by reading certain extracts from the quarterly review, Foreign Affairs, which is published in the United States of America, I wish to associate myself entirely with the forceful remarks of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). They impelled me to rescue from my room before it was posted to my campaign director in the Northern Territory, Mr. Harry Hickey, a page from the Sydney Sunday Herald of the 26th June on which are reproduced photographs of Hungary’s Rajk, Bulgaria’s Dimitrov, Roumania’s Pauker, Hungary’s Rakosi, and Yugoslavia’s Tito, all of whom are Communists. They represent the forces of barbarism. J regard it as an insult to honorable members that they should be called upon to consider and vote upon a bill of this character. It deals with a crime of which no Anglo-Saxon nation could be guilty. That our Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) should have condescended to subscribe, on Australia’s behalf, to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, is an insult to the Australian people. The convention itself is an insult to all AngloSaxons all over the world. I admire the Minister for External Affairs for trying to solve the problems that beset the world, but, in this instance, he is sailing on the wrong tack. He should have scorned to have anything to do with the convention. None of the crimes that are enumerated in it could ever be committed by the Anglo-Saxon race. I return to my theme that there is something wrong with our foreign policy when it expresses the mistaken idea that we shall be able to bring about world order or world government. In order to strengthen that contention I quote the following words from an article published in Foreign Affairs : -

The trustful acceptance of false solutions for our perplexing problems adds a touch of pathos to the tragedy of our age.

The tragic character of our age is revealed in the world-wide insecurity which is the fate of modern man. Technical achievements, which a previous generation had believed capable of solving every ill to which the human flesh la heir, have created, or at least accentuated, our insecurity. For the growth of technics has given the perennial problems of our common life a more com pi px form and a scope that hu grown to be world-wide.

Our problem is that technics have established a rudimentary world community but have not integrated it organically, morally or politically. They have created a community of mutual dependence, but nut one of mutual trust and respect. Without this higher integration, advancing technics tend to sharpen economic rivalries within a general framework of economic interdependence; they change the ocean harriers of yesterday into the battlegrounds of to-day; and they increase the deadly eflicacy of the instruments of war so that vicious circles of mutual fear may end in atomic conflicts and mutual destruction. To these perplexities an ideological conflict has been added, which divides the world into hostile camps.

If I quote a few more words from the article, we may determine the line of demarcation between the ideology of the barbarian races and the ideology of the Anglo-Saxon race. Those words are as follows: -

The notion that world government is a fairly simple possibility is the final and most absurd form of the “ social contact “ conception of government which has confused modern political thought since Hobbes. lt must certainly he obvious by this time that the conception of a state of nature in which all men were at war with all, and of a subsequent social contact through which mcn established a power over themselves to avoid mutual annihilation, is pure fiction.

The Minister for External Affairs has played a big part in the United Nations. He has returned to Australia and placed this bill before us with the feeling that he is thereby doing a good job. I do not doubt the sincerity of his ethics, but his wisdom was lacking when he decided that the parliament of an Anglo-Saxon nation should ratify this convention. I direct the attention of honorable members, especially those with tendencies to the left, to the following statement that was published in the Sunday Herald last week-end -

There are few, very few public men like Archbishop Beran left in the satellite States of Eastern Europe. The Communist-dominated Government of Czechoslovakia has made it clear that if the Roman Catholic Church does not submit nf its own accord, the Government will try every means to make it disappear in that country . . . There are few, very few public men like Archbishop Beran left in the satellite States of Eastern .Europe. Soon there may not be Archbishop Beran. Events in Prague during the week have shown one thing. President Clement Gottwald and his Government have lost patience.

Mr RANKIN:

– That must be the case, if the Chair says so, but actually it is not a matter of fact.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! The Chair will have to ask the honorable member to resume his seat if he continues in that strain.

Mr RANKIN:

– I cannot help that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! The honorable member must keep strictly to the bill. The question of defence, however interesting it might be during another debate, cannot be discussed in connexion with this measure.

Mr RANKIN:

– I thought this convention was supposed to assist in the defence of weak peoples and to stop mass destruction.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Mass destruction of groups or nations.

Mr RANKIN:

– Then I should think that what I have said must surely have some bearing on the measure. I think we all agree that those who are guilty of the horrors that were perpetrated at the Belsen concentration camp and similar places should be destroyed as being foul and unfit to live upon this earth. Bat it is utterly stupid to prosecute a man like Field Marshall Kesselring. who served his country in war-time. He was a patriot. Possibly he did not agree with Hitler’s theories, but he was ordered by his own people to carry out his duties as commander in the field, and he would have been shot as a traitor had he not carriedthem out. Tie would also thereby have betrayed his own people. I think that quite a lot of the stuff that is being put out by the United Nations is not only useless but also very dangerous to the small nations of this world, and will be used as an excuse for the strong nations to say to weak nations, “ Well, we have passed a resolution, and the big nations must not do certain things. But you have no armies now so we must let you be overrun “.

Mr. ANTHONY (Richmond) [9.271.- There is one point that I want to raise. It may be very satisfying to tha morals of the nation to subscribe our signature to a convention such as this, but the real question is how far we ourselves intend to comply with the principles to which we are subscribing. We are telling the other people of the world, in this particular manner, that we abhor killing for racial and religious reasons and that we also abhor the extermination of groups either in whole or in part. Australia is in the dock, at the moment, possibly in respect of individual and isolated examples of such actions.

II r. Haylen. - What are they?

Mr ANTHONY:

– If we have reason to believe, when we select a family and send it to another place-

Mr Pollard:

– Back to its own home.

Mr ANTHONY:

– When we have reason to believe-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! It is clear that the honorable member is dealing with the subject of immigration. Genocide is clearly defined in Article II. of the convention, which has nothing to do with the deportation of individuals or of groups.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Tt says in the convention that genocide means -

. any of the following acta committed with intent* to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such.

I suggest that, if we take one individual family and submit it to conditions thai we have reason to believe will cause itsmembers to lose their lives-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order! The Chair cannot permit the honorable member to pursue that line.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Very well, Mr. Deputy Chairman, but I say that it gives one some reason for thought about just how far we are applying the principlesof humanity that are enunciated in thi* convention, aud the principles of decency as between nations and as between groups within a nation. I say that the only threat that exists in Australia to the carrying out of the principles of this convention in their entirety is in the fact that one political group does not subscribe to the views expressed by the convention. It is a group which believes in establishing its power by the obliteration - not the elimination, but the obliteration - of any other group, or every other group, that is opposed to its views. 1 refer to the wellknown fact that the Communist party-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable gentleman is deliberately trying to evade the ruling of the Chair and the terms of the bill. No evasion will be permitted. The meaning of genocide is clearly defined in Article II. of the convention, and if the honorable gentleman continues along the line that he has been taking the Chair will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Very well, Mr. Deputy Chairman. I shall say then, that history shows that in the countries of Europe that have come under the domination of the Communist power an attempt is being made to eliminate religious groups. In Hungary recently there was held the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty, and in Czechoslovakia the Archbishop of Prague is now being held without trial. It is obvious that in the group of countries in which the Communists have obtained power they are carrying out an objective of obliterating religious groups or other groups that do not subscribe to the doctrines of the Communist party. I am prevented by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Chairman, from discussing the local aspects of that subject, but I say that Australia has to be consistent in these matters and must take the necessary action within its own borders to prevent such things happening here. Of course, the Attorney-General may be able to tell us what is being done in Australia. Perhaps as the ministerial head of the Director-General of Security, he can say what steps are being taken to ensure that the provisions of Article II. of the convention are being applied in order to prevent an intolerant group from seizing the reins of government, and dominating every other group.

Dr. EVATT (Barton- Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs) [9.31J. - I shall try to sum up the position. There has been some criticism during the debate, but I do not think that it goes to the heart of the matter. Some honorable members have asked, sometimes in extravagant language, sometimes in language that was not extravagant, what the passing of this bill can achieve of value. By passing the bill, the Parliament will ratify what the Government has done on behalf of Australia at the General Assembly of the United Nations. A total of 55 nations has signed the convention including the United Kingdom, and all the members of the British Commonwealth. Practically all the nations of the world, represented at the United Nations, signed the convention, and agreed to submit it to the constituted authority in their respective countries. This Parliament is the constituted authority in Australia, and it is being asked to ratify the convention. In the slow progress of international law, through what is known as international legislation, genocide, as defined in the convention, is to be declared by all nations, which ratify the convention, to be an international crime, punishable by every signatory nation.

Is that a good thing? I am sure that there is no member of this committee who would not denounce genocide in the most positive terms. In fact, I think the best summing up of popular opinion on the crime is to be found in the preamble of the convention, expressed in these words -

Being- convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required.

.- I assume that every nation willing to sign the convention will be invited to do so. What is the position of Spain under General Franco? It is reported that tens of thousands of men are incarcerated in Spain in vile dungeons. Has Spain been invited to sign the convention? Is the treatment of those prisoners in Spain regarded as genocide? Article II. of the convention contains these words -

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Dr Evatt:

– In Article XI., it is stated -

The present Convention shall be open until the 31st December, 1949, for signature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an Invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly.

So far as I know, no invitation has yet been addressed outside the United Nations.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Has Spain applied for admission to the United Nations, and if so, with what result?

Dr Evatt:

– Spain has not yet applied.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1881

IMMIGRATION BILL 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 24th June (vide page 1508), on motion by Mr. Calwell -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– The purpose of this bill is to amend the Immigration Act 1901-1948. Before I proceed, I seek a ruling from the Chair on whether it is permissible for honorable members to debate the cognate measure, the War-time Refugees Removal Bill, during this discussion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:

– Yes; the two bills may bo considered together.

Mrs BLACKBURN:

– Some of the remarks made by the Minister forImmigration (Mr. Calwell) in introducing the Immigration Bill have occupied my attention. The honorable gentleman has stated that our immigration policy is based on the concept that the homogeneous character of our population shall be maintained. In support of that policy, he showed that all the countries of the world have restricted immigration at some time and to some races. That is undoubtedly true. The Great Wall of China was built in order to keep out the races from the north and the west. Again, in China, the refusal of land to refugees for settlement purposes resulted in colonies of people living for generations as “ boat-people “ on the rivers. Restriction of immigration is as old as history, and Australia is only one of the countries which is practising it to-day. However much the protection of tribes or races against deprivation of food was a very adequate reason for such restriction in certain stages in the development of civilization, it is not now a reason for the erection of such barriers as the white races are erecting.

In Australia, the workers resented the coming to our shores of people who were likely to lower the working standards that had been established in Australia. So, we applied an immigration policy of which we are not ashamed and to which, I think, every honorable member has given his support. Unfortunately, however, we have used the term “ White Australia “ in describing our immigration policy. The Minister has said that this policy is not now, and never has been, directed at the total exclusion of non-Europeans, nor has it been imposed on the basis of any assumption of racial superiority. The honorable gentleman has also said that a measure of discrimination on racial grounds is regarded as inevitable to the maintenance of the homogeneous character of our population. He has said that he believes that the term “ White Australia “ is misleading. He has indicated that that term has been used by newspapers “ and others “, and that its use has been largely responsible for the misconception that has arisen in regard to our immigration policy. He regards the term as offensive and has urged its discontinuance. That is all to the good. It is interesting to note that since the honorable gentleman made that statement denials have been published in the press by the Liberal party that it has used the words “ White Australia policy “. In fact, many people are now finding out that they do not favour its use, and are ready to disclaim any responsibility for it. I remind the Minister and these others that the term “White Australia” is used in almost all books of reference, in all Australian histories and in official documents. In particular, I remind the Minister that to-day, and for many years past, the words “ Maintenance of a White Australia “ have appeared in the federal platform of the Australian Labour party. For many years, I have held the view which has been expressed by the Minister on this matter. 1 have always regarded the term “White Australia “ as offensive, and I have always wished for its removal and the substitution of some less objectionable phrase. I now urge the Minister to use his influence to have this misrepresentation of aims corrected in official documents, from which many thousands of Australians take a lead. I am sure that the honorable gentleman will have attention directed to this matter, in view of the remarks which he himself has made in regard to it. May I assume that the Minister is not actuated by any racial prejudice in introducing this bill? I am anxious to have his assurance on that point.

Mr Calwell:

– That is right.

Mrs BLACKBURN:

– We have an immigration policy which has been upheld by governments of all political colours, and which has had the sanction of the Australian people for a long time. The Minister in administering our immigration laws has attended to the work of his department with great personal energy and enthusiasm. But under the Immigration Act, the Minister has wide discretionary powers, and, accordingly, it is imperative that the law should be administered with discretion. If that is done, we need have no fear of our immigration policy. Complaints that have been made - and I have made some of them myself - have been occasioned by the inadequate use of the Minister’s discretionary powers. However, I do not wish to dwell on that aspect of the matter because I think that sufficient has already been said about it, and much ill will has been created by what has been said and published. I do not wish to add to that ill will. Many of those who have levelled criticism at the Minister would have taken the same action as he has taken if they had been in his place.

We have not yet come to the time when the lion is able to lie down with the lamb, and while we work towards the coming of that day, we must take steps not only for our own protection, but also for the protection of those persons who come to this country. Very frequently such persons need our protection, particularly from the unfriendliness of Australians. We have shown unfriendliness and cruelty to the dark people from whom we took this country in the first place, and our use of the term “White Australia “ is, in my opinion, an insult to those people as well as to others. The question of the homogeneity of the race has been given prominence in this debate, but my reading of history has led me to the belief that when it suits the white man, he forgets all about his race, its purity and his obligations to it. He has cared little for the purity of other races. That statement can be substantiated by records too numerous to mention which are available both inside and outside of Australia. In the early days of the white settlement of this country, although Governor Phillip was not instructed to encourage Asiatic migration, he was advised to secure a sufficient number of island women to serve the needs of the men under his control. No thought was given then to the preservation of the homogeneous character of our race or of the race from which the women were to be brought. It is sufficient for the purpose of my argument to point to the growth of the half-caste population whenever the white man goes, and to the degradation of the aboriginal races where the white men walks the land. Perhaps I may be pardoned for being sceptical when this argument for the preservation of the homogeneous character of the race is advanced.

The grounds on which restriction is based may be divided into three classes, individual, economic and racial. On individual grounds, we may exclude people according to age. We may think them too old, and, therefore, not want them. We may exclude them on account of sex, but such exclusions are rare. We may exclude them because there may be a likelihood of them becoming a charge on the community. We may exclude them because of health reasons or because of illiteracy, in which case we use the dictation test. We may exclude them because of character of political convictions or because of general undesirability. We do not need to make exclusions on economic grounds now, because we have a strong trade union group in this country and good industrial laws. Exclusion on economic grounds, need not, therefore, be considered. It has been said that the Japanese have been excluded from the United States of America, that all Asiatics have been excluded from South Africa, that all coloured persons have been excluded from Colombia, and that Arabs, Syrians, Turks and Armenians have been excluded from Natal and Canada. So we may lay theflattering unction to our souls that we are no worse than are other nations in our treatment of or attitude to these people. They exclude and deport unwanted persons just as we do.

In contrast with our Australian practice the British adopt a totally different attitude towards an alien. I have before me a volume of English constitutional history in which there appear some very interesting passages. The writer states that by clause 16 of Statute 32, which was passed in the reign of Henry VIII., aliens were prohibited from doing a number of things and from enjoying certain privileges in Great Britain. At all times they were liable to be ordered by the Crown to quit the realm. That law is still in existence. The volume from which I extracted that information is an up-to-date work which is used as a text book by law students. When was the last occasion on which that provision was used? The last alien to be expelled from Great Britain was deported in 1575 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It is recorded in this work that the British Parliament had sought by various acts to check the influx of undesirable foreigners into Great Britain, but that the privilege of asylum has never been restricted. In spite of all the attempts that have been made to exclude persons who are regarded as undesirable, the right of asylum still exists in England. We in Australia do not follow the British tradition. The Minister has said that racial prejudice is not the reason for the introduction of these bills. Nevertheless, I think that behind our immigration policy is the general prin ciple of the exclusion of Asiatics. That principle has been accepted since federation. I cannot forget that the white man forced himself upon the East and is now making laws to protect himself from the effects of his own actions. We talk boldly to-day of a world economy, but what we call a world economy is the economy of a minority. If in the development of that economy we mustbring in the people of the East, must we not extend to them our tolerance and friendship in order to establish a new era of international and inter-racial co-operation? International unity, which is so much talked about now throughout the world, cannot flourish in an atmosphere of narrowness and prejudice. World unity does not mean the unity of western civilizations, but a union of cultures and peoples all over the world. If my understanding of the Christian teaching of brotherhood and goodwill be correct, we need the help of the other peoples of the world, whether they be white, brown, black or yellow skinned, as much as they need our help to build a better world. Christianity in its beginnings was the antithesis of racial feeling. It depended upon an inward spiritual consciousness. Within the Christian group there was no Jew or Gentile, Scythian or Hellene, bond or free. It has been said that race feeling in healthy civilized societies is relatively weak, but that is grows stronger in civilizations that are in bad health or on the decline. Whether that be true or not, 1 am quite sure that nationalism and democracy are opposite tendencies. Strong national development tends towards racial feeling, but democracy turns away from it. One of the two must achieve mastery in the end. Which is it to be?

The War-time Refugees Removal Bill provides for the removal of certain persons who entered Australia during the last war. The word “ deportee “ appears to mean an alien. That is. specifically stated in clause 4 of the bill, although the definitions clause does not make it quite clear. The measure is to operate retrospectively. I have already spoken of the British attitude towards aliens, which I think should also be our attitude. This country has benefited greatly by the contributions that have been made to it by aliens in the past and is doubtless benefiting by their contributions to-day. We owe much of our democratic way of life to foreigners who came to Australia in the early days of its settlement. It is deplorable that we should frame legislation with any idea of unfriendliness towards alien peoples. I have failed to discover any reason for the introduction of this bill, or why it should be designed to operate retrospectively. If the reasons for the introduction of the bill are colour prejudice and an intention to exclude coloured people, the Government already has power to exclude them. If those are not the reasons, then the only reasons must be the character and conduct. If the character and conduct of the people who are to be deported is not in question, why cannot we follow the British tradition and give asylum and protection to those who landed on our shores in a time of emergency? If their character and conduct is in question, what the Minister thought to be good in the act of 1948 should be regarded as satisfactory now. The substitution of clause 5 of the Aliens Deportation Bill 1948 for clause 5 of this bill would meet the requirements of the Minister. When the Aliens Deportation Bill was being discussed, I questioned clause 5, because the measure contained no definition of or limitation on the aspects of character that were to be considered. It was pointed out that there was a safeguard in that the commissioner referred to in the clause was to be a judge of the Supreme Court and that no abandonment of legal principles would be considered. Finally, the Minister assured the House that the persons to be deported would have the right to the assistance of counsel or some other form of guidance. It was stated that the commissioner would, in effect, have all the powers of a royal commissioner or a select committee of inquiry of this Parliament and that he would be able to ascertain the facts of any case and report to the Minister upon them. It was stated further that in the final analysis the Parliament would have the right to pass judgment on the actions of the Minister if he abused his trust. In view of those assurances, a division was not insisted upon. When the War- time Refugees Bill is being discussed in - committee I shall move as an amendment that clause 5 of the Aliens Deportation Bill 1948 be substituted for clause 5 of this bill which will give a deportee no protection and will place absolute power in the hands of the Minister. Civil liberty and justice must be preserved, but under this bill in its present form they will not be served.

– The Leader of the Opposition complained that the Minister for Immigration had attempted, from time to time, to raise a party issue where none existed’, and to create outside Australia an impression that there is in this Parliament a general attack by the Opposition on the national immigration policy. The Leader of the Opposition described that attempt as gratuitous as it is mischievous. In that statement, the right honorable gentleman raised two issues. The first was that this subject has been made a party issue; and the second, that a false impression has been created outside Australia about our national immigration policy. In each instance the Leader of the Opposition has placed the blame on the Minister. What are the facts? No honorable member has been able to quote an instance of a departure by the Minister from the accepted practice, policy and administration of this law since the inception of federation. The Minister has not departed from the practices which have governed our policy of restricted immigration since federation. How, then, ha« the Minister made it a party issue? He has exactly administered the policy on lines that have been followed by every Minister in charge of immigration since federation. Yet he has been accused foy the Leader of the Opposition of making our national immigration policy a party issue. There if not the slightest doubt that our national immigration policy has been made a party issue, but it is clear that the Minister cannot be held responsible for that, when he is merely carrying out exactly the national policy and practice that all previous Ministers in charge of immigration have followed. Therefore, if the Minister has not made this a party issue, who has? Again there is not the slightest doubt about the answer. The responsibility rests with every member of the Opposition who has sought to make party political capital out of the misfortune and unhappiness of those people who were brought to this country under a definite agreement to leave it after the war. Honorable members opposite have encouraged those refugees to raise their voices, and to try to remain in this country. They have sought, by other means, to gain cheap popularity, and have converted what should be the national policy, on which all of us should stand united, into a party political issue.

The second charge that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition also properly lies at his door and at the door of every member of the Opposition who hae taken a similar stand in asserting that a false impression of the immigration policy of this country has been created outside Australia. Who has done that? The Minister is certainly not responsible. He has administered the law exactly, and has carried out exactly the practices that have been followed by all previous Ministers in charge of immigration since federation. Yet, a most unfortunate impression has been created in other countries that some new policy, deliberately aimed at our northern neighbours, has been adopted by the present Government and the Minister. How could1 that impression possibly have been conveyed to any other country unless it was conveyed from this country? How could that impression have been conveyed from this country unless by those who, inside this country, have raised this issue, endorsed it, made charges and, with the aid of their newspaper friend’s, had those charges cabled abroad ? The people in this country who raised this issue are entirely responsible for the false impression that has been created overseas against the Commonwealth immigration law. That false impression can have harmful effects on the relations of this country with other countries.

The Leader of the Opposition went a little way towards indicating his real attitude on this matter. After having declared the policy of the Opposition to be completely in conformity with the national immigration restriction law he said that it ought to be that sensible administration which claps the telescope to the blind eye. He then asked, in effect, “What harm would have come to Australia if one family prohibited to remain here by the immigration policy, had been permitted to remain here permanently ? “ In those words, the Leader of the Opposition managed to bring himself to the crux of whatever arguments he had. He said-

That is where the present Minister has failed, not frequently I concede, but in a few eases which have attracted wide attention and have given rise to damaging misunderstandings.

To the extent that those cases had attracted wide attention and given rise to damaging misunderstanding, the Opposition itself is undoubtedly responsible. But to the extent that the Leader of the Opposition says that, while the policy and practices should not be altered the Minister should clap the telescope to hig blind eye and refuse to see the cases that are before his official notice, the Leader of the Opposition shows both his weakness and his inconsistency in this matter. When the right honorable gentleman say? that the Minister has failed, in a few cases, he speaks only about the few cases of which he himself has any knowledge. He cannot possibly speak of any other cases. However, he has said that, in respect of the cases of which he has a knowledge and which received publicity in the newspapers, thus creating some sentimental feelings for the persons who are involved the Minister should disobey the law, clap the telescope to hit blind eye, and reverse the practice which has been followed since federation. The Leader of the Opposition considers that the Minister should allow those people to remain here. But what of the thousands of other cases in which there may be equal hardship and equally unfortunate circumstances? The Leader of the Opposition can have no personal knowledge of them. Only the Minister himself and his departmental officers have a knowledge of all those cases. In other words, the only inference that can be drawn from the right honorable gentleman’s words is that, in every case were there is some degree of hardship, or where sentimental feelings have been evoked, the national immigration policy and practice should be put aside and those people should be permitted to reside here permanently. Of course, there are many thousands of persons in that category.

To show the complete inconsistency of the Opposition in this matter and its obvious attempt to turn an article of national faith and policy into a plaything of party politics for its own advantage, no matter how much disadvantage Australia suffers in the process, I should like to quote some examples of the previous administration of this policy by members of the political parties that now form the Opposition in this Parliament. The criticism that has been voiced in the Gamboa case and the O’Keefe case suggests that nothing similar has occurred in our history. I propose to examine the cases of two Europeans, Egon Kisch and Mrs. Freer. Kisch was deported and Mrs.

Freer was excluded by the decision of a non-Labour government. Mrs. Freer was a British subject who was travelling on a British ship and who held a British passport. She was refused admission into Australia, a British dominion. The then Minister for the Interior, Mr. Paterson, who was in charge of immigration, was a member of the Australian Country party. He refused to permit Mrs. Freer to enter Australia, and for a long time, he even declined to give any reason whatever for his decision. In his action in excluding that British woman, who travelled to Australia on a British ship and possessed a British passport, Mr. Paterson was supported by many men who are to-day members of the Opposition parties.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Hear, hear!

Mr FRASER:

– A little later, I shall repeat what the honorable member for Barker said about the Freer case. When he affirms a view, he maintains that view, so long as he believes it to be correct, and, when he considers that the view that he has expressed is, after all, the wrong view, which, I imagine, is rare, he has the courage to change his mind and state what he then believes to bc the right view. Mr. McCall, who was, in those days, the very young and able member for Martin, but who has been succeeded by a far more able man in the present honorable member for that constituency, asked the Minister who was then administering our immigration laws, Mr. Paterson, a question, and the Minister replied as follows : -

The Immigration Act empowers the Minister in charge of Immigration to exercise his discretion in the matter of excluding from Australia persons whose entry he lias reasons to believe would not be in the best interests of the Commonwealth.

When he would not give any reason for his decision, he was asked by Mr. Nairn, who was either an independent-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The honorable member is thinking of Mr. Nairn’s brother. The Mr. Nairn who was a member of the House of Representatives never changed his spots.

Mr FRASER:

– Then he was different from some other honorable members on the Opposition side of the chamber. Anyway, he was a member of the then government party and he represented Perth. He asked this question -

As publicity has been given to the case of Mrs. Freer, does the honorable gentleman not think it would be better in the public interest to disclose the grounds upon which he exercised his discretion in excluding her from the Commonwealth?

Mr. Paterson replied ;

I have nothing to add to the reply I have made to the honorable member for Martin.

What Mr. Paterson told the then honorable member for Martin was exactly nothing. His attitude was completely supported by honorable members who then occupied the government benches, but who are now in the shades of opposition where they are likely to remain for a long time. Mr. Paterson even refused to put the papers about the case on the table. He went on to say -

The most jealously guarded privilege we have in this country is the right to exclude from it persons who may be regarded as undesirable.

That is a clear statement from the antiLabour side on the basis of our immigration law and its administration. That most jealously guarded privilege to which Mr. Paterson referred is apparently not so regarded to-day by some honorable gentlemen opposite, because, in the last few months, they have almost constantly attacked it. I wonder whether they will have the courage to rise in this House and express the opinions that they undoubtedly secretly hold. The Prime Minister of the day, the late Mr. J. A. Lyons, in reply to Mr. Lane, who then represented Barton, declared -

There is no doubt whatever about the legal and constitutional right of the Com mon weal u Government to exclude anybody from Australia.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, of the 6th November, 1936, Sir Robert Garran, who was then Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, gave his opinion in these words -

Shortly, my conclusions are - no one, British or foreign, white or coloured, not being a member of the Australian community, has a legal right to claim admission to the Commonwealth . . The right to refuse admission v rightly vested in the Minister . . .

How can those who in the past subscribed to those opinions and even praised the government that carried out those practices now justify their dispicable attitude in attacking the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) for having carried out exactly the same practices in his administration of exactly the same policy? In expressing their opinions about the Minister’s administration of the policy, honorable members opposite have fouled the name of Australia overseas and have led people overseas to place a completely false interpretation on what has been recently done in Australia. I come now to what was said by the honorable member for Barker. Doubtless, he will recall having said it. Speaking about the Kisch case, the honorable member said -

Wc have the right to determine what persons shall come into the country and enjoy the benefits of a stay here.

As he always does, the honorable member expressed himself perfectly clearly and left no possibility of his words being misunderstood. It is possible that the honorable member has repudiated the attacks of his colleagues in recent months on the Minister for Immigration because that honorable gentleman has administered the Immigration Act in a way exactly similar to the way in which it was administered in the days of the days of Kisch and Freer incidents. I admit that I have not read anywhere that he has repudiated their statements. It is quite possible, if he has not already repudiated them, that he will repudiate them in the course of this debate. I shall be interested to hear the contributions to this debate of those honorable members opposite who were so vocal during the parliamentary recess about the administration of the Immigration Act by the Minister for Immigration - if they have the courage to express themselves or are allowed to do so. So far, while this measure has been debated they have been conspicuous by their absence from the chamber.

Mr Barnard:

– And by their silence.

Mr FRASER:

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) was also quite clear in his opinions about the Kisch case, for he said -

Parliament has declared its policy and reinforced - if I may use the expression - the right of every civilized country to control the terms upon which foreigners shall enter it. We have, as an independent country, a perfect right to indicate whether an alien shall or shall not be admitted within these shores..

In this debate, the Leader of the Opposition was followed, on the Opposition side of the chamber, by the honorable member for Indi, and therefore, I propose also to quote some statements that he made, having just quoted a statement that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. At that time, the honorable member for Indi was Minister for the Interior. He made a statement about Europeans who urgently desired refuge in Australia. Their circumstances were somewhat different from the circumstances of certain people to whom we gave refuge during the war. But, in their years of travail, the honorable -member, exercising his authority as Minister for the Interior, in which capacity he was in charge of the administration of the Immigration Act, denied them the right to come to Australia for even a limited period. He said -

Desperate as is the need of these unfortunate people it is not the intention of the Government to issue permits for entry, influenced hy the necessity of individual cases.

To-day, honorable members of the Opposition are very much in favour of being “ influenced by the necessity of individual cases “ and are quite ready to determine that necessity without knowing, the full facts of the individual cases. The Minister has been criticized on the ground that all the facts have not been given to the public. The Opposition is very insistent that they should be given. But, in 1934, Mr. Casey, who was then Treasurer and is now the federal president of the Liberal party of Australia, said -

Governments have to take many measures which cannot be made public. They have to use sources of information of which the general public cannot he made aware.

When further discussing the Kisch case in that year, Mr. Casey declared -

The Attorney-General, Mr. Menzies, lias assured the House that information is in his possession which completely justifies the exclusion of this man. In the circumstances i suggest that honorable members and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, should be willing to accept that statement.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I do not think they did accept it.

Mr FRASER:

– Honorable members of the present Opposition have not accepted it. That is in complete contradiction of their statements when they were in power and were defending the national policy. The honorable member for Barker, in 1936, expressed a view which could be more appropriately expressed to-day. At that time, he was speaking of the exclusion of the British woman, Mrs. Freer. He said -

The issue arising in this case is very simple. The Government has exercised its right and its discretion. The Minister has done his job and instead of being criticized for having done it, this Parliament as a whole and the taxpayers of this country should commend him for his action.

In other words, Mr. Paterson should have been commended for having prevented a British woman from entering Australia to marry an Australian soldier, whilst the present Minister for Immigration is to be criticized for having excluded Sergeant Gamboa and for wishing to return Mrs. O’Keefe to her own country. As neither of those persons are British, the Immigration Act does not permit them to be in Australia. In order to make the record as complete as I can, t propose to quote from recent statements of the honorable member foi Warringah (Mr. Spender). According to the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 19 th March last, during discussions about the O’Keefes, the honorable member for Warringah declared - and I have not seen any correction of the report - that the Minister for Immigration’s “ inelastic and blundering “ approach to the question of selective immigration was undermining the White Australia policy. That statement was made when the honorable member was complaining that Australia’s policy was being undermined because consideration and sympathy were not being shown to certain Asians. More friendship and more kindness were demanded.

Mr Spender:

– I was correctly reported.

Mr FRASER:

– I shall be interested to hear the honorable member’s explanation of his remarks. In a second statement made on the 5th January, about two months earlier, the honorable gentleman demanded more friendship from Australia to Asians. On that occasion, the Sydney Daily Mirror was the vehicle for his views. It reported that the honorable gentleman had complained about the Government’s attitude of friendship to the Indonesian Government. It was too friendly, he declared, and he added that this friendly attitude was making Australia a pawn in the game of Asian nationalism and would spell the end of the White Australia policy.

Mr Spender:

– I said nothing of the sort.

Mr FRASER:

– The honorable member has had six months in which to correct the report, if it was incorrect. It was published in 350,000 copies of the Daily Mirror. I have not yet seen any correction of it. I conclude on this note. The Australian people wish to maintain their national immigration policy. We have every opportunity to do so, hut only if we are prepared to work to develop this country into the great nation which it can be, and into the only form of nationhood that can indefinitely maintain such a national immigration policy. We need, in this country, for the preservation of our national immigration policy and of ourselves as a race, a capacity to work for, and to believe in, Australia, as well as a readiness to welcome every immigrant who is assimilable into our community. We also require a passionate faith and belief in our own country and its possibilities.

Motion (by Mr. Spender) negatived -

That the debate be now adjourned.

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:

– Order! The honorable member for Warringah is only trifling with the Standing Orders.

Mr Spender:

– With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say that I am. not trifling with the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is not. My point of order concerns the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), who has just moved the adjournment of the debate. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said that the honorable member for Warringah cannot move a motion, but apparently the Minister is to be allowed to do so. How can it be that one honorable member has not the right to move that the debate be adjourned but that the Minister has the right to do so? May I point out that if the Minister obtains the adjournment, no other member can speak on this matter?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Minister has the call and he has moved that the debate be adjourned, and I shall therefore put the question to the House.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 19

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1893

WAR-TIME REFUGEES REMOVAL BILL 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th June (vide page 814), on motion by Mr. Calwell -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LANG:
Reid

.- This is a savage piece of legislation. It should be called “Reprisals Against Mrs. O’Keefe Bill “ It reeks of venom and spite. The Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) has been frustrated, so he turns what should have been an ordinary act of administration into a personal vendetta against a woman he has never met. When the High Court of Australia ruled against him, he was consumed with a personal hatred of Mrs. O’Keefe. She had appealed to the highest judicial body in Australia, and had won. That was sufficient to earn the undying enmity of the Minister. He must have his revenge. He had to show her that, no matter what the High Court of Australia said, he was the final authority. Once he said that this lady had to go, she had to go. It did not matter if he dragged down the Government in the process. He had to get his revenge. It did not matter that the platform of the Labour party says that the High Court of Australia should be the final court of appeal. It did not matter that a fundamental principle of justice is that no person shall be tried twice for the same offence. It did not matter that this woman, having established her right of residence by an appeal to the High Court of Australia, should have been left undisturbed. It did not matter that the principle established in the Walsh-J Johanson case might be placed in jeopardy. All those considerations were thrown overboard in order that the Minister might wreak his petty spite on one person. That is why this legislation is to be retrospective in operation, and why it is aimed specifically at a lady called Mrs. O’Keefe.

The Minister is going to show the High Court of Australia that he is not to be trifled with. That is in accordance with his code of inverted justice. Legislation designed to deal with individual cases, instead of with principles, is generally bad. When it is the outcome of a personal grudge it is always bad. No one will quarrel with the principle that a government must retain, the right to decide whom it will admit to the country. That is a sound principle. No one will quarrel with the principle that a government has the right to deport those who violate the laws of the country, if they are not nationals of the country. The O’Keefe case is not touched by either of those principles. Mrs. O’Keefe had been in Australia for a number of years. She had violated no law of Australia. It is this bill, introduced by the Minister for Immigration, that will make her a lawbreaker. The bill has been introduced for the deliberate purpose of making her a law-breaker. Our immigration law was never brought into serious question until the present Minister assumed office. It is not the law that is at fault, but the administration of the law by the Minister for Immigration.

Ifr. Lang.

The Minister talked glibly and hypocritically about the law being inflexible, and suggested that if he deviated by a hair’s breadth from the letter of the law he would bring down the entire legal edifice. What arrant humbug! Such a statement proves that the Minister is ignorant of the principle of statute law. Our statute law provides the death penalty for murder, rape, and a number of other offences. Under the law, a presiding judge has no alternative but to -pass the death sentence on any one convicted of a capital offence. But the Labour party is opposed to the death penalty. During the war, the Curtin Government, in two instances, prevented the death penalty from being inflicted on naval ratings. Since then, doubts have arisen about their guilt. Does the Minister for Immigration say that the Curtin Government was wrong because those two naval ratings did not die? Although the law provides the death penalty for certain offences, all governments have recognized what are known as mitigating circumstances. If the Attorney-General were to insist upon the letter of the law being observed, the death sentence would not only be imposed on persons convicted of capital offences, but it would also be carried out in all cases; yet, as everybody knows, that is not done. Governments have always reserved to themselves the right to review death sentences in the light of circumstances, and in many cases justice has been tempered with mercy. Indeed, that is one of the highest prerogatives of government. Of all possible alleviating circumstances, that of our common humanity is the greatest, and it should have been a ground for clemency towards Mrs. O’Keefe. It is only because the Minister blundered in his administration that the Government now finds itself in a legal quagmire.

Every Australian with an instinct for fair play will say that the Government has acted wrongly in allowing the Minister to pursue this one-sided vendetta. Australians despise a bad loser. The Minister lost when he tried to run Mrs. O’Keefe and her family out of Australia. Now he is resorting to the black-jack of personal legislation, and the Government is making itself a party to this petty tyranny. The attitude of the Government is contemptible. There is no need for this bill. The issues raised before the High Court would never have been raised if the law had been administered fairly, and with common sense. If an attempt were made to administer every law inflexibly according to the letter of it, then every law would be challenged in the courts on some ground or other. This Parliament has enacted many laws providing penalties, but it has always been understood that the King may exercise clemency. Therefore, it is the custom in Australia for the Governor-General to review sentences. That is going on all the time and I challenge the Government to deny it.

In considering this legislation, it becomes necessary for me to ask the Parliament whether or not the present Minister has shown himself to be a fit and proper person to exercise the powers that are to be conferred upon him by this measure. If he proposes to use them as a repressive instrument, he should not be vested with them. If he refuses to recognize that it is his job to see that there is no miscarriage of justice, he should not administer this legislation. He has approached the problem of administration with a split persecution complex. He apparently believes that he is the victim of persecution, and that he should get even with society by persecuting those who happen to cross his path. So, he puts himself forward as a victim of vicious newspaper persecution. Yet, on the other hand, he goes to the extreme length of trying to curry favour with the same newspapers. He has two huge departments which constantly feed hia alleged persecutors with carefully prepared handouts. If he regards that as persecution, all I can say is that be is a glutton for punishment. He would have us believe that the “ Manila girls “ plotted with the American army to persecute him, and that he was the victim of a terrible persecution. He would have us believe that some of them went through the form of marriage in order to thwart him, so to get his revenge he tried to drag them back to this country against their will. He tried to use the American army to accomplish his purpose. When the Americans refused, he insisted that they were in a conspiracy against him. Is the

Minister, who is looking everywhere for foul conspirators against his ministerial authority, a proper person to exercise the powers which this measure proposes to confer upon him? In the Gamboa case, once again he would have us believe that cloak and dagger men were after him. This time they were again in the ranks of the American army. They belonged to General MacArthur’s personal staff. The Minister screeched to the world press, through an American press agency, of course, that there was another foul plot afoot against him. The same story was told over again about the O’Keefes. He would have us believe that Mrs. O’Keefe’s husband conspired with her in order to defeat the law ; but the High Court said that the law had not been broken. So, how could there have been a foul conspiracy against him? He would have had us believe that Mrs. O’Keefe’s religious adviser, the local parish priest, conspired against him and tried to persecute him. He would have us believe that the hundreds who subscribed to the fund to help this poor woman also conspired against him. I have no doubt that the neighbourhood children who played with the O’Keefe children must also have been in the conspiracy because they were on Mrs. O’Keefe’s side and not on the Minister’s side. The newspapers which reported the Minister’s many garbled statements were also in the foul conspiracy. Any medium that puts forward a point of view different from that of the Minister must be in the plot. If the newspapers had really wanted to persecute him they could have failed to publish his handouts. That would have been a mortal blow. That would have been real persecution. That explains his approach to this bill. It is his counterpersecution.

Although Mrs O’Keefe has broken no Commonwealth law, she must suffer. She stood up against the Minister, so she must be dumped back in a hostile country among people who may regard her as an enemy for all the Minister knows or cares. She must be separated from her husband. Her home must be broken up. If this Parliament believes in freedom and fair play and in humanitarian government, it will not stand for such political sadism. It will no’; stand for the twisting of the law to satisfy the revenge motive. It may he desirable to consider the appointment of a separate “ Minister for deportation “ as well as a Minister for Immigration. One Minister would be bringing in immigrants and the other would be deporting them. Both of them would have a full-time job, and they would both have fully-staffed departments. If the Government desires to see justice done, the powers proposed to be conferred by this measure should not be vested in the present Minister. He should not be placed in a position of having to review his own blunders or even the mistakes of his predecessors. There is ample precedent for such a procedure. In New South Wales it is the function of the Attorney-General to frame the law and to see that it is enforced through the courts. Then there is a Minister for Justice to see that people are not only dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the law, but also, and above all, in accordance with the principles of justice. The Minister for Justice sees to it that punishment is made to fit the crime, taking into consideration all the circumstances. That is a sound principle that might well be applied in this instance.

Is it not the duty of this Parliament to honour moral obligations that were assumed during the war? Those obligations are two-fold. First, there is the obligation of the individual to honour the bonds of matrimony. When those bonds have been solemnized by the church and fulfilled by the parties to the marriage surely there is a case against the Commonwealth smashing such honorable undertakings. If we are to maintain this country as a Christian country, and if we are to uphold the ethics of religion, surely we will not ruthlessly destroy such marriages. Should not every case be judged in the light of all the known facts? This is not a job for a Minister of the Crown. It may be a job for a member of the judiciary who is granted discretionary power. It may even be a matter that should be entrusted to responsible religious authorities for their consideration of each individual case. It is certainly not a matter for rule-of-thumb departmental administration without an investigation of each in dividual case. Secondly, there is the other important moral obligation that rests upon every member of this Parliament to those who individually served with the Australian armed forces during the war - the people who risked their lives to defend this country. In Mrs. O’Keefe’s case, it was her first husband who forfeited his life. Had he lived he would have been deported with her and there may not have been the same ground for public concern on the first issue I have raised. Is it not fair to ask ourselves whether we do not owe a heavy obligation to those who went into battle in Australian uniforms and fought side by side with Australians in order to save this country? Could not such an obligation be fairly advanced as a reasonable ground for special consideration in cases where marriages have been contracted with Australians and residence established? In addition, should we not give some consideration to the plight of the women who married these men while they were serving with the Australian forces at a time when we were under the impact of war ?

This measure has been framed to deal specifically with people who came here for sanctuary during the war. That is all the more reason why they should be regarded as cases not likely to recur. If the Government has no objection to an Asiatic coming here to establish himself in business or commerce and marrying here or bringing his wife here, there is all the more reason why it should be consistent and regard the cases that have arisen out of war conditions as calling for special consideration.

This Government is not and never has been consistent on the White Australia front. Measures such as these are dangerous in that they are bringing the White Australia policy under fire throughout the Orient. Indiscretions, such as that of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), who claimed that the White Australia policy is racial and not economic, are even more dangerous to the future of this country. Let us by all means make certain that we rigidly regulate entry into this country in accordance with the policy that has never been questioned in the past. But when it comes to dealing with those who have already established residence here, who have been good citizens and have honored their family obligations and respected the laws of this country, let us deal with those few cases on their merits, with discretion and in accordance with the overriding consideration of humanity and decency. Finally, I should like to know how this Government squares this piece of legislation, which discriminates against a few selected individuals, with the obligations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Government was a signatory of that declaration. Its Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) was one of the fathers of the declaration. This measure is resigned to appease the wounded pride of the Minister for Immigration and to satisfy his lust for revenge, and it is a complete repudiation of this country’s obligation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the preamble of which reads -

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity, and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world, whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.

The nations then entered into a number of solemn contractual obligations. Article 2 of the declaration reads as follows : -

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, with out distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This Government signed that declaration. Lt initiated the obligations. Was it only paying lip-service to them, or did it believe that they applied only to other members and not to itself? If that is to be its attitude, what humbug it is! ^ I refer the Government to Article 11, which guarantees that every one is entitled to full equality and to a fair and public bearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in .the determination of his rights; to Article 14, which guarantees freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State; to Article 15, which guarantees that every one has the right to seek’ and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution; and, in particular to Article 17. That article reads as follows : -

1 ) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. . . .

The family is the natural and fundamental group of society, and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

What would be Australia’s position if Mrs. O’Keefe were to take her case to the Court of International Justice? Would the Minister for Immigration be sent overseas to defend .the case ? I know that he would not like to place his trust in the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt). He has already publicly shown his hostility to that right honorable gentleman. It would be useless for the Government to plead that these are domestic matters, because the Soviet Union has made that plea too often. In fact, this Government has been accused of intruding into the domestic affairs of other countries. This legislation is discriminatory against the nationals of certain other countries, and it will be judged on that basis. This Government is in danger of being the first government to be convicted of repudiating .the contractual obligations of the charter. It is just taking up a. “ mugwump “ stand. Why should it deliberately court the enmity of Asian countries by persevering with such a vicious undermining of the principles of human justice? The Minister, by this bill, is dragging the principles of Labour into the gutter. Labour has always stood for fair play and a “ fair go “ for. the underdog. This is just “ putting the boot in “ because it is thought that these people are down. The Governmentis exhibiting a fascist mentality, a warped and twisted fanaticism, and. a maniacal urge to hurt deeply by depriving a defenceless woman of her home and her family life. All this is to be done with the majesty and force of legislative sanction. Could anything be more loathsome than the clothing of such petty revenge, in the garb of governmental deliberation, and decision?. Those honorable members on the Government side of the House who still retain spine manly self-respect should call the Minister’s bluff and put an end to his despicable reign of personal terror^ ism against a handful pf unfortunate victims of war. The truth is, of course, that the Minister only gets away with it because the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) stands behind him, either because he approves of every thing that the Minister does or because he is afraid of him. The right honorable gentleman can take his choice.

Motion (by Mr. Spender) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 28

Majority . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Mr. Calwell) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 19

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1898

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC POWER BILL 1949

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1898

LIQUID FUEL (DEFENCE STOCKS) BILL 1949

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Dedman) read a first time.

page 1899

ADJOURNMENT

Coal Strike: Press Report1 - The Parliament: Broadcasting or Proceedings - Mr. A. A. Calwell, M.P. Motion (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.-I wish to raise a matter of misreporting in the Tasmanian and Victorian press of to-day. The report refers to a meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party in Canberra yesterday. In the course of the report in the Hobart Mercury and the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial these words appear -

Caucus members estimated that . . .

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has ruled otherwise.

Mr Anthony:

– Then I can only voice my protest.

Mr. LANG (Reid) [11.57 J. -I desire to direct your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), to an incident which occurred earlier this evening. When the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) began her speech, the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) deliberately left the chair that he had been occupying at the table and joined another honorable member in conversation on the treasury bench. The honorable member for Bourke then asked a question, but the Minister deliberately walked across the chamber towards the Opposition benches. The Minister’s chair at the table was empty. The Minister for Immigration then deliberately sat in the Speaker’s gallery and conversed with some strangers, with his back to the House and the honorable member for Bourke. The Minister’s chair at the table was vacant until the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) entered the chamber, saw the position and immediately occupied that chair. Shortly afterwards the honorable member for Bourke resumed her seat. The occupant of the Speaker’s chair then rose to put the motion that the bill be read a second time. That occurred so suddenly that the Minister for Immigration, who had his back to the House, fell through the rope that separates the Speaker’s gallery from the Opposition benches. I regard the Minister’s behaviour as an act of gross discourtesy. In my long parliamentary experience I have never seen any behaviour to compare with it. While the honorable member for Bourke was speaking, she was absolutely ignored and was shown the utmost discourtesy. I have taken the first opportunity that has been available to me to direct the attention of Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Prime Minister to the incident.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:

– Order! I consider that the Chair is entitled to comment on the statement that the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) has made. If he considers that the Standing Orders have been transgressed, he should have raised the matter when the incident occurred. Fortunately or unfortunately! a Minister who is in charge of a bill is not compelled to listen to every speech or every word of a speech that is made in the House. The fact that he may be in charge of the House does not inflict upon him the responsibility of listening to every word that is spoken in the debate. The Standing Orders do not provide that he shall do so. Furthermore, a Minister is not entitled to answer a question that an honorable member may ask in the course of his speech. All interjections and interruptions of the speech are disorderly. If an honorable member asks a question while making a speech, the practice is for the Minister to give the information that is sought when he is replying to the debate. That is the appropriate time for him to do so. However, a Minister is not called upon to answer any questions that have been asked in the course of the debate.

Friday, 1 July, 19^9

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

– The facts of the matter raised by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) are very plain. I sat at my place all through the debate until the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) engaged my attention and asked me if he could secure the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Eraser) came to me and said, “Is the honorable member for Warringah going to secure the adjournment of the debate; because if he is I am not going to speak either before him or after him “. I said to the honorable member for EdenMonaro, “ I have made a promise to you that you shall have the right to speak after the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) “. I did not know that the honorable member for Warringah desired to speak because I had been advised officially, being the Minister in charge of the measure, that the Liberal party intended to have only one speaker in the debate, and that the speaker would be the Leader of that party. Subsequently, again as the Minister in charge of the bill, I was told that the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) would speak. It was after I had heard from the honorable member for Warringah that he desired the adjournment of the debate later in the evening, that I spoke to the honorable member for EdenMonaro. I left the honorable member for Eden-Monaro and walked across the chamber to the honorable member for Warringah. As I went across I heard the honorable member for Bourke say something, and I turned and spoke affirmatively. The honorable member for Bourke does not seem to be aggrieved over the matter. Certainly, she does not need the honorable member for Reid to protect her. I told the honorable member that the debate would not be adjourned, and that I would reply at some later time. The honorable member for Warringah then said, “ If that is the position I am going home”; and he wished me well. At least, his attitude was clear and unequivocal. At that point, being the Minister in charge of the bill, 1 returned to my position at the table. I then said to the party whip, “ The honorable member for Eden-Monaro is speaking. I have been here for several hours now; will you get another Minister to relieve me “. He replied, “ Yes “, and went out of the chamber. When I saw the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) walk into the chamber, I thought that he was coming to relieve me and I went and spoke to some people with whom I had some business. While I was doing so, the honorable member for Bourke concluded her speech. She might not have had the opportunity to make her speech had I not sent an attendant to the library to tell her that the bill was coming on. I wanted to do her that courtesy so that she would not miss her chance. When the honorable member for Bourke concluded her speech, I thought that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro would rise. 1. hurried back to my place in order to secure the adjournment of the debate so that when I feel a little fresher than I do to-night I shall be able to deal with the Opposition and the honorable member for Reid, and line them up for or against White Australia.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– Since my name has been mentioned in this matter of alleged disorderly conduct by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), I wish to make it clear that nothing I said, or did, was responsible for the Minister falling over the ropes. He fell over them of his own accord; and, possibly, that is one reason why the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) regarded his action as discourteous. Further, I was induced to say that I was going home, because the Minister told me, not that he was going to move the adjournment of the debate, but that he proposed to conclude the debate. Originally, I was to be given the adjournment of the debate; but, subsequently, other counsels prevailed. The Minister saw an opportunity to answer the debate over the air whilst Opposition members would not be heard at all over the air.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I do not think that the honorable gentleman is adding anything relevant to the discussion.

Mr SPENDER:

– I make it clear that at one time it was arranged that I was to secure the adjournment of the debate, and then some skullduggery went on and I did not secure the adjournment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The discussion is getting away from the point before the Chair.

Question put -

That the House do now adjourn.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1902

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Stevedoring Industry Act- Stevedoring Industry Commission - Financial Accounts for the period 22nd December, 1947, to 30th June, 1948, together with the Certificate of the Auditor-General.

Superannuation Act - Superannuation Board - Twenty-fifth Annual Report, for year 1946-47.

House adjourned at 12.0 a.m. (Friday).

page 1902

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Department of External Affairs

Mr McEwen:
INDI, VICTORIA

n asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

What staff (a) permanent and (b) temporary is employed in the Department of External Affairs?
How many in each class are members of an organization within the meaning of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act?
What are the organizations of which these officers are members and how many officers are members of each organization?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

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

The number of permanent officers in the Department of External Affairs at Canberra is 117. The number of temporary employees at Canberra is 95.
Ninety-four permanent officers of the department are members of an association within the meaning of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Forty-eight temporary employees are members of associations.
Particulars of the organizations to which members of the department belong are as follows: -

Waterfront Employment.

Mr Dedman:
ALP

n. - On the 28th June the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) asked a question concerning the Mackay branch of the Waterside Workers Federation. The Minister for Shipping and Fuel has supplied the following information : -

Work resumed at this port at 10 a.m., Tuesday, the 28th June, 1949.

Aborigines.

Mr Johnson:
ALP

n. - On the 18th June the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) asked me a number of questions concerning the conditions applying to the employment of aboriginals on cattle stations in the Northern Territory. I furnished answers to some of the honorable member’s questions and undertook to look into the other matters raised. I now desire to furnish the following additional information : -

Aboriginals working on cattle stations in the Northern Territory are not employed under duress. Protectors do not have the power to assign natives to pastoralists. Very few of the children of the aboriginals employed by pastoralists attend school. In addition to one government school for aboriginal children at Darwin, most of the mission stations have special schools which are staffed with experienced teachers. The Government contributes to the cost of the salaries and expenses of these mission teachers. The question of native education is now under review. It is hoped to make much wider provisions than are available at present. Allocations of rice to employers of aboriginals are made by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture on the sponsorship of the Director of Native Affairs who is satisfied from inspections by his officers that aboriginals receive regular issues within the limits of the allocation. By reason of difficulties of refrigeration en route butter is frequently scarce on many station properties. When tinned butter is available some stations issue supplies to aboriginals. The recently gazetted regulations relating to the conditions of employment of aboriginals in the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory require that aboriginal workers shall receive food of sufficientquantity, sound, well-cooked and properly served, provided that the scale of rations to be supplied shall be at least equal as far as practicable to that to which station employees in the Territory are entitled under any award for the time being in force.

Mr Adermann:

asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -

On what date was the Department of Information established?
How many officers (a) temporary and (b) permanent were employed and what were the (c) expenditure on salaries and (d) general expenses, in each financial year since its estab lishment, together with figures at the present time?
How many officers are at present employed in (a) Canberra, (b) each State and (c) overseas, at the present time?
What are the (a) names, (b) designations and (c) salaries and allowances of officers in receipt of £500 a year or more, indicating those who are permanent officers.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

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

September, 1939.

(a) Canberra, 55.

New South Wales, 84 ; Victoria, 157 ; Queensland, 1 ; Tasmania, 1 ; consideration is now being given to applications for the appointment of one officer to South Australia and one to Western Australia.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 June 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490630_reps_18_203/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives30 June 1949

QUESTION

COAL STRIKE

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr MENZIES:KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Abbott:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr RYAN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr ADERMANN:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr Francis:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr BURKE:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Mr McDONALD:CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

POPULATION

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

QUESTION

SIGNOR MAMMALELLA

Mr BEALE:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr Evatt:

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

HYDRAULIC FORGING PRESS

Mr WATKINS:

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

EILDON RESERVOIR

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr EDMONDS:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

CONTROL OF POWER AND MATERIALS

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

BUTTER

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Anthony:

Mr POLLARD:

QUESTION

NAURU

Dame ENID LYONS:DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr WARD:Minister for External Territories · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

MARX HOUSE

Mr FRANCIS:

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

House of Representatives
30 June 1949

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr BURKE:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr McDONALD:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

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

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr WARD:
Minister for External Territories · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

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

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Post-war Recon.struction · Corio · ALP

Dr EVATT:
ALP

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

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehan