House of Representatives
27 November 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1957

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2579

BILLS TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE

DR EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to address a question to you, Mr. Speaker. First, can you say when the Reserve Bank Bill 1957, the passage of which through this House was completed at 5.52 p.m. yesterday, and the message transmitting that bill and asking the Senate for its concurrence, reached the Senate? Secondly, can you say whether the Commonwealth Banks Bill 1957, the passage of which through this House was completed at 1 a.m. to-day, has been sent to the Senate with the appropriate message?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The message signed by me transmitting the Reserve Bank Bill 1957 to the Senate was delivered at 7.30 p.m. yesterday. In accordance with the established practice for messages between the Houses of Parliament when the receiving House is not actually sitting, the Serjeant-at-arms delivered the message to a table officer of the Senate. In relation to the Commonwealth Banks Bill 1957, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, that bill, which consisted of 35 pages, was considerably amended. It has just been received back from the Government Printer, and is now being checked. Immediately its processing has been completed it will be signed and submitted to the Senate in the normal way.

page 2579

QUESTION

WHEAT

MR JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface a question to the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry by quoting from a telegram which I have received from eight major New South Wales organizations. The telegram reads -

At a meeting of eight major organisations as listed below it was unanimously agreed that our State economy and many producers’ livelihoods are threatened unless import costs and freight on wheat imported from other States are defrayed by the Commonwealth. Also request restrictions on importations of alternate stock feed be urgently reviewed with a view to permitting purchase from overseas.

The telegram is signed by the Egg Marketing Board of New South Wales, the New South Wales Milk Board, the Milk Zone Dairymen’s Council, Graziers Association, the Australian Pig Association, the Stock Feed Manufacturers of New South Wales, the New South Wales Flour Millers, the Producers Company, and the Broiler Growers Association. Is the matter receiving close attention and can alternate stock feeds be brought in free of Commonwealth regulation?

SIR PHILIP MCBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– As to the application for the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for freight rates for wheat, I understand that the decision of the Government has been conveyed by the Prime Minister to Mr. Cahill, so that he knows what the position is. In respect of applications for permits to import grains, we have a number of such applications at present, which we are collating and relating to the stocks available in Australia. As soon as that is completed a decision will be made on the applications.

page 2579

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it correct that in 1949 the late Mr. J. B. Chifley and Mr. J. Dedman had a report prepared in order to extend the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme to the sphere of secondary education? Will the Prime Minister confirm the fact that the incoming Government pigeon-holed the report and failed to provide any arrangement to help parents keep children at school until they achieved eligibility under the Commonwealth university scholarship scheme? Does the Prime Minister consider that inactivity in this field has been an important contributing factor to the great scarcity of scientists, technologists, teachers and scholars, a circumstance which is at present causing great concern throughout Australia? Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether he will take steps to retrieve the report from its pigeon-hole in the Commonwealth Office of Education and either implement it or, alternatively, in view of its great importance, table it for debate by the Parliament?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I am not aware of either the report or the pigeon-hole. What I am aware of is that the present Government put into operation a Commonwealth scholarship scheme which has been so extensive that it provides now for the fees of at least one-third of all the full-time students at universities in Australia.

page 2580

QUESTION

DEFENCE PRODUCTION

Mr PEARCE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production say whether there has been any outcome of his recent visit to New Zealand, when he had discussions with the New Zealand Government on the question of New Zealand’s interest in Australia as a supplier of defence equipment?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, I am glad to say that there is a mission now in Australia, led by General Wearl, who is the Chief of the General Staff in New Zealand. It has been having conversations with the officers of my colleague, the Minister for Defence and, if it has not already done so, the mission will visit the main defence establishments controlled by the Department of Supply and the Department of Defence Production - Maribyrnong, Footscray and, of course, Lithgow, and not excluding St. Mary’s.

page 2580

QUESTION

NORTH-WEST OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that on 7th November I asked why no reply had been received to representations by an all-party committee of the Western Australian Parliament in regard to federal aid for the development of the North-west of Western Australia. In his reply on that occasion the right honorable gentlemen said that the matter was being considered by Cabinet and that he would see that I received a reply to my question at the earliest possible moment. I ask now whether that reply is available and, if not, whether any indication can be given of when it will be available. In doing so I point out that it is over three years since that all-party committee waited on the Prime Minister.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The matters referred to were brought before the Government, as the honorable member rightly says, by the Premier of Western Australia, by an allparty committee and, I think, by various Western Australian members of both Houses of this Parliament. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement on this matter to-morrow.

page 2580

QUESTION

DECIMAL COINAGE

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Treasurer acquainted with the work of the Decimal Currency Council, the president of which is the distinguished Vice-Chancellor of the National University, Sir Leslie Melville, formerly Assistant Governor of the Commonwealth Bank? Is the right honorable gentleman also aware that a number of important and very responsible bodies, including associations of chambers of commerce, banks, and insurance companies, now give their broad support to the proposals of the council? Can the right honorable gentleman inform the House of the steps he has taken to have this matter studied by the Treasury, so that the Government may be fully informed of the advantages and disadvantages to Australia of a system of decimal currency, and the likely cost of a transition?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The question raised by the honorable member anticipates a statement I intended to make on this matter at the first opportunity. I am acquainted with the organization to which he referred, and also the recommendations and suggestions of various bodies with regard to decimal coinage. In recent months, the Government has received a number of suggestions for introducing a system of decimal coinage into Australia, all of which have been carefully examined. In addition, detailed reports have been received on developments overseas in this field, including current investigations by official committees in New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, and on the arrangements made for the recent introduction of decimal coinage in India.

The Government is aware of the interest being shown in this matter by manufacturers and operators of electronic computers and other business machinery, but it has not yet taken any decision whether or not a decimal currency system should be introduced into Australia.

page 2580

QUESTION

SHEEP GUT

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for Trade whether he can say what is the present position with regard to the import of prepared sheep gut. Does the Minister know whether the local supply of this material is inadequate for this country’s needs? Is it true that sheep gut has now replaced cat gut in the manufacture and restringing of tennis racquets? Is it also a fact that dealers in these materials have stated that the present high cost of a new tennis racquet, and of restringing used ones, is due to the excessive import duties on sheep gut? In view of the effect that this is having, particularly on the junior tennis-playing community of this country, to whom tennis is a very important game, can the Minister give any information to the House or will he seek information and provide it later?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I take it that this is not the same article that is used in the manufacture of sausage casings?

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– No.

Mr McEWEN:

– No, I do not know what is the present position with respect to the import of sheep gut, but I will ascertain the position and let the honorable member know.

page 2581

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question relating to what has been described as an authorized stop-work meeting of waterside workers in Brisbane last Monday. Can the Minister say who authorized the stopwork meeting? In view of the fact that a notice was issued to various waterside workers indicating that if they did not attend the stop-work meeting they would be fined, will the Minister examine the position in order to see what can be done to curb this exercise of Soviet-like tyranny?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have not previously had my attention directed to this particular matter. The authorization of stop-work meetings is normally the function of the representative of the authority, I understand - certainly of some appropriate body constituted with jurisdiction for that purpose. As to the rule which might give a union power to fine a member for failure to attend a meeting, there is a provision - or there was until quite recent times - for a challenge before the Commonwealth Industrial Court to any rule which is deemed to be tyrannous or unreasonable. Jurisdiction was transferred to that court after the decision in the Boilermakers case, but unfortunately, the legal position has become, if not more confused, a little more involved as to the practicability of dealing with the type of matter to which the honorable member refers. The High Court has held, in a majority judgment, that that is not a judicial function to be exercised by the Commonwealth Industrial Court. We are having a look at the consequences of that decision, but it would appear, at the moment, that there is no tribunal clothed with jurisdiction for this particular purpose.

The question of whether union members should be required to attend meetings is one, of course, upon which there can be differences of view. I have no doubt, in my own mind, as to the desirability of members of unions attending meetings which have been called. I believe that much of the industrial trouble which occurs in Australia could be eliminated if only the individual rank and file unionists would attend meetings and take an active interest in the issues which are discussed.

page 2581

QUESTION

JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– In view of the widespread interest throughout industry in the effects of the Japanese Trade Agreement - I do not desire in any way to exaggerate those effects - I ask the Minister for Trade: Will he consider leaking periodical statements containing information as to the increases in licences granted for imports from Japan in the different industrial categories, and also as to the work done by the adviser appointed to consider the effects of the Japanese Trade Agreement, in order ,to acquaint industry with what is happening and so remove the possibility of exaggeration or any kind of unreasonable reaction?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I have had it in my mind, for some of the reasons stated by the honorable member and as a result of the general interest displayed by honorable members in the Japanese Trade Agreement, to make a statement not precisely of the characted suggested by the honorable member but along those general lines. Indeed, I thought it might have been possible for me to make such a statement to-day; but within a few days I will do so.

page 2581

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by pointing out that recently I have received many letters containing a resolution carried at the conference of the Australian Council of

Schools Organizations recently held in Perth. This resolution, which is the basis of my question, is as follows: -

This council (A.C.S.O.) requests the Prime Minister to call an all-party conference representing all State parliaments to meet with the Commonwealth representatives to discuss the educational crisis.

Will the Prime Minister consider this request?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I do not propose to convene such a conference. I point out to the honorable member that already I am in the middle of trying to do something about the universities of Australia. That is a very large and complex problem, and at present I propose to devote my attention to that task.

page 2582

QUESTION

WATERFRONT: EMPLOYMENT

Mr THOMPSON:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. In my electorate of Port Adelaide there is a large branch of the Waterside Workers Federation. I am very concerned about the dispute on the waterfront in Sydney being allowed to drift on because of the possibility that members of this branch may be brought into the orbit of a nation-wide waterfront strike. Does the Minister consider that everything possible has been done to overcome the difficulty which has caused the present stoppage? Are we going to continue in the way that we have been doing, just because a particular procedure has been laid down, or can we cut adrift of these arrangements and come to some conclusion? I have received copies of letters from the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, from the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, and from the Foremen Stevedores Association. The correspondence shows that each party appears to consider that it has a case to put forward, and that somebody should deal with it. I appeal to the Minister to do something to bring this matter to finality instead of leaving it to the strongest party to win at the finish.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not quite know what the honorable gentleman is trying to imply by the word “ drift “. The Government has been in daily touch with the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority regarding this matter and has been taking such action as it considered appropriate in the circumstances. It is not the responsibility of the Government that there has been some delay in bringing issues in dispute to a determination. I indicated, at the outset, the course that was open for this purpose. It is the course that has been approved by this Parliament but it has not been availed of. That does not mean that other courses have not been explored by the parties themselves.

Earlier this week, there was a. conference with the employers on the sling loads aspect before the judge who has jurisdiction on the presidential commission in relation to this matter. When agreement could not be reached at that conference, the judge indicated that he would give his own judgment on the matter very shortly. On the other point, I am informed that there was a conference yesterday between representatives of the Sydney branch of the federation and the Foremen Stevedores Association. Out of that conference a proposal emerged for an inquiry by an independent and agreed arbitrator into whether assaults have been perpetrated by foremen and whether the Foremen Stevedores Association would be prepared to discipline any of its members, who were found guilty of such an assault.

Following that proposal, a meeting organized by the branch was held this morning. I have not yet full details of what transpired there, but there were some indications that the matter might come to a head at that point. The foremen stevedores are not, I understand, within the ambit of the legislation passed by this Parliament. Hence the suggestion for an independent arbitrator. I can assure the honorable member for Port Adelaide that the Government is as conscious as anybody of the widespread damage caused, particularly to those who are directly involved. The harsh impact of the dispute upon the households of waterside workers can be readily imagined as, indeed, can the cost to the Australian economy generally of a stoppage of such a vital aspect of transport. The Government is conscious of these things and will do all that it can, within its responsibility as a government, to see that justice applies and that the discipline and efficiency which should exist on the waterfront is maintained.

page 2583

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Territories whether he is aware that two fires which occurred in Port Moresby last Friday morning and which destroyed the Crown Law Department library and the Supreme Court chambers also destroyed irreplaceable records. Is he also aware that this is the third time that similar records have been destroyed? Will the honorable gentleman jive consideration to the provision of a microfilming service in order that similar records in these and other Commonwealth departments may be not only preserved, but also stored compactly?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– A fire did occur at one or two places in Port Moresby, including the Crown Law Office. Some records were destroyed. Steps are already being taken to reconstitute those records, which are the ordinary departmental files, by obtaining duplicates from other places, such as Canterra, where they are in existence. By means such as that the set of records will be reconstituted. I do not think there would be any advantage in microfilming records of this kind, which are departmental files in daily use by various officers.

page 2583

QUESTION

ALICE SPRINGS HOUSING

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Will the Minister for Territories confer with his colleague, the Minister for Works, to ascertain whether tenders were called by the Department of Works on behalf of the Department of Territories, for the erection of 30 houses in Alice Springs, and a contract was let to an Adelaide firm which submitted a tender for an amount £3 a house less than the amount of the lowest tender submitted by Northern Territory contractors? If these are facts, does the Minister consider that the saving of £3 a house is sufficient compensation for the dislocation caused to the building industry in that part of the Territory, taking into account consequent unemployment and the fact that contractors who were encouraged by the Department of Works to undertake work in the Territory may move out?

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– I will confer with my colleague, the Minister for Works, as the honorable member asks. It will be appreciated that the calling of tenders and the letting of contracts are matters for the Department of Works rather than the Department of Territories. Although it may be a disappointment to the local contractor not to have obtained the particular contract, I remind the honorable member that the successful contractor will move in and build the houses in the Territory. The overall employment position will remain the same, whether the contract is let to a contractor in the Territory or to an outside contractor.

page 2583

QUESTION

TRANSPORT OF CATTLE

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Territories. I understand that arrangements were made recently for the provision of two new large cattlemovers for transport of cattle from the Northern Territory to Queensland. Has the Minister any information regarding the type and capacity of these units? Have the units been brought into operation, and, if so, have the results been satisfactory?

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– The use of road trains for the transport of cattle is increasing in the Northern Territory. In each of the last two years about 1,000 head of cattle have been moved from the Barkly Tableland by road trains, and in the Alice Springs area I think about five carriers are operating road trains to the railhead. I am informed that last year they carried about 3,000 head of cattle and that in this year the total will be considerably greater. In the month of August alone about 1,700 cattle were delivered to the railhead at Alice Springs. I think the particular matter to which the honorable member refers concerns a decision made by Vestey’s to put into operation two large road trains to carry out an operation involving the moving of cattle from Helen Springs Station, which is in the centre of the Northern Territory, into Queensland, where the best of the cattle will go as fat cattle by rail to Townsville, and the remainder will go as store cattle on to Vestey’s properties in Queensland. I am informed that this operation will be carried out by road trains, each consisting of a diesel-engined prime mover and two trailers, and having a capacity of between 80 and 90 beasts. The operation has commenced, but I think it is a little too early to comment on the results. Obviously, the results will vary from place to place, according to’ the nature of the roads and the type of cattle being moved. In general, experience has shown that whereas droving costs about 7s. per head per hundred miles, road transport costs Ils. or 12s. per head per hundred miles. Of course, with road transport there is a considerable saving in time and the condition of the cattle is preserved.

page 2584

QUESTION

IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister for Trade: How many decisions on Tariff Board inquiries, on which evidence has been completed, are outstanding? Is it a fact that inquiries have been completed on about 50 items, the reports on which have not yet been delivered to the Minister? In view of the Minister’s statement that the Tariff Board would act promptly to protect local manufacturers against Japanese imports, what is the reason for the delay in delivery of these reports?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I am not in a position to reply to the honorable member’s question offhand, but I shall secure the information and state it to the House. However, I am in a position to say that no substantial delay occurs between the time of the receipt of a report from the Tariff Board and the consideration of that report by the Government. As is well known by those who are informed on these matters, occasions do occur in which an alteration in the Australian tariff requires some prior international consultation, and that in itself at times causes delay. That arises from circumstances which have been understood by the Parliament, and consequently have been provided for.

I shall obtain information as to the exact number of reports completed by the Tariff Board in respect of which decisions have not yet been made. A considerable number of items is referred to the Tariff Board, which is completely free from government direction as to the haste with which it must deal with its affairs - which is as it should be - and I am sure the board expedites consideration of any item in respect of which the Government indicates there is some urgency.

page 2584

QUESTION

RECRUITMENT

Mr ASTON:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Defence by stating that the Royal Marines have adopted the pro cedure of granting one week’s leave with pay to members who enlist an additional member for service. Will the Minister investigate this novel plan and ascertain whether its introduction in Australia would give an impetus to recruiting for our armed forces?

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
LP

– I shall certainly have the proposal examined to see whether it will assist in the way the honorable member suggests.

page 2584

QUESTION

VISIT OF JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As the Prime Minister has just left the chamber, I address to the Treasurer my question in relation to the visit to Australia of the Japanese Prime Minister. I understand that the proposed itinerary includes visits to war memorials in Australia and that requests have been made to the Government by certain exservice organizations that these visits be abandoned. As I believe it would be in the interests of the Australian people generally that these proposed visits to war memorials be deleted from the itinerary, will the Treasurer see that action on those lines is taken?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– I understand that no alteration in the original itinerary is proposed.

page 2584

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade: Is it a fact that his department intends, at the end of the present licensing period, to increase the value of import licences available for knitwear from £250,000 to £1,000,000? If so, will the Minister assure honorable members that the stimulus this may give to Japanese competition with Australian manufacturers has been fully considered by the Government?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– There is no substance whatever in the suggestion made by the honorable member. Licences are not issued explicitly for knitwear, if knitwear is used to describe outer garments, nor is there any special licensing quota for that item. Knitwear is imported into Australia under category B, and the Government has no intention of deleting that item from that category.

page 2585

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr KEARNEY:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, by reminding him that he has written informing me that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has, on a number of occasions, considered the addition of rheumatoid arthritis to the list of diseases for which the drug prednisolone may be prescribed as a pharmaceutical benefit, but that the committee has recommended that this disease be not so included. In view of the wide incidence of rheumatoid arthritis, especially amongst age pensioners, and the success of the drug in relieving the disease, together with the high cost of the drug, which is from 8s. to 12s. a day over a period of treatment, will the Minister state why the advisory committee has rejected this drug as a pharmaceutical benefit? Will the Minister refer the matter back to the advisory committee with a view to the drug being made available free as a benefit to eligible sufferers of this painful and crippling disease, which is so prevalent in Australia?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The position is that the Government is advised by a highly expert committee. The committee makes its decisions on clinical grounds. I do not propose to justify the decisions of the committee, because that would involve a great deal of technical argument. Obviously, if the Government is to be advised as to what drugs should be made available for specific clinical conditions, it must be advised by its chosen experts. The committee has frequently reviewed the question of arthritis and has always been of the opinion that other drugs are available which are in some respects as satisfactory as, and in others, perhaps, more satisfactory than, prednisolone, to which the honorable gentleman referred. The committee is always willing to receive fresh representations, and I have no doubt that it will from time to time review the indications for the use of this drug.

Mr Kearney:

– To save money, you are forcing people to suffer!

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is not a question of saving money at all. The committee has nothing to do with the question of expense. As I have said, the committee makes its decisions entirely on clinical grounds, and surely it is reasonable that, if public funds are to be expended in providing drugs, the expense should be incurred on the advice of experts and not on the advice of those who consider themselves to be experts.

page 2585

QUESTION

VISIT OF JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Adelaide. Is it not a fact that the original suggestion for the inclusion in the programme of the Prime Minister of Japan of the item mentioned by the honorable member was made by a governmental authority in Canberra? If that is so, then any alteration would be a discourtesy and, I trust, will be looked at from that point of view.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The observations of the honorable member for Chisholm will be noted and brought under the notice of the Prime Minister.

page 2585

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service, and preface it by referring to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which provides that legal representatives shall not be permitted to appear in proceedings before a conciliation commissioner except with the consent of both parties or, in special circumstances, with the permission of the conciliation commissioner. I refer also to proceedings that took place before Mr. Commissioner Portus in August of this year. I shall outline the claim in order to make the point that I want the Minister to consider. In a claim against the private trading banks, the Bank Officers Association asked that an award be extended to cover bank officers in New Guinea, that the daily spread of hours be between 8.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. and that extra remuneration be given for Saturday morning work. Those were purely industrial matters requiring only argument of an industrial character. Does the Minister know that Mr. Commissioner Portus granted permission, against the wishes of the Bank Officers Association, for Mr. Aird and Mr. Snedden, the honorable member for Bruce, to appear before him on behalf of the private trading banks? Does he agree with me that this was a breach of the spirit of the act, and if that is his view, will he take some action to see that conciliation commissioners are informed of what the Parliament intended should apply in cases such as this, so that ordinary conciliation and arbitration proceedings will not be gummed up and cluttered by unnecessary legalities and, what is more important to unions, unnecessary legal costs?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– This issue of representation before the commission was very carefully considered by the Government before it brought down the amending legislation, which incorporates provisions substantially along the lines mentioned by the honorable gentleman. Before coming to our decision, we ascertained the views of representatives of the trade union movement and of management, and we had regard, as best we could, to the experience of the functioning of these provisions, where they existed, and to the outcome of the absence of such provisions in some of the State jurisdictions. Therefore, the policy was determined after thorough consideration and adopted by the Parliament.

In relation to the application of the particular section which gives to the commissioner an opportunity to exercise judgment as to whether there are special circumstances that warrant the appearance of counsel before him, I think it will be generally agreed that the commissioner is in the best position to judge whether those circumstances exist. The honorable member has referred to factors which, in his view, suggest that grounds for the appearance of counsel were not sufficiently strong. Although he may have put forward his comments in all good faith, I cannot assume from what he has said that the factors referred to by him were the only ones which exercised the mind of the commissioner. Having said that by way of general comment, I shall take an opportunity to examine the case to which the honorable member has referred to see whether I can derive any guidance from it.

page 2586

QUESTION

STRATEGIC AIR BASES

Mr FORBES:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Air, and refers to his recent statement concerning the development of strategic airfields in Australia. I have noticed that no mention is made of South Australia in the statement. Is that because the Minister regards this State as not worth defending, or because he regards it as already adequately defended?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is certainly not because South Australia is not worth defending, nor is it wholly because South Australia is already adequately defended, I would not suggest that the chain of strategic air bases in Australia is as yet complete, or that the state of the development of our air defence is as yet satisfactory. I am sure, however, that the honorable member is well aware that any probable threat to the security of Australia is less likely to come from the direction in which the coastline of South Australia faces than from the direction in which other parts of Australia face.

page 2586

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question in the absence of the Prime Minister. I desire to know whether it is a fact that, on a number of occasions, the Minister for Immigration, when travelling on civil passenger aircraft, has occupied the pilot’s seat, and taken over control. Is it a fact that, on one occasion, during a flight of a Convair aircraft to Tasmania, both engines momentarily cut out at a time when the Minister occupied the pilot’s seat, causing the aircraft to lose height rapidly, the position being rectified only after the Minister had scrambled from the pilot’s seat and the pilot had again assumed control? If, upon inquiry, the Treasurer discovers that my information is correct, will he immediately take all possible steps to see that the dangerous practice indulged in by the Minister for Immigration is discontinued, and that, at all times, civil passenger aircraft are in the sole control of the fully qualified officers appointed to positions of command?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The honorable member asked me did I know whether or not it was a fact that something had happened. No, I do not know.

page 2586

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Social Services aware that periods of up to four months often elapse before pensions become available to applicants for the age pension, and that this delay causes grave inconvenience to many old people? Will the Minister consider amending the regulations under the Social Services Act in order to provide that prospective pensioners may apply for the age pension up to three months before they attain the age of 65, so that pensions will be available to them shortly after they reach the qualifying age? Further, will he see whether it is possible to have all outstanding applications for the age pension lodged one month or more ago dealt with before Christmas, so that the applicants concerned may enjoy Christmas as other people do?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I do not propose to consider any immediate amendment to the Social Services Act as suggested in the terms of the honorable member’s question. To my certain knowledge, there is no undue delay when the age pension is applied for. It is necessary to make certain investigations in order to apply the means test in the normal course of events. If and when an applicant qualifies for the age pension, the payments are always made retrospective to the date of application or qualification.

Mr Griffiths:

– Applicants have to live in the meantime.

Mr ROBERTON:

– It is true, as the honorable member says, that applicants for the age pension have to live in the meantime. It is true, also, that they like to celebrate Christmas from year to year as other people do. But the Christmas celebrations of most applicants for the age pension are not utterly dependent on the pension, and most applicants are not inconvenienced by the investigations that are necessary in the application of the means test.

page 2587

NEWSPAPER REPORTS

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I seek leave to make a short personal explanation.

Dr Evatt:

– What about?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is only about a short passage in a newspaper report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I normally do not seek to correct inaccurate reports in the press about proceedings in which I have been involved in this place. I think that all of us realize the difficulties under which pressmen, in the best of faith, and with the greatest of skill, perform their duties. These reports are subject to truncation in preparation for publication, and perhaps some distortion occurs when they are published. My personal explanation relates to a report in this morning’s issue of the Melbourne “ Sun “. I think that the circumstances make it desirable that, in fairness to both the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) and myself, the record should be set straight. It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that, in the process of preparation of the report for publication, remarks made by the honorable member for Port Adelaide have been attributed to me, thereby certainly distorting what I had been saying, and omitting any reference to the honorable member for Port Adelaide, who actually made the statements concerned. The passage appears at page 7 of this morning’s issue of the Melbourne “ Sun “. The heading to the report is - “Order” called 9 times in Bank Bill uproar.

That heading may perhaps provide some explanation as to how the newspaper got the story wrong. The report of some remarks made by myself concludes with this sentence -

Unless there were some arrangements, the House would be sitting until the following Christmas.

There then follows a passage which appears in inverted commas in such a way that the words appear to have come from myself. It is as follows: - “ We’ve got the pull on you now and we’ll puD you back too. “ We can’t stop you here but we’ll stop you there - send that message through and see how you get on.”

Mr. Holt: “That’s democracy.”

Mr Thompson:

– I said that.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is hardly my version of democracy.

Dr Evatt:

– This is not a personal explanation.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is a personal explanation. There has quite clearly been an unfortunate concertina effect in the report of the remarks of two persons. Out of regard for the honorable member for Port Adelaide, and in fairness to myself, I’ desire to set the record straight.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. If the Leader of the House (Mr. Harold Holt) has been wrongly quoted by the newspapers, I regret it. The remarks that he read to the House from the newspaper report were made by me, and were meant by me. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I bear no animosity towards the Minister in this matter.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I desire to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In this morning’s issue, the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ has attributed to me the following interjection: -

You are the greatest bunch of burglars ever born.

I did not say that. I said -

You are the greatest bunch of boodlers ever born.

page 2588

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill (No. 2) 1957.

Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) Bill 1957.

page 2588

BANKING BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 1780), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I declare that the Banking Bill 1957 is an urgent bill.

Ordered -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) proposed -

That the time allotted in connexion with the bill be as follows: -

For the second reading, until 3.55 p.m., this day.

For the committee stage, until 5.50 p.m., this day.

For the remaining stages, until 5.55 p.m., this day.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Opposition objects to the guillotine at all times, and in all circumstances. It is never honestly meant, and it is always brought down for the purpose of curtailing discussion. This Government has a disgraceful record with respect to the use of the guillotine. It has used it on 22 occasions. This will be the twenty-third. It has applied the closure, or the gag, on no fewer than 520 occasions. Yet it claims to be a democratic government! It claims to have respect for the rights of members of the Parliament! It claims to govern in accordance with the best traditions of democratic governments everywhere! I am sure that, if this sort of thing happened in the House of Commons, or in the United States Congress, there would be widespread expressions of indignation against it. The Opposition is opposed to the use of the guillotine. It always has been. It will vote against it.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- I was surprised to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) say that he was opposed to the use of the guillotine in all circumstances and at all times. That is the greatest misstatement that I have heard since I have been a member of this House. Those honorable members who sat here when the Labour government was in office know that that government often used the guillotine. The present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was a Minister in that government, did not oppose the use of the guillotine, or speak against it, on one occasion when Labour was in office. So the statement that he has just made, opposing the use of the guillotine, is a gem of a misstatement of the facts.

Question put -

That the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 31

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– There has been some development-

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– A point of order, Mr. Speaker! The House agreed - and I think the fact is recorded in “Hansard” - that there should be one second-reading debate covering the four main bills. It was on that understanding that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) was given unlimited time to speak in the second-reading debate on the first of those four bills - the Reserve

Bank Bill. It is a fact that the House has now agreed to a certain period of time being allotted for a second-reading discussion on the present measure, and I suggest that that would not exclude any member of the House who did not speak in the earlier debate from taking part in the debate at the second-reading stage of this bill. What I submit is that, having regard to the understanding reached in connexion with the unlimited time given to the right honorable gentleman to speak at the second-reading stage of the Reserve Bank Bill, it would not be in order for him to make another second-reading speech at this stage.

Mr Ward:

– I also take a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the event of the Leader of the Opposition being the only member on the Opposition side to rise must not the call go to him?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no provision in the Standing Orders to prevent me from calling the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is a definite breach of an arrangement entered into by the Opposition.

Dr EVATT:

– Nothing of the kind! You are very free with your imputations against other people, but very sensitive about imputations against yourself.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Do you not accept my statement as a statement of fact?

Dr EVATT:

– No. You cannot be trusted to make a statement of fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think this cross-fire over the table should stop.

Dr EVATT:

– I shall not take up much of the time of the House. I rose for a rather different purpose, and this is the only opportunity that I shall have to state what I wish to state - and I think it is important. During the course of the last few days there have been changes in the situation regarding this legislation. It is perfectly well known by all sides that the real test vote in connexion with these four bills will take place elsewhere. This bill is the third of the four bills. The first of the four was declared an urgent bill, which normally means that the Government wants it through quickly. The second bill - the Commonwealth Banks Bill - was also declared an urgent bill. Both are now through this House. This third bill has also been declared an urgent measure. What has happened to the first bill - the Reserve Bank Bill? You, Mr. Speaker, told us at question time to-day that the bill had been passed by this House at 6 o’clock yesterday and that at 7.30 a message transmitting the bill and asking the Senate for its concurrence in the bill had reached the Senate. But the bill has not been discussed in the Senate. It has disappeared somewhere in that portion of the building between 7.30 p.m. yesterday and now. In other words, it is not really an urgent measure. The declaration of urgency was a sham. It was urgent in this place but, in another place, every step is being taken to avoid a vote on it. The Government is attempting to avoid a vote on it because some members of the Opposition in the Senate who are ill are now present. One of them in particular has been seriously ill, and is still far from well, and the Government is delaying putting the bill to a vote in the Senate in the expectation that that senator’s health will deteriorate.

Mr Hulme:

– Speaking to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you whether the matter being discussed by the Leader of the Opposition relates to the bill before us - the Banking Bill 1957 - or whether it concerns entirely a bill which passed through this House a couple of days ago?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honorable gentleman is in order.

Mr Freeth:

– I rise to order. Is the right honorable gentleman in order in discussing in this House business that is proceeding in another place?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honorable gentleman would not be in order in discussing business that was proceeding or pending in another place. I ask the right honorable gentleman to keep that in mind.

Dr EVATT:

– The bill, like Mohammed’s coffin, is suspended between heaven and earth. The bill is being kept from the other chamber because the Government does not want the Senate to decide it except after the failure in health of an Opposition senator. That is a scandalous state of affairs.

I pass now to bill No. 2, which was passed by this House at one o’clock this morning. Fourteen hours have elapsed since that bill was passed. No doubt that bill is also intended to reach the Senate; so far it has not appeared there. The Government’s objective is to inconvenience people who have come specially to vote under conditions so adverse and difficult that they would cause pity in the heart of the least compassionate person.

Now I come to the bill before the House. The Opposition feels that the sham should end and that we, as a House or as a committee, should deal with this bill as soon as possible. I suggest to the Minister that the committee stages be taken as a whole so that we can have a third chance-

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I rise to order. I have now had an opportunity to examine the record of the House with regard to the matter I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, earlier. You said then, Sir, that there was nothing in the Standing Orders that would prevent the right honorable gentleman from speaking to this measure. I remind you that on 24th October last the House agreed to a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders dealing with this very matter. The terms of the motion were -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the right honorable the Treasurer and the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition each speaking without limitation of time on the second reading of each of the following bills: - Reserve Bank, Commonwealth Banks, Banking, and Banking (Transitional Provisions).

The right honorable gentleman was then given the right to speak without limitation of time on each of those four bills on the conditions set out. I submit, therefore, that he is not in order in speaking to this matter now.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That point of order was taken at the time, and it was ruled, as far as that issue was concerned, that the time factor was the only one involved. Therefore, the right honorable gentleman is in order and I ask, in order that the House may work smoothly, that he keep to the point.

Dr EVATT:

– I suggest that the committee stages be taken as a whole, which will save some time. I make that suggestion so that this bill, this so-called urgent bill, can be treated as urgent, put into the possession of the Senate, and there considered as soon as possible.

I want to say a word or two with regard to the remarks made yesterday by the

Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt), and I hope that he does not again claim to have been misreported. The Minister was reported as having charged the Opposition with bringing to the Parliament the lame, the halt, and the sick, in order to obstruct the Government in another place. Has anybody ever heard a claim that smacks so much of dictatorship? The right honorable gentleman is referring to persons who are senators, elected by the people. He says that they have no right to be there. They are the lame, the halt, and the sick, and they are there to obstruct the Government, says the Minister. Therefore, if the Senate defeats legislation, that is obstruction of this Government. But if the Senate decides a matter in the Government’s favour, that is a wonderful piece of co-operation on the part of the Senate. The right honorable gentleman has two standards. He applies one form of language to matters that help him, and when he is under criticism and fire he sees things quite differently. I think that this situation that has arisen is a most serious one. I hope that what I say will not be misunderstood. The banking legislation passed by this House, regarded as urgent and certified to by Mr. Speaker, reached the Senate with the appropriate message signed by Mr. Speaker.

Mr Freeth:

– I rise to order. You have already ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the right honorable gentleman would not be in order in discussing proceedings in another place.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honorable gentleman is in order.

Dr EVATT:

– The honorable gentleman will not distinguish between black and white. My complaint is that the Government in this House, and Government representatives in the other place, have conspired to prevent the Senate from discussing this matter. As I understand the Standing Orders, when Mr. Speaker’s message reaches the Senate and is read it must be at once put to the vote. The Government does not want a vote. It wants to delay the matter until some person’s health breaks down, hoping, by such a disgusting and disgraceful strategy, to avoid defeat. The Opposition has carefully considered this matter and it feels that it should take every possible step to see that the scandal is ended, and that the legislation is voted upon in another place. For that purpose-

Mr Joske:

– I rise to order. This is a direct statement of what is to happen in another place. I submit that the right honorable gentleman should be ordered permanently to resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Standing Order 72, to which I direct the right honorable gentleman’s attention, provides that any reference to anything pending in another place, or the proceedings in another place, is out of order. I ask the right honorable gentleman to bear that in mind.

Dr EVATT:

– I am referring to the document from this House requesting the Senate’s concurrence. Steps have been taken to prevent the decision of this House being considered in another place and receiving concurrence or dissent. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that such a thing has happened. The result is to hold up the very bills that the Government, through the Minister, says are urgent. The truth is that the bills are urgent if the Government can slip them through in another place, but they are not urgent if the Government has to face criticism and defeat elsewhere.

I therefore suggest that in the committee stage, which will come on shortly, the bill be taken as a whole.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to regulate Banking, to make provision for the Protection of the Currency and of the Public Credit of the Commonwealth, and for other purposes.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

The bill.

Mr. CREAN (Melbourne Ports [3.53].- The Opposition agrees to the bill being considered as a whole because it is oneof four cognate measures and the Government considers that all these measures should be transmitted to the Senate and considered together in that chamber. However, although we do not propose to debate the measure in committee, we will oppose it at the end of the committee stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

. I refer to clause 36 which reads, in part - (1.) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the public interest, the Reserve Bank may determine the policy in relation to advances to be followed -

  1. by trading banks; and
  2. by savings banks, and a bank shall follow the policy so determined that is applicable to it.

Penalty: One thousand pounds. (2.) Without limiting the generality of the last preceding sub-section, the Reserve Bank may give directions as to the classes of purposes for which advances may or may not be made -

  1. by trading banks; and
  2. by savings banks, and a bank shall comply with any directions so given that are applicable to it. Penalty: One thousand pounds. and move -

In sub-clause (1.), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), insert - “ (a) by all trading banks; and “ (b) by all savings banks,”.

In sub-clause (2.), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), insert - “ (a) by all trading banks; and “ (b) by all savings banks,”.

The amendments that I propose are purely formal. They are only a precaution against a possibility of discrimination in the present drafting. Such is not intended, I understand, and the amendments will close what could be just a small drafting error. It is by no means certain that it is necessary to do this, but nothing can be lost by it and it may be desirable to make the intentionof the bill a little plainer.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I am prepared to accept the amendments that have been proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). They are only of a technical nature and are designed to put the intention of the clause beyond any doubt.

Amendments agreed to.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I refer to clause 58, sub-clause (2.), which reads - (2.) From the statements of liabilities and assets within Australia in accordance with Form D delivered to the Commonwealth Statsitician, the Commonwealth Statistician shall prepare and publish in the “ Gazette “ a statement showing, in respect of each trading bank, the average of its liabilities and assets within Australia for each month. and move -

After “ bank “ insert “ and in respect of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank “ .

The purpose of the amendment is to correct a technical deficiency in the wording of sub-clause (2.). Under clause 52, the Rural Credits Department will be required, in common with the trading banks, to furnish statements of its liabilities and assets in accordance with Form D. Sub-clause (2.) of clause 58 relates to the publication of these statements in monthly average form. Through an oversight, however, the sub-clause refers only to the statements furnished by the trading banks and not to those furnished by the Rural Credits Department. The proposed amendment will remedy the defect.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put -

That the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 54

NOES: 28

Majority . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2594

BANKING (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 1782), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

New clause 3a.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

After clause 3, the following new clause be inserted in Part I. “ 3a. This Act extends to all the Territories of the Commonwealth.”

This amendment is necessary because the Industrial Finance Department of the Commonwealth Bank has a number of accounts in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and, in the absence of an amendment, the provisions of the bill under which the assets and liabilities of that department are to be transferred to the Commonwealth Bank could be deficient. It is purely a machinery matter to extend the provisions of the bill in that direction.

New clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 26 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

New clause 27.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

After clause 26, add the following new clause: - “ 27. For the purpose of applying the GoldMining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1957 in relation to gold delivered in accordance with section thirty-two of the Banking Act 1945-1953 before the commencement of this Part -

a reference in section four of the GoldMining Industry Assistance Act 1954- 1957 to section forty-two of the Banking Act 1957 shall be read as including a reference to section thirty-two of the Banking Act 1945-1953;

a reference in sub-section (5.) of section four of the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1957 to the Reserve Bank of Australia shall be read as including a reference to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia; and

the reference in that sub-section to section forty-four of the Banking Act 1957 shall be read as including a reference to section thirty-four of the Banking Act 1945-1953.”.

This new clause is necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1957 shall continue to apply in relation to gold delivered in accordance with section 34 of the Banking Act 1945-1953.

New clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Question put -

That the bill be reported with amendments.

The committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden)- by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker- Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in theaffirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2596

AUDIT BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1938), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Aves . . . . . . 52

Noes .. .. ..29

Majority . . . . 23

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 28

Majority . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) - by leave put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 54

NOES: 29

Majority . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2597

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ FURLOUGH BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1938), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 29

Majority 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 46

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) - by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2599

CRIMES BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1939), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 49

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) - by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 49

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2600

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL (No. 2) 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1939), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 29

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 29

Majority . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) - by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 29

Majority . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2602

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1940), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 29

Majority .. .. 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 45

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) - by leave - put -

That the bill be read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

page 2603

CIVIL AVIATION AGREEMENT BILL 1957

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to approve an agreement supplementary to the Civil Aviation Agreement 1952. The aim of the 1952 act was to keep two major trunk route operators - Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines - in vigorous and fair competition and to ensure the efficient and economical operation of air services within Australia. To this end the agreement gave A.N.A. substantial assistance in the form of guaranteed loans for purchasing new equipment, reduced air route charges, shared mails equally, gave A.N.A. access to government business and provided for the rationalization of air services and related matters. Notwithstanding these measures, it had become apparent early in 1957 that the financial position of the private airlines, and especially that of A.N.A., had deteriorated to the point where their continued existence was at stake.

The Government’s policy to meet this crisis was made known on a nondiscriminatory basis, not only to the A.N.A. board, but to all groups which were interested in the purchase of A.N.A. This policy in the case of trunk route operations - with which this legislation is principally concerned - is the same in concept as that embodied in the 1952 Civil Aviation Agreement; that of providing fair and equal conditions of competition for two major airlines. The Government indicated that the private airlines concerned would be given continued access to government mail and business and assistance for re-equipment purposes, and that it was proposed to eliminate the wasteful effects of uneconomic competition on trunk routes by strengthening the rationalization provisions of the Civil Aviation Agreement. Under these conditions the Government believed - and still believes - that the trunk route operators will be able to make profits and yet provide at the same time the efficient type of service for which the Australian airlines are noted.

I should now like to review, very briefly, the protracted negotiations concerning the future of A.N.A. At first these negotiations centred around a series of proposals submitted by the A.N.A. board for the formation of a holding company. Initially, Mr. Haddy, chairman of A.N.A., suggested as a basis for negotiation a holding company, having an issued capital of £15,500,000- T.A.A. receiving £7,000,000 in shares; A.N.A. shareholders receiving £6,500,000, half in shares and half cash; and other operators receiving up to £2,000,000. It should be clearly understood that whereas T.A.A.’s assets have a net worth of at least £7,000,000, A.N.A.’s assets were encumbered to the extent of £3,600,000, and had a net worth of between £3,000,000 and £3,500,000, so that the relative shareholdings in the holding company proposed by Mr. Haddy bore no relation whatsoever to the net worth of the assets of the two undertakings. Subsequently, the A.N.A. board submitted a revised proposal under which the holding company would have an issued capital of £12,000,000, of which A.N.A.’s holding would be £4,500,000, and T.A.A.’s £5,500,000, with the proviso that A.N.A.’s shareholders would withdraw properties and investments having a current value estimated at £2,000,000 and that tax in respect of such investments, estimated at £500,000, would be remitted.

It has already been indicated in Parliament that these proposals were rejected, and there were quite decisive reasons why this should be the case. The concept of a holding company was quite inconsistent with the Government’s philosophy of two major operators competing on trunk routes under equal conditions and would inevitably have led to a monopoly. Quite apart from these fundamental objections, the financial basis of the proposals was in any case unacceptable because the level of capitalization proposed was too high to achieve anything like the A.N.A. target of 8 per cent, return on shareholders’ funds, and the respective shareholdings proposed by the A.N.A. board were heavily weighted in A.N.A.’s favour and involved the A.N.A. shareholders withdrawing some £2,000,000 worth of assets from the air transport industry.

Following rejection of the holding company the A.N.A. board indicated that its shareholders were unwilling to accept the measures which the Government had made known to the board, and subsequently announced in its policy review. It will be recalled that these measures included the subsidization of unprofitable DC3 services to rural areas and the granting of assistance for replacing the DC3 aircraft. The A.N.A. board then indicated that it would proceed to liquidate unless a satisfactory offer were made for the purchase of the shares in A.N.A. by any of the various groups which had made overtures for this purpose. The position was complicated because A.N.A. had in the month of June defaulted in the repayment of the loans which the Commonwealth had guaranteed under the 1952 Civil Aviation Agreement. I will shortly give details of these loans when considering the clauses of the bill.

Mr Calwell:

– When will that be?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Shortly, in the course of the debate.

Mr Calwell:

– You mean at the appropriate time?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Yes, at an appropriate time.

Mr Calwell:

– You do not mean that you want to deal with it in the committee stage to-night?

Mr OSBORNE:

– That is in the hands of the House.

Mr Calwell:

– lt is in the hands of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This cross-fire is completely out of order.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), I point out that the future proceedings in relation to this bill are in the hands of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He could be well advised to withdraw the interjection.

Mr OSBORNE:

– In order to maintain essential air services while A.N.A.’s shareholders completed their arrangements to either liquidate or sell their shares, the Government facilitated an extension of the time for paying the instalments due under the loans which it had guaranteed.

Of the several groups which made overtures for the purchase of the shares only Ansett Transport Industries Limited was prepared to proceed on the basis of the Government’s declared policy of subsidizing unprofitable feeder services, a strengthening of the rationalization provisions of the agreement and, in appropriate circumstances, granting financial assistance in the form of guaranteed loans for the purpose of re-equipment. There were numerous reasons, of course, why a sale of the shares of A.N.A. was preferable to a complete liquidation of the company. The latter would have involved the disruption of essential air services, unemployment of many of A.N.A.’s skilled and loyal staff of some 3,500 and the extinction of a great airline which had pioneered air services in Australia and had over the years made a vital contribution to the development of air transport in this country.

Following detailed negotiations between Ansett Transport Industries Limited and A.N.A., on which the Government’s stated policy had an important bearing, the A.N.A. board finally decided on behalf of its shareholders to sell all the issued shares to Ansett Transport Industries Limited for the sum of £3,300,000. The sale agreement was signed on 3rd October and the new Ansett-nominated board assumed control on that date.

I should like to emphasize that the new civil aviation agreement is fully supported by both Ansett Transport Industries Limited and the Australian National Airlines Commission, and suggest that this is perhaps the best indication that the Government’s policy as embodied in this agreement is in the best possible interests of both trunk route operators and of the air transport industry as a whole.

I turn now to the detailed provisions of the proposed legislation. Briefly, the purpose of the bill is threefold -

  1. Firstly, to authorize execution of the agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth.

    1. Secondly, to authorize the commission to execute the agreement and to do whatever the agreement requires; and
    2. Thirdly, to authorize the Commonwealth to guarantee the balance of loans outstanding under the 1952 agreement, following a re-arrangement of the periods of the loans.

The first clause of the bill requiring comment is clause 4, which empowers the Australian National Airlines Commission to enter into the new agreement, and to carry out its obligations and avail itself of the rights conferred under the agreement. The commission was not a party to the 1952 agreement, but is required by section 5 of the 1952 act to do everything which the agreement provides that the commission will do. Accordingly, while effectively bound, the commission was not a voluntary party to the 1952 agreement. On the other hand, the commission not only has no objection to the new agreement, but, on the contrary, has indicated its willingness to become a voluntary party, provided that the Parliament empowers it to do so.

Clause 5 of the bill is necessary to obtain parliamentary approval to guarantee amounts payable under existing loans granted in pursuance of clause 3 of the 1952 Civil Aviation Agreement which, following default by A.N.A., are to be rearranged. Since 1952, the Commonwealth has guaranteed three loans to A.N.A., totalling £4,350,000, to purchase two DC6 and four DC6b aircraft. The first loan from the Commonweal th Bank was a sum of £1,500,000, and as at 30th June, 1957, a balance of £600,000, plus interest for the preceding six months was outstanding. The second loan, also from the Commonwealth Bank, was a sum of £1,500,000, and as at 30th June, 1957, a balance of £1,019,000, plus interest for the preceding six months, was outstanding. The third loan, from the Australian Mutual Provident Society, was a sum of £1,350,000, and as at 15th June, 1957, the full amount of the loan, plus interest for the preceding six months, was outstanding.

Originally, the three loans were repayable over a period of five years, with the principal to be reduced by ten equal instalments at six-monthly intervals. A.N.A. defaulted in the three instalments totalling £435,000, plus interest, due in June, 1957. During the negotiations for the sale of A.N.A., the Commonwealth facilitated a period of grace to enable A.N.A. to determine its future. It will be appreciated that, by purchasing all the shares in A.N.A., Ansett Transport Industries Limited automatically assumed the obligations, as well as the benefits, of A.N.A. under the Civil Aviation Agreement. Before concluding its purchase, Ansett Transport Industries Limited therefore entered into detailed negotiations with the Government to obtain a re-arrangement of the loans in default, and to allow a reasonable period in which to discharge the outstanding obligations it hereby assumed.

Briefly, Ansett Transport Industries Limited sought the following rearrangement of the loans: - It requested that the A.M.P. Society loan of £1,350,000, and the two Commonwealth Bank loans, of which balances of, £600,000 and £1,019,000 are outstanding,” together, in each case, with accrued interest, should be re-financed over a five-year period commencing on the date of execution of the agreement for the purchase of all the shares in A.N.A., and that the first instalments in repayment of these loans, as re-financed, should be due and payable, together with current interest, six months after the date of execution of that agreement. On Ansett Transport Industries Limited agreeing to execute the new agreement in the schedule to the bill, which, as indicated, gives effect to the Government’s policy and, in particular, preserves the philosophy underlying the Civil Aviation Agreement 1952, it was considered proper and reasonable that the Commonwealth should facilitate the re-arrangement of the loans on this basis, particularly as the security for the loans substantially exceeds the balance still outstanding. Clause 5 of the bill seeks parliamentary authority to guarantee the loans as re-arranged.

The schedule to the bill sets forth the proposed supplementary agreement. The parties are the Commonwealth, the commission, A.N.A., Ansett Transport Industries Limited, and Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited. The recitals indicate the relation of this agreement to the 1952 agreement: That Ansett Transport Industries Limited has purchased all the shares in A.N.A. and controls Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited; that the parties desire to establish a rationalization committee to supplement the rationalization machinery under the old agreement and, in particular, to state the Commonwealth’s policy of two, and only two, trunk route operators, one being the commission, each capable of effective competition with the other.

Clause 1 of the agreement substantially extends the scope of the routes which are subject to rationalization. The 1952 agreement relates only to routes on which T.A.A. and A.N.A. were competing in 1952. It does not extend to routes developed thereafter or, of course, to routes on which T.A.A. competes only with Ansett Transport Industries Limited and its subsidiaries, other than A.N.A. This clause extends rationalization to all competitive routes, namely, routes on which the commission and any one airline in which Ansett Transport Industries Limited has a controlling interest, including A.N.A., operate or propose to operate. Clause 3 of the agreement establishes a rationalization committee comprising a co-ordinator nominated by the Minister for Civil Aviation, and two additional members nominated by the commission and the company respectively.

Clause 4 sets out in some detail the functions of the proposed committee. If the commission and the company are unable to agree on questions of routes, fares and freights, time-tables and other related questions, the matter in dispute may be referred to the committee and if, after further consideration, the airlines are still unable to agree, the co-ordinator decides the matter. His decision is binding, but either airline, if still dissatisfied, may appeal to the independent chairman, Sir John Latham, in which event the co-ordinator will furnish the reason for his decision in writing to the chairman. There are several reasons for this supplementary rationalization machinery. The present machinery is unsuitable for obtaining day-to-day decisions on rationalization matters and, in some respects, unsuitable for broad policy decisions, since this type of issue has to be considered in the light of overall air transport policy, and no procedure has existed for placing such policy considerations before the chairman. It is believed that the supplementary machinery will cure both these defects while retaining, as I believe is essential, a completely impartial chairman to decide issues after all other avenues of agreement have been exhausted. The informal co-ordination committee can meet at very short notice on matters of detail which are in their cumulative effect of great importance, but which would not justify separate references to the chairman and, indeed, in practice would not be referred to him, but could simply snowball into uneconomic operations. I refer to such matters as the take-off time of a particular flight and the increase of frequencies, or the introduction of an additional stopping place on a particular route. Where major policy issues are involved, the chairman will now have the advantage of detailed reasons for the co-ordinator’s decision which will no doubt survey national civil aviation policy considerations, as well as the views of the partisan operators.

I take this opportunity of placing on record recognition of the valuable services already rendered by Sir John, as chairman, and to express the appreciation of the Government, and indeed of all parties, for his advice that he will continue to be available, not only for the purposes of the 1952 agreement, but also for the new agreement.

Clause 5 of the agreement requires Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited to cease operation of airline services and is necessary to achieve the Government’s policy of two, and only two, major trunk route operators, one being the commission. A period of 25 months is allowed for the complete merging of Ansett-A.N.A. operations, since the terms of the sale of A.N.A. extend over a period of 24 months. It is believed, however, that complete integration should be achieved much sooner. Under clause 6 of the agreement, Ansett Transport Industries Limited undertakes to ensure that airlines in which it has a controlling interest will not act inconsistently with the objects of the agreement.

Clause 7 of the agreement deals with past omissions by A.N.A. The object of this clause is to preserve the right of A.N.A. to obtain, in certain circumstances, further financial assistance. During the first ten years of the 1952 agreement, A.N.A. is entitled to further guaranteed loans, provided that such loans are necessary to achieve heavy equipment parity with the commission, and provided also that the balance outstanding at any time does not exceed £4,000,000. However, the Com monwealth is discharged from the obligation to facilitate any further loans if there has been a default on the part of A.N.A. This clause has the effect of removing any disqualification on Ansett Transport Industries Limited for eligibility for further loans which could have resulted from the default of the previous owners of A.N.A.

Finally, it will be noted that nothing in the agreement requires or permits operators to act inconsistently with the Air Navigation Act and Regulations - clause 8 - and that the period of agreement has the same duration as the Civil Aviation Agreement of 1952, and therefore will continue in force until October, 1967 - clause 9. This legislation has, I think, the distinct advantage of being accepted quite voluntarily by all the airlines which are parties to it - T.A.A., A.N.A. and Ansett Transport Industries Limited - as being not only in their best interests, but also in the best interests of the industry as a whole. In these circumstances, the Government believes it should bring much-needed stability to air transport and, in the long term, assist greatly in the promotion of a self-sufficient industry. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 2607

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1957

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

, - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to increase by 10 per cent, the charges payable for the use by aircraft of aerodromes, air route and airway facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services provided by the Commonwealth. Air route charges were first introduced in 1947, and the present scale was introduced by the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952, which this bill amends. Under present conditions, the 10 per cent, increase will yield an additional £50,000 in revenue, and will increase total recovery to some £550,000 per annum. It is proposed that the increase in charges shall become effective from 1st January, 1958.

The increase is a relatively modest one, and, spread over the entire industry, will not have any severe effects. However, the legislation is important because it reaffirms the objective of achieving a more self-supporting air transport industry. It is proposed to keep the scale of charges under periodical review with the object of progressively reducing the gap between the cost of providing facilities and the revenue obtained from the users.

The opportunity is taken to amend the schedules to the act to provide for a number of situations not contemplated when the 1952 legislation was enacted, and also to bring up to date the table of nights contained in the First Schedule to the act. Broadly, charges for airline operations are calculated by multiplying the unit rating of an aircraft which is based on its all-up weight by the factor specified in the act for the flight in question. The factor has been calculated having regard to the extent of facilities, including aerodromes, provided along the route of the flight. Flights for which a factor is specified have been increased from 219 to 310 to cover all flights at present being operated by regular public transport services. In this connexion I should mention a significant change in the regulation-making power. Section 6 of the 1952 act authorized regulations amending the schedules to the act. In the light of five years’ experience there is no longer any justification for vesting such wide powers in the executive. The power to amend the schedules by regulation is therefore repealed, but if a new route is developed the regulations may specify the factor applicable to a flight over that route. In view of the comprehensive coverage of 310 flights in the new table, this power to specify the factor for new flights is a very narrow one indeed.

I now mention briefly other minor amendments. Provisions are added in clauses 4 and 7 of the bill to permit a charge where a transport aircraft lands and takes off from the same aerodrome without an intermediate stopping place. Airline operators frequently conduct sight-seeing flights over capital cities, and such flights will now be the subject of charges. The present act authorizes a refund of charges where this is considered “ just, having regard to the nature, locality or extent of the operation of the aircraft”. Typical cases for exemption in whole or in part would be aircraft operated for search and rescue operations, or other humanitarian purposes, or in remote areas where few, if any facilities are provided by the Commonwealth. Clauses 9 and 10 of the bill will authorize remission in advance as well as reimbursement of charges actually paid, and will thus provide a more convenient procedure for reducing or waiving charges where the circumstances are appropriate. Finally, in the case of charter, aerial work and private operators who usually pay charges in advance on an annual basis, clause 11 ensures that the charge is not increased until the expiry of the current period for which a charge has already been paid.

I commend the bill to the consideration of honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 2608

COMMONWEALTH POLICE BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1576, vol. H. of R. 15), on motion by Mr. Cramer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- It seems to me to be appropriate that the Government brings this bill forward, after so much delay and interruption, immediately after the House has dealt with measures designed to establish an economic dictatorship under which control of the country will be given over to the private bankers. By this bill, the Government proposes to establish a security service equivalent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the United States of America, in order to establish a police state and enable the Government to have at hand an instrument with which to crush the people in the event of anybody trying to arouse indignation against it, or to protest against its actions.

Let us consider what the Government proposes to do. The second-reading speech of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer), would lead one to imagine that this was a most innocuous measure. According to him, all that it involved was the amalgamation of what is known as the Commonwealth Investigation Service and the Commonwealth Peace Officers, for the purpose of eliminating overlapping of functions, and in the interests of efficiency. However, it is well known that both of these organizations are already amalgamated under the one department - the Attorney-General’s Department - and that the director and the deputy director of the Commonwealth Investigation Service are also the supervising officer and the deputy supervising officer of the Peace Officers. What closer amalgamation of these two organizations than already exists could we have? It is obvious that this is only the first step in a scheme planned by the Government, and that the Administration hoped that it would pass unnoticed, and without criticism.

The Minister said that proper training facilities, and opportunities to recruit suitable officers into these Commonwealth forces, were lacking. When considering any proposal to establish a Commonwealth police force, one must remember that there is already a State police force in every State always available for the enforcement of Commonwealth laws. Why does the Government want this additional overlapping service? As I have pointed out, th,e Minister stated that proper training facilities were lacking. But the various State governments have offered to the Commonwealth, for the training of Commonwealth officers, the use of the facilities used for the training of members of the State police forces, and, for the last two years, the Commonwealth has not availed itself of the opportunity to use the training facilities in New South Wales. Some of the best Commonwealth officers have been recruited from State services, and there has never been any difficulty in getting suitable State officers to transfer to the Commonwealth service. I should like the Minister to give us some illustration of the difficulty which he says has been encountered in that respect.

One of the things to which I strongly object is that it is now some considerable time since this measure was introduced into this House. In the meantime, without once obtaining the approval of this Parliament, those who are concerned with building up this Commonwealth police force have been anticipating the decision of the Parliament in regard to it, and have been proceeding with their organization. In Sydney they have already acquired land on North Head, in the Manly district, for the purpose of setting up their police training centre, or barracks, if that term is preferred. Further than that, they have been going through the State police services picking out the best officers and offering them higher salaries than they are now receiving from the States. So you can see that the men who are concerned with building up this empire have been very active during the period since this measure was first brought before this Parliament and before we have had an opportunity of discussing it.

One other matter which is rather important is this: Who is to be the commissioner of this new police force? Apparently it is to be a Mr. Whitrod. Now, Mr. Whitrod has been very active in developing this idea of a Commonwealth bureau of investigation similar to the American F.B.I. He has had himself selected as the commissioner to take over this service. Has Mr. Whitrod proved himself to be such an efficient officer that he should be permitted to select himself automatically as the commissioner of the new Commonwealth police force? If we examine his experience and record we find this: He was a very junior officer in the South Australian police force. Then he joined the Commonwealth Investigation Service. I understand he was in charge of its activities in South Australia. Then he was relieved of his position in South Australia and transferred to Melbourne. While he was in Melbourne he applied for the position he now occupies. I am given to understand that Mr. Whitrod’s application for his present post was received four months after the applications had closed. So how did he become eligible for the position? How did he obtain the appointment which he at present has?

And what has been the experience of the Commonwealth in regard to this man who is selected to be the commissioner of the new Commonwealth police force?

Honorable members will well recollect the occasion when the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) announced in this Parliament that he had discovered a nest of traitors in his own department, and how we pressed him time and time again for some definite information as to what action had been taken regarding the matter. There was an investigation into an alleged leakage of information from the Department of External Affairs which had actuated the Minister in making a statement in this Parliament regarding a nest of spies. I invite the Minister now to produce in this Parliament, and make available, the report of the special officers of the Commonwealth Investigation Service - very experienced officers - who made the investigation on what the investigation disclosed. As the report will indicate, if it is produced in this Parliament, the alleged leakage of information to a Communist newspaper in New South Wales was not a leakage at all. It was something deliberately designed to make it appear that the Communist party was receiving information from the Department of External Affairs which could come only from people who were spying on behalf of the Communists and a foreign power.

What did the investigation disclose? It disclosed that a Miss Maria Masson, who was then the secretary of this same Mr. Whitrod, had actually handed the information out to the representative of this newspaper. So the Government panicked. Mr. Whitrod must have known something about this particular matter. If he did not know anything of it, then he is not fitted to be the head of either the proposed new Commonwealth Police Force or the Commonwealth Investigation Service.

What does the Government propose to do with this new Commonwealth Police Force? Does it intend to have a force like the American F.B.I, by means of which it can continue - and I use the word “ continue “ deliberately - to tap telephone services in this country, including the telephone services used by members of this Parliament? I ask that, because there were instances raised in this Parliament regarding that very thing. I remember one that was raised by the honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin), who proved beyond all doubt that telephones in this country were being tapped, and that telephone calls by members of this Parliament to their constituents from this building were being tapped and recorded. Surely we must look with great horror on the possibility of this type of thing becoming a common practice in Australia. It is not as if the telephones were being tapped for the purpose of preventing espionage or the leakage of information to a potential enemy. The telephones were being tapped in this country for political purposes in an attempt to get some evidence against members of this Parliament and members of the Labour party.

Does the Government propose to leave this organization in the form provided for in the measure - that is, as a mere amalgam of the Commonwealth Investigation Service and the Peace Officer Guard? Of course it does not intend to do that! This is only the commencement of the building up of this empire which Mr. Whitrod is so anxious to head. As time goes on Commonwealth security will become part of the organization’s functions. We will find that the officers who to-day are engaged in dealing with breaches of the custom law, those who are engaged in investigating breaches of pensions legislation, those who are engaged on investigating theft in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and those engaged in examining applications for immigration will be eventually absorbed into this great and ever-expanding organization.

There are a few rather interesting things which can be noted in the bill before us. The officers of the Commonwealth Police Force are not to be covered by the Public Service Act. They are to be appointed by the Attorney-General after he has conferred with the Public Service Board. Honorable members should not be foolish enough to believe that this idea of the Attorney-General conferring with the Public Service Board will give any security to the people of this country in regard to the selection of officers of the Commonwealth Police Force, because who would imagine that the Public Service Board would ever dare to oppose an opinion expressed by the Attorney-General? That provision is put in only with the idea of making it appear that there will be some protection in regard to the selection of officers for this service. Whoever happened to be the Attorney-General of the day could select any type of individual in the community to be a member of the Commonwealth Police Force. We have already had experience of what the Australian Security Intelligence Organization can do in respect of engaging special agents for special work. It has engaged as agents in the security service of this country various kinds of people. It has tried to enlist the services of university lecturers to spy on students attending universities and to report on them. We have had illustrations of its engaging the services of a certain type of unscrupulous medical man to give information regarding patients. Are they to be the type of people who will be recruited into the Commonwealth Police Force?

Strangely enough, the terms and conditions of employment of officers of the new service will not be within the power of the Parliament to vary, because, according to a provision in the legislation, determinations made by the Attorney-General are not to be regarded as statutory rules in accordance with the Rules Publication Act. What does that mean? It means, in effect, that the Government, in making a determination regarding this service, does not even have to publish it, does not even have to send it to the Government Printer, and that the determination does not even become an ordinary regulation, as we understand it in this Parliament, to be tabled here and in the other House and be subject to the veto of the Parliament should honorable members or senators decide to reject it. This is to be a special police force operating under very special conditions.

I was rather interested to note that the Attorney-General can appoint special Commonwealth police officers. He does not even have to confer with the Public Service Board. There is no limit as to the number he may appoint. He can appoint as many as he likes, and I can imagine that an unscrupulous anti-Labour government would not hesitate to use this power to appoint special Commonwealth police officers if it wanted them as strike-breakers in the event of being unable to obtain the co-operation of State Labour governments in the use of State police. Would not that be a use to which the special Commonwealth police could be put?

I think honorable members would be well advised to examine this measure very thoroughly because it is not just the simple measure that the Minister has indicated. I believe that the Government has a sinister purpose in introducing this legislation. Why do we need a Commonwealth Police Force? Has any Minister or Government supporter told the House of any difficulty that has been experienced with respect to the enforcement of Commonwealth law under the present arrangement?

What are these police to be? Are they to be uniformed police? The House has not been told. Are they to patrol the cities and the country looking for those who are committing breaches of Commonwealth law? If they are not to be engaged upon that work - if that is still to be reserved to the State police - what will be the functions of the Commonwealth police? Why are they required? Why has Mr. Whitrod, who has not had a great deal of experience, been selected as commissioner of this force? Mr. Whitrod is well kown in Australia as being bitterly opposed to the policy of the Labour party. An organization such as this should be kept apart from party politics. Why has this man, who has already displayed his vindictiveness towards Labour, been selected as commissioner?

The Government’s purpose is clear. This is to be a political police force. It is to be a force that will send its agents into the trade unions, into the various religious orders, and into the universities for the purpose of building up dossiers and damning the reputations of people in this country. The’ Opposition will fight this measure. We have all seen what has happened to prospective immigrants to this country who, having been reported upon by the security service in respect of their political activities, which might be regarded as being a little to the left or supporting democratic political organizations overseas, have been refused a permit to enter Australia. No reason is ever given for their rejection. That is typical of how the Government aims to use this police force.

Recently, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) a question regarding the report which had been made in the United Kingdom on telephone tapping. The Prime Minister, who had always in the past indignantly denied that there was any such thing as telephone tapping in this country, and who had even expressed the view that it would never be considered by the Parliament, is a little more receptive to the idea now. He did not reject the suggestion outright. He said that he would examine the report and see to what extent that kind of thing might be introduced into Australia. It is for the Americans to decide whether they need their Federal Bureau of Investigation, and it is for us in Australia to decide whether we need a Commonwealth police force. Has any evidence been produced that we do need it? To my knowledge, no complaint has ever been made with regard to the enforcement of Commonwealth law by State police, unless we go back to the famous incident of the Warwick egg, when, at a political meeting, somebody threw an egg and hit the late right honorable member for North Sydney, Mr. William Morris Hughes. That was the only occasion that I can recollect when any difficulty was occasioned to the Commonwealth with respect to the enforcement of Commonwealth law.

There can be no justification for this measure. The Government has established a special committee. Why? To inquire into the various public service structures in this country with a view to eliminating overlapping, to obtain efficiency, and to do away with empire building, which has” been adding thousands of pounds to the public payroll. Nobody objects to these people being employed in the Public Service if they can be adequately and efficiently employed. But the Labour party does object to this form of empire building. The Government has set up a special committee of the kind I have mentioned with the intention, in my opinion, of doing nothing at all, but merely finding some excuse to present to the people in order to make them believe that it has had a thorough investigation of the Public Service structure with a view to eliminating waste. Now we are to have a new organization. I have no doubt that as’ this organization expands and develops we shall have a new department. We shall have a new departmental head.

Under the present set-up in Australia, this new police force is not needed. The States have efficient police services. The States are able to discharge the functions that this new body will, it is said, carry out on behalf of the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will not proceed with this legislation, but if it does the general public will want to know the reason for building up this new empire under the control of Mr. Whitrod. I have pointed out to the House the enormous powers that are given to the Attorney-General and that will be exercised by the commissioner of this police force if this measure becomes law. I hope that in the committee stages the various clauses will be thoroughly examined.

As the member of the Labour party leading the debate in opposition to this measure, I say that the measure should not be imposed on the Australian democracy. The Labour party rejects it, and indicates that when it takes office - and I hope it will not be very long before it does so - this organization will receive our immediate and earnest attention, because we could not permit it to continue. Australians arefreedomloving people. They are also lawabiding people. The Labour party has noobjection to whatever organization is necessary to see that law and order prevail in Australia, but we on this side of the House do object to any interference with, any intrusion into, what we regard as basic freedoms of the Australian community. If honorable members examine the measure they will be aware of the enormous powers to be possessed by the new Commonwealth police officers. They will not be limited in their activities by any restriction imposed by State law, because the legislation specifically provides that they do not have to wait on any approval from any State authority before carrying out their functions on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. The Parliament and the people will not realize what a danger this force is until they begin to have some experience of it. Just imagine what will happen in the future to workers who are striking or withholding their labour from some undertaking because they are fighting for a principle. The Attorney-General then will recruit the special police officers, without limit as to number, and without limit as to particular qualifications. Those matters are to be left entirely to the discretion of the AttorneyGeneral. He does not even have to consult with the Public Service Board. I hope that the Parliament will continue to direct attention to this very sinister organization that is being established by the Government. Although Labour may not have sufficient numbers to reject the bill in this chamber, I hope that the senators in another place, when it is returned to them in an amended form, will have the good sense to do with this bill what they intend to do with the Government’s banking bills.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Up in the Gulf of Carpentaria the crocodile is usually accompanied by a small bird which lives by picking the creature’s teeth. What it does also, is that when any danger, real or imagined, is approaching the crocodile, the bird from its vantage point gives warning so that the animal can go to cover under the surface of the water.

It has always seemed to me that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) performs something of that kind of service for the Communist party because whenever anything is done which, in the honorable member’s mind, would have the effect of threatening the security of the Communist party or revealing its machinations, he is up in his place in this House, at the centre table, raising a clamour, endeavouring to divert the attention of the House away from the Communist party and also to cover up for it. It seems to me that on this occasion he is off the beam in several respects. First, it is quite vain for him to hope to use his power over the senators in another place to have this bill rejected. The honorable member has evidently failed to notice that this bill has already passed the Senate. Of course, it may be necessary to send it back for amendment and, to that extent, he may be right, but the fact is that the bill has already passed the Senate.

The second thing is that in spite of the honorable member’s apprehension, this bill is not primarily directed again the Communist party. It does not relate to that part of the Commonwealth police or security force, whose operations are directed to exposing the operations of the Communist party. But I agree with the honorable member that it is possible that in the performance of its duties, this force might at some time perhaps be able to find out something of what the Communist party is doing against the security of this country and to inform the authorities correctly in regard to it.

That is one of the reasons why I have risen. I am hoping, at the committee stage, when clause 5 is under consideration, to move a small amendment which I hope the Government will accept. The amendment will require recruits to this new force, before they are accepted, to make a statutory declaration that they are not, and have not been, members of a Com munist party. Perhaps it is unreasonable for a provision of this kind to be inserted in a bill which is directed to the establishment of a security force whose prime function will not be to deal with bodies such as the Communist party. [Quorum formed.]

Before the quorum was formed, I was pointing out to the House that there are several honorable members, notably the honorable member for East Sydney and, of course, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), who are very quick in their endeavours to work here for the Communists or to cover up for them by raising irrelevant issues when any proposal is made which might operate against the Communist party. I was remarking also that I hope to move an amendment to this bill at the committee stage which would make it mandatory for each recruit to this force to make a declaration that he is not a member of a Communist party and had not been a member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

– Order! There is too much audible conversation around the chamber.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sure that this proposal will give grave offence to people such as the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) and the honorable members for Hindmarsh and East Sydney, who usually run the Communist line in this House. But it is an amendment which should commend itself to the Labour party because if we are to believe its story, that party has, itself, been a victim of Communists who have been infiltrated through the Public Service on to the staff of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt). 1 think that I should remind the House that in the dim, distant past - the old, unhappy past, it seems now - there was an organization called the Australia First Movement. A number of its members were arrested and the Labour party was not terribly tender about its evidence when they were dealt with. Subsequently, when a royal commission was appointed, I think largely owing to the efforts of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) - I do not think he should be associated with the misdeeds of his party, fully, in regard to this organization - some reparation was made to some of the people concerned.

However, the terms of reference of that commission were carefully drawn so that it was not made the function of the commissioner to inquire into the real purpose behind this movement’s activities. There was very little doubt that the Australia First arrests were part of an organized Communist plot involving the use of the machinery of government by Communist agents working inside the Public Service. There is little doubt that there was connivance between the “ Tribune “, which was then, I think, the official organ of the Communist party - I am not quite certain whether it was being published legally at the time - and the Commonwealth authority. There appeared in the columns of that organ prior disclosure of information which should have been known only to the Government. The objective of the crime was pretty clear. It was as follows: - Up to June, 1941, members of the Communist party had been co-operating in the HitlerStalin plans against our war effort. They were actively treasonable. In June, 1941, when Hitler turned unexpectedly against his ally Stalin, the Communist party had to switch over. In order to blanket its criminal and treasonable past, it required scape-goats-

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker you might ask the honorable member to tell the House what the war between Hitler and Stalin has to do with this police bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I well appreciate the honorable member’s tenderness for the Communist party, but in this case, unfortunately for him, what I am saying is very relevant. My foreshadowed amendment is necessary because, in the past, Communist agents have infiltrated into organizations of this kind. What I am saying is right on the ball and relevant to the point that I am making. At that time it was necessary for the Communist party to get another scapegoat to cover up its own treason in the popular mind. An agent provocateur was sent to Western Australia. I will not weary the House with the details. He was a man who had had considerable connexion with the Communist party. When one looks at the situation as a whole, there can be little doubt that a Communist setup was operating inside the department. lt is necessary that that kind of thing should not be allowed to continue or to be repeated. If the Opposition is honest in its desire to keep Communists out of things, it will support the amendment that I hope to move in committee later this evening.

Although I started by citing something of the distant past, it is not my intention to leave all things in that distant past. The Royal Commission on Espionage showed quite conclusively, as a result of a full inquiry by judges, that Communist agents were operating on the staff of the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister for External Affairs. The right honorable gentleman has said that these things were done without his knowledge. Let us accept his word for it for the time being. If one accepts his word, surely he should be anxious to prevent any repetition of the misdemeanour that was perpetrated against him. He has said that he was an innocent victim. If he was innocent, he will be anxious not to be a victim again. Let me remind the House of one or two things. At page 159 of the report of the Royal Commission on Espionage, appear some findings in regard to a man called Maclean, who was a journalist. The Moscow entry was -

Maclean - journalist, sympathetically disposed towards us, a very well-informed man. In ‘T’s ‘ opinion, he will give information.

The report stated -

Maclean was formerly an officer of the Department of External Affairs. . . . We were informed that he was too ill to make a declaration or a written statement, and we therefore had to rely for much of the information concerning him on an oral statement which he made to two Commonwealth officers on 10th November 1954.

The following are the particulars of his service in the Department as supplied by it. He was born in 1912. In May 1947 he was appointed a temporary First-Secretary to work on documentation and assembly of data for the then Minister.

That would have been the present Leader of the Opposition, I think. The report continued -

On 11th July 1947 he left for Japan with the Minister, as a member of his staff. On 28th August 1947 he took up duty in the Department in Canberra as press officer in the Political Intelligence and Information Centre. On 11th February, 1952 he reported sick and was continuously on sick leave until 6th February, 1953 . . .

Maclean is by training a journalist. Prior to the war he worked on various newspapers in Sydney. During the war he sought to enlist but was rejected for active service on account of a physical disability. Later he was employed in the Finance

Section of the Army. During this period he contracted the illness from which he is still suffering. While in the Army he joined the Communist party and paid subscriptions for two or three months, but he said that he never attended any meetings and that he dropped out because he disapproved of the Party’s pamphlets.

After the war he returned to his newspaper work. He said that he was selected by a group of newspapers to accompany Dr. Evatt on his election campaign of 1946 and to report that campaign; that Dr. Evatt was pleased with his work and later suggested that he accept the appointment in the Department of External Affairs to which we have referred above.

Here is a man who, on his own admission, had been a member of the Communist party and who was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has stated that he did not know that this man was a Communist. Well and good. If that is so, the right honorable gentleman will be anxious to be protected from this kind of thing in future and he will, therefore, support the amendment that I shall move.

On page 123 of the report of the Royal Commission on Espionage, we find information on a Miss Bernie, whose code name in the Moscow files was “ Sestra “, and who gave evidence before the commission. The report stated -

She was employed by the Department of External Affairs from 20th November, 1944, to 12th April, 1946 as a stenographer in the Sydney office of the Minister, who at that time was Dr. Evatt. She was born in 1922. In 1941 she joined the Communist Party. At the direction of the Party she became a member of the Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia and a committee member of the Clerks Union Youth Section. In this capacity she helped in the formation of the Eureka Youth League, of which she became the full-time paid administrative secretary. Her health broke down and she had to give up the Eureka Youth League work, but she still remained a member of the Communist Party. She said that in 1944 she answered an advertisement calling for applications for a clerical position in the office of a member of Parliament. In response to her application she was interviewed by Dalziel, one of Dr. Evatt’s secretaries, to whom she did not disclose her Party affiliation, and she was appointed to a temporary position as a stenographer in the Sydney office of the Department of External Affairs. She informed the Communist Party head-quarters of her appointment and volunteered to report anything she came across which might be of interest to the Party. She was told to take any such information to Clayton.

Thereafter, throughout her period in the Department she made copies of departmental documents which she thought might be interesting to the Communist Party and took them to Clayton and to Clayton only. For much of the period she had a room to herself which adjoined the Minister’s room with a connecting door. She said she took documents to Clayton on a number of occasions, She professed to be able to remember very little of their nature.

Clayton did not tell her that the information would go to the Soviet. She regarded herself as giving it to the Communist Party, and did not concern herself with the use that might be made of it.

Whatever was the nature of the information given, the entry showed that the M.V.D. regarded it as “ interesting “.

If the then Minister was innocent, he was taken for a ride. He will be anxious, surely, to prevent that kind of thing from happening in future. It is no use saying that a person in a junior position such as that of secretary cannot be an effective spy or cannot be an effective agent of the Communist party. Even the documents which came across the Minister’s desk and were on the other side of that connecting door would have been of vital interest to the Soviet and Miss Bernie gave them to a Soviet agent. It may have been done without the knowledge of the then Minister. I do not for a moment say that it was done with the Minister’s knowledge, But, having been taken for a ride, does he not want to stop this kind of thing from being repeated? Is he not anxious to keep Soviet agents out of the federal Public Service?

The amendment which I shall move does not in any way infringe the rights or liberties of anybody. It is not directed against a person who is not or has not been a member of the Communist party. The amendment merely proposes that a person joining the police force must make a statutory declaration to the effect that he is not and has not been a member of the Communist party. I know that this provision will not correct every evil, but it will correct some. If the two public servants I have mentioned from the report of the royal commission had had to sign statutory declarations, as required by my amendment, before being appointed to the Public Service, they would never have been appointed. The provision would have been of great value in those two cases, and they are by no means the only two cases that could be cited. The provision would have prevented the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), if he is as innocent as he says, from being taken for a ride by the Communists. Does he not want to prevent the same kind of thing happening in the future? lt may be said, and truthfully said, that this is a small measure, and that it is, perhaps, inappropriate to introduce into it a principle which does not hold good throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this principle will be adopted throughout the remainder of the Commonwealth Public Service, which is a field in which we have complete constitutional power.

The proposal imposes no hardship on any person except a Communist party member. It does not touch even “ fellow-travellers “ if they have not been members of the Communist party. The only person that it touches are members of the Communist party or those who have been members of that party. I believe we have a duty to protect the community against those persons. We have to start somewhere, and I hope that this principle will be imported into the bill, and that later it will be applied more generally throughout the Public Service.

I am not suggesting an inquisition. I am not suggesting something that will operate harshly against any person except those who have been members of the Communist party. The requirements of security inside the Public Service cannot be met simply by employing people of this kind in what are called insensitive posts. I do not believe that there are such insensitive posts in the Service, because even a stenographer who has access to documents may be able to copy those documents. Even a cleaner may be able to obtain material from the Minister’s waste-paper basket which could be of interest to Communist agents - and those agents still exist in Australia.

I hope that the Government will not only accept this amendment, but also that it will apply the principle, as opportunity occurs, more widely throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. I hope, with, I must admit, only a very little amount of confidence, that my friends of the Opposition who have been taken for a ride by the Communists - innocently, they say - will themselves support this most salutary and necessary principle.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) has indulged, as usual, in 0 tirade of abuse of the Opposition party accusing all and sundry of being

Communist agents. This is the role that he usually plays in this Parliament. As a result, he has now become such a laughingstock, not only to honorable members on this side of the House, but also to those on the other side, that no one really takes him seriously. It is a pity that the staff of “ Hansard “ and of the Government Printer are compelled by law to record the stupid utterances that he makes in this Parliament. If the honorable gentleman could have seen the cynical expressions on the faces of members sitting behind him, he would not have continued with the remarks that he made to-night.

Mr Hulme:

– There are no members sitting behind him. He is in the back row.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is right. Those who sit on the same side of the House as he does are hoping that they will not be compelled, even in theory, to sit behind him. We have heard the honorable member brand as a Communist the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, a former High Court judge, a former World President of the United Nations General Assembly, a former Acting Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, and a former Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. How much more silly can an honorable member be than to hurl imputations of that kind across the chamber at such an honorable citizen as the right honorable member for Barton. The honorable member for Mackellar has described as a Communist stooge the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), a gentleman whom Ernest Thornton, speaking in the Sydney Domain, described as the greatest cheer-chaser ever born. Can anybody imagine that Ernest Thornton, who was then the leading Communist of Australia, would have described a fellow Communist as the greatest cheer-chaser ever born, if in fact the honorable member for East Sydney was what the honorable member for Mackellar has alleged him to be?

The more I listen to this honorable gentleman and his protestations against the Communist party, the more I am reminded of the Shakespearean comment, “ Methinks the lady doth protest too much “. I am beginning to wonder whether the honorable member is not himself a very clever undercover Communist agent. It is all very well for the honorable member to laugh, but it is well known that one of the great weaknesses of the Communist spy system in the past has been the candour with which Communist agents have displayed their sympathy for the Communist party. It could very well be that Khrushchev has given instructions, through the newly reformed Cominform, that Communist agents must, from now on, disguise their true feelings towards communism, in very much the manner as the honorable gentleman has attempted to-night to disguise his feelings towards the Communist party. I notice the embarrassed look on his face now that I am accusing him point-blank of being a possible Communist agent. If we study the record of the honorable member before he came to this Parliament, and consider his behaviour on the south coast of New South Wales, we see a direct link with the Communist party of Australia. We need go no further than the occasion when this honorable gentleman, who has talked so much about communism to-night, awarded a cup, known as the Illawarra Star Cup, after the newspaper that he was conducting on the South Coast.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not think that this has any relevance to the bill before us.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Very well, Sir. I shall talk about the amendment which the honorable member has foreshadowed. The amendment is to the effect that no person who has ever been a member of the Communist party may be appointed as a member of the Commonwealth Police Force. How can it be proved that a person has been a member of the Communist party? The most dangerous Communists are not those who can be proved to be members of the Communist party. They are people such as the honorable member for Mackellar, who disguise their true sympathies for the Communist party behind a spate of anti-Communist propaganda, while secretly and silently doing the work of the Communist party from behind the scenes. Is it coincidental that the rate of the Russian advance in the field of power politics since the honorable member came to this Parliament has been out of all proportion to what it was prior to his election? Is this a significant fact? Or is it mere coincidence that since this gentleman has reached a position of power, influence and knowledge, the advance of Soviet Russia in the field of power politics has been beyond all its previous expectations, so that now - the honorable member is probably the only person in this Parliament who can secretly gloat over it - Russia is in a position to challenge the whole world because it is leading in scientific development? This gentleman, who professes to be an anti-Communist, gave a £10 donation towards the alleged Communist-inspired strike on the “ Dalfram “, a vessel on which the alleged Communists refused to handle pig iron at Wollongong. Is it not a fact that the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) accused the honorable member for Mackellar of being a financial member of the Port Kembla branch of the Communist party? I can produce a copy of “ Hansard “ which includes the accusation made by the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith some five or six years ago; but the honorable member for Mackellar sat silently in his seat and did not have the courage to rise and deny the accusation made against him that he was a financial member of the Communist party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! On the point of order the honorable member for Hindmarsh himself took some time ago, he is entirely out of order in every word he has uttered so far. He has not been in touch with the bill. The contents of this bill do not call for continual abuse of another honorable member, imputing improper motives.

Mr Ward:

– Were you in the Chair when he took the point of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! If the honorable member for East Sydney interjects again while I am giving a ruling I shall name him. I will not allow him to interject continually while I am speaking.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I turn now to clause 10 of the bill, which states -

The Attorney-General may, at any time and on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit-

Honorable members should realize that - on terms and conditions that the AttorneyGeneral thinks fit. The bill also makes provision for the issuing of regulations concerning terms and conditions of engagement to comply and be in accordance with the act, and - and this is important - those regulations may be in any form that the AttorneyGeneral thinks fit. That is the charter which the act gives to the person issuing the regulations; he can appoint any persons he wishes to appoint to the secret police force which is being established under this bill. The secret police so established will comprise people who are, or can be, secretly appointed by the Attorney-General in accordance with clause 10. If the bill is further amended as proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar, the only other necessary requirement is that the appointee is not or never has been a member of the Communist party.

The honorable member should inform the House how it is humanly possible to implement the amendment which he has foreshadowed, because we can have the case of a person who says, “ I am not a member of the Communist party “. That does not prevent the honorable member saying, “ Yes, you are “; because we recall that he has on previous occasions accused Dr. John Burton of being a member of the Communist party. Despite that accusation, Dr. Burton was appointed by Sir Percy Spender as Australia’s diplomatic representative in Ceylon.

Mr Cleaver:

– He did not remain there very long.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He left the position; he was not dismissed. The Government should inform the House how anything can be proved against a person who says that he is not a member of the Communist party because, providing he has never been silly enough to take out a membership ticket in the Communist party - although he may be just as dangerous a Communist - the fact that he is a Communist cannot be proved.

I remind the honorable member for Mackellar that he was not as smart as he thought he was when he chided the honorable member for East Sydney about this bill having already passed the Senate because, if he proceeds with the amendment he has foreshadowed, it still will be necessary for this bill to go back to the Senate. I am pleased to know that the Senate has rejected already two of the bills that this Government sent forward to it in connexion with banking. Returning to clause 10: If the Attorney-General is given the power which this bill seeks to place in his hands, fortified by the further abuse of power contained in the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Mackellar, this House will allow the kind of character assassination for which the honorable member has made himself famous in the past as, for example, when he accused Susannah Prichard of being the de facto wife of a Victoria Cross winner - when he talked of her as Susannah Prichard, alias Mrs. Hugo Throssell, V.C. On that occasion he had to come into the House and admit that his reflection upon the honour of not only the good lady but also of the Victoria Cross winner, was a fabrication and a complete tissue of lies. But that is the kind of thing the Government will perpetuate if the honorable member’s amendment is passed.

Under that amendment Laurie Short would be ineligible for appointment as a special policeman because he was a Communist at one time and disagreed, and fell out, with the Communist party, not because he disagreed with their theories of dialectic materialism or surplus value, but because he was a Trotskyite and disagreed with the Stalinists on the question of tactics. At that time the Communist party was following the Stalinist line of establishing communism in Russia before attempting to foist it on the rest of the world. But Laurie Short said, “This is not fast enough for me. I am a Trotskyite and I believe in capturing capitalism and forcing communism on the world now that capitalism, after World War I., cannot defend itself against a revolutionary onslaught on a world-wide level “. That is the only reason why Laurie Short left the Communist party. The Stalinists who then controlled the Communist party were not moving fast enough for him. Under this proposal Laurie Short, the great friend of the honorable member for Mackellar, would be ineligible for appointment. The more I think of the friendship of the honorable member with people like Dr. Lloyd Ross and Laurie Short, both ex-Communists, the more suspicious I become of the true motives that actuate his movements and the utterances he makes in this Parliament.

I turn now to the question of the tapping of telephones. This measure gives to the secret police force that is to be established the right to tap the telephones of every citizen in the community. I asked the Prime. Minister (Mr. Menzies) the other night whether he was prepared to give to this Parliament and the community at large the same guarantees as were recommended in the special report of the Privy Councillors delivered recently to the House of Commons, namely that no private or public telephone should be tapped except-

Mr Killen:

– That is not true.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is not true?

Mr Killen:

– That the three Privy Councillors recommended there should not be any telephone tapping.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member has not yet read the report.

Mr Killen:

– I beg your pardon, I have. The honorable member will find out his mistake later.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member should read the report and not simply have it put in front of him. At the back of the report he will find a recommendation that there should be no telephone tapping in future except on a warrant-

Mr Killen:

– It is on page 168-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Moreton will have the chance to speak later.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The recommendation is that the warrant should indicate not only the name of the person whose telephone is to be tapped, but also the period of tapping; that the warrant should not be issued except in a case of a suspected criminal offence or subversion; that the name of every person against whom a warrant for the tapping of a telephone is issued shall be supplied personally to the Prime Minister so that the Prime Minister shall, in the ultimate, be personally responsible for allowing the telephone of any individual in the community to be tapped or continue to be tapped. In reply to my question the Prime Minister said that he would examine the matter, but the important part of the reply was in these words -

It may be that the time has come when the tapping of telephones ought to be placed on a statutory basis.

That statement indicated that the tapping of telephones of which the Opposition has repeatedly accused the secret police, is already going on, and that the practice of tapping private telephones is rampant in this country.

Mr Beale:

– What rubbish you talk! What exaggerations!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Ambassador-elect to the United States knows very well that what I say is perfectly true. He knows very well that what I say is perfectly true. He knows very well that this Government has been tapping telephones and by that means has been obtaining information against trade unions. He knows very well that the Government has engaged in that practice ever since it took office. Yet, every time a question has been asked in this Parliament, the Prime Minister has either refused to answer the question at all, or has said what I believe to be untrue, that tapping is not in fact going on. He tried to placate honorable members on one occasion by saying that he could give an assurance that the telephones of members of Parliament were not being tapped. I do not want members of Parliament to receive special privileges that are not extended to other members of the community. If a member of Parliament is suspected of having committed a criminal offence or an act of subversion, his telephone ought to be tapped, if tapping for this purpose is to be allowed at all - and I do not believe it ought to be allowed. If tapping is permitted, the telephone of a member of Parliament ought to be tapped as much as a telephone belonging to anybody else.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is quite possible that, inside this Parliament, some of the most active foreign agents in this country are sitting, pretending, and hoping to persuade the people, that they are anti-Communist, whilst all the time acting on behalf of the Communist party or some other organization. But, remember that the day could very well come, as it did in 1940 and 1941, at the time of Stalingrad, when our allies will once again be the Communists, and our enemies the fascists. If that day does come, where will some members of this Parliament stand? If this country is ever engaged in a war against a fascist power, as it was during the last war, then the activities of the security organization would not be directed against the allies of this country, but against the fascists.

If security activities were again directed . against the fascists, as they were in the years from 1939 to 1945, the people most likely to be affected would be 75 per cent, of the present secret police, because practically 75 per cent, of the secret police in Australia to-day are appointed for no other reason than that they are anti-Communist. It seems that the greatest qualifications that a person seeking a position in the security police or the secret police of this country can possess to-day are, first, that he is antiCommunist and, secondly, that he is a Fascist. The great majority of them are Fascists in mind and have no sympathy whatsoever with democratic processes.

I want to refer to some actual cases of telephone tapping that have occurred. The honorable member for East Sydney and I have frequently had telephone conversations which, within minutes, have been conveyed to the security service.

Mr Ward:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member confirms what I have said.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– What evidence have you of that?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not propose to give the evidence because if I did I would have to break a confidence with a certain officer who is, fortunately, still employed by the security service. This officer is a friend, not of mine but of the honorable member for East Sydney, and he has told us repeatedly that conversations between the honorable member for East Sydney and me are conveyed to security head-quarters within minutes of the conversations having taken place. I can recall another occasion when I discussed with an inspector of the Division of Aircraft Production in Adelaide, who was employed at Chrysler (Australia) Limited, a certain dispute that was to come before the Parliament concerning the manufacture of Canberra jet bombers. Within twelve hours of the telephone conversation that I had with this gentleman, an officer of the secret police called on him and was able to interrogate him about the conversation. Yet this is supposed to be a free country! Members of the secret police attend union meetings and even join unions. We had a case recently of a member of the secret police who was able to worm his way into a union, occupy a prominent position in the union and for years pimp on the union and its activities. He conveyed to the secret police information about everything that was said and done on an executive level in the union.

Mr Ward:

– And he was also a member of the Communist party.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As my honorable friend tells me, at the same time he was a member of the local branch of the Communist party. A Labour member of the Parliament cannot hold a meeting in Botanic Park in Adelaide without having a member of the security police sitting in the audience and listening to every word he says. Recently, I attended a peace meeting in Adelaide, and two members of the security police sat in the audience and listened to every word I said.

Mr Beale:

– They were all the audience - just the two of them!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– His Excellency the Ambassador seems to be quite loquacious to-night.

Mr Ward:

– He is happy!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He has every reason to be happy; with his expense account in Washington and his knighthood, he will have every reason to laugh. I do not blame him for his mirth.

I have the case also of a gentleman who wished to be naturalized. He had lived in this country for seventeen years and had a university degree, but he was refused naturalization although his father, his brothers and his sisters were naturalized. He was refused naturalization simply because the secret police had given a report to the Department of Immigration that he was a member of the West Norwood branch of the Communist party. It is to the eternal credit of the Leader of the House (Mr. Harold Holt) - I am sorry to have to admit this - that he was big enough to ignore the report of the security police. The man was allowed to be naturalized because it was proved beyond all doubt that the security police were not referring to the man who was not naturalized but to his naturalized brother who was the member of the Communist party. The security police did not take enough precautions even to check the initials.

I have another case of an old Bulgarian tomato-grower in South Australia who was told that he would not be allowed to bring his wife to Australia. Honorable members opposite may laugh, but this is not a laughing matter. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) usually has a good sense of humour and to-night is no exception.

Mr Beale:

– The Bulgarian must have been “red”.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, because he grew tomatoes. That shows the mentality of honorable members opposite. His Excellency says the man must have been red if he grew tomatoes, and that is about the level of their mentality. That is the basis upon which they decide whether a person is a Communist.

The person to whom 1 have referred was told that, although he was naturalized, he could not bring his wife out from Bulgaria. Why? Because he had voted against the Government at the antiCommunist referendum! The department told me that it had to reject his application to bring his wife to Australia because he was known to have handed out how-to-vote cards opposing the referendum question on the Government’s anti-Communist legislation. If the Government thinks it will defeat communism by adopting the methods of Communists, its success will be a Pyrrhic victory. The Government cannot defeat totalitarianism merely by adopting totalitarian methods. No wonder the people of Hungary revolted against the abuses of the secret police in Hungary! The revolution in Hungary is symbolic of what will happen in other countries which are subject to the kind of tyranny that inevitably follows the establishment of secret police forces such as the Government is now proposing to establish in this country. We must use every possible means to fight against the establishment of a secret police force in this country. I repeat what my honorable friend from East Sydney said: The Government may pass this bill, but the day will come when Labour will be the government and it will not hesitate to review every section of this legislation which cuts across fundamental British rights, freedoms and liberties.

Mr Wentworth:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) made certain remarks about me which were grossly defamatory and utterly untrue. First, he said that I had described Mrs. Throssell as the de facto wife of the late Hugo Throssell. What happened was that, in drawing attention to the fact that in her Communist activities - she is a Communist agent and has been for very many years - she had used the names of both Throssel and Prichard, I described her, I think, as “ alias Mrs. Throssell “. She subsequently endeavoured to found a case on this, but had to withdraw it and did not proceed, f insisted, as one of the terms of settlement, that I should reiterate and republish the affirmation that she was a Communist agent. There was not the slightest question about that.

Secondly, the allegation that I was a member of the Port Kembla branch of the Communist party was completely false and stupid. But most stupid and foul of all - I do not know whether it was more stupid or more foul - was the allegation that since I had been in this Parliament Russia had been prospering exceedingly, with the imputation that I had helped in that prosperity. This is so absurd that I consider it scarcely worth denying. It is completely absurd. But I do not think it is right that the honorable member for Hindmarsh, even in his wilder and more fantastic flights, should be entitled to say something like that in regard to myself or, indeed, in regard to any honorable member.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- If the House and the country wanted a really good argument in favour of this bill being passed, it was provided by the two speeches from the Opposition benches to which we have listened this evening. I refer to the speeches of the honorable members for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron). The honorable member for Hindmarsh, who preceded me, clowned his way through his remarks. It is a role, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the honorable gentleman plays to perfection. When the honorable member for East Sydney entered the debate, he revealed a new-found sensitivity for democracy and, with his characteristic charm, thundered that he was the great defender of democracy, the great lover of liberty. There is no person in this Parliament who despises more heartily democracy and liberty than does the honorable member for East Sydney. His attack this evening on the security service of this country was characteristic. It was an attack that I have heard him make on a number of occasions.

Only a few weeks ago, 1 drew attention to the fact that, since the revelation by Vladimir Petrov of the operation of a Soviet espionage system in this country, the honorable member for East Sydney had attacked the security system repeatedly and had sought to slander and defame the three judges who were members of the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia. He has sought to destroy the bona fides of Petrov and of every one associated with the royal commission. On that occasion, I referred to the honorable member for East Sydney as a political vandal, and I so refer to him again this evening. He never has mentioned, and I venture to say he never will mention, the fact that Vladimir Petrov has identified more than 500 M.V.D. agents throughout the world. This man who sits over here, this political vandal-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! 1 do not think that the honorable member should use that term in referring to another honorable member, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr KILLEN:

– I withdraw it, Sir. The honorable member for East Sydney has no affection at all for sound security measures in this country. He is not interested in maintaining security in Australia. I hope that the people of the Commonwealth take heed of the speeches of the honorable members for East Sydney and Hindmarsh this evening, because they show, in the boldest of relief, that the various sections and fragments of the Australian Labour party, when and if returned to office, will destroy our security system. The honorable member for East Sydney asked, “ What is the Commonwealth police force to be? “ He answered his own question by saying, “ It is to be a political police force” He went on to say. “ It is to be a strike-breaking force “. That is a strange charge to come from the honorable member, who sat behind the late Mr. Chifley in this Parliament when Mr. Chifley turned the troops on the coal-fields to break a strike!

Then, of course, the honorable gentleman could not resist the temptation to deal with telephone tapping and, in typical fashion, he embellished his remarks on that subject. I wish to refer to the report of the three Privy Councillors who were members of a committee which was appointed in the United Kingdom to inquire into the interception of communications. I propose to make two brief references to it. In paragraph 168, the commissioners reported -

We recommend that the powers of interception should continue to be used subject to the conditions and safeguards we have set out in Part III. and in this summary of conclusions, but that there should be no extension beyond those we have so carefully defined. . . . Mr. Gordon Walker has reservations on this recommendation - as set out below.

Nowhere in the report is there a categorical asertion by the three Privy Councillors that there should be no telephone tapping. If I did the honorable member for Hindmarsh an injustice when I questioned the truth of his statement, which I thought was going to be unqualified, that the three Privy Councillors had said, in effect, that there should be no telephone tapping in the United Kingdom, I apologize to him; but quite clear and implicit in this report is the recommendation that telephone tapping, as a means of protecting the country and maintaining national security, should be continued. What are the reservations by Mr. P. C. Gordon Walker? These are the main ones that I find -

Even in the field of security the strictest possible limits should be set to the use of the power to intercept communications. It should in my view be allowed for two purposes only -

direct counter-espionage and protection of high secrets of State;

the prevention of the employment of

Fascists or Communists in connexion with work, the nature of which is vital to the State.

I put it to the House that even Mr. Gordon Walker, who dissented from the broad recommendations of the committee, agreed in substance that telephone tapping, as a means of preserving and maintaining a nation’s security, should be continued.

The honorable member for Hindmarsh resorted to the old stratagem, that we have come to know so well from him, of smearing and attacking the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). The honorable member for Mackellar has taken most of the sting out of the fantastic and indeed, foul charges made by the honorable gentleman this evening. As support for his arguments, the honorable member for

Hindmarsh fell back on the reputation of the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt). He adverted to the fact that Thornton had attacked the honorable member for East Sydney, an argument that will convince no one. What does it mean? Then the honorable gentleman said that the honorable member for Mackellar reminded him of a Shakesperean excerpt. The honorable member for Hindmarsh also reminds me of a quotation. It is this -

Fate, fantastic fate,

Once wedded fast to some dear humbug,

Hugs it to the last.

The honorable member is hugging to the last this smearing of the honorable member for Mackellar and is using it to bolster the declining force of his wretched arguments. Then the honorable member for Hindmarsh made the monstrous assertion that Soviet advances have been due to the honorable member for Mackellar. I shall tell the House why I believe Soviet advances have been so terrific over the last ten years. It is because there have been so many befuddled, dangerous-minded individuals comparable with the honorable member for Hindmarsh sitting in democratic parliaments.

I suggest that it is about time some one referred to the bill. The honorable member for Mackellar dealt with it, but we certainly have heard very little about it from Opposition speakers. Its purpose is the establishment of a Commonwealth police force. The honorable member for East Sydney has inquired why it is necessary to have such a force. The purpose of the force is perfectly plain. It is for the protection of Commonwealth property. Am I to understand from the honorable member for East Sydney that Commonwealth property is not worth preserving? Am I to understand that, in time of crisis, telephone exchanges, aerodromes, and wharfs are not to be safeguarded and watched over? It is all very fine for the honorable gentleman to say, “ Those duties can be performed by State police forces “. That is not the position al all, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A Commonwealth police force, dedicated to, and entrusted with, the responsibility of safeguarding Commonwealth property is an objective that commands my support to the utmost. What would be the value of Commonwealth property throughout Australia?

I believe that this question has some pertinency. The value of Commonwealth property would run into many thousands of millions of pounds. Am I to understand from the two Opposition members who have spoken in this debate that that property should be dismissed as being of no account, and that it should not be safeguarded? Sir, sabotage is the essence of Communist activity. I would have hoped that every one in this Parliament would have recognized and accepted that fact.

In this connexion, I want to refer, briefly, to an affidavit made by Oliver Kenneth Goff, now a Christian minister in the United States of America. This gentleman, by the way, was at one time a member of the Communist party in that country. Here is an extract from an affidavit made by him only a few months ago. It states -

I, Oliver Kenneth Golf, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats and the number 18-B2. My testimony before the Government is incorporated in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for the year 1939.

While a member of the Communist Party 1 attended Communist underground training schools outside the city of New York; in the Bues Hall, and 113 East Wells-street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The East Wells-street school operated under the name of the Eugene Debs School. Here, under the tutoring of Eugene Dennis, M. Sparks, Morris Childs, Jack Kling and others, we were schooled in the art of revolutionary overthrow of the established Government.

We were trained on how to dismantle and assemble mimeograph machines, to use for propaganda purposes during the revolution; how to work on guide wires and fuel lines of aeroplanes so that they would either burst into flames or crash to the ground because of lack of control; how to work on ties and rails to wreck trains; and also the art of poisoning water supplies.

It may be said - quite properly - that there is nothing particularly novel in the assertions made by the Reverend Goff, if one recalls the Communist party training manual, if one throws one’s mind back to the report of the Canadian royal commission that investigated the activities of Alan Nunn May, and if one pauses for a moment and thinks on the deeds and the massive betrayals of people such as Fuchs and Pontecorvo. Those names, I know, are ridiculed and held in very casual regard by some members of the Opposition, but they are names that are firmly embedded in history and they identify individuals who have been responsible for the most massive and most monstrous betrayals in the history of democratic countries. When one reflects on such things, and considers that this bill is designed to ensure the protection of Commonwealth property, and to provide for a force residuary to the Commonwealth security force to assist in the protection of Commonwealth property, it is obvious that this measure should command every one’s support. 1 believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is high time that the people of this country discarded the idea that the Australian Communist party is an orthodox political party. I would hope that a few people who sit on the benches occupied by Her Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament would do so.

Mr Curtin:

– Why does the honorable member not wake up to himself?

Mr KILLEN:

– I would hope that the people - and the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) - would recognize the fact that the Australian Communist party is an organized conspiratorial body, trained in military techniques, and dedicated to secure but one objective - the destruction of civilized authority, and its replacement by a materialistic dictatorship. I support this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that it is a very valuable piece of legislation, and that, far from being despised by the people of Australia, it will be warmly supported by them.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I contend that no necessity for the establishment of the police force envisaged in this bill has been shown. Certainly, none of the arguments advanced by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has demonstrated any need for the establishment of such a force. The honorable member said that it is necessary to have a force of this kind for the protection of the Commonwealth property. He may not find it extraordinary, as I do, that this amalgamation of two existing organizations should take place 40 years after the formation of the first of those two organizations to be established, and 32 years after the establishment of the second body, although Commonwealth activity has been on a colossal scale, compared with the prewar scale, for almost eight years during the present Government’s term of office. I ask the House: What has suddenly arisen after the present Government’s eight years in office to justify the argument that this proposal is necessary because Commonwealth activities have greatly increased? Throughout the second-reading speech made by the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer), in May last, there is a vagueness that gives no strength to any assertion that a force such as that now proposed is needed. There are assertions, but there is never any proof to go with them. One has only to quote the Minister’s second-reading speech to illustrate that. He said -

In recent times, the demand for the services of the Commonwealth Investigation Service has been far greater than can be expeditiously met by the existing establishment, which is small, and which has no readily available source of competently trained people to draw upon.

I suggest that there is a very strong moral to be taken from the phrase “ no readily available source of competently trained people to draw upon “. The Minister continued -

Moreover, the extension of the field of Commonwealth activities since the establishment of the Commonwealth Investigation Service and the wide range of matters now falling to the officers of that service for investigation is making demands upon skill and ingenuity which can only be expected of properly trained officers of the highest ability. 1 point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that each State and Territory has its own highly organized and well equipped police force, with a central criminal registry, and with international police contact through Interpol, in Melbourne. It is common knowledge that, throughout the nine police forces in the Commonwealth - those of the six States, and those of the Northern Territory, the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and the Australian Capital Territory - there is a shortage of trained officers. It is common knowledge that the shortage at present aggregates about 4,500 men.

Dr Evatt:

– Is the honorable member speaking about the existing police forces?

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I am speaking about the existing police forces in the States and the Territories of the Commonwealth. Those are the bodies that are properly called “ police forces “. The word “ police “. which has a long history, has a definite connotation in the minds of the public, and I believe that it should not be applied to a force of the kind envisaged in this bill.

The existing functions of the Commonwealth Investigation Service and the Peace Officer force are not clearly known to the public. Those two bodies have no clear territory in which to undertake the duties normally discharged by the police as understood in domestic usage of the term “ police “. Under the Peace Officers Act of 1925, the Peace Officer force had all the powers and functions of police within all the States and Territories, and has had those powers since 1925. Colonel Jones, the first director of that force, is believed to have decreed that these powers were not to be used, as Commonwealth offences generally could be well dealt with by departmental officers concerned with customs and immigration, for example, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, defence, agricultural matters, and the like, in conjunction with the police of a State or a Territory, as the case may be. The same policy was continued under Colonel Longfield Lloyd, who succeeded Colonel Jones, but, with the appointment of the present director, peace officers began to lay informations, make arrests, and perform other duties normally associated in the public mind with. State or Territory police. Cases were heard however in the State or territory courts. Some of these cases could be cited. Some are of quite recent occurrence in the territory itself. The need for the proposed police force then arises either from the fact that the State and the territory police are not able to discharge the duties imposed on them - and they have been discharging Commonwealth police functions for years - or from the fact that the Commonwealth has, or anticipates having, some territory for which no recognized police establishment is available. As no information is available to support that possibility it might be well to consider just why the word “ police “ is used to classify these organizations which are to be united as a result of this measure.

At present, and quite correctly, no crime reports, no reports of modus operandi, fingerprints or documented records are available to those two units except such as are, at times, perhaps improperly, shown or made available to them. I suggest that all those records of the State or territory police forces would be properly open to members of a Commonwealth police force. The lack of necessity for the establishment of this force, however, is amply illustrated in the words of J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States Department of Justice. I have here some of the law enforcement bulletins of that organization. In the editorial in the issue of February, 1952, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover had this to say -

This nation has no place for a national police force. Such an instrument is typical of the centralism of the totalitarian State, where all authority, absolute authority, is vested in one all-powerful national government. It is quite well adapted to the needs of tyranny, but is not adapted to the needs of democracy. In the great area of self-government left to States, counties and cities, the enforcement of laws and ordinances is not only their own duty but also their own right, and it must be left to them so long as their legislation and enforcement fit within the fundamental guarantees provided by the Constitution.

I suggest that what applies to the United States of America in that sense can apply to this country also. Mr. Hoover went on to develop the theory, speaking, of course, of the American nation, in the following terms: -

Nor does this nation need a national police force. Modern methods of police training and communication can be utilized in every community. Scientific assistance from the FBI laboratory, finger-print arrest records from our Identification Division prepared from arrest records submitted by law enforcement agencies all over the nation, are freely available.

I suggest that there is no need for the creation of the force proposed in the measure unless perhaps it is being created for the reason advanced by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), who referred to it as an act of empire-building. It is something which has been on the stocks for two or three years, as is known to the people of this community. The first threat of the amalgamation of these forces and the establishment of the Commonwealth police force was made long before this. I repeat that this force is to be given the name “ Police “, which has a very well defined meaning for the people of this country and of countries everywhere. But the officers of this force will not, or should not, have the duties normally associated with the police of the uniformed forces.

In the February, 1956, issue of the “ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin “, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover said in a leading article which appeared over his signature -

There is absolutely no place in our democratic system for a national police force.

He hammers that theme in editorial after editorial throughout the journals, which are addressed to all law enforcement officials. For instance, in the August, 1953, issue he wrote -

Properly performed, modern police work is a profession which requires the constant application of experience, skill and devotion to duty. When an officer with these qualifications is removed from his position simply to make room for a political favorite, the community loses a valuable part of its investment in peace and security.

I suggest that the converse also applies. In the force that is to be created, appointments and promotions can be made as a matter of political favour. The very widest powers are given in the bill to the Attorney-General to make such promotions and appointments. I suggest that a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) when he spoke on this matter, is worth repeating. Senator McKenna had this to say -

When this force is removed from control of the Public Service Board and the act under which the board functions there will be the widest opportunity for nepotism and the widest opportunity for favouritism. Under the proposed legislation the Attorney-General may fill the new police force with people of his own choosing. No examination will be required. It will be a matter of his own individual judgment and choice.

Senator McKenna went on to say ;

I am not suggesting that the Attorney-General of the day will do it, but quite obviously the power is there within the bill and a future Attorney-General may exercise the power in just that way.

The bill seeks the widest possible Federal police authority and surely that is a dangerous thing to do.

I suggest that the quotations I have made from the publication that I have here support that view. Senator McKenna went on to say -

The Parliament should be very concerned before it agrees to the establishment of this organization, the members of which can be appointed by one man - because it boils down to that. That is far too dangerous a proceeding for this country.

I suggest once again that no need has been shown for the establishment of this force. I say it is wrong that theforce, even if it were needed, and even if the need for the amalgamation of the existing Commonwealth forces could be demonstrated, should be given the title of “ Police “, because that term has a very well defined meaning in the minds of the public. The title “ Police “ has always denoted trained and experienced officers skilled in the arts of detection and the performance of police duties. No such safeguard is provided in this bill in relation to appointments to be made to the Commonwealth Police Force. In fact, I suggest that there are members of the two units which are to be amalgamated under this bill who have been rejected on application for appointment to State and territory police forces, and there are even in them men who have been dismissed from those forces. There are certainly men who could not meet the recruitment qualifications in any State or territorial police force. Those are all things that should be taken into consideration. I support the strong opposition to the bill that has come from this side of the House. The creation of the force is unnecessary. No argument has been put forward by the Government to support the claims that were made in the secondreading speech with which the measure was introduced. No worth-while argument has been put before us.

Motion (by Mr. Beale) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 28

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP

– I know that the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) wishes to move an amendment to the bill, but it is necessary for me to rise at this stage to mention one or two matters that were raised a moment ago and which are relevant to this bill. It is a simple bill to amalgamate two existing branches of the Government’s service. The bill has nothing to do with espionage. It has nothing to do with telephone tapping. It has nothing to do with fascists or anything of that sort. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) to-night mentioned everything except “the Brisbane line.”, and it is a wonder that honorable members did not hear about that also.

Out of this largely procedural bill has emerged a sinister story which just is not true and is not borne out by the terms of the bill. In the course of his observations the honorable member for East Sydney made an attack-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lawrence:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Order! The Minister may not comment on what was said in the second reading stage.

Mr BEALE:

– With great respect, I can at least advert to an office which is provided for in this bill, and if in doing so I chance to refer to something that was said in the course of debate, I submit that is perfectly in order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The Minister may refer to the subject-matter but he may not refer to what another honorable member said in the House.

Mr BEALE:

– The bill provides for the appointment of a director. The bill itself does not nominate any director, but anything that has been said or that may be said in aspersion of the gentleman who has, up to date, been the director is a slander and a defamation of an honorable man who has served both the South Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government for some years. I speak of Mr. Whitrod, who was attacked in the House to-night without any right of reply.

Mr Whitlam:

– Why did you not defend him at the second-reading stage?

Mr BEALE:

– I have defended him now.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I refer to clause 5 which states, in part - (3.) A person is not eligible to be appointed a Commonwealth Police Officer unless -

  1. he is a British subject;
  2. except as prescribed, he has passed a medical examination as to his health and physical fitness in accordance with a standard approved by the Attorney-

General; and

  1. he makes and subscribes, before a person authorized by the Attorney-General, an oath or affirmation in accordance with the form in the Schedule to this Act. and move) -

After paragraph (c) of sub-clause (3.) add the following paragraph: - “ (d) he makes a statutory declaration by which he declares either -

  1. that he is not, and never has been, a member of a communist party; or
  2. that, except as previously disclosed by him to the AttorneyGeneral in connexion with his proposed appointment, he is not, and never has been, a member of a communist party.”.

This amendment is very necessary in my view. It is designed to ensure that undercover Communists do not enter the Commonwealth Police Force that is to be set up under this bill. Let me direct the committee’s attention first to the fact that, under sub-paragraph (ii) of this amendment, machinery is provided whereby a man who, having been a Communist, has genuinely ceased to be a Communist can still enter the force. The committee will notice that there are requirements, every one of which will be satisfactory. He makes a declaration that he is not and never has been a member of a Communist party or, alternatively, he makes a declaration that, except as previously disclosed by him to the Attorney-General in connexion with his proposed appointment, he is not and never has been a member of a Communist party. That gets over the objection that was raised earlier in this debate to the effect that people who had been Communists and had genuinely ceased to be such would be ineligible for appointment if this proposed amendment were carried. The machinery is available whereby a person who has been a member of a Communist party and has genuinely ceased to be such, can be appointed.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What about a Communist who is not a member of a party?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– 1 will deal with that point in a moment. The first point is that there will be no hardship on the person who has genuinely left a Communist party. The second point is that this amendment will definitely get some Communists. Under the bill as it stands, there is no reason why a Communist should not make the oath of allegiance. Although it may be morally wrong for him to make it, apparently it is not legally wrong for him to do so. But having done that, he would be entitled to go into the force. Under this amendment, however, if he makes a statutory declaration that he is not a Communist, and does so falsely, he will be guilty of perjury and by the normal process of trial before a jury he will be prosecuted for perjury. That might deter many people from making such a declaration.

Thirdly, I agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh that this clause would not get every Communist. But it is carefully drawn so that no possibility of a false accusation exists under it. I know, and honorable members know, that many people who are not formally members of a Communist party are Communist inclined. We should like to be able to get all of those, but it is not practicable to do so. But because we do not get all of them is no reason why we should not get some of them. I agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh that this proposal will not get all of them. But because it gets some of them it will reduce our problem. If the honorable member for Hindmarsh has a mechanism which will get the rest of the Communists, let him put it to the committee. If it is an effective mechanism, I will most definitely support him. I am reminded that during the referendum campaign on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill the Labour party, of which the honorable member is a member, said, “ We are not going to support this referendum because we know of other means of dealing with the Communist party. We will support amendments to the law, without extra constitutional power, which aim at getting members of the Community party.” Of course, the Labour party did not do that. Here is an occasion on which it can do so. I am wondering whether the Opposition will support this amendment or whether its members will admit that they were lying in the referendum propaganda which they put out.

There is not very much more that I need say in this regard. Here is a proposal to which no conceivable reasonable objection can be made. It does not impede any innocent person in any way. It gives to persons who have belonged to a Communist party and have genuinely left it all the opportunities that exist for them under the measure. It does not penalize one innocent man. Secondly, it does get some guilty men, if membership of the Communist party can be assessed as guilt as I assess it. In the third place, I agree that it does not get all the guilty people; but if the honorable member for Hindmarsh can suggest an effective mechanism for widening this proposal to get other members of the Communist party, and that is effective, I shall be most happy to support him.

T wonder if I can ask the honorable member for his support of this amendment, because by supporting it he will only be doing the very thing which his party promised to do during .the referendum campaign and what it put forward as perhaps the dominant reason why the people should reject the proposal submitted to them at that referendum. The Labour party at that time said there was ample power under the Constitution and that it would use it. Here is a power which can be exercised under the existing Constitution. As this amendment is drawn, it is not open to abuse, and I ask the committee to support the amendment.

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP

– The Government has given careful consideration to the amendment. I realize that in propounding it, the honorable member for Mackellar is anxious, as he always has been, for the security and safety of this country. I, personally, pay tribute to him for his zeal in that respect. But the Government cannot accept the amendment. I believe there has been some misunderstanding of the position in relation to this proposed organization. I emphasize again that it will have nothing whatever to do with security or with the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, which is set up under an entirely different statute. The work which this proposed police force will do must not be confused in any way with that of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. The committee should have that fact impressed upon it. Therefore, the need for a declaration of this sort is by no means so obvious as it might be in a purely security organization. Yet, if one turns to the act dealing with the Australian Security Intelligence Organization one finds no provision in it for any such declaration.

The Government has given a great deal of sympathetic consideration to the honorable member’s proposal, but having regard to the fact that no similar requirement is included in any other Commonwealth act, not even in the act covering the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the Government considers that it would be wrong to impose such a condition, piecemeal, in respect of this proposed police force. But the Government does not rest upon that alone. In considering this matter it has sought the advice of the Public Service Board and of other government instrumentalities, including the Defence Department.

The unanimous advice which the Government received was not in favour of inserting this proposal. Therefore, while sympathetic to the aims of the honorable gentleman, I want to say on behalf of the Government that we cannot agree to import his proposal into the bill. To import it into this bill would raise the whole question of policy with respect to all public servants and Government departments and we do not believe that this matter should be approached in that way. There is a case for that sort of proposal and the Government is giving consideration to the matter.

I believe that it will give due weight to what the honorable member for Mackellar has said. Some of his remarks carry considerable weight. But since we are dealing with a small and simple bill with circumscribed and limited purposes the view of the Government is that we should not impose this particular form of statutory declaration which could be very simply evaded, as we know, and could catch only a very few in the net, not including, perhaps, those we would want to get. But the Government, while reserving its right to reconsider the whole matter of policy generally, cannot accept the proposed amendment at this stage.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale), of course, had no alternative but to reject the proposed amendment because of the naked nature of the McCarthyism which it displays. Every government in the free world, except the Australian Government, has rejected this sort of thing. Therefore the Minister, while making great play on the generosity of the Government towards the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), nevertheless flopped him hard to the boards and said, in effect, “This is what we got belted on when we lost the red referendum. This is what we tried to do in the Petrov Commission. This is what we tried to do in the Browne-Fitzpatrick case “. I assume, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that we are taking the amendments as a whole.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

We are taking the bill as a whole but the only amendment before the Chair at this stage is that moved by the honorable member for Mackellar.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Yes. I can discuss the whole bill and the amendment. For once we are not divided on that issue, Sir. This legislation would require serious consideration by any parliament. But because of the complete lack of the spirit of civil liberty displayed by the Government, the bill must be looked at with the greatest caution by the Opposition. We know, from what has happened in the past, that there are elements in the Government who would do anything in order to get some sort of a security net over the country. Those members use the most extravagant and violent phraseology. The proposed amendment has been rejected by the Minister for Supply; but it is worth discussing because of the looseness of its language and the obvious attempt to create a new McCarthyism and a reign of terror. The Communist who would be gathered into the net would be the small “ c “ Communist and in that case he could be an ordinary leftist. It could be that an ordinary policeman on his beat, looking at Sputnik, could be guilty by association.

The Opposition opposes this bill and the proposed amendment because we fear that there is something behind them which has not been revealed. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) drew attention to the appointment of the commissioner and his capabilities. He also mentioned the employment of additional police without reference to any one but the commissioner. What a dangerous thing that would be. It would not be dangerous in normal times but it would be dangerous now because of the habits and predilection of the present Government to do things which are against the code of civil liberty observed in Australia and in the whole of the free world. For that reason clauses which would normally be innocuous have to be looked at very closely.

The provision for the immediate appointment of police, either of a temporary or permanent nature, would enable the establishment of a strike-breaking force. The honorable member for East Sydney pointed out how dangerous that could be. The basis of the whole opposition to the bill from this side of the chamber is that the Government, judging by its previous conduct, is not fit to bring in a measure of this sort. We cannot trust the Government, nor can the general public trust it to deal with these matters and have regard to the rights, privileges and civil liberties of the Australian people. In many cases, particularly the three paramount ones that I mentioned, the Government has breached these rights, privileges and liberties with great arrogance. So, when there is the slightest hint of McCarthyism in legislation - and it appears in this bill and appears violently in the proposed amendment of the honorable member for Mackellar - it must be rejected by this side of the chamber. The Petrov case was an instance of a breach of civil liberties. The Brown-Fitzpatrick case was the most horrible thing in my memory in this House. Members elected by constituencies sat as judges and jury and condemned men to prison.

Mr Beale:

– I rise to order. What in the name of Heaven has the Brown-Fitzpatrick case to do with the Commonwealth Police Bill in committee?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Parkes is not in order in discussing that case.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The honorable member for Mackellar quoted from the report of the Royal Commission on Espionage and before you assumed the chair, Mr. Temporary Chairman, the debate was much wider. However, I bow to your ruling, although it circumscribes the matter under discussion. I am very pleased indeed that the Government has been brought up short of the lengths to which the honorable member for Mackellar would go in fulfilling his insatiable phobia for “ com “ catching. I made a note of the loose phraseology which the honorable member used in his speech. He said, “ This does not get everybody, but it will get somebody “. Is not that the epitaph of the honorable member? He is after everybody if he can get them because of his fear that the world is rapidly being peopled by Communists. He has a complete fixation about it. So, he says, “ If we cannot get them all, let us get some of them “.

We had the pitiful spectacle of the honorable member for Mackellar appealing to the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) to help him with the proposed amendment knowing, as he has been told by his Minister, that it was not even acceptable to his own side. When amendments of this sort are moved they are more than straws in the wind. They indicate how dangerous are some supporters of the Government in relation to this vexed and tremendously important problem of civil liberty. The Minister for Supply, trying to under-sell the idea, said, in effect, “ This is only a police bill. This is only to get some flat-foots into the service. This has nothing to do with civil liberties “. And it would not have anything to do with civil liberties except that the conduct of the Government has been so bad.

The implications of any of its legislation that smacks of security or the protection of the community have been over-laden with a fear of the Communists and a desire to place an impost on the liberty of the Australian people which cannot be borne. For that reason, the proposals, innocuous enough in themselves, have to be looked at in an entirely different light from that in which they would normally be looked at. Will the Minister for Supply tell us why the suddenly recruited police force that could be enlarged to any number is to be free from any direction save that of the officer in charge? Will he tell us why the commissioner is to have so much power? Will he tell us why the amendment moved by the honorable member for Mackellar was not dealt with in the party room? Has the Government no discipline in there? Did the Government have to bring him into the chamber and publicly humiliate him by saying, “ We are not going to be caught again. This sort of stuff is anathema to us even if it happens to be your line to peddle red baiting to an extent which is nauseating to the House “. The whole of the bill is not acceptable to this side of the House and the proposed amendment of the honorable member for Mackellar, already rejected by the Government itself, earns nothing but our contempt. This is another attempt to bring in by the back door a further instalment of McCarthyism, which we on this side of the House have fought ever since it reared its ugly head in this country. We will continue to fight it to the bitter end.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I do not want to take up the time of the committee for very long, but I do wish to direct attention to one or two aspects of the amendments proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), and to one or two remarks made by the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale). I do not think I am doing the Minister an injustice if I say that implicit in his remarks this evening in the committee stage of the bill was a recognition and acceptance of the fact that the situation in this country at the present time is not all that it should be. The honorable gentleman said that the Government was considering making a full examination of the implications of the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar. He also said that such investigations and consideration were being carried on at the present time. I say to the Minister, and to the Government, quite seriously that it is a fantastic state of affairs that this nation should be exposed in the manner which it is exposed at the present.

Reference has been made to the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) referred to it in slighting terms. That commission definitely established the fact that an espionage system was being operated in Australia. Yet the fantastic circumstance existed - and still exists - that recognized and established authorities in this country could not pursue the espionage agents. In other words, there is no real sanction to be exercised against those who participate in espionage in Australia. To my mind, this is a ridiculous and untenable state of affairs. I believe it is high time that consideration was advanced to the stage of devising some means whereby sanctions could be exercised against those who are traitors to their country.

With regard to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar, I wish to put this proposition to him, with respect: If he will refer to the report of the Canadian royal commission on espionage he will find that many Communists in that country were not members of the Communist party. On a number of occasions the secret undercover man - the really significant members of the Communist party - were told that publicly they had to adopt a deliberate anti-Communist line. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) referred to that fact this evening, but he dealt with it in a very clumsy and vulgar fashion. Kathleen Wilshire, in giving evidence before the Canadian royal commission, referred to this aspect of Communist activities. Squadron Leader Polard and various other people, including Matt Nightingale and a professor of mathematics of the Ontario University whose name escapes me for the moment, were solid Communists, but were charged with taking up publicly an anti-Communist attitude.

The amendment of the honorable member for Mackellar requires a declaration that a person has not and never has been a member of the Communist party. In the honorable member’s own words, this does not, as it were, complete the full circle. It is an attempt by the honorable gentleman to impress upon the Government the fact that a very serious state of affairs exists. I mentioned a few moments ago the fact that it is fantastic that a nation exposed to the threats and challenges that this nation faces to-day has not a means of using sanctions against those who are pledged to destroy recognized authority in the country.

I would like to hear the Minister repeat his assurance that there will be a complete consideration of the full ramifications of this problem. I would like the Minister to give an assurance this evening that the results of these considerations will be crystallized in some form or another in the very near future.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I rise to correct a statement made by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). He said that it was the intention of the Opposition to leave Commonwealth property unguarded, and that he could not understand our attitude in opposing the bill. Evidently the honorable member does not realize that there is already in existence a Commonwealth organization, the special purpose of which is to provide the guards necessary for Commonwealth property. It is not necessary to establish a new police force to perform this function. The Peace Office Guard is already in existence. If the honorable member was not aware of it before, I hope he is now.

The honorable member has referred to the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia. That royal commission, strangely enough, did not provide any material as a basis upon which action could be taken against any person under existing Commonwealth law. No one has ever argued, not even the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) himself, that there are not laws in existence to-day that could be invoked against persons engaged in espionage in this country. In my opinion, all that the royal commission found was that certain statements had been made that might have been regarded as throwing suspicion in certain directions, but the royal commission did not recommend prosecution or other action against any pei so 1. Neither did the Government take any action against any person as a result of that commission. Why did it not take action? It was not because it did not have the power to do so, but because the royal commission failed to find any facts upon which to establish a case against any person mentioned in the proceedings before the commission.

Although I would hate to say that he did so deliberately, the honorable member for Moreton did not correctly quote the terms of the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar. He kept referring to a provision concerning a person who was a member of the Communist party. The amendment says nothing of the kind. It refers to a member of “ a “ Communist party. How often has the honorable member for Mackellar in this Parliament implied that the Australian Labour party was only an agent for the Communist party? During election campaigns we have been accused of being allied with the Communist party. The Labour party has, in fact, been accused of being a Communist party itself. These charges were utterly untrue and without foundation, but, in the eyes of the honorable member for Mackellar, we do constitute a Communist party. The amendment of the honorable member, therefore, means that an active member of the Australian Labour party could be disqualified from membership of the Commonwealth Police Force. The Labour party cannot possibly accept such a proposition.

I well recollect the kind of legislation that this Government tried to foist on the people some years ago. Government supporters made no secret of the fact, and I think the Prime Minister said so plainly that the legislation that they were invoking to ban the Communist party could have been very easily used against certain members of the Australian Labour party. It is obvious, therefore, that the ideas of the honorable member for Mackellar on what constitutes a Communist are quite different from those of the general community.

I would remind the honorable member for Moreton that the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar is all-embracing. It would not be necessary to prove membership of the Communist party in order to debar a person from joining the Commonwealth Police Force. If a person holds any view with which the honorable member for Mackellar or the Government disagree, he automatically becomes a Communist, according to honorable members on the other side of the House. Not only do we reject the proposal of the honorable member for Mackellar but we find this particular measure completely abhorrent. 1 refer to another provision of the measure upon which we have had no explanation. Surely, it is not expected that the Attorney-General will require the extraordinary powers contained in this measure to appoint a number of Commonwealth police officers for the purpose of guarding Commonwealth property. I should not imagine that would be the sole function of the police force because, as 1 have already indicated, we have an existing Organization to carry out those duties. If the police force is not to be used as a strike-breaker - and some honorable members of the Government seem to ridicule the idea that they may be so used - I suggest the Government reconsiders its attitude to this particular measure because the special peace officers are not required to conform to any particular standard in regard to physique, health, educational background or standing in the community. The Attorney-General is to be completely free to appoint anybody whom he desires to the Commonwealth police force. Such appointees may remain in the force under whatever conditions are laid down by the Attorney-General and for as long as the Attorney-General may determine. The Opposition regards this as a very dangerous measure and proposes to record its opposition to it by vote.

Mr. WENTWORTH (Mackellar) [10.53;. - The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) has once again made himself one of the four or five regular mouthpieces for Communist policy on the Opposition benches. That is not to say that he is a member of the Communist party, but unfortunately he takes the Communist line. He started to talk about McCarthyism. What could possibly be wrong in the amendment? No person is to be called upon to make any declaration which is not fully within his own knowledge, and no person can be penalized unless it is proved before a jury in accordance with the normal course of justice that he has committed perjury. I take it that the Opposition would not openly support the proposition that perjurers should go scot-free; but that apparently is the line it is taking. I regret that the honorable member for Parkes has now, as so often in the past, identified himself with the line of policy that the Communist party would like to have peddled in this Parliament. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has failed to note the crucial point that under this proposal nobody can incur any penalty except after conviction in the normal course of the law before a jury. That is. the safeguard which all Australia enjoys and which I, for one, would not like to see broken down in any way.

It was pleasing to hear the Minister undertake that this matter will be reviewed by the Government, not in relation to this small bill, but in relation to the general principle. It is important that something be done about this matter. Not only the evidence that was established during the hearing of the Royal Commission on Espionage, part of which I read to honorable members earlier, but also other evidence shows that in Australia and other places Communist agents are infiltrating into key positions, sensitive positions or positions which may not look to be sensitive but which give them the opportunity for subversion. That should be stopped. It is true, as the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) said, that this proposal does not stop all Communist activity, but it will stop some Communist activity. For example, it would have stopped the activities of the two people who took the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), to use his own words, for a ride. They obtained positions on his staff without telling him that they were members of the Communist party.

Mr Curtin:

– The Prime Minister put them there.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The honorable member for Kingsford-Smith says the Prime Minister put them there. The Prime Minister at the time was Mr. Curtin.

Mr Haylen:

– I rise to order, Mr. Temporary Chairman. When I traversed a similar line of argument in relation to the Royal Commission on Espionage, you told me I was too wide of the mark. I suggest the same action be now taken with the honorable member for Mackellar.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The point is well taken. The honorable member for Mackellar is going too wide of the question before the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I was pleased to hear the Minister undertake that a review will be made of this general principle. II this measure is not the appropriate mechanism to do that, then let some better mechanism be found and brought forward. I have already stated that I do not consider this proposal a complete answer to the problem; but it is an answer to a part of the problem. If we are unable to find a complete answer, then let us deal with a part of the problem.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Produc-. tion · Parramatta · LP

– I refer to clause 6, which reads -

  1. – (1.) In addition to any other powers priviledges, immunities, duties and responsibilities, a Commonwealth Police Officer has -

    1. the like powers, privileges, immunities, duties and responsibilities as are conferred or imposed on a constableor other officer of police by or under a law of the Commonwealth; and
    2. in relation to the laws of the Commonwealth - the like powers, privileges, immunities, duties and responsibilities as are conferred or imposed on a constable or other officer of police in the place in which the Commonwealth Police Officer is acting. (2.) A Commonwealth Police Officer is not required under, or by reason of, any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth -
    3. to obtain or have any licence or permission for doing any act or thing in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers as a Commonwealth Police Officer; or
    4. to register any vehicle, vessel, animal or article belonging to the Commonwealth. and move -

Omit clause 6 and insert the following clause: - “ 6. - (1.) In addition to any other powers and duties, a Commonwealth Police Officer has -

  1. the like powers and duties as are conferred or imposed on a constable by or under a law of the Commonwealth; and
  2. in relation to -

  3. the laws of the Commonwealth;

    1. matters in connexion with property of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth; and
    2. matters arising on or in connexion with land or premises owned or occupied by the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth, the like powers and duties as are conferred or imposed on a constable, or on an officer of police of the same rank as the Commonwealth Police Officer, in the place in which the Commonwealth Police Officer is acting. “ (2.) Where any provisions of a law of a State apply in relation to offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, those provisions so apply as if-
  4. any reference in those provisions toa constable included a reference to a Commonwealth Police Officer; and
  5. any reference in those provisions to an officer of police of a particular rank included a reference to a Commonwealth Police Officer of that rank. “ (3.) Where a writ or warrant is issued under the law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth in relation to an offence or other matter under a law of the Commonwealth, the writ or warrant may, notwithstanding that it is not addressed to a Commonwealth Police Officer and notwithstanding any requirement of the law of the State or Territory of the Commonwealth as to the person by whom it may be executed, be executed by a Commonwealth Police Officer. “ (4.) A Commonwealth Police Officer is not required under, or by reason of, a law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth -
  6. to obtain or have a licence or permission for doing an act or thing in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers as a Commonwealth Police Officer; or
  7. to register any vehicle, vessel, animal or article belonging to the Commonwealth. “ (5.) In this section - authority of the Commonwealth ‘ includes any authority or body, whether corporate or not, constituted by or under a law of the Commonwealth; powers and duties ‘ includes authorities, rights, privileges, immunities and responsibilities.”.

Clause 6 is designed to confer upon Commonwealth police officers, in relation to the laws of the Commonwealth, all the powers and duties of State police officers either at common law or by the statute law of the States. The formula used in the original bill follows in substance the provision which has existed in the Peace Officers Act since 1925. Since the bill was drafted, doubts have been expressed by a New South Wales magistrate as to whether, by reason of the particular wording of certain State laws, the present formula really achieves the desired result. I am advised that the present formula should be held to be adequate, but I see no advantage, a question having been raised, in allowing such a provision to be open to any doubt. The new clause, which has been circulated, has therefore been drafted to cover the point.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– When the Minister said a moment ago, “ I have no doubt “, was that his own note of the position or a note prepared by some one else?

Mr Beale:

– That was the note supplied to me by the Crown Law authorities, but, for what it is worth, having examined the matter myself, I also hold the view that it is probably–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister will resume his seat, if he is simply answering, by way of interjection, a comment that has been made.

Dr EVATT:

– Proposed new clause 6 contains many powers. The Minister has said that the existing powers are sufficient. Therefore, the powers created in the new clause may be quite unnecessary. I shall refer to one of the powers. Sub-clause (4.) reads -

A Commonwealth Police Officer is not required under, or by reason of, a law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth -

to obtain or have a licence or permission for doing an act or thing in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers as a Commonwealth Police Officer; or

It is almost impossible to place limits on such a power. If a police officer thought that, in the performance of his duties he should break into a dwelling, this subclause would almost give him licence to do so. I do not mean so much to argue the clause, but I wish to point out to the committee a matter which was mentioned by the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr. J. R. Fraser). This measure is most important. It provides for the establishment of the Commonwealth Police Force and gives to the AttorneyGeneral power to appoint members of the police force. That has never been done before, as far as I know, and it is completely wrong. Officers entitled to act in this capacity should be members of the Public Service and should be appointed according to law, not according to the discretion of the Minister. This organization could easily embrace a system that is completely in derogation of liberty.

As the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory said, the Commonwealth Investigation Service was never intended to be a police force. Officers, such as Colonel Jones and Colonel Lloyd, were men of long military experience and had a great reputation. Every one knew that they were not political. The chief characteristic of their officers was that they were civilians. It is perfectly true that the officers had military experience, but they had the characteristics of the ordinary civil police force. We have such a force in Canberra and that force has had many distinguished officers. Similar police forces are established in other territories and in the States.

It seems unnecessary to set up a new Commonwealth Police Force when the Commonwealth, under the Constitution, can deal only with certain matters. It cannot deal with the whole area of criminal law. That is a matter for the States. The Commonwealth has a limited jurisdiction. What is being done in this bill - and make no mistake about it - is to set up an organization that may have very bad effects in the community. We have the State police forces, the Commonwealth Peace Officers and other officers in the territories. The establishment of a Commonwealth police force means, I submit, that much of the work will be duplicated and much overlapping will be caused. This will be a body not affected by the ordinary standards of, and not subject to the ordinary checks exercised by, the Public Service Board. Why is the change being made? Why should these appointments be made? Under clause 5, the Attorney-General may make appointments. The amendment now before the committee, of course, deals with powers after the appointments are made.

This legislation raises many difficulties and the criticisms that have been made about the exercise of the powers, broadly speaking, are correct. Powers should not be given unless we are quite certain that there should be powers. The tendency in this country should be towards complete civilian control of peace or police forces. The Attorney-General and the Premier of New South Wales do not appoint members to the police force. Those appointments are made in a proper way under an act of Parliament. Under this legislation, the Attorney-General, who is a political officer, makes the appointments.

Although the Minister may be right in his interpretation, all he is doing is to quote some officer who says, “ Well, on the whole, I think these are not unreasonable powers to grant “. I submit that before these powers are given we should know what they are intended to do and we should be satisfied that they do that and no more than that.

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP

– I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) is engaged in a process of obfuscation and does not do himself justice. If he had read the original clause and then the proposed amendment, he would have seen that 99.9 per cent, of what he has said is completely irrelevant. All we have done is to seek to clarify the position and to ensure that officers of the Commonwealth Police Force operating in States shall have powers similar to those exercised by State police officers. The right honorable gentleman misquoted my words. When I read the note on the amendment I said, “ I am advised that the present formula should be held to be adequate, but I see no advantage, a question having been raised, in allowing the provision to remain open to doubt”.. All we are doing is to clarify a possible doubt.

Another statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, which seems to me to be quite extraordinary, is that these officers, speaking generally about the Commonwealth Police Force, should be appointed by normal processes of the Public Service - in other words, under the Public Service Act. No officer of any of the State police forces is appointed under the Public Service Acts. State police forces are created by special acts, and that is what we are doing in this legislation. If the right honorable gentleman with that mind of his, given so much to mystery and suspicion, can find anything sinister and suspicious in this measure, he defeats me. This is a simple amendment designed to clarify a possible ambiguous situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP

– The only other matter with which I will trouble the committee is an amendment to the form of oath or affirmation which appears in the schedule to the bill. The schedule provides for a form of oath or affirmation of service. Some honorable members - I think the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), I know the honorable member for Moreton (Mr.

Killen) and maybe one or two other honorable members - have suggested that it would be more appropriate to have an oath or affirmation of allegiance. The Government has considered the suggestion and thinks it is a good one.

Dr Evatt:

– But it is already in the bill.

Mr BEALE:

– No. The right honorable gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. The bill contains an oath or affirmation of service. It is proposed to substitute for that an oath or affirmation of allegiance. I refer honorable members to the schedule, which reads -

THE SCHEDULE.

Sections 5 and 10.

OATH.

I, a.b., do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth in the office of Commonwealth Police Officer, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will, until I am lawfully discharged: So help me God!

AFFIRMATION.

I, a.b., do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth in the office of Commonwealth Police Officer, without favour or affection, malice or illwill, until I am lawfully discharged. and move -

Omit the Schedule and insert the following Schedule: -

“THE SCHEDULE.

Sections 5 and 10.

OATH.

I, , do swear that 1 will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, and that I will well and truly serve Her in the office of Commonwealth Police Officer, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will, until I am lawfully discharged:

So Help Me God!

AFFIRMATION.

I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will bc faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, and that T will well and truly serve Her in the office of Commonwealth Police Officer, without favour or affection, malice or illwill, until I am lawfully discharged.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put -

That the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Beale) - by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 49

NOES: 26

Majority . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2637

NEW AND OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt), with the concurrence of an absolute majority, agreed to -

That Standing Order 104 - 11 o’clock rule- be suspended for this sitting.

page 2638

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th. November (vide page 1940) on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– In view of what has happened in another place, the Opposition offers no strong objection to the passage of the remaining bills in this bracket to-night. We think that they ought to go to another place as soon as possible, and therefore we propose to allow the votes to be taken without divisions. That will facilitate the passage of the legislation and is in accordance with our usual spirit of magnanimity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2638

NORTHERN TERRITORY (LESSEES’ LOANS GUARANTEE) BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1941), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2638

OFFICERS’ RIGHTS DECLARATION BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1941), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2638

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1941), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2638

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL (No. 2) 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 1942), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2638

ADJOURNMENT

Censorship

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- 1 take this opportunity to direct attention to a matter that I raised in the House yesterday regarding censorship. I invite the attention of the House to a rather remarkable fact. I regard the matter that I raised in this Parliament as of some importance. Evidently that view was taken by the Prime Minister as well. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, which broadcasts the national news, saw fit to make some mention of it. Reference was made to it also in some of the newspapers in the States, but strangely enough the two newspapers that are directly concerned - the organization which publishes the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ and that which publishes the “ Daily Telegraph “ and “ Sunday Telegraph “ - have not published one word about this matter, according to a telegram that I have received.

The matter that I raised concerned the continued publication and circulation in Australia of filthy, salacious, sex papers, one known as “ Crowd “ and the other as “ Weekend “. I am not a reader of either of those papers but I have been handed a copy of each of them to examine so that I might see what kind of publications they are. I have taken an extract from “ Truth “, a newspaper published in Sydney, which evidently has made some study of these publications. I shall read the headings in order to give honorable members an idea of the type of publication that ought to be banned in Australia.

Motion (by Sir Philip McBride) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 24

Majority . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.

page 2639

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Sales Tax on Infra-red Ray Lamps.

Mr Ward:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Has any compensation arising from the discontinuance of their activities been paid by the Commonwealth to private interests formerly engaged in open-cut coal-mining in Australia? 2.If so, will he furnish full details of these transactions including the method of determining the amount of compensation to be paid in each instance, the name of the recipient, and the name of the person or persons charged with the responsibility of making the determination?

The Acting Minister for National Development approved payment of the amounts to the first two contractors shown in the list in the absence of Senator Spooner who was overseas. This payment was approved on the recommendation of the Joint Coal Board and the Treasury. The third payment was approved by Senator Spooner, the procedurelaid down by Cabinet being followed again. In this particular case the Joint Coal Board and Treasury obtained special advice on the liability of the Commonwealth and the quantum of the liability. The Hunter Strip Mining Company Proprietary Limited also received a compensation payment which amounted to £152,947. This payment was made pursuant to a Cabinet decision of September, 1953, which authorized the question of the amount of compensation being submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator who was appointed at the request of the parties concerned and who determined the amount payable was Sir Garfield Barwick, Q.C.

Naval Vessels and Radio-activity.

Mr Swartz:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Has the Navy of the United States of America developed a method of enveloping ships in a water mist to protect them from radio-active fall-out from nuclear bomb explosions?
  2. If so, will similar methods be adopted by the Royal Australian Navy?

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 November 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1957/19571127_reps_22_hor17/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant