Senate
23 June 1937

14th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator theHon. P. J. lynch) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 204

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Nauru - Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Nauru during the year 1936.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of the Interior- W. G. Bamford and R. H. Bowen.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1937, No.65- No.66- No.67- No.68.

Quarantine Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1937, No.69.

Wine Overseas Marketing Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1937. No.64.

page 204

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– I lay on the table the annual report of the Department of External Affairs for the year 1936, copies of which have already been circulated to honorable senators, and move -

Thatthe paper be printed.

I should like to take this opportunity to survey some of the more important aspects of the international situation. 1 propose to confine ray remarks to the discussions which have -taken place for a treaty to replace the Treaty of Locarno, the situation in Spain, the joint declaration of the 24th April, 1937, by the British and French Governments in regard to Belgium, and the proposal made by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth at the Imperial Conference for a Pacific pact.

During the last few months confidential discussions have taken place between the British, French, German, and Italian Governments as to the conclusion ofa treaty to replace the Treaty of Locarno, hut up to the present it does not appear to have been possible to find a common basis for negotiation. Honorable senators will, no doubt, have noted from reports in the newspapers that Baron von Neurath, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, was invited to visit London on the 23rd June as the official guest of the British Government. It was hoped that this visit would lead to a relaxation of tension in the European situation, and that it would serve to prepare the ground for the initiation of negotiations which would have as their object the solution of those problems which to-day menace the peace of the world. Developments in the Spanish situation to which I shall allude later have led to a postponement of this visit. It seems improbable that the resignation of the French Prime

Minister, M. Blum, will modify to any considerable extent the present trend of French foreign policy.

In regard to the situation in Spain, I emphasized in my statement in the Senate on the 11th November of last year, that since the outbreak of civil strife in Spain, the Commonwealth Government has consistently maintained a policy of strict non-intervention in the internal affairs of Spain. The policy of the Commonwealth Government is, in this respect, similar to that of the British Government. In this connexion, I draw the attention of honorable senators to the speech made by Mr. Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at Liverpool on the 12th April, in the course of which he referred at length to the Spanish conflict. He said that, from the outbreak of that conflict, the British Government had had two main objectives before it: first, to prevent it from spreading beyond the borders of Spain; and secondly, to preserve, whatever the final outcome, the political independence and territorial integrity of Spain. “ I believe “, he continued, “that those two objectives commend themselves to the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. In furtherance of them we have from the first supported the policy of nonintervention. No doubt many gibes can be hurled at the policy of nonintervention. It can be said, and said with truth, that there have been breaches, flagrant breaches of the agreement. Despite the agreement, both sides are using materials from abroad ; despite the agreement there are foreign nationals fighting on both sides. And yet a broad gain remains. The policy of non-intervention has limited, and bit by bit reduced, the flow of foreign arms and men into Spain. Even more important, the existence of that policy and the knowledge that many governments, despite much discouragement were working for it, has greatly reduced the risks of general war.”

The Non-intervention Committee, which now consists of the representatives of 27 European countries, has sat at frequent intervals in London since the beginning of September of last year, and has investigated many allegations of breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement. The Committee passed a resolu tion on the 16th February, 1937, to the effect that the agreement should be extended as from midnight of the 20th-21st February, 1987, to cover the recruitment in, the transit through, or the departure from, their respective countries of persons of non-Spanish nationality proposing to proceed to Spain for military service. Agreement was also reached for the establishment of naval supervision of the coast of Spain and the Spanish dependencies. The British Government, accepted an invitation by the Portuguese Government to observe the carrying out of the agreement in Portugal, and for this purpose to appoint British observers to be attached to the British Embassy in Lisbon. A scheme of observation to carry these measures into effect was agreed to by all governments represented on the Committee on the Sth March, 1937.

In the early part of April, General Franco, the leader of the insurgent forces, declared his intention to prevent merchant vessels, if necessary by force, from entering the harbour of Bilbao. The attitude adopted by ‘the British Government was that, although its policy of affording protection to British shipping on the high seas remained unchanged, and although it did not admit the right of General Franco to establish a blockade on the high seas or elsewhere, it did not feel in a position to guarantee protection to British shipping in Spanish territorial waters in the neighbourhood of Bilbao, particularly in view of the danger from, mines and aircraft. The British Government accordingly advised British ships that, in view of the conditions prevailing in the neighbourhood of Bilbao, they should not enter that port so long as those conditions continued.

On the 15th May, the Valencia Government, led by Senor Largo Caballero, resigned, and after some preliminary difficulty, a new Ministry - was formed with Dr. Negrin as Prime Minister. Senor Caballero and the other four Syndicalist Ministers were excluded from the new Ministry, which seems definitely more moderate in its political views than its predecessor. On the 26th May, the Italian ship Barletta was bombed by Spanish Government aeroplanes, and on the 29th May,’ the German warship

Deutschland was bombed by two government aeroplanes with considerable loss of life. As a reprisal for this action, German warships bombarded Almeria on thu 31st May, and the German and Italian Governments notified the NonIntervention Committee that they had ordered their ships to take no further part in the naval patrol of the coasts which had been allotted to them under the observation scheme until full guarantees had been received that there would be no repetition of such occurrences. _ After these incidents, consultations took place between the British, French, German and Italian Governments. The four governments concerned informed both parties in the Spanish conflict of the steps which had been agreed upon by them in regard to the provision of safer conditions for the continued operation of the naval patrol scheme. They also demanded assurances from both parties in Spain that incidents such as the bombing of the Deutschland would not be allowed to occur again. The four, governments intimated that, in the event of any infraction of the assurances requested of the parties, or of any attack upon the foreign warships responsible for the naval patrol, the* four governments concerned would meet as quickly as possible for the purpose of reaching agreement among themselves for joint action. In the event of failure to reach agreement, it was understood that a new situation would be created for each of the four governments in regard to which they must reserve their respective attitudes. After this course of action had been determined, the German and Italian Governments intimated that they would resume their participation in the naval patrol. On the 19th June, however, a German official communique alleged that a Spanish Government submarine had fired torpedoes at the cruiser Leipzig on the 16th June. The communique added: “It will now be the duty of the patrolling powers to take the requisite measures in accordance with the recent agreement “. This matter is still under discussion by the four governments concerned, but no definite course of action has as yet been determined. It was felt by the German Government, however, that the- situation required for the time being the presence of the Foreign Minister in Berlin.

The Spanish insurgent forces have now entered Bilbao, and the collapse of the Basque resistance will, in all probability, have a considerable effect upon the general situation in Spain, although the government forces are still in control of Madrid and the eastern provinces. There does not, unfortunately, appear to be any immediate prospect of the civil strife in Spain coming to an end.

It had become clear during the latter part of 1936 that the Belgian Government was dissatisfied with the situation caused by the obligations it had entered into under the Treaty of Locarno and the temporary arrangement of the 19th March; this, it will be recalled, specifically kept alive the conditions of the Locarno Treaty as between Great Britain, France and Belgium. On the 14th October, 1936, King Leopold said that the aim of Belgium’s foreign policy, on which her defence policy was dependent, must be to keep the country from being involved in war. The re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Locarno Treaties had almost put Belgium back into its pre-war international status. The general effect of King Leopold’s declaration seemed to be that, in the event of any “Western Pact being concluded in the future on the lines of the Locarno Treaty of 1925, Belgium desired to be neither a guarantor nor a guaranteed State. Protracted negotiations took place between the British, French and Belgian Governments during the early part of 1937, .which resulted in a joint Note of the 24th April by the British and French Governments declaring that they considered Belgium released from all obligations towards them resulting from the Treaty of Locarno and the arrangement of the 19th March, 1936. The two governments, at the same time, intimated that they maintained in respect of Belgium the undertakings of assistance which they entered into towards it under these two instruments. They also took note of certain views expressed by the Belgian Government relative to its continued fidelity to the Covenant of the League of Nations and its determination efficiently to organize the defence of Belgium against any aggression or invasion.

In the course of the negotiations which had been proceeding for the conclusion of a new western security pact to replace the Locarno agreement, it appeared to the British and Trench Governments that Belgium did not wish to give guarantees to other States, and that the other four governments concerned in the negotiations would be prepared to agree that Belgium should not undertake to guarantee other States in the new treaty. As the negotiation of this treaty had been delayed, the British and French Governments had decided to meet the wishes of the Belgian Government to be released in advance from its remaining obligations under the Locarno Treaty. This declaration was favourably received in Belgium, and M. Spaak, in a speech on the 29th April, said that Belgium was in a stronger position than previously since, while dropping some of its duties, it retained all its rights. Belgium, by organizing its national defence, was giving to Europe all that Europe could reasonably ask of it. As the discussions necessary for the achievement of the Western Pact might well he protracted, the immediate solution of certain problems had been sought and found.

At the Imperial Conference a lead was given by the Commonwealth Government in its proposal for a Pacific pact. The conference noted with interest the statement made on behalf of the Australian Delegation at the opening plenary meeting that Australia would welcome a regional understanding and pact of nonaggression by the countries of the Pacific, and that Australia would be prepared to collaborate to this end with other peoples of the Pacific region in a spirit of understanding and sympathy. This proposal was the same as was announced in statements in both Houses of this Parliament in September, 1936. The relevant passage in the statement is -

The Government’s view is that, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the Pacific is the area in which we are most vitally interested in the maintenance of peace. With the United States of America and Japan outside the League, provision for a regional agreement of the particular kind mentioned could hardly be applicable, but the promotion of a regional understanding and pact of non-aggression for Pacific countries, in the spirit of League undertakings, should not be beyond the. bounds of possibility.

During the discussions on the Pacific andFar- East at the Imperial Conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) elaborated the idea that the Commonwealth Government had in mind. He emphasized that international relations should be based on the principle of maintaining absolute friendship with all nations of the world, and he expressed the conviction that any difficulties in the Pacific regioncould be resolved by the method of friendly negotiation. The Imperial Conference agreed that, if such a pact could be made, it would be a desirable objective to pursue as a contribution to the cause of peace and to the maintenance of friendly relations with other nations in the Pacific area. It was agreed that the matter should be the subject of further consultation between governments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 207

QUESTION

FLINDERS ISLAND

Postal and Telephone Facilities

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA

asked the Post master-General, upon notice -

  1. To meet the rapidly growing importance of Flinders Island, will the PostmasterGeneral erect or find there a building suitable for a post office, so that the people on the Island may have increased and more efficient postal facilities?
  2. Seeing that the telephone has become a necessity in every community, will the PostmasterGeneral make early arrangements for telephonic communication between Flinders Island and Tasmania?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Postmaster General supplies the following answers:

  1. The request will receive consideration.
  2. Inquiry has been made but, in view of the very heavy expenditure which would be entailed, there does not appear to be any immediate . prospect of the establishment of telephone communication with Flinders Island.

page 207

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON SUPPLIES

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that there is in Australia, and particularly in Western Australia, a serious shortage in the supply of certain sizes of galvanized iron?
  2. If so, is it known that as a result of such shortage, considerable delay occurs in building construction, with consequent heavy loss to merchants, manufacturers and tradesmen?
  3. Is it also a fact that the landed cost of galvanized iron imported from Great Britain greatly exceeds that of the locally made article?
  4. If the facts are as stated above, what action, if any, can the Government take to remedy the position?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for Trade and Customs supplies the following answers: -

  1. Supplies of galvanized iron throughout Australia are somewhat restricted, but no specific instance in which a serious shortage has occurred has conic under notice.No complaint whatsoever has been received from Western Australia.
  2. No instance has come under notice in which building construction has been considerably delayed through a shortage of galvanized iron.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Government has already taken all steps possible to remedy the position. The co-operation of the Australian manufacturer in the direction of increasing output to the maximum capacity of available plant has been sought, with successful results. In addition, in March last, authority was given for the importation under Customs Tariff By-law at rates of Free (British Preferential Tariff) 15 percent. (General Tariff); of a quantity of 8,000 tons of galvanized iron. This concession has been availed of only to a minor extent for the following reasons: -

    1. The difficulty in obtaining iron from overseas, except in limited quantities.
    2. The high price of imported iron when compared with that charged for Australian made iron.

In fairness to the Australian manufacturers it should be mentionedthat there is a general world shortage of practically all iron and steel products. The price of Australian made galvanized iron is at present below world parity and in the interests of Australian users the manufacturers are making every endeavour to prevent re-sellers exporting Australian iron to other countries.

page 208

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF BICYCLES FROM JAPAN

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a consignment of 500 Japanese bicycles - first part of an order for 3,000 - will arrive in Australia during the next fortnight?
  2. Is it a fact that the landed cost of these bicycles is only about 50 per cent, of the wholesale price of the British-Australian article?
  3. Is it a fact that the importing firm plan to sell 15,000 of these bicycles during the year?
  4. If so, will he take steps to prevent the dumping of these goods at prices ruinous to local manufacturers?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: - 1 and 2. No information is available, apart from reports which appeared in the press.

  1. The intentions of the importers have not been communicated to the department.
  2. The matter will receive consideration when the first consignment arrives, and the position is clarified. I have noticed a press statement made by the importing interests to the effect that complete bicycles will not be imported, but that the intention is to import parts and assemble bicycles in Australia in the same manner as existing Australian bicycle builders at present operate.

page 208

QUESTION

AUTOMATIC FROST ALARMS

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice-

In view of the urgent necessity for safeguarding crops in the Cardross and Red Cliffs dried fruit areas, will the Postmaster-General reconsider the application from growers for six automatic frost alarms?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The matter has received very careful consideration, but, unfortunately, the installation desired is not one which the department could supply and maintain.

page 208

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Pearl Shell Industry: New Patrol Boat

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

When will the patrol boat, now being built for work in the northern seas, be launched ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

It is anticipated that the vessel will be completed and ready for service in December. 1937.

page 208

QUESTION

ALIENS REGISTRATION ACT

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. When was the Aliens Registration Act suspended ?
  2. Why was it suspended?
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to restore it?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. The Aliens Registration Act 1920 was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1934. 2 and 3. See 1.

page 209

QUESTION

PETROLEUM OIL SEARCH

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister in Charge of Development, upon notice -

Since the subsidy to oil-searching companies has been paid what results regarding flow oil have been achieved, if any?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Minister in Charge of Development has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

No Government subsidies are paid in respect to the search for flow oil. Advances, repayable under certain conditions, have been approved to four companies. Three other applications have been approved subject to the applicants complying with certain conditions.

Since the advances referred to have been made, a considerable amount of additional drilling has been carried out in Queensland and New South Wales and careful geological surveys have been undertaken for the purpose of finding structures in which oil could have accumulated.

One bore in Queensland, in respect of which an advance has been made, is producing 2,000,000 cubic feet of gas per day. The gas contains constituents which are natural to petroleum.

page 209

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOAN SUBSCRIPTIONS

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What proportion of the recent Commonwealth loan was subscribed by small investors?
  2. What was the number of investors who invested sums varying from £10 to £100?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Acting Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. Subscribers of from £10 to £500 provided 14 per cent, of the total. Subscribers of from £.510 to £1,000 provided 8 per cent, of the total.
  2. 3,294.

page 209

TRANSPORT WORKERS BILL 1937

Motion (by Senator Brennan) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a bill for’ an act to repeal section 4 of the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929 and to enact another section in lieu thereof, and to amend section 12 of that act.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

page 209

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply.

Debate resumed from the 22nd June (vide page 143) on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the following Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General’s opening Speech be agreed to: -

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I subscribe wholeheartedly to the Address-in-Reply so ably moved by Senator McLeay, and so ably seconded by Senator Marwick, and endorse its expression of loyalty to the Throne, and the thanks it conveys to His Excellency the Governor-General for his address to this Parliament. The whole procedure of the re-opening of Parliament was without a marring incident, and there is no doubt that His Excellency is deserving of thanks, not only for his Speech, but also for the great interest which he has taken in the affairs of the Commonwealth. In his Speech, he mentioned his visit to the various parts of the Commonwealth, and I can assure honorable senators that his visits to some of the most outlandish parts of Western Australia were much appreciated by the people there. There is no doubt in my mind that the appointment of GovernorsGeneral direct by His Majesty the King is the best system, because, no matter what cheap sneers may be hurled at the appointment of governors-general from overseas, the fact is apparent to the great bulk of the people of Australia that the system could not be improved. I appreciate the fact that the long line of honorable gentlemen who have been the personal representatives of the King in this Commonwealth have done yeomen work and service toAustralia. Those former Governors-General who are still alive in the Old Country continue to render that service.

Senator Collings:

– What was wrong with the last Governor-General?

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I have every respect for the last occupant of the high office, but he was not appointed by the method which I think is to be preferred. On that point let us agree to disagree. So long as the present system continues, let us resolve that no discourtesy or disrespect shall be shown to His Majesty’s representatives.

Senator Collings:

– No Australian need apply.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The honorable senator’s interjection might be appreciated in the Sydney domain, but not in this chamber. Honorable senators generally are agreed that every respect is due to the Governor-General, and, indeed, every State Governor, as representatives of His Majesty. It is true that a Labour government in Western Australia secured the appointment of an Australian, in the person of Sir James Mitchell, to the high office of Lieutenant Governor. For no man in Australia have I a higher regard than I have for Sir James Mitchell, but no Australian occupant of the office can, at the expiration of his term, render at the hub of the Empire the service to Australia that can be rendered by a resident of Britain.

Senator E B Johnston:

– No one has filled the position more satisfactorily than has Sir James Mitchell.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I agree with the honorable senator. For many years I have been a close friend of Sir James Mitchell, than whom, in my opinion, no man has served Western Australia better. I repeat that, in my opinion, the present method of appointing governors-general is the best, and I hope that it will long continue.

The Governor-General’s Speech made only brief mention of the coronation of Their Majesties the King and Queen, but it was long enough to remind us of the enthusiasm and loyalty of the people of the British Empire on that historic occasion. No one who listened to the radio description of the ceremonies could have failed to be impressed by the enthu siasm displayed throughout the Empire. Not only in the large cities, but also in every hamlet, the spirit of the people was the same. To those with names like mine the coronation brought an additional thrill, because of the fact that on the Throne of England there is a Scottish Queen. Honorable senators with such names as Grant, Crawford, Plain or Payne, no less than McLeay, McLachlan and MacDonald, have a special reason to exult.

When it is remembered that less than 200 years ago there was enmity between England and Scotland, often resulting in bloodshed, we have cause for joy at the union of the two peoples. I, personally, rejoice in the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen, the Lady of Glamis, no less than in that of His Majesty the King, and I fervently pray that they may long reign over a peaceful and prosperous British Empire.

When the debate was adjourned last night, the Senate had just listened to a spate of praise of the Government because of its achievements during its term of office, and its policy for the future. I desire to add my meed of praise, not only for what the Government has done, but also for what it proposes to do before its present term of office expires. It remains to be seen what will happen before the end of this year, when the electors speak through the ballot-box, but, at this stage, I desire to congratulate you, sir, and the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) on having again been selected unanimously by the political organizations to which you belong to contest the Senate election in Western Australia. Both of you have fought many election campaigns, and, despite the assertion of the Opposition that Labour will win the election, I do not think that you and your supporters will be daunted. It may be that Labour representatives, by continually referring to Labour’s forthcoming victory, are imitating the little boy whistling in the churchyard to maintain his courage in the dark.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable member should remember Gwydir.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I do not know what the position is in New South Wales or Queensland, but I take second’ place to no one in gauging public opinion in Western Australia. I say unhesitatingly that, in my opinion, the Labour party is in for a sorry defeat in that State.

Apparently your name, sir, and those of Senators Pearce and Marwick, will again be in the middle of the ballot paper. Prom time to time, suggestions for an alteration of the present system of setting out the names of candidates on the ballot paper have been made. For some years, I have endeavoured to have a change made, but recent happenings in New South Wales have demonstrated more clearly the defects of the existing system. Ever since the names of candidates have been grouped according to the political party to which they belong, the Labour party seems to have aimed at selecting candidates whose names commence with letters at, or near, the beginning of the alphabet. I do not know that gentlemen whose surnames begin with “ A “ are more fitted to govern the country than are those whose names commence with “ M “. In New South Wales, the Lang party has selected four candidates whose surnames commence with “ A “ to contest the forthcoming Senate election. To many, the selection is ludicrous; but the position would be still more ludicrous were the names of those gentlemen placed at the bottom of the ballot paper.

Senator Foll:

– The people of New South Wales are laughing at the Labour party already.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Lang group in New South Wales has attempted to place a premium on ignorance by deliberately catering for the ill-considered votes of ignorant people. We cannot tell to what extreme these practices might be indulged in if they be not checked. Something should be done promptly to counteract them, and there is nothing radical in the proposal that the position of the names of grouped candidates on the ballot-paper should be decided by lot. In that way every candidate, whether his name starts with A or Z, will have an equal chance with other candidates.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Zachariah will have as good a chance as Aaron.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.Well, the Aarons have had by far the better of the deal for years. Under the present system any grouped names commencing with “ M “ always appeared in the centre or bottom of the ballot-paper. As my name commences with an “ M “ my support of the proposal. to alterthe present system is quite impersonal.

Senator Collings:

– Why not letthe electors vote for a particular party instead of individual candidates?

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

-I shall not support such a suggestion for one moment, but I am in favour of some innovation being made to provide for the allocation of places on the ballot-paper by lot. That is an old custom ; in fact we read about it in the Bible.

Senator Collings:

– Yes, and the honorable senator knows what happened to Lot’s wife !

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I do, and I sometimes wish that the honorable senator also might be turned into a pillar of salt. The point I emphasize is that the Labour party in Western Australia, and in most of the other States, has made deliberate attemptsat succeeding elections to have the names of its candidates placed at the top of the ballotpaper in order to secure the ill-considered votes of the electorate. Such a practice should be stopped immediately.

All honorable senators, I feel sure, were pleased to learn from the GovernorGeneral’s Speech that the Government is taking definite steps to reconstitute the Inter-State Commission. That matter has been a burning question in Western Australia ever since the lapse of the former Inter-State Commission, of which Mr. A. B. Piddington, K.C., was chairman. While that commission remained in existence people in Western Australia generally realized that they could appeal to a tribunal, which was much more stable in its constitution than the States Grants Commission, for the adjustment of the disabilities under which they suffer as the result of federal policy. It has always been felt in that State that the decisions of the commission were not exactly just; that it did not understand the position existing in Western Australia as fully as it should. This was due primarily to the fact that no member of that commission was a Western Australian. It stood to reason. therefore, that no matter how earnestly they might try to do their work the decisions of those gentlemen, . because of their lack of knowledge of local conditions, were, to a degree, suspect. For instance, the Commonwealth Grants Commission charged the State of Western Australia with extravagance in respect of its expenditure on public works and social services, when, I suggest, a great deal more consideration of these matters was called for on the part of that body before it gave its decisions. I do not know why the State of Western Australia was singled out in this fashion, because it is common knowledge that, similar arguments can be applied in respect of other States so far as expenditure on public works is concerned. None of the States could he exempted from that charge, judging by their expenditure on public works right down the years. I suggest that Western Australia’s comparatively high expenditure on social services is quite understandable when one takes into consideration the huge area of that State and the long distances over which such services have to be administered. These and related matters, no doubt, will be more satisfactorily considered by the InterState Commission, which will be a tribunal of more permanent character than the present States Grants Commission; for that reason, its reconstitution will bc welcomed in Western Australia. I feel sure that Western Australia’s representative in the Cabinet, Senator Pearce, has had a great deal to do with this proposal. He is fully aware of the feeling in that State on this matter and I believe that, when the history of this proposal is written, it will reveal that he has played a very big part in it.

With his characteristic enthusiasm, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) spoke against the export of iron ore from Yampi Sound to Japan. I do not know whether the honorable senator has ever visited that Sound. It is not a very attractive place. I assure him that, judging by the activities of some of his political friends in that part of Australia, he need have no worry that the exports of iron ore from Yampi to Japan will reach very large proportions. Members of the Trades Hall in Perth are doing their utmost to prevent such exports. For instance, they made most fantastic requests to the Industrial Arbitrator who sat at Yampi Sound two months ago. He held his sittings on what is known as the Yampi Scow, a flatbottomed boat enjoying some notoriety in the locality, and in the early part of the proceedings one of the Trades Hall representatives, in urging consideration of the claims of employees at Yampi, had the temerity to suggest that provision should be made in any award for the employment of shop sign-writers and scenic artists. Several other requests, equally fantastic, were also made to the arbitrator. Thus, Senator Collings need feel no anxiety regarding the development of the resources of Yampi Sound. I assure him that if the activities of his Trades Hall friends can be taken as any indication of future events, the exporters of ore will have to travel along a very rocky road. Indeed, if further equally fantastic requests are made on behalf of the employees at Yampi, who, by the way, are very few in number, the ore export trade will be damned right from the start. The honorable senator’s criticism in this respect reminds me of certain arguments used by the Leader of the Opposition in another place and himself in discussing the imposition of sanctions against Italy during the Abyssinian trouble. On that occasion, they wove most emphatic that Australia should do nothing which might antagonize another nation; in other words that we should do nothing to antagonize the Italians in their rape of Abyssinia. Now the honorable gentlemen turns round and urges that no iron ore should be exported from Yampi Sound, fearing, perhaps, that on some future date yet unspecified-

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– In other words, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) believes that , we should impose sanctions on Japan with respect to the export of iron ore.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.Yes. Evidently the Leader of the Opposition fears, that’ on some future date, yet unspecified, the iron ore may be hurled back at us in the form of munitions.

Senator Collings:

– I take exception to the statement that I, in this chamber, objected to any action being taken to prevent the Italian rape of Abyssinia.

That is what I hear the honorable senator say. The statement is distasteful to me, and in my opinion, it is deliberately false. Therefore, I ask for its unqualified withdrawal.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Labour party in Australia-

Senator Collings:

Mr. President, I object to any dissertation on the matter. I demand a definite withdrawal of the statement that I, as Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, objected to anything being done to prevent the Italian rape of Abyssinia.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I am in difficulty in that I do not know whether the statement made by Senator Allan MacDonald was in the terms stated by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I prefer to hear Senator Allan MacDonald on the point before asking him to withdraw words alleged by the Leader of the Opposition to be offensive to him.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I submit that during a discussion on the Sanctions Bill-

Senator Collings:

– I object to the honorable senator being allowed to proceed without a withdrawal of the words to which I have objected. He did not mention the word “ sanctions “ until the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) put that idea into his head.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.The Leader of the Opposition is entirely wrong. I did refer to the imposition of sanctions.

Senator Collings:

– I am trying to remain calm, but unless the honorable senator withdraws the wordsto which I take exception, I cannot promiseto remain so for long.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD I assure the honorable gentleman that in the course of my remarks just now I did use the word sanctions.

Senator Collings:

– I say definitely that the honorable senator did not.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD. The Labour party did everything in its power in this chamber as well as in the House of Representatives to prevent the Sanctions Bill from being passed and-

Senator Collings:

– The honorable gentleman made no mention whatever of the Sanctions Bill.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD. I certainly did refer to that measure and I now submit that had sanctions been properly imposed on Italy, there would not have been any rape of Abyssinia.

Senator Collings:

– DoI understand, Mr. President, that I have to wait until, encouraged by your leniency, Senator Allan MacDonald can wriggle out of the position in which ho finds himself, following my objection to his statement? And am I to understand that he definitely refuses to withdraw words that are obnoxious to me, and to which I have taken exception ? If so, all I can say is that that attitude has never before been allowed in the Senate. Hitherto, an honorable senator had only to complain that language used by another honorable gentleman was repugnant to him and it was thereupon immediately withdrawn. I now demand the withdrawal of the words of which I have complained.

The PRESIDENT:

– My difficulty is to reconcile the statements which I heard Senator Allan MacDonald make, and the words which Senator Collings says he used. I am waiting for Senator Allan MacDonald to repeat to the Senate the words which he employed. As I remember that portion of the honorable gentleman’s speech, Senator Allan MacDonald referred to the attitude of Senator Collings and the members of his party during the discussion of a certain measure in this chamber, and I must confess that I did not consider the words used were offensive. But, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the practice of the Senate has been that, upon complaint by an honorable senator that certain words were personally offensive to him, such words have been withdrawn, even if the speaker did not regard them as offensive.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– If any of my remarks were obnoxious to the Leader of the Opposition, I withdraw them. I have no wish to be offensive to the honorable gentleman. But I did say-

Senator Collings:

– I demand an unqualified withdrawal of certain words. I did not make any general objection to the remarks of Senator Allan MacDonald, but I did object to a particular remark. Therefore, I demand its withdrawal just as, sometimes, I am made to withdraw remarks which I believe to he true, but which are alleged to be objectionable to other honorable senators.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– In order to appease the Leader of the Opposition, I withdraw my remarks concerning his attitude to the rape of Abyssinia.

Senator Collings:

– Thank you !

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– To me it is incomprehensible that the Labour party should refuse to support the application of sanctions against Italy in order to prevent the conquest of Abyssinia, and now expect that principle to be applied to the export of iron ore from Western Australia to Japan. If its attitude in this matter . is sound, it should object as strongly to the export of other Australian commodities, including wool, to nations which at some future date may become aggressors. The amount of iron ore to be imported by Japan from Yampi Sound is infinitesmal in comparison with its total imports from other parts of the world.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Ore which is exported from Mount Isa may also be used for munitions.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.That is so, but Mount Isa is a Queensland industry, whereas Yampi Sound is in Western Australia. Therefore Senator Collings, I imagine, feels more comfortable in his objections to the export of that product from my State. I would, however, impress on the Senate that the pastoralists of West Kimberley districts are deeply concerned in this matter. They are hopeful that the industrial activity at Koolan Island in connexion with the export of iron ore to Japan, may result in the opening up of a reasonably good market for Kimberley cattle in Japan, and the islands to the south of that country. The disposal of their cattle is, at the moment, an acute problem owing to the great distance which stock have to travel to the Wyndham meat works. The pastoralists, some of whom have been on their hold’ings for 40 and 50 years, are anticipating that, before long, freezing works will be established on Yampi Sound, and that their marketing prospects will thus be improved.

It is futile for the Leader of the Opposition to argue that we should prohibit the export of iron ore on the ground merely that it may be used for munitions. To be logical, he should approve the application of sanctions to the export of nearly all our surplus primary products, because of the risk that wool, for example, may be converted into clothing for military purposes, and our other products into foodstuffs for the use of foreign troops. If this is Labour’s policy, and it receives endorsement in the electorates, we . shall effectively close all avenues for the export of primary products.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable gentleman should read an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age of yesterday’s date on this subject. The Age is not a Labour paper.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The opinion that we in Western Australia have formed is that if the Melbourne Age is not now a Labour paper, its tendency is to become one, so that journal would not be a suitable authority for me to cite.

I turn now to the consideration of a non-controversial subject, namely, the Government’s contribution towards the cost of a memorial to the late Captain William Dampier, R.N., at Broome, in Western Australia, and I congratulate the Government upon its attitude to this movement. It is proposed shortly to commemorate the occasion of the first visit of that very robust English sailor to the north-west coast of Western Australia in 16SS - about 100 years before Captain Cook landed at Botany Bay - and his second expedition as a naval captain in H.M.S. Roebuck, in 1699. I hope that the Government will be able to synchronize the movement of some of our naval vessels at that time, so that the unveiling ceremony at Broome will be attended with full naval honours. I know that the present fleet movements will be too soon, because the memorial will not be ready for two or three months, but I trust that everything will be done to make the ceremony a. noteworthy one.

Senator Marwick:

– Tie Commonwealth Government has agreed to do that.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD I know, but I do not think that the date of the despatch of the Australian war vessels has been definitely fixed. I hope that satisfactory arrangements will’ be made to ensure the success of the function, and thus give encouragement to the Western Australia Historical Society, which was responsible for the movement that led to the erection of the memorial at Broome, in tardy recognition of the exploits of this great discoverer.

Another matter in which I am interested is the development of the transcontinental railway services. Recently there has been an increase of trains from two to three a week, and I think the traffic warrants a further improvement. Last session I asked for information with regard to the purchase, of six new steam locomotives to be used on the rim, and suggested that it might be possible to substitute streamlined diesel engines for steam locomotives, on account of their cheaper running and faster traction. I was informed, however, that the railway experts had surveyed the position thoroughly before ordering the steam locomotives, and I would now like to know if the Government will make available to hono’rable senators a copy of the experts’ report, so that we may know the reasons actuating them in recommending steam locomotives instead of streamlined diesel engines. I hope that the Government will make the report available before the opening of the new section between Port Pirie and Port Augusta. Despite the criticisms of members of the Opposition concerning the need for standardization of railway gauges, and the time which Senator Brown occupied in bringing under the notice of honorable senators the huge mileage over which the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge extends, honorable senators will admit that standardization is a colossal undertaking. Even the short distance between Port Augusta and Port Pirie is, in itself, an accomplishment in that it will reduce the time taken on the journey between Perth or Three Springs and Canberra by more than ten hours.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Will honorable senators be able to reach Canberra earlier or will they be compelled to spend a day in Adelaide?

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD I am hoping that we shall be able to reap full “advantage of the reduced time occupied in completing that monotonous and tiresome journey. The vessels now operating on the Australian coast are, I believe, equal to any coastal vessels in the world. They are luxuriously equipped, the staffs are very attentive, and everything is done by the shipping companies to attract passengers to travel by water. Unless those in charge of the Commonwealth railway system provide up-to-date railway transport facilities, the huge capital cost of our transcontinental railway system will eventually be a heavy burden on the Australian taxpayers. I believe that the Government will do everything possible to popularize the transcontinental railway as a means of travel, and in that way enlighten many persons in eastern Australia who have not visited the western State. It is not denied that the -section between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle is rather a nightmare to travellers on the transcontinental railway, and on that account I have on previous occasions asked the Government if negotiations could not be opened up With the Government of Western Australia with a view to improving that section of the line. Many desirable improvements could be made, and I believe that if the Commonwealth Government conferred with the State authorities, beneficial results would accrue.

I deplore the fact that no mention is made in the Governor-General’s Speech of the subject of migration. The figures showing the efflux of Anglo-Saxon people from Australia,, especially during the last quarter, are alarming in comparison with the influx of other than Nordic people. We hear repeatedly that the expansion of our secondary industries is an important matter, not only from an industrial view-point, but also because those engaged in them provide the best market for ‘ our primary products. “We can never hope for a real extension of our secondary industries until our population is greater than it is to-day. The percentage of illnourished children alleged to have been born during the regime of the Lyons Government falls into insignificance “when compared with our low birth rate. I should have been pleased had we been informed that the Government is conducting negotiations with the Imperial Government with the object of increasing the number of Anglo-Saxons coming to reside in Australia. Honorable senators must agree that this subject should be placed in the forefront of any business to be considered by this Parliament.

Senator Collings:

– Should we not arrange to provide them with jobs before they come here?

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– No one provided a job for the honorable senator when lie arrived in this country, but’ apparently he had no difficulty in finding one. There is still plenty of work to be done in Australia.

Senator Collings:

– Over 250,000 persons in Australia arc still seeking work.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Australian unemployment figures have never been more favorable; they are more favorable than they were before the depression, and certainly much better than during the Scullin Government’s regime. The time is rapidly approaching when a definite move will have to be mad<to induce suitable persons to settle in, Australia; otherwise our ownership will be disputed.

I congratulate the Government upon what it has done towards the introduction of a national insurance scheme for Australia. It is a knotty problem on which expert advice is needed. In. Sir Walter Kinnear and Mr. Ince, the Government has to advise it two of the best experts available, and when the report of Sir Walter Kinnear is available, the Government must decide what is best in the interests of all concerned.

I reassure the Government that it has a very good record to place before the people at the next general election. I have no doubt as to the results of the election in my State. I have every confidence that the people of Western Australia will show renewed faith in the present administration, and no doubt a similar verdict will be recorded in other i States.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– If I were to reply to all of the inaccurate statements made by honorable senators opposite during th« debate on this motion, and to comment on all the points raised in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, I should . occupy Mie time of the Senate for at. least a week. I agree that we should have a Governor-General in « Australia, but, . like the Leader of thu Opposition (Senator Collings), I am strongly opposed to unnecessary expenditure being incurred by providing more than one official residence for that gentleman. There is no need to maintain palatial residences in cities other than Canberra ; if such extravagance bc justified in the federal sphere the State governments will be justified in having more than one official residence for State Governors.

Senator Collings:

– Why should not the Governor of Queensland have an official residence in ‘Brisbane, and another in Townsville?

Senator J. V. MacDONALD.Exactly. If residences for the GovernorGeneral were provided in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney, and the occupant of that office should decide to reside permanently in Canberra, the other buildings would be left on the hands of theGovernment.

Paragraph 2 of the Speech reads -

The public credit in Australia has been maintained at a veil’ high level, with corresponding advantages to interest ratesgenerally, while the conversion of our overseas, indebtedness to lower interest rates has been carried on. as loans mature, with very satisfactory results.

A number of our overseas loans have been, converted at reasonably low rates, but others have still to be converted. I give theHigh Commissioner (Mr. Bruce) credit for what he has done, but he has certainly omitted to take full advantage of the opportunities available. The Acting; Premier, the Minister for Lands inQueensland (Mr. Pease) said after his return from the United States of America, that so much money was available in that country that loans could’ be obtained at as low a rate as 1 per cent. That may be a slight exaggeration of the position,, but I remember reading a statement by Dr. Dalton, M.P., to. the effect that so’ much capital was available in England at such ridiculously low rates that it could almost be said that borrowers could have it for nothing.

Senator McLeay:

– Does the honorable senator believe that statement merely because it appeared in print?

SenatorJ. V. MacDONALD.- It has been published so often that it must have some foundation. If there is little use for money, the rate of interest must be low. The advisers of the GovernorGeneral should have been aware of the fact that money was available at very low rates a year or so ago, and a paragraph to that effect should have been embodied in the speech. Although we have been informed that the public credit of Australia has been maintained at a very high level, 53 per cent, of the Australian loan converted in London last week was left with the underwriters.

Senator McLeay:

– What would have been the position had Mr. Lang been in power ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

- Mr. Lang is quite capable of looking after himself. Despite the strong anti-Labour forces participating in the Gwydir byelection, the candidate supported by Mr. Lang and his followers won the election. Apparently Mr. Lang has now ceased to be a bogy. Our credit in London at present is not good. I should like the Minister, in the course of this debate, to tell me how much of our overseas debt held in London remains to be converted to an issue carrying a lower rate of interest than is at present payable. It is my opinion that Australia should have taken the opportunity, when money was so cheap in London that the bankers almost appealed to people to cart it away, to convert the whole of its debt. Great Britain converted £2,000,000,000 of its debt in one operation; and I feel, therefore, that we have been badly treated in London. Some honorable senators on the Government side are continually uttering a paean of praise for what Great Britain has done for us; there are certain sentimental reasons why it should help us, but the financial oligarchy in Britain has always looked after itself rather than helped us.

I do not know who drafted the following paragraph of the Governor-General’s

Speech, but it is capable of a double meaning, and the meaning which I read into it was not creditable to the Commonwealth Government: -

My advisers desire to repeat that this recovery would not have been achieved as quickly as ithas been without the patriotic cooperation of the people as a whole and the patient endurance of those who were the greatest sufferers from the depression,

Those people who were the greatest sufferers from the depression did not patiently endure the burdens put upon them. I myself felt that some one had put his hands into my pocket and relieved me of about £400 worth of the assets which I then possessed. Owing to the depression. I suffered what I consider to be robbery. I was brought to the verge of bankruptcy, but, fortunately, escaped it. Thousands of other Australians, however, were ruined. Their murmurings and cries of disgust at the vast thievery which then took place are still to be heard. Of course, “ the people “ is a wide term, and may include every boodler in the Commonwealth, but the statement that there was patient endurance on the part of the greatest sufferers, the workers, is not true.

Some space in the Governor-General’s Speech is devoted to national defence. I have always agreed that preparation to defend ourselves is necessary, but the attitude of the Australian Labour party is governed by its conception of our relations with the other parts of the Empire. The Labour party is still opposed to conscription and the compulsory sending of Australians overseas to engage in a vast war, about the beginnings of which we know very little. Our attitude follows the British policy of nonintervention in the Spanish civil war, or, for that matter, in the trouble which recently took place in Abyssinia. If a vast empire like the British Empire wanted to take part in every squabble that occurred in the world it would be in a continual state of warfare, and conditions would be far worse than in medieval days, when warfare was. the principal industry of some European States. Australia is obliged to have a protector. It is not big enough in a world filled with beasts of the jungle to defend itself, and, therefore, it needs an alliance with another country. Our first alliance, of course, must be with the British Empire, and failing that, with the United States of America, or finally with some great European power whose ideals are near to ours. We cannot look at the matter of Imperial defence with the same eyes as does Canada, which, as Mr. MacKenzie King has said, leans for its defence upon the United States of America, a country which has a population of 136,000,000 and is probably the most powerful single nation in the world at the present time from the point of view of both attack and defence. Since the great war we have been demanding that our rights of self government should not be handed over to the will of any international financial ring which might demand soldiers from this country, even to the extent of conscription. One material aid to Australia’s defence is the fact that roughly £1,000,000,000 of British capital has been invested here, which means that Britain’s self interest demands that its navy and army shall be available to protect this country from attack and invasion.

Senator McLeay:

– Surely the honorable senator does not object to those investments?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I do not, but I say that that money was not in the first place invested here for the good of Australia ; it, or rather its equivalent in goods, was sent here, merely because the investors were offered a good return for their money. If Senator McLeay remembers his history he will know that after the American War of Independence, Britain had to find some place in which to house its malefactors and Australia was chosen. Therein lies the reason why Australia is now a great dominion of the British Empire. Britain now, however, has to care for its own derelict population.

The Governor-General’s Speech pro-, ceeded-

Consequent upon a report by the National Health and Medical Research Council, my advisers will take steps to enable the council to function effectively in the co-ordination of research into the causes of and cure for diseases which levy heavy toll upon the community. They will also continue their cooperation with the governments of the States in relation to national health problems.

I welcome that statement because on the first day of the session I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health -

Whether it is correct, as alleged to be stated by Dr. Nott, ex-Member of the House of Representatives, now of Canberra, “that 40 per cent, of the babies born during the regime of the- Lyons-Page Government are suffering from malnutrition”, and if so, what action does the Government propose to take to remove such a state of affairs?

The Minister for Health supplied the following answer: -

The statement that 40 per cent, of children are suffering from malnutrition is doubtless a repetition of statements that have been made by some medical authorities. These statements, however, require to be read with their full context, which indicates the degree and the nature of the malnutrition. The Government has appointed an Advisory Council on Nutrition which is now inquiring into this question. The council expects to make its report about the end of this year.

The Minister ought to have taken more notice of my question, for I knew at the time that the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) had admitted that 40 per cent, of the children of Australia were suffering from malnutrition. I had seen in the Sydney Morning Herald the following statement: -

Figures showing the danger of a decline in the health of the Australian people were quoted by the Federal Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) in an address at the Savoy Theatre, Bligh-street, and in a broadcast from 2GB last night.

Mr. Hughes quoted medical authorities to show that .most ill-health was due to incorrect or insufficient diet, lack of exercise, and proper hygiene, and he pleaded for cooperation in a national campaign to educate the people so that children might be protected.

Last year, he said, 084,000 persons received treatment in the public hospitals of the State. It might be fairly assumed that a similar condition applied throughout -the Commonwealth. The number of the insane was increasing. The number of invalid pensioners had steadily increased, and, in 1036, was about 77,000.

Maternal mortality and morbidity showed no signs of decrease. The death rate of infants under one month remained almost constant at the old high level. According to the highest medical authorities, 40 per cent, of growing children, suffered more or less seriously from malnutrition. .

Those things have taken place under the Lyons-Page Administration.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The Government is taking steps to deal with the matter.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– That may be; but it is proposing to proceed along wrong lines. In any case, such conditions should not exist in this country. The people did not patiently endure the results of the depression, as the Speech states; parents knew that when there were no wages coming in it was impossible for them to provide their children with proper food.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Why did not the Scullin Government take action to remedy that state of affairs ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– The honorable senator knows well that the Scullin Government did not have a majority in the Senate. He should also know that during its term of office it was fully occupied in cleaning up the mess which it inherited from the Bruce-Page Government. It faced a deficit of £20,000,000, and had to take extraordinary measures to cope with the situation. Those who, like Senator Herbert Hays, ask why Labour governments did not take steps to prevent such things from happening, overlook the fact that Labour has been in office in the Commonwealth for only three normal years- between 1910 and 1913. In 1914 the country was at war, and in 1930-31 it was on the verge of bankruptcy. During the latter period the Scullin Government had to take extraordinary steps to keep the ship of State on an even keel. I sincerely hope that the Minister for Health will be successful in his campaign against malnutrition, and that before long he will be able to report that the number of children so affected has been reduced from 40 per cent, to much smaller proportions.

Senator Marwick:

– He will not be successful until the people cease to congregate in the cities and get back to the country.

Senator Collings:

– But the honorable senator has told us that in the country the people are over-worked and underfed.

Senator Marwick:

– I did not say that they are under-fed.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I agree that in the fresh air of country districts children are likely to be healthier than in congested city areas.

Senator Marwick:

– Country people can obtain purer food.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Even as a matter of sound economics, it is important that we should have a healthy population. As things are, the strong and the able have to support the sick and. the helpless. During the depression I was fortunate enough to have a job, and I know that those who, like myself, were in employment, had to pay for those who were out of work. Under a proper system no one should be out of work. It is bad national economy to have men and women unemployed.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– How would the honorable senator deal with those engaged in seasonal occupations?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– A proper national economy would pick them up at the conclusion of their seasonal employment, and find other work for them, even if only in making armaments, as is now being done in so many countries. A proper national economy would ensure that work would be found for all capable of performing it.

I rejoice at the success which attended the efforts of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), the High Commissioner (Mr. Bruce) and the Premier of Queensland (Mr. Forgan Smith) to obtain a satisfactory sugar agreement for a further term. For each of the next five years, Australia will be entitled to export 400,000 long tons of sugar. Australia’s representatives did their job well.

Senator McLeay:

– Does the honorable senator give any credit to the British Government for its part in securing the agreement ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I give credit to all concerned. As I am not loth to blame the Government for its misdeeds, so, when it does well, I give it credit.

I agree that British shipping must be protected against unfair competition. Trade routes in the Pacific between Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and other places must be served by British vessels. The unfair competition of the American shipping lines calls for action, and I shall be glad to support any move to counter such competition.

The Governor-General’s Speech contains references to the extraction of oil from coal. I am keenly desirous that, if possible, the deposits of coal in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia should be utilized for the production of oil. At Blair Athol in Queensland, there are said to be 440,000,000,000 tons of coal, and from such a huge deposit it should be possible to extract large quantities of oil. The Newnes district of New South Wales also has possibilities as a supplier of oil from shale, and I hope that the efforts being made there will be successful. Until Australia is able to produce oil in sufficient quantities to meet its requirements, it should pursue a policy of oil storage, so that in the event of supplies from overseas being cut off, sufficient motive spirit to meet our requirements would be on hand. Many people have a suspicion that the hig oil companies have been active in preventing the discovery of oil in Australia. Pending success in the discovery of flow oil, I hope that the possibilities of obtaining supplies from coal and shale will be fully investigated.

Another paragraph in His Excellency’s Speech which I should not have written reads -

After lengthy negotiations with producers’ organizations and exporters’ ami ship-owners’ representatives, my advisers have succeeded in obtaining a satisfactory agreement on the important question of overseas freight reductions. This agreement will bring about a reduction in the freight rates on wool, chilled beef and fresh apples and pears, over a. period of at least three years, amounting in the aggregate to approximately £500,000 per annum. With a view to reducing the costs to shipping, the Commonwealth Government proposes to reduce light dues from 9d. to 6d. per ton on all overseas shipping visiting Australian ports. The State governments have been asked to co-operate with a view to reductions in harbour charges.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Quite right, too!

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I do not agree with the honorable senator. First, after lengthy negotiations, the shipping combine is persuaded to reduce freights. Immediately that is done, the combine is given a compensating advantage. The Commonwealth Government proposes to reduce light dues from 9d. to 6d. a ton, and the State governments are to be asked to reduce their .harbour charges. I am reminded that Australia once owned its own line of steamers, but the Bruce-Page Government disposed of the vessels at a ridiculously low price. Even that price has not. been paid, and Australia has been “ rooked “ of between £500,000 and £600,000, apart from interest. Directly that line was sold to that thief and falsifier of balance-sheets, Lord Kylsant, freights on the carriage of Australian produce to London were increased. Those facts are ugly; but they should not be forgotten. A paragraph of this nature, which contains not a word about the ugly side of the matter, makes good reading. The truth is that the shipping octopus has squeezed probably millions of pounds in excess freights out of producers. Yet when we do persuade them to reduce freights a little, this Government endeavours to make the blow as light as possible. It proposes to reduce light dues and to ask the State governments to reduce harbour charges. We might as well give the shipping combine concessions to the value of £500,000, as it will . not be satisfied until it gets that amount. It is a lamentable fact that we have lost sight of the stabilizing value of the line of steamers that was formerly Controlled by the Commonwealth Government, and of how the shipping octopus ran the freights up on Australian produce sent overseas. The establishment of such a line is a plank, not only of the Labour party’s platform, but also of that of the Victorian Country party. I believe that Senator Marwick, feeinstance, if he were frank, could tell us quite a lot about the exploitation of th.j farmers in Western Australia by the shipping combine.

Senator DEIN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Line of Steamers lost £17,000,000?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I do not ti link that that is anywhere near correct.

Any proposal to establish a 40-hour working week in industry should emanate from the Commonwealth Government. No individual State could undertake such a proposition because, in the absence of any tariff barriers between the States and lack of power on the part of the State to institute essential sanctions within its own borders, it would lay itself open to unequal competition from the other States. It would be very difficult for Queensland, or South Australia, for instance, to proclaim a 40-hour working week and thus compel its manufacturers to compete at a disadvantage with the manufacturers in Victoria and New South Wales operating a 48-hour week. But no such difficulties confront the Commonwealth Government in relation to other parts of the world.

Senator Dein:

– Can the Commonwealth Government really institute a 40- hour working week in industry?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Yes.

Senator McLeay:

– How ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– It would certainly require the consent of the States to such a proposal, but some of the States contend that it is the Commonwealth which is standing in the way.

Senator Brennan:

– Which State makes that contention?

Senator J. V. MacDONALD.Queensland, for instance. That the Commonwealth Government could do tremendous good through establishing a 40-hour week in industry is exemplified by New Zealand’s experience in this respect. The Dominion Government, possessing full sovereign powers, has established a 40- hour working week, and in order to inform honorable senators of the benefits which have accrued as the result of that legislation, I quote the. following extract from the Melbourne Herald: -

Geneva,

Monday. “If you vote against a 40-hour week in the textile industry, you are helpless,” said the New Zealand Minister for Labour (Mr. ArmStrong) at a debate by the Textile Convention at the International Labour Office here to-day. “ When hours were reduced to 40 a week in New Zealand,” he went on, “ the people’s income increased 20 per cent., amounting to £14,000,000a year.

This resulted in an enormous increase in the demand for goods. New Zealand is prosperous to-day because of the increased spending power of the community.

In addition, tens of thousands of boys and girls leaving school are now absorbed in industry instead of walking the streets.

The Conservatives do not dare to repeal the 40-hour week.”

What New Zealand has done, the Commonwealth Government can do in Australia, and if a Labour Government is returned to office at the next Federal elections it will follow New Zealand’s example.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– It would be foolish to do so.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– As Labour contends that a 40-hour working week would not have the effect of either lessening the output of the workers or increasing the cost of ‘production, why does not Queensland proclaim a 40-hour working week?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I have not said a single word about the effect of a 40-hour working week on the efficiency, or output, of the workers.

Senator Collings:

– Queensland set an example to the world by proclaiming a 44-hour working week; no other country has done that.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

- Senator Brennan, who is a distinguished lawyer, will agree with me that it would be industrially difficult for Queensland, as merely a portion of the Commonwealth, to institute a 40-hour working week, but that in agreement with the Commonwealth and other States it can be done constitutionally and without loss to any one single State. Queensland would be foolish to do so without such agreement, because it would thus place itself at an unfair advantage in competition with the other States.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator say that a 40-hour working week would have the effect of lessening the output of the workers?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I have not said anything on that point, and I do not think that Mr. Armstrong touched on it, either. I believe that if this Government is returned to office at the next election, it will make no attempt to institute a 40-hour working week, but I say definitely that if a Labour Government is elected it will immediately do so.

The appointment of Mr. Abbott as Administrator of the Northern Territory is another example of the reactionary outlook of this Government, which believes in persisting in methods which, over and over again, have been proved to be futile. I believe that the development of the Territory should be tackled with a measure of imagination and vision on the part of the Government. Great schemes and undertakings have started from inauspicious beginnings; we know, for instance, how Australia was originally settled. Mr. Abbott is probably as good, or bad, as any of the score of administrators who have been appointed by either the Government of South Australia, or the Commonwealth Government, during the last 60 years, to control the Northern Territory, but he is only going to do the job in the way that it has been done in the past. Our neglect of the territory has been pitiably exposed in the recent exploits of the Government’s patrol boat Larrakia. Until a few days ago very few people knew that that boat existed. The Australian Navy has a job to do, but, apparently, is not charged with the care of the Northern Territory. Consequently, to-day, despite all the talk that has been heard concerning Japanese encroachment on our shores, the smuggling of opium into the Northern Territory, the illicit relations of Japanese divers with native women, and the landing of prohibited immigrants, these happenings continue through the neglect of that portion of Australia. To-day, the only vessel we can commission to patrol the thousands of miles of our coastline from Thursday Island to Darwin is a little lame motor boat. The Government’s failure to deal with this problem has been accentuated by recent happenings. Yet, some people are so deeply buried in their own prejudices that even this joke about the Larrakia has not made them smile. They have not appreciated all that we have been told by missionary clergymen and others concerning the maltreatment and neglect of the aborigines. These things are still happening at what is, geographically speaking, the front gate of Australia; yet Ministers disregard them. Anyone who has had experience of life in the back blocks realizes that the natural tendency of a man is to get back to the soft spots; as Carnegie said, the Australian population is clustered like flies round a saucer; the centre of the country is practically empty, and the people cluster round the rim.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The disposition of our population is due, in a large measure, to problems of rainfall and transport.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– The rainfall on the fringe of the Northern Territory is comparatively high. For generations, I repeat, this neglect of the Northern Territory has gone on in the old hugger-mugger way. Instead of continuing with its bungling methods the Government should attempt to develop the Territory by some semi-socialistic scheme. I am not suggesting that a very large population could be supported in that portion of the Commonwealth, but I feel that after occupying that country for 70 or SO years we have no reason to be proud of our achievement, the present white population being not more than 5,000. More effective measures will have to be adopted in future if we are to develop North Australia on a satisfactory basis.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– What does the honorable senator suggest should be done?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– A national settlement scheme would, I believe, be successful.

Senator Grant:

-What would the settlers do up there?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– They would not be expected to sit down and twiddle their thumbs, but they should,. I suggest, be encouraged to engage in a number of small industries which in time would enable them to pay their way.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Would the honorable senator encourage them to raise sheep in a small way?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Cattle and sheep raising could be undertaken. I believe also that the large number of crocodiles in North Australian rivers would support a fair-sized industry in the production of crocodile leather. The cultivation of tropical fruits is another business that might be undertaken. With modern air transport facilities tropical fruits could be marketed in the southern States, andI have no doubt that such an industry would provide a living for a fair number of people. It is evident that all experiments hitherto have been conducted on entirely wrong lines. New avenues of production must now be tried. Attempts to organize new industries could not’ be attended with worse results than have been reported in connexion with many enterprises that have been initiated in the

Northern. Territory in the past. It is imperative that no further time should be lost in initiating new development schemes, because land-hungry people in the East are turning their eyes to the vast empty spaces in the north of Australia.

To protect the Australian pearling industry the Government has established a base at Darwin for a “ lame duck “ of a patrol boat which is supposed to prevent 70 or SO Japanese sampans from fishing illegally in Australian waters. These vessels are known to be operating very close to the Australian coast, and the crews whenever they please land on aboriginal reserves and cause much trouble.

The sparseness of our population is impressed upon me whenever I travel up and down the Australian coast. In some parts there are large areas of poor quality scrub country carrying stunted eucalytus forests. The carrying capacity of the poorer class of land is limited, but I am quite sure that the land-hungry people of other nations, including Indians and Chinese, whose standard of living is so much below our own, could make good use of it, and I fear that unless we occupy it more effec’tively, they may one day take possession of it. In the same way the lands of the Northern Territory, poor and uninviting compared with the richer parts of Australia, should be occupied, and a much greater population than 5,000 whites maintained or assisted to hold the country. This is becoming increasingly urgent.

Senator Leckie:

– Would the honorable senator advocate letting them come into Australia ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Of course not. Nor would Senator Leckie, I assume. But we have heard the threat that unless we more effectively people our vast empty spaces other races will come in with or without our permission.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The need in the north is more population.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– That is the point which I am endeavouring to emphasize. My complaint is that while we have an expensive administrative staff in- the Northern Territory, we are not taking the right steps to encourage people to go there. I make no reflection on the gentleman who was recently appointed administrator, but I do protest against the lack of imagination as evidenced in the Government^ policy, or lack of policy, for the development of North Australia. Hitherto our efforts have been confined to the encouragement of cattle raising, and to a much lesser extent, wool-growing. If the cattle-raisers had their way, the whole of North Australia would be one vast cattle run. As a matter1 of fact they are the greatest obstacle to the more effective settlement of North Australia. The crying need now is for a closer settlement of that vast area. Instead of having a meagre 5,000 whites scattered, over the entire area, we should have at least 50,000, even if the Commonwealth Government had to support everyone of them for a time in semi-military settlements, because they would be doing useful work in defending and policing the country, and eventually the new industries established would enable them to pay their way.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Why did Vestey Brothers leave the Northern Territory?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I have yet to learn that they have left the Territory, although I am aware of the old lie that the employees at the meatworks made so much trouble, that Vesteys were forced to close down their meatworks at Darwin. The truth is that Vestey Brothers did not -wish to keep the industry going in the Northern Territory, but they did wish to keep competitors out. I understand they still have their station properties and meatworks intact.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– They have closed the meatworks.

Senator Collings:

– Because it paid them better to ship beef from Argentina.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– My leader has correctly stated the position. Vestey Brothers closed their works at Darwin, not because of difficulty with the workers, but because they found it more profitable to ship meat from Argentina. If all the lies that are told about the Australian workers causing trouble in industry were true, there would be hardly a factory in operation in Melbourne or Sydney. , lt is unfortunate that, after over a century of occupation of North Australia hy our people, the aborigines there should he practically at the mercy of Malay and Japanese fishermen, simply because the Commonwealth Government has not, up to the present, provided an efficient patrol of our northern waters to prevent illegal fishing by foreign vessels for pearl shell, trochus shell and other sea products. If we had a bigger white population in the country bordering the Gulf of Carpentaria and extending to Darwin, our position would be much more secure. Originally, the native population of Australia was between 300,000 and 400,000. To-day it is down to about 50,000. Something will have to be done by an intelligent government, if that portion of the Commonwealth is to he retained for settlement by whites. In its present condition, it is a menace because approximately 500,000,000 Asiatics in the north are seeking room for expansion. If tlie Chinese were organized by the Japanese in a mass migration movement southwards we should have a major trouble on our hands, because the front door of Australia would be wide open to them.

Senator Dein:

– Does the honorable senator believe in migration?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– That would depend on the type of migrant seeking admission to Australia. During the last few years we have had considerable trouble with Japanese sampans owing to their encroachment on Australian waters. It is high time that the Government entered into negotiations with the Japanese Government with a view to some satisfactory arrangement. Under international law there is nothing to prevent pearl fishing beyond the threemile limit; but since we have only one patrol boat to police the northern waters it is impossible to prevent fishing vessels manned by Asiatics from poaching pearl shell, trochus shell, and other marine products, in our territorial waters. Unless an agreement is reached to restrict their operations, I fear that, in the course of time, our fishing grounds will be exhausted. It has been necessary to take action along these lines to protect the whaling industry in the An tarctic, a portion of which is under Australian control. For many years it has. been the practice of well organized companies in Norway, Sweden and Japan to send mother ships, accompanied by smaller vessels, to engage in whaling in the Antarctic, and so extensive have been their operations that the extinction of the whale was feared. Recently an agreement was reached to limit their operations. We can not dispute the right of Japanese, Javanese, or Malays to search for marine products in waters beyond the territorial limits, but under the conditions which now prevail unpleasant international complications may develop. The Government should negotiate with the representatives of the nations concerned in order to ascertain if some workable scheme cannot be adopted. A veil appears to have been drawn over what is being done in northern waters. While vessels of the Royal Australian Navy are apparently idle, efforts to maintain a form of patrol have been made by a vessel that is unsuitable for the purpose.

I was surprised to hear Senator Hardy refer to closer settlement as if it were a new proposal. Every honorable senator knows that closer settlement has been a pressing problem, particularly in some of the States which, for many years, have possessed legislative authority to resume large estates for subdivision purposes. Even before 1890 and 1S91, when I was in touch with those engaged in the shearing sheds of New South Wales, there was a strong agitation in favour of a closer settlement policy. The Labour party has always supported closer settlement, but even before its advent this policy was favoured by the Liberal and Radical parties.

Senator Dein:

– The Labour party is in favour of a number of things’, but it does not do anything.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Has the honorable senator forgotten that the Labour party was responsible for the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank, the introduction of a White Australia policy and also . for passing numerous tariff schedules, all of which have proved of immense benefit to the Australian people? Senator Hardy, who is comparatively new to’ politics, insinuated that the Labour party has never ‘ taken any action in respect of closer settlement; he overlooks the fact’ that that party has always strongly supported the policy, and whenever possible, has assisted to give effect to it.

Senator Arkins and other honorable senators referred to the GovernorGeneral’s Speech as a most comprehensive and pleasing document. The leading article in the Canberra Times on the 18th June last, mentioned some of the omissions : -

There is nothing in the Governor-General’s Speech to indicate why Parliament was not summoned earlier. There is no vital legislation that justified delay. The Inter-State Commission Bill has been hanging fire for years. Its introduction coincides strangely enough with the time at which politicians usually decide upon their future plans. An amendment of the Seamen’s Compensation Act is no new thought. The Statute of Westminster is a monument to Government procrastination. Other measures to be submitted are in the nature of machinery bills and the ratification of agreements. The most important subject of proposed legislation - national insurance - is mentioned chiefly to explain why it cannot be proceeded with. But the GovernorGeneral’s Speech fails to mention several very important matters that have been before the public since the last meeting of Parliament. The Japanese trade agreement, the protection of our northern coastal waters, the question of constitutional reform and the long-awaited report of the Royal Commission on Banking, find no mention. There is brief mention of the Pacific territories, but none of the .Northern Territory, to which the Government found it necessary to appoint one of its supporters during the parliamentary recess. The Governor-General’s- Speech, as printed, has required the use of eight pages of foolscap, but two and a half pages are blank. That sums it up pretty well.

Senator Dein:

– Does the honorable senator agree with that statement?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– The charges against the Government arc justified. The Governor-General’s Speech, which apparently was hurriedly prepared, could readily be attacked from many angles. Even its accuracy could be challenged successfully. Reference was made to a reduction of shipping freights on certain primary products exported from this country. For many years, Australian shippers have been shabbily treated by the shipping combine in the matter of freights, and a reduction is long overdue.

I have studied carefully the tables in the report submitted by Mr. Ince on. the subject of national insurance, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, the benefits provided are not greater than those now available under the Queensland system. Proposals based on tables contained in that report would be unacceptable to the Australian people, because, in many instances, the rates are not in excess of dole payments.

Senator Arkins:

– How do the rates compare with those paid in Queensland?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– The Queensland system is preferable. A measure providing for a system of national insurance will not be passed this session, and the subject has been brought forward at this juncture merely for political window-dressing purposes. If the present Government should be returned, which is most unlikely, the whole proposal will again be pigeonholed. The Labour party i3 .’he only party that will introduce a scheme acceptable to those entitled to benefits. Senator Hardy and other honorable senators opposite, have- taunted us with the gibe that, although national insurance has been a plank of the. Labour party’s platform for 25 years, we have never done anything to put it into operation. I concede that that is true; but point out that our platform also includes nationalization of banking, and the objective of socialism. These ideals are impossible of achievement while the people are against us, as they have been against us for the most of the last 25 years. It is useless for Senator Hardy, or any one else, to say that we had the opportunity to institute national insurance and should have done so. The honorable senator knows that we had no such opportunity. For the whole of its term the Scullin Government had a majority against it in this chamber. Moreover, its predecessors had so mis-managed the country that the Ministry was occupied for the whole of that period in saving the nation from bankruptcy and national disaster. The depression into which we had been precipitated had effects on the legislative programme that were akin to those of war. It was no time for social reform. It took the whole of Mr. Scullin’® time - and his hair-turned grey in the process - to restore stability to the Common.wealth. The previous Labour government took office almost concurrently with the outbreak of the Great “War. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) was the Minister for Defence in that government, and he had no time to spare for domestic reforms, which invariably go by the board in time of war.

Senator Collings:

– That is why wars are brought on.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Yes. Similarly, when a dictator takes charge, the people can say goodbye to social reform. The only changes a dictator makes are designed to give him fuller mastery of the people”, and, when he gets it, he invites them to look outside at the devils who are threatening danger. Dictators are continually mouthing “ “War “. We see proof of that to-day in Germany and Italy. The only other time when Labour has had power in the Commonwealth was from 1910 to 1913, when it had a majority in both Houses, That government did a lot of good work. For instance, it established the Commonwealth Bank. In the present Government are distinguished men who were members of that first Labour Cabinet, to whom the memory of that time and its events must still be fresh, and who can be proud that they were members of the Labour party. I cannot understand why the Australian people, in 1913, dismissed that government, unless it was because of the traditional fickleness of democracy. It had done splendid work, and deserved an even greater victory than it had had in 1910. I remind the Senate, too, that the field for social reform is far greater now than it was then ; national insurance was not so important then as now. Again, I enjoin the Senate to look at Labour’s platform. There are many things which remain for us to do.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Such as the abolition of the Senate.

Senator J. V. MACDONALD I agree that the abolition of the Senate is necessary, and feel that, if a safeguard be needed, it lies in the adoption of the initiative and referendum. The abolition of the Senate would be a logical sequence of the abolition of legislative councils, to which Senator Pearce himself was at one time committed. I am afraid, however, that the Senate will outlive me, and at least the majority of my colleagues. The expectancy of life of mankind is about 70 years, and generally a man who exceeds that age is no longer fitted for political work.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The Government has been accused of not having put very much into the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, but is that criticism honest? Within the next few months the Parliament will go to the country, and, at this stage, the Government would not be justified in foreshadowing the tremendous programme that it possibly has in mind. Every one knows that in no circumstances could these matters have been given their due consideration in the remainder of the life of this Parliament, and the Government acted rightly in not stuffing the GovernorGeneral’s Speech with more than can be digested before the general election. Senator J”. V. MacDonald occupied one and a half hours in criticizing the Government on the points contained in the Speech. How much longer would he have needed if the Government had had the temerity to put into the Speech the whole of what it has in mind? The present debate has been marked by both extravagant criticism and extravagant praise of the Government. I do not know which does a government most harm. Naturally, in the six years in which this Government has been conducting the affairs of the country, it has made mistakes - it is just as well to admit that - . and some of them may have been ridiculous. By and large, however, the Government has done a good job of work. It dug the country out of a deep hole; placed it once again on solid ground, and restored prosperity much sooner than it has been restored to any other country. Whatever we may think of the mistakes that have been .made, future historians - will record that the Lyons Government undertook a difficult task and accomplished it with success. I, for one, will not deny that the general effect of its policy has been to the great advantage of Australia, and the people should not be quick to forget that. Nevertheless, I. believe that individual members of the Ministry have been guilty either of shocking errors of judgment, or what is equally bad, have been victims of bad luck. One thing which will kill a government quicker than anything else is the laughter of the people. I do not mean the hilarious laughter of the Opposition whenever it has the opportunity to indulge in it, or the rueful laughter of Government supporters who laugh and say, “ “Well, the Government has made a mistake, but we must stick to it.” T mean the derisive laughter of the man in the street. “When a government creates that sort of laughter, it is pretty well at the end of its tether. This Government has, by mistaken loyalty to a ministerial colleague, endangered itself. I concede that a Ministry should take full’ responsibility for any faults or mistakes of a Minister, but when it justifies everything that Ministers have done, either collectively or individually, it ultimately throws the onus on to the party, which then has to justify everything that the Government has done - although dissenting f rom some of its acts. “Worse still, it creates a bad impression in the constituencies, and gives rise to derisive laughter, followed by hostility. “Whether this result comes from poor judgment or bad luck on the part of one or two Ministers is immaterial; the important thing is that no Ministry can afford to carry a Jonah. I repeat that this Government has done a great job of work, and it will be remembered for it, but I warn it that it can carry loyalty to a colleague to extremes, and cannot presume on the good work that it has done. If it has a Jonah or a passenger it must not try to impose his indiscretions on the people of Australia.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Is the honorable senator suggesting that the Ministry has a Jonah?

Senator LECKIE:

– As one instance of the sort of thing that creates derision, I refer to the claim made by the Ministry that its tariff policy is responsible for the large increase of the number of employees in the factories. As the Senate is aware, there are more men engaged in factories to-day than ever before in our history. The Government claimed that it was due to its tariff policy. Could any claim be more childish?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– “What was said was that, despite reductions of certain duties, there had been no reduction of the amount of employment in factories.

Senator LECKIE:

– That is what the right honorable senator says. But one or two Ministers have gone further, and said that the tariff policy pf the Government was responsible for putting men back into the factories. The claim is so ridiculous that it creates derisive laughter in the minds of all who know anything of industry. The Government cannot afford to provoke the people of Australia to derisive laughter. I believe that the improvement is due to the general policy of the Government, but not to its tariff policy.

Senator Cooper:

– It is due largely to the better prices received for Australian primary products.

Senator LECKIE:

– To some extent that is so, but the manufacturers of Australia have also done their share. They have undertaken new works; they have improved their methods; they are turning out goods of better quality ; and they are providing as much employment as they can. Tariff protection -has been reduced by the present Government, and therefore the Government’s fiscal policy could not have contributed to increased factory employment.

Senator Collings:

– Better prices for primary products have led to greater employment.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The position in regard to factory employment improved before those prices rose.

Senator LECKIE:

– I do not say that the Government claims full credit for the improved condition.

Senator Collings:

– It does make that claim in the Governor-General’s Speech.

Senator LECKIE:

– Whatever the cause, the fact remains that during the regime of this Government, Australia has recovered from the depression and has reached a state of semi-prosperity.

I welcome the proposed re-constitution of the Inter-State Commission, although I do not know how, in the absence of judicial powers, it can be effective. The commission may help to remove some of the existing barriers between the States. It would be absurd to claim that there is freetrade between the States. In this connexion, I give credit to Victoria for not having gone so far as some of the other States .have gone in excluding the products of factories outside their own borders. “We are supposed to be Australians, and we profess to believe in providing equal opportunities for all; but a manufacturer in Victoria who wants to sell something to the Government of New South Wales or a municipality in that State, has no , chance of doing so. Similarly, manufacturers in New South Wales and Victoria have not a hope in the world of selling their goods in Queensland. Irrespective of its price, cement manufactured in Queensland must be used in all governmental and municipal undertakings in that State. Moreover, cement required at, say, Cairns must be transported there by rail, notwithstanding that sea freights may be as rauch as £2 a ton less than rail freights.

Senator Collings:

– Would cement from Queensland be used for a job in Victoria ?

Senator LECKIE:

– Yes, so long as its price, delivered on the job, was as low as that of Victorian cement.

Senator Grant:

– For a long time Victoria would not accept Tasmanian potatoes.

Senator LECKIE:

– I am not blaming one State more than another, but am stating a fact of general application to all the States, although I do not think that Victoria is so guilty in this respect as are some of the other States. We should endeavour to he Australians and to give to every one an equal chance, and because I believe th,at the Inter-State Commission will assist in removing the barriers which now exist, I shall welcome its re-constitution.

Senator Collings:

– It will probably mean the removal of an honorable senator from this chamber.

Senator LECKIE:

– I hope that the appointment of the Inter-State Commission will do much to make Australia a federation in fact, instead of a makebelieve federation.

The Speech contained a paragraph relating to a 40-hour week. Senator J. V. MacDonald said that the Commonwealth can introduce a 40-hour week whenever it desires to do so, but his view differs from that of the best constitutional lawyers in this country. The honorable senator said that what can be done in New Zealand can be done in Australia, but he should know that conditions in the two dominions are entirely different. I cannot believe that he really thinks that the Government can, by a stroke of the pen, put a 40-hour week into operation throughout Australia. I agree with the Government that this is a” matter for determination by the properly constituted and unbiassed tribunal which already exists to deal with all matters affecting wages, conditions and hours of employment. Its members are impartial men who have been trained to assess the value of evidence. By its awards both employers and employees are bound. No reasonable person wants any man or woman to work longer than is necessary, but, -after all, the national income has its limits. I am amazed at the distrust of the Arbitration Court displayed by those whom honorable senators opposite represent. The Arbitration Court has to-day decided to increase the basic wage by 6s. a week. Surely that is evi.dence that it is an unbiassed tribunal.

Senator Collings:

– Only a few workers arc effected by that increase.

Senator LECKIE:

– It covers all who come under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. If certain organizations prefer to appeal to State tribunals, they cannot hope to benefit from any increases granted by the Federal Court. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court has done more than show a desire to give to the workers a fair deal ; at times it has erred on their side. For that I do not blame the Court; were I a member of it, I would probably do the same. I mention these things to show that the workers have always had just treatment at the hands of the Court.

Senator Collings:

– Federal awards are still below State awards in many instances.

Senator LECKIE:

– There has been a good deal of criticism of the Government for the delay in bringing in a system of national insurance, but honorable senators generally will agree that full investigation is necessary before an extensive scheme, such as ‘that proposed, is inaugurated. For a scheme to he successful, it must have a proper actuarial basis. It may not be generally known that in social insurance and other direct contributions Australia pays more per capita than does any other country in the world. “We have beentold that 31 countries have adopted schemes of national insurance, but 27 of those schemes would not be adequate for Australia’s needs. The other four countries pay less than Australia pays now for the amelioration of the conditions of the people.

Senator Collings:

– Does not the honorable senator think that a wonderful country like Australia should be able to do more than some of those other countries can do?

Senator LECKIE:

-Yes. I am not complaining that Australia does pay more; but it must be apparent to the honorable senator that Australia can afford to wait a little longer to put a proper scheme into operation than can other countries which have no scheme at all in operation. Moreover, it is obvious that a contributory national insurance system cannot be superimposed upon State schemes for unemployment relief. There must be agreement between the Commonwealth and States as to how and by whom the money is to be provided. The States must first be consulted before any satisfactory scheme can be introduced by the Commonwealth.

Another reason why I welcome the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission is that for some time there has been dissatisfaction with the existing financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. The present haphazard method of dealing with grants to the States, by which the amount varies from year to year, is not conducive to efficient administration. It should not be beyond the capacity of those who control Commonwealth and State affairs to evolve a better arrangement than that which now obtains. It may be that the Commonwealth will vacate certain fields of taxation and leave them entirely to the States, or, should it retain those sources of revenue, that it will hand to the States a proportion of the sums collected.

Opinions may differ as to whether the Commonwealth Government is really responsible for the proposal, but I am very pleased to see that it intends to assist the States with the object of providing vocational training for boys and young men, now between the ages of 18 and 25, who missed their chance during the depression. It might be argued that the Commonwealth Government is practically exceeding its duty in making grants to the States for this purpose. Nevertheless, it is a commendable gesture and the object in view is a good one. I, for one, do not begrudge the proposed grant of £200,000, or even double that amount, to the States for this purpose. Throughout Australia to-day, artisans are being sought after and any worth his salt can get a job, especially in the heavy industries. If many more men were trained in this direction, in a way similar to that adopted after the war, this Government would be doing excellent work.

Senator Marwick spoke of the apprenticeship law; he suggested that before a boy became apprenticed he should be allowed a probationary period of twelve months in which he or his employer could decide whether he was fitted for that calling. I do not wish to criticize the honorable senator, because I realize that he was in earnest, but for some years I have served on the Victorian Apprenticeship Committee and have had experience in dealing with thousands of apprentices. Honorable senators can accept my advice for what it is worth, but I believe that it would be a very great mistake to provide for a probationary period of twelve months as suggested by Senator Marwick. If such a probationary period were provided for, an employer would have no obligations at all towards an apprentice in that period; he would not be obliged to teach him anything and, if it suited him, he could claim that the youth was unfitted for that particular work and dismiss him. There are some unscrupulous employers who would take advantage of such a provision, and these would readily use a probationary period of twelve months for the purpose of getting cheap labour. In Victoria, the law once provided for a probationary period of six months.

Sena tor Marwick. - I shouldbe satisfiedwith a probationary period of six months.

Senator LECKIE:

-Well, in Victoria, after working on that basis for three years the representatives of the employers and employees on the Apprenticeship Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that six months was too long a period, and induced the Victorian Government to reduce it to three months. We believe that that period is sufficiently long to enable an apprentice, or his employer, to find out whether a lad is fitted for a particular vocation. I point out, however, that the Victorian law provided a safeguard insofar as it enabled the parties to have particular indentures cancelled if, after a period of service, say, up to six or eight months, it was mutually agreed that the boy was absolutely unsuitable. As a warning to Senator Marwick, I point out that if a comparatively long period of probation were provided, many evils which he cannot now foresee would creep in, and, as one who has had experience in the handling of apprenticeship matters, I urge him to be very careful before pressing his suggestion.

Senator Marwick:

– A probationary period of twelve months has been proposed to the Youth Employment Committee.

Senator LECKIE:

– Nevertheless, I happen to know a little about this matter from first-hand experience.

Senator Marwick:

– I greatly appreciate the honorable senator’s advice.

Senator LECKIE:

– I compliment Senator Allan MacDonald upon the plain and straightforward manner in which he dealt with the position at Yampi Sound. He approached this matter from an entirely new and interesting angle, and there seemed to be a lot behind his arguments.

Without any intention to deride them, I shall now refer to certain statements made by Senator Hardy in which, contrary to the practice of most honorable senators, he endeavoured to give us something constructive. He suggested that revenue derived from land tax should be devoted to the furtherance of closer settlement, and likewise that revenue from the petrol duty should be entirely devoted to the. construction and maintenance of roads. If that argument were followed to its logical conclusion, it would lead to absurdities ; if all revenues collected by way of land tax, or petrol tax, were to be expended solely for the benefit of those sections from whom it is collected, then it would be equally logical to suggest that revenue derived from excise duty on beer and whisky should be spent for the benefit of consumers of those beverages. Plausible as the honorable senator’s argument appears on the surface, further examination shows it to be absurd.

In conclusion, I repeat that despite the criticisms that have been launched against the Government - and there have been many - despite its faults and little slips - some of which have been ridiculous - it has done a good job of work, and I do not believe for one moment that the people of Australia are going to be so ungrateful at the next election as to forget that this Government lifted Australia from the depths of despair to its present heights of prosperity. Sitting suspended from 6.12 to 8 p.m.

Senator BRENNAN:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP

– I commence by congratulating the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the

Address-in-Reply upon -the manner in which they treated the subject entrusted to them. Of course, we claim that we provided them with some good material for a speech. We contend that the GovernorGeneral’s Speech was an inspiring record of work well done, and of encouraging promises for the future.

Senator Collings:

– That is the first time I have heard it suggested that the Governor-General’s Speech is an inspiring document.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I realize that the Speech is not pleasing to the Leader of the Opposition, but his disapproval, I suggest, is one of the best tributes to its worth. The more he criticizes the Speech, the more certain we may feel that, whether considered as a record or a forecast, it contains nothing that will be an inspiration to him or to his party. My honorable friend dealt in detail with several subjects mentioned in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, and early in his remarks, touched on the subject of loyalty in his accustomed manner. The leopard, it has been said, cannot change its spots. Accordingly, it was not long before we had convincing evidence of the honorable gentleman’s real sentiments. They came out not so much in his prepared utterances as in his unrehearsed outpourings. He displayed plainly that lack of loyalty to existing institutions which is so much a part of his political make-up. I think we can say that, whether in connexion with Australia, the land of his adoption, or in connexion with the Empire of which Australia forms a part, and of which he is a citizen, the honorable gentleman’s real sentiments of disloyalty to existing institutions are constantly disclosed.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator cannot cite one instance of that.

Senator BRENNAN:
VICTORIA · UAP

– I shall endeavour to do so. The second paragraph of the Governor-General’s Speech referred to the widespread enthusiasm everywhere displayed in connexion with the coronation of Their Majesties the King and Queen. That I take it was an appropriate reference to be contained in such a document.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear!

Senator BRENNAN:

– My honorable friend expresses approval, yet his criticism of the coronation celebration, an event of world-wide importance, was that it occasioned considerable expense to the country.

Senator Collings:

– The two things are entirely different - the coronation ceremony and the institution.

Senator BRENNAN:

– What are the facts? We know that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people took part in the celebrations in Great Britain, and I remind the honorable gentleman that those people included the very poorest citizens of London. It would not be too much to say that in proportion to their numbers, the poorer classes of the community were more fully represented at the coronation celebrations in England than was any other section of the people. If thenwe consider the material aspect of the Coronation, what do we find? It is quite true that it cost a great deal of money; but the greater part of that expenditure was for labour, and therefore was of substantial benefit even to the poorer classes throughout Great Britain. In his attitude to the ‘Coronation the Leader of the Opposition displayed a most niggardly and grudging spirit. He complained that money had been expended in doing honour to His Majesty and in carrying out in a fitting manner celebrations which are emblematic of our Empire’s extent and greatness. That was the honorable senator’s attitude to the King. What was his attitude to His Majesty’s representative? Senator Dein, when speaking yesterday, referred to the ungenerous remarks of the Leader of the Opposition concerning His Excellency the Governor-General and you, Mr. President, ventured the opinion that the incident might be considered as ended.

Senator Collings:

– And, in deference to the President, the Minister is now again mentioning it.

Senator BRENNAN:

– That is not so. The President did not rule that it would be out of order to refer again to the matter, and I direct attention to it in order to compare the honorable gentleman’s professions of loyalty with his remarks on Friday last. I go the length of saying that his observations involved disrespect not only to His Majesty the King and to the King’s representative, but also to the Empire as a whole.

Senator Collings:

– Is that all the Minister can think of? Cannot he say something worse about me?

Senator BRENNAN:

– We on this side do not think it necessary to proclaim our loyalty. We are content that it may be taken for granted. We are proud to be regarded as citizens of the British Empire.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear!

Senator BRENNAN:

– This being so, we consider it in extremely bad taste for any member of this chamber to refer to distinguished visitors from the heart of the Empire as “ imported gentry “, just as we would resent very much if distinguished Australians now in Great Britain were referred to in the House of Commons in similar terms.

The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition also indicate disloyalty to Australia. The honorable gentleman never gets up to make an important speech without directing attention to what he alleges are the unsatisfactory social conditions existing in Australia - conditions, which, I am convinced, exist only in his disordered imagination. He always pictures the people of this country as being on the verge of starvation, and although this may not be his intention, his speeches always have the effect of stirring up class hatred. They convey the impression that the condition of the poorer sections of the community is due to the rapacity and dishonesty of the richer people. When he came to the references in the Governor-General’s Speech to the marked financial recovery that has taken place in Australia, and the improvement in the employment position, what was his attitude? Does he rejoice that the Speech contains such a pleasant story? Not at all. On the contrary, he said that the figures relating to improvement are absolutely and wholly unreliable, and he ridiculed the statement that, the present satisfactory position could not have been achieved but for the patriotic co-operation of the people as a whole, and the patient endurance of those who were the greatest sufferers during the depression. He does not think that the people, whom he says he is so proud to represent, should have been complimented for the endurance which they displayed during that trying period.

Senator Collings:

– That reference in the Speech is not a compliment, but a cowardly insult to those people.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The honorable senator always takes the most unpleasant view of anything this Government may do, and as regards the reference in the Speech to the attitude of the people during the depression, he says it is untrue, and the worst “piffle” he has ever heard.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear!

Senator BRENNAN:

– I admit that the figures relating to the improvement in respect of unemployment, are incomplete. I admit that they cover only the number of trade unionists reportedas unemployed, but the basis of computation in 1937 was the same as that employed in 1932, so, as an indication of the unemployment position, the figures are quite accurate, and show that the position has substantially improved. And will the honorable gentleman deny that the people of Australia showed patient endurance during the period of depression ? The Leader of the Opposition on Friday, and his colleague, Senator J. V. MacDonald this afternoon, told us that tens of thousands of persons were ruined during the depression. It is quite true, I suppose, that tens of thousands of persons were then in straitened circumstances, and possibly a great number of them have not recovered. Nobody denies that, but it is a plain fact that the people of Australia did, in the depression years, show patient endurance in very trying circumstances.

Senator Collings:

– How bravely the honorable senator bears the ills of others.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I am speaking of what the people did, and I repeat that they showed patient endurance.

Senator Collings:

– The Minister means that they did not revolt.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Exactly. There was no disorder, no protest, and no mean attempt to shift the burden on to other people. The sufferers in the depression stood up to their obligations and showed a. most commendable endurance.

Senator Collings:

– All the gaols were full, and there was more distress in the land than ever before.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The gaol and the morgue appear to be the honorable gentleman’s refuge whenever he wishes to become particularly terrifying. I repeat that, although the people suffered greatly in the depression years, they bore their trials with remarkable fortitude ; so much so, that the casual visitor to Melbourne or Sydney, at. that time, would have found that all the picture theatres had their quotas of patrons; that the races were well patronised, and the football matches had full attendances. In fact, if a visitor had stayed for a fortnight or so in any of our capital cities during those years, he would never have known from surface indications that the people were suffering from a depression. But recovery came in due time, andSenator Collings, with his usual liberality of sentiment, claims that no credit is due to this Government for what has been done.

Senator Collings:

– I did not say that.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The honorable senator said that no credit was due to this Government for the financial recovery of Australia.

Senator Collings:

– I said that this Government was claiming all the credit when, as a matter of fact, it was not entitled to all of it.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Wi th great respect to the honorable senator I repeat that he gave no credit to this Government for what it had done. I took down his words at the time, so 1 am not mistaken; and I recall that when Senator Dein referred to this matter yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition interjected that credit for the financial recovery was due to the Scullin Government. 1 have nothing to say by way of criticism of Mr. Scullin, but if he was the captain of the team in 1931, all J. can say is that he was surrounded by a very unruly crew.

Senator Collings:

– I was not a member of the crew.

Senator BRENNAN:

– No; but the honorable senator was hanging about in one of the small boats, looking for a position, and hoping to become one of the crew. A great deal of the credit is due to the presence on the treasury bench of the Lyons Government, and its action. I first came into this chamber in May, 1931, and no one, not even my honorable friend who was not here then, could have any idea of the spirit of the depression which hung over these Houses of Parliament at that time. Talk of the fiduciary note issue was in the air, tampering with the currency was suggested, repudiation of interest was being advocated, and political control of the Commonwealth Bank was being sought; the average decent citizen of this country did not know what was before him. Mr. Lang’s Government was in power in New South Wales. That Government went out of office, and the Lyons Government assumed office in the Commonwealth sphere, and immediately the whole atmosphere changed.

Senator Collings:

– The Assistant Minister makes my flesh creep.

Senator BRENNAN:

– What I am saying is true. The whole atmosphere changed from the moment the Lyons Government came in ; but more particularly when the Lang Government was removed from office. From that day, conditions have continued to improve. If we are to learn from the past - and it is the only way in which we can learn anything there, would be a great likelihood that. similar conditions would return, although possibly not so bad, if the people of this country should, as I have the greatest confidence they will not, replace the present occupants of the treasury bench by the representatives of any other party by whomsoever led.

I do not propose to delay the Senate further than to make one or two references to matters mentioned during the debate this afternoon. One is the subject of malnutrition, concerning which a good deal was said by Senator J. V. MacDonald and Senator Brown, and the other is the 40-hour week, which was dwelt upon at some length by the former honorable senator. In respect of malnutrition, he has used out of their context some remarks which were said to have been made by the Minister for -Health (Mr. Hughes).

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– They were taken’ from a report of his speech published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Possibly a correct report. But I should like to remind the honorable senator that the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament in respect of health are strictly limited. The only reference to health matters contained in the Constitution is to be found in the one word “quarantine”. If the right honorable the Minister for Health cited on the public platform certain figures relating to health, it wa3 not by way of complaint that the Commonwealth Parliament has failed in its duty, but was because he desired to direct the attention of State governments to a serious aspect of a matter which comes within their purview.

In regard to the 40-hour week, also, the Commonwealth Parliament has very limited authority; it has no general -powers in respect of hours of labour. The only jurisdiction it possesses is that which is conferred by the industrial arbitration provision in the Constitution. The Arbitration Court has certain Australia-wide powers, but the Government does not control the Court, nor was that ever intended. One of the main purposes in setting up an Arbitration Court was that it should be independent of governments; and it is. The Arbitration Court can deal only with disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State, and can deal only with plaints brought before it. Let me remind honorable senators opposite that there has been no great desire during the last few years on the part of their friends to bring before the Arbitration Court the subject of a 40-hour week. They have not ventured to go to the Court and say, “ We think that we are entitled to a 40-hour week in this industry.”

Senator Collings:

– What a godsent instrument is the -Constitution to a “ donothing “ government.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Sen ator J. V. MacDonald said that if the Labour party were returned to power, it would bring in a 40-hour week. If my honorable friends of the Opposition were vested with the responsibility in regard to hours of labour and they examined what their powers were, their gallantry would soon disappear; they would realize that they had not the powers which they thought they possessed. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) would attempt to ride through the Constitution, but he would be prevented from doing so by the High Court.

Senator Collings:

– There is no need to ride through the Constitution.

Senator BRENNAN:

– We have either to ride through it or obey it. We are obeying it in this instance.

Senator Collings:

– And the people are hungry because of the Government’s obedience.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that we should not obey the Constitution? I should like him. to state his attitude.

Senator Collings:

– The Assistant Minister should not be forever pleading the Constitution as an excuse for doing nothing.

Senator BRENNAN:

– We plead it as an excuse for not doing something, which’ some honorable gentlemen who should,but do not, understand the Constitution, say that we can do.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– If some employees are working 40 hours, why should not others.?

Senator BRENNAN:

- Senator J. V. MacDonald instituted a comparison between the action taken by the New Zealand Government and the attitude adopted by the Commonwealth Govern ment. That point has been adequately replied to by Senator Leckie, and I can only express my astonishment at the suggestion of Senator J. V. MacDonald. Surely, he realizes the difference between a unitary constitution such as in New Zealand, where the Parliament has power over all subjects whatsoever, and a limited constitution like that of the Commonwealth, in section 51 of which the powers of this Parliament are strictly denned.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I realize that. If a Labour Government were in power would it not be capable of introducing a 40-hour week with the consent of the States?

Senator BRENNAN:

– The Commonwealth Government can provide a 40-hour week for its own employees.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– And to all employees with the consent of the States.

Senator BRENNAN:

– If the States surrendered their powers in that respect that would be a drastic amendment of the Constitution. The people of Australia have always shown that they will not readily agree to amend the Constitution.

Senator Arkins:

– Is it not a fact that malnutrition is due not so much to insufficient food, as to unsuitable food ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– The people have not the money to buy suitable food. Unemployed single men receiving 17s. a. week could not buy it.

Senator BRENNAN:

– That raises the subject of national insurance, which is too comprehensive a question to be dealt with at this juncture. It was discussed at length this afternoon. Its mention in the Governor-General’s Speech was not mere window-dressing. The subject requires a great deal of investigation, not only by the electors, but also by the State governments. We do not expect for a. moment that a national insurance scheme will be passed during the life of this Parliament, but certain details based on the report of Mr. Ince, which is now before honorable senators, have been made available, so that they may be studied. If such a system can be effectuated on the lines indicated by Mr. Ince, I believe, in spite of the sneering references of -Senator J. V. MacDonald to an allowance of 17s. a week during unemployment, that it would be a tremendously beneficient thing for the people of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 235

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSINREPLY

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) - by leave - agreed to -

That the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General’s Opening Speech be presented to His Excellency by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany him.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the AddressinReply to his opening Speech at Government House at 11 a.m. to-morrow. I invite as many honorable senators as can make it convenient to do so, to accompany me on that occasion.

page 235

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1937

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
ern Australia - Minister for External Affairs · West · UAP

[8.29].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the re-constitution of the Inter-State Commission, and to define its powers. Section 101 of the Constitution, which requires the establishment of an InterState Commission, reads -

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

The appointment and tenure of members of the commission is dealt with in section 103 of the Constitution, which provides that -

The members of the Inter-State Commission -

Shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council;

Shall hold office for seven years,but may be removed within that time by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliamentin the same session praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity ;

Shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but such remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Other provisions of the Constitution relating to the commission are to be found in sections 102 and 104 which deal with preferences and discriminations on State railways, and in section 73 which gives the High Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders, &c, of the commission, but as to questions of law only.

These provisions contemplate the passage of legislation by Parliament before the commission would be properly equipped for carrying out the important functions which the framers of the Constitution intended it to have. Accordingly, in 1912 the Inter-State Commission Act was passed. This act, in addition to providing for such matters as the qualifications and salaries of members of the commission, set out the classes of investigations the commission was charged to undertake. Part V. of the act purported to confer judicial powers on the commission, and it was because of this part that the commission was shorn of very great powers within two years after it commenced to function. I shall refer to this matter later.

On the 11th August, 1913, the original commission came into being with the appointment of Mr. A. B. Piddington, as chairman, and Messrs. Swinburne and Lockyer as members. The commission forthwith proceeded to investigate, under instructions from the Commonwealth Government, the effect of the tariff acts then in force. Other inquiries undertaken by the commission included investigations of the price of commodities and the trade relations of. Australia with the islands of the Pacific. While the commission was engaged on the inquiry into the tariff acts, complaints were made to it that the Government of New South Wales, by seizing certain parcels of wheat which were the subject of inter-State trade, had contravened the provisions for inter-State freetrade contained in section 92 of the Constitution. The commission, in pursuance of its purported judicial powers, investigated the complaints and found, by .a majority, that the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 of New South Wales, by virtue of which the State government seized the wheal, was invalid as being an infringement of section 92. The Government of New South Wales appealed to the High Court against this decision. By a majority judgment the High Court held that section 101 of the Constitution - the section creating the commission - did not authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth to constitute the commission a court, or to give to it judicial powers, or to confer upon it the general power to restrain contraventions of inter-State trading rights. The High Court also held that Part V. of the act, which dealt with the judicial powers of the commission, was beyond the power of the Commonwealth Parliament.

As I have already pointed out, the establishment of the commission is provided for in the Constitution itself. In the words of that learned constitutional writer - Sir John Quick - the Inter-State Commission was “ one of the fundamental and basic institutions of the federal system “. The Royal Commission on the Finances of Western Australia as affected by federation expressed the view that

Parliament could not continue to ignore the constitutional requirement that a commission be appointed. The report stated on page lix-

Tlie creation of an Interstate Commission is one of the terms of the federal partnership agreement. It is in the bond.

The royal commission appointed to inquire into the finances of South Australia also recommended the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission or the establishment of an independent body for a limited period for the purpose of considering and advising on applications for grants to States. The Commonwealth Grants Commission is, of course, a body similar to that mentioned in the alternative recommendation of the royal commission, but the proposed functions of the Inter-State Commission will be much more extensive in scope than those of the Grants Commission. In recommending the re-constitution of the Inter-State Commission, the Royal Commission on the Constitution dealt in some ‘ detail with the functions with which the commission could be entrusted. I refer honorable senators to pages 249-250 of the royal commission’s report. Referring to section 102 of the Constitution by which it is provided that no preference or discrimination by any State with respect to railways is to be taken to be undue and unreasonable or unjust to any State unless so adjudged by tlie Inter-State Commission, the royal commission stated -

Although preferences or discriminations by means of freights on railways have to some extent been adjusted by agreement among the railways commissioners, we think that there is still need for some supervision over freights designed to attract goods from their natural geographic or economic outlets.

The royal commission proceeded to point out that many important duties might be carried out by an Inter-State Commission in addition to those mentioned in the Constitution and in the act of 1912. It instanced grants to States as- a matter which could be undertaken and expressed the view that -

A permanent body should be established which should continuously watch the effect of federal laws and administrative machinery on the various States, and should be in a position to advise, either with or without a special inquiry, whenever applications for grants are made to the Commonwealth.

Professor Hancock, of the University of Adelaide, states in his hook Australia that there is an urgent need to reestablish the commission or else to set up some other body fit to act in the matter of assistance to States as “ eyes and ears of Parliament “ to use the words of Alfred Deakin.

There is thus a considerable body of well informed opinion in support of the proposal for the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission or some such body, and having regard to the requirements of the Constitution, the Government believes that the commission will serve a valuable purpose in dealing with large questions affecting the relations between the Commonwealth and the States and between the States themselves. As to the latter class of questions, matters of considerable importance in relation to the effect of State legislation on interstate commerce have in the past been litigated in the High Court between the States, and it is conceivable that similar problems will arise in the future. Questions of fact are usually involved in these problems and it may well be that the commission could investigate and report on such questions.

With the re-constitution of an InterState Commission, a body will be in existence to act as a standing commission of inquiry to which could be referred many of the matters now entrusted to royal commissions and similar bodies. There arc many advantages in having a permanent investigating body adapted to undertake inquiries and make reports as to ‘matters upon which the Parliament may bc asked to legislate. The availability of information and recommendations of an independent body such as the commission would prove inestimable in the consideration of the many important problems that confront the Commonwealth Government and would greatly facilitate the work of the Parliament itself. I think it will be agreed generally that it is essential to the proper carrying out of administrative and governmental functions that the authority upon whom responsibility rests for making a decision should he possessed of the best available information and the arguments for and against a particular course of action. At present the Commonwealth Government has the advantage of the reports of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the Tariff Board, and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, besides the assistance of the staffs of the various public departments in dealing with problems presented for its consideration.

Several suggestions were made before the Royal Commission on the Constitution during 1927 and- 1928 as to the class of inquiries that the commission might be asked to undertake. For instance, it was suggested that it could inquire into laws which place some States at a disadvantage as compared with others. These laws may not, perhaps, infringe the Constitution, and, in consequence, it would not be possible to have them considered by judicial bodies such as the High Court. The commission could, however, consider the effect of such laws and, having at its disposal all the machinery for obtaining evidence, it may be expected that such matters would receive very full consideration; moreover, the evidence would be so sifted that a government which had to consider the matter could confidently accept the facts found by the commission as the basis for legislative or other action.

The proposed commission would necessarily require the services of an expert staff to obtain and collate information under the direction of the commission. As time goes on, a trained investigation staff would be developed. This staff would be recruited largely from the Public Service. At the present time, skilled assistants are made available to royal commissions. These assistants are largely drawn from the Commonwealth Public Service, and, upon the completion of the work of a royal commission, return to their respective departments. As the result of their association with a royal commission, these public servants not only obtain much useful information concerning the subject under inquiry, but also receive a valuable training in the methods employed by the commission in pursuing its investigations and making its reports. Now, this training, although of great use to an officer in his subsequent duties in his particular department, is of a character which could be used to greater advantage if the officer were continuously employedupon duties of an investigatory nature. It is obvious, I think, that the continued employment of such officerswith the commission will result in the conservation and coordination of the efforts of these trained officers, and the commission would thus have at its disposal men to whom it could confidently entrust the duty of compiling, collating, and dissecting reports, statements, statistics, and accounts, assisting in the preparation and indexing of reports, and duties of a like nature.

I come now to the provisions of the hill itself. In the first place provision is made for the appointment of three commissioners, who are to constitute the commission. One of the commissioners will be appointed chairman, and will receive a salary of £2,500 per annum. The salary of each of the other commissioners will be £2,000. In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the commissioners will be appointed for a period of seven years, and may not be removed from office except by the GovernorGeneral on an address from both Houses of the Parliament praying for removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. One of the commissioners, not necessarily the chairman, must have been a justice, judge, barrister or solicitor. It is inevitable that inquiries into certain matters, possibly of an ancillary character, must be made that might not warrant the whole commission undertaking a long journey. Provision has therefore been made for the commission to delegate an inquiry to one of its members, but the member conducting such an inquiry must report his conclusions back to the full commission.

The general powers of the commission are set forth in clause 18 of the bill, which reads as follows : -

  1. – (1.) The commission shall inquire into and report to the Governor-General upon -

    1. any anomalies, preferences or discriminations alleged to exist in relation to inter-state commerce;
    2. any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Constitution relating to inter-state commerce;
    3. applications made by any State to the Commonwealth for the grant by the Parliament of financial assistance in pursuance of section ninetysix of the Constitution ;
    4. any matters relating to grants of financial assistance made in pursuance of that section by the Parliament to any State which are referred to the commission by the Governor-General ;
    5. any matters, relating to the making of any grant of financial assistance by the Parliament to any State in pursuance of that section, which are referred to the commission by the Governor-General ;
    6. any matters concerning the financial relations between the Commonwealth and any State; and
    7. any other matters, whether related to any matter specified in the preceding paragraphs of this section or not, which the Governor-General refers to the commission.

Honorable senators will see that in these provisions there is no restriction of the grounds upon which a State may base its application for a grant for financial assistance. A State may choose its own grounds, and present to the commission evidence supporting its request upon those grounds. There is no narrowing of the grounds upon which a State may base its applications; they may be as wide as the State may care to make them.

Honorable senators will observe that these powers consist of powers of investigation and report. So far as matters relating to trade and commerce are concerned - and these are the matters for which the establishment of the commission is necessary - the investigation may be instituted upon either reference by the Governor-General or the complaint of any State. The commission will then proceed to make investigations, and will report its conclusions to the GovernorGeneral, after which any action which may be necessary to give effect to its findings, whether that action be of a legislative, judicial or administrative character, may then be taken by the Commonwealth.

In addition to the investigation of matters relating to trade and commerce, it is also proposed that the commission shall assist the Commonwealth, and obviate the expense of establishing other tribunals, by inquiring into and reporting on certain other matters. These matters are set forth in paragraphs c to g of clause 18. Honorable senators will recognize in paragraphs c, d and e the matters at present within the scope of the Commonwealth Grants Commis- sion. In consequence of the proposed transfer of functions, it will be no longer necessary for that body to continue to operate, and provision is made in the bill for the repeal of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1935, together with that portion of the Port Augusta to Port Pirie Railway Act which amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act.

Paragraph / relates to any matters concerning^ the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States - not merely to the making of grants by the Commonwealth. Important questions relating to the financial relations of the Commonwealth and States are likely to arise from time to time, and it may frequently be of material assistance to the Commonwealth to have such questions fully investigated by an impartial and independent tribunal such as the InterState Commission.

Paragraph g empowers the commission to investigate” and report on any other matter referred to it by the GovernorGeneral. . This power may frequently enable the Commonwealth to avoid the expense of establishing a royal commission to inquire into a particular matter.

Part IV. exercises the power conferred on the Parliament by section 102 of the Constitution to forbid the giving of unfair preferences by a State by means of railway rates. This power is conferred subject to the provision that no undue preference shall be deemed to exist unless first adjudged so by the Inter-State Commission. Although the functions of the commission under this part are merely to investigate and report, the actual proceedings will be, in effect, something more. The investigation will he in reality the first step in legal proceedings to restrain. The Commonwealth, a State, or any of the several local authorities and associations enumerated in clause 23, may make complaint to the commission that a State railway is giving unfair preferences. The commission may then investigate the matter and report to the GovernorGeneral .

Senator E B Johnston:

– Would it have power over Commonwealth railways?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Yes ; under its general powers of inquiry. If the report disclosed that the complaint was well founded, the AttorneyGeneral might then take the necessary legal proceedings in the High Court to restrain the State concerned from continuing the unfair preference. The saving provisions of sections 102 and 104 of the Constitution, which provide that, in determining whether there is an unfair preference, regard shall be had to the financial obligations incurred by the State in connexion with the railway and to the necessity for developing territory in a State, are preserved in the bill.

In connexion with inquiries hitherto held by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, provision is made for the report of the commission to be tabled before the Parliament before any proposed law to give effect to the report is introduced. A similar provision appears in the bill. All other matters will necessarily be included in the annual report of the commission, and that is required to be tabled within fifteen sitting days after its receipt by the Governor-General.

The usual provisions are made empowering the commission to compel the attendance of witnesses arid the production of documents and to take evidence on affirmation or oath. As a rule, evidence is to be taken in public, but where it is desirable in the public interest so to do, the commission may take the evidence in private. Where the evidence relates to trade secrets, or to the profits or financial position of any witness or party, the evidence must, if a request be made, be taken in private. Provision is also made for the protection of witnesses from any retaliatory action by an employer or any one else.

Such, in outline, are the prinicipal features- of the bill; but, before concluding, I desire to refer Once again to the provision relating to the initiation of inquiries on, the complaint of any State. In this right of initiation, the States are to be given a very real power to bring before the public notice any anomalies, . preferences or . discriminations alleged to exist in relation to interstate commerce. It is real in the sense that any State which feels that it is .being unfairly affected by Commonwealth legislation as to trade will have a statutory right to bring its complaint before an independent body empowered to investigate the complaint and report the result of the inquiry to the Governor-General. The inquiry would normally be conducted in public, and a State would not be hampered in any way in the full presentation of its complaints to the commission. No Commonwealth government would be so unmindful of its responsibilities as not to give earnest consideration to any recommendations of the commission. If the commission had no other function than to inquire into and report on the complaints of States, its re-establishment would be amply justified. It is a great hindrance to the healthy development of a State for either its government or its people to labour under a sense of injustice resulting from the operation of Commonwealth legislation or policy. If a grievance is well-founded, it is desirable that it should be communicated to the authority capable of remedying it. The bill provides machinery not only for the making of the complaint, but also for its investigation by a body other than the authority empowered to remedy any grievance that is the subject of the complaint.

In commending the bill to honorable senators, I therefore ask them to bear in mind, in the first place, that tlie Constitution requires that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, and, secondly, that there is abundant scope for the exercise by the commission of its proposed powers of inquiry into matters deeply affecting the smooth working of the Constitution.

The States, secure in the knowledge that their grievances will be entrusted to a body in which they can repose their trust, will be in a position to proceed to carry out their policies for the betterment of the peoples within their respective jurisdictions, and to co-operate more contentedly in the great work which the Australian people set themselves to do when they federated in 1900.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 240

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL 1937/

Second Beading.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for External Affairs · Western Australia. · UAP

[8.55]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Australia is a party to an International Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field, signed at Geneva on the 27th July, 1929.

This convention, which is popularly referred to as the Geneva Convention, came into force, so far as Australia is concerned, on the 23rd December, 1931, six months after the deposit of the’ instrument of ratification.

The convention is concerned with the treatment of the wounded and sick of combatants in time of war. The protection of medical staffs and buildings and equipment is also provided for. In order to assist in the protection of the medical services’ of armed forces, the convention makes provision for a. distinctive emblem by which such services may be readily differentiated from the combatants. This emblem, namely, a red cross on a white ground, may figure on flags, armlets and material belonging to the medical services with the permission of the competent military authorities. Under Article 24 of the convention, the emblem of the red cross on ‘ a white ground and the words “Bed Cross”, or “Geneva Cross” are not to be used in times either of peace or of war, except to protect, or to indicate the medical formations and establishments and the personnel and material protected by the convention. Certain voluntary aid societies may use, in accordance with local law, the red cross in. connexion with their humanitarian activities in time of peace.

With a view to protecting the red cross from being used in circumstances other than those permitted under the convention, Article 28 requires the governments of the high contracting parties whose legislation is not at present adequate for the purpose to take the necessary legislative measures to prohibit, in certain circumstances, the use of the red cross and the arms of the Swiss Confederation and imitations thereof. Clause 4 of the bill sets out the circumstances in which the red cross and those arms are not to he used. It provides that a person shall not, without the authority of the Minister, use for the purposes of his trade or business, or for any other purpose whatsoever, the red cross, the words “ Red Cross “, or “ Geneva Cross “, or the federal colours of Switzerland.

The convention referred to is not the first one dealing with the protection of the red cross and the words “Red Cross” or “ Geneva Cross “. A convention dated the6th June, 1906, also dealt with this matter, and legislation to ensure this protection was enacted in the United Kingdom in 1911. The Geneva Convention Act. of 1911 applied throughout His Majesty’s dominions. That act and the convention of 1906 do not, however, cover the protection of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, nor imitations of the red cross, which matter is dealt with in Article 28 of the new convention. The Parliament of the United Kingdom recently passed an act to enable effect to he given to Article 28. That act is limited in scope, because of the existing legislation of 1911, which covers several of the matters dealt with in Article 28. It is not proposed that this measure shall be extended to the Commonwealth, and in order to make it quite clear that the Commonwealth has the necessary power to enact legislation to give effect to Article 28 a special provision - section 2 - was inserted in the British act. Section 2 also enables the Commonwealth Parliament to enact that the act of 1911 shall cease to extend to the Commonwealth and its Territories. Accordingly, the present hill deals with all the matters referred to in Article 28 of the convention, and provides for the termination of the extension of the 1.911 act to the Commonwealth and the Territories of Papua and Norfolk Island.

In effect, the bill docs no more than provide for the protection, in so far as Australia and the Territories are concerned, of the colours of the Swiss Confederation and imitations of the red cross. This being its object, I confidently commend the measure to the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 241

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL 1937

Second Reading

Senator BRENNAN:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP

. -I move -

That thebill benow read a second time.

This bill is designed to give control over the importation and exportation of that group of medical remedies which are known under various names but which may be brought together under one general description as substances of biological origin. Perhaps the two most familiar of these substances are diphtheria anti-toxin, us an example of a substance prepared by bacterial action, and insulin, as an example of a substance prepared from animal glands. These two will serve to indicate the type of remedies, the control of which is contemplated by the bill.

It is obviously necessary that these substances shall comply with the following basic requirements: -

  1. they shall be true to a determined standard, that standard having an official and legal status ;
  2. they shall be free from contaminations, more especially from bacterial contamination ;
  3. they must be properly and safely packed ; and
  4. they must be accurately labelled as to dosage.

All of these are obvious and necessary precautions for the sale of these remedies, which are not like ordinary chemicals, prepared in the mass according to wellrecognized processes, but, being prepared from living tissue or from the actionof bacteria, are more sensitive and require more delicate methods of analysis. An official standard for the composition and quality of these remedies has been the subject of a great deal of laboratory investigation which has resulted in the formulation of international standards laid down by a committee especially appointed for this purpose by the League of Nations. It has notbeen possible to take action earlier as these standards have only recently been formulated. They are now being rapidly adopted by the principal countries and the bill is designed to enable the Commonwealth to fall into line with other countries in adopting these standards for therapeutic substances and prescribing the necessary precautions in respect of their manufacture, transport, and sale.

The ambit of the’ bill is limited to imports and exports and follows closely on the lines of English legislation dealing with the same subject. There will be complete reciprocity between countries, so that these substances prepared under official supervision in, for example, England and America, will be recognized on arrival in Australia, and, similarly, preparations exported from Australia’ will be recognized in importing countries. The bill provides simple machinery giving the Minister power to license importers so as to give an official supervision over the channels of importation Hnd to supervise the preparation of these substances for export. Provision, is also made in respect of the necessary analyses to determine whether the dosage as prescribed on the label adequately represents the strength of the preparation so labelled. There is complete accord on this ma’ f,er between the Commonwealth and States, the State representatives on the Federal Health Council having recognized that such action should lie taken; and it is anticipated that this lead given by the Commonwealth will b8 followed by State regulations, so that the system will be uniform and include imports and exports and preparations manufactured within Australia, in respect of which the same standards will be recognized by all authorities.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

Senate adjourned ‘at 9.5 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 June 1937, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1937/19370623_senate_14_153/>.