Senate
8 August 1940

15th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 303

QUESTION

APPRAISEMENT OF HIDES

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

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

Has any action been taken to permit manufacturers of footwear in Tasmania to have the appraisement of hides, for Tasmanian use, carried out in that State, instead of the manufacturers having to bear the extra expense of freight between Tasmania and Melbourne for that purpose?

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answer : -

I understand that there are only two tanneries in Tasmania engaged in the tanning of hides. Prior to the commencement of the hide and leather marketing scheme, inquiries concerning hide dealings in Tasmania allowed that Hobart tanning interests obtained most of their hide supplies from Melbourne and Sydney, and that there was no direct overseas export of Tasmanian hides, which were forwardedeither to Melbourne or Sydney. For those reasons no arrangements were made for the appraisement of hides in Tasmania. Some months ago, when there was a general shortage of hides in Australia by reason of tanners’ increased requirements, the Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board mode arrangements for Tasmanian tanners to purchase their hide requirements direct from local suppliers, which is not permitted in other States, at prices in accordance with the table of limits for Victorian hide auction sales classifications and prices, less the estimated cost of freight that would be payable to transport the hides fromTasmania to the mainland. That is, in effect, their ordinary value. It does not appear that the establishment of a hide appraisement centre in Tasmania is necessary.

page 303

QUESTION

SEIZURE OF BOOKS

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · CP

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Information, upon notice -

  1. In authorizing the seizure of books, pamphlets and other publications from persons suspected of being or known to be associated with subversive organizations or activities, did the Minister have prepared a list ofsuch books, pamphlets or other publications proposed to be seized, or did he instruct the officers responsible to use their own discretion?
  2. If sucha list was prepared, will the Minister supplya copy to the membersof the Senate for their informaton?
  3. If such a list was not prepared, will the Minister state if the officers responsible were qualified by an educational test to judge the nature of the books, pamphlets and other publications seized by them?
  4. If the officers responsible wore not so qualified, is it the intention of the Minister to have all such books, pamphlets and other publications which have been seized by them examined by other officers who are qualified, for the purpose of classification?
  5. Will the Minister state what is intended to be done with the books, pamphlets and other publications which have been seized, and if it is intended thatthey shall be retained by the Government or returned to the owners ?
Senator COLLETT:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Repatriation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Minister for Information has supplied the following answers: -

  1. No.
  2. See answer to question No. 1.
  3. The search was conducted by experienced officers and it was not considered necessary to put any special educational test to them before seizing the books.
  4. The Attorney-General has called for a list of the books, and officers are at present examining them.
  5. Amending Regulations (Statutory Rules 1940. No. 152) were made recently to permit of the expeditious disposal of books seized.

page 303

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT IN MUNITIONS FACTORIES

Senator KEANE:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -

Will the Minister inform the Senate what the Government purposes doing with the 31,000 men and women registered in Melbourne for employment in the munitions factories of Victoria?

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

– The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answer: -

Additional employees required for the government munitions establishmentsare being drawn from the registered list, and it is thought that a number of these applicants who possess the necessary skill, who cannot immediately beemployed in munitions establishments, may be absorbed in industries that will be expanded as a result of the Government’s munitions production programme.

page 304

QUESTION

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN RADIO TELEPHONE SERVICE

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What is the charge for a three-minute conversation with a person in Britain?
  2. What is the charge made for the same length of time to a soldier’s wife or relative?
  3. If there is no reduction in the charge made, will the Government give consideration to granting a reduction to soldiers’ wives or relatives?
Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The charge for a conversation of three minutes duration from Australia to Great Britain is normally £410s. on Mondays to Fridays and £3 on Saturdays. 2 and 3. By arrangement with His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom the Anglo-Australian radio telephone service has been suspended since the outbreak of war.

page 304

QUESTION

FLAX FIBRE

Senator AYLETT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice-

  1. Will the Minister supply an answer to my question of the 30th May, relating to the termsand conditions of the contract entered into between the Federal Governmentand Flax Fibres Proprietary Limited for the processing offlax fibre?
  2. What was the price offered to the Australian Government by the British Government when it forwarded 400 tons of flax seed and asked Australia ‘to grow a quantity of flax for the British Government?
  3. Will the Minister inform the Senate which is the most essential product he requires the farmers of Australia to produce to assist in the war effort, apart from flax?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Before the contract was finally made, the British Government requested the assistance of the Commonwealth in stimulating flax production and as a result the pro posed contract with Flax Fibres Proprietary Limited, has been deferred. The Commonwealth, will control all flax production in Australia this year. The price per ton will be relative to the value of the fibre.
  2. Various prices have been named by the British Ministry of Supply ranging from£96 sterling per ton to £180 sterling per ton c.i.f. English ports according to quality of the fibre.
  3. Senator McBride, Assistant Minister for Commerce, made a statement yesterday on agricultural questions.

page 304

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Rentalofoffices

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What is the annual rental for the rooms occupied by the personnel of the Empire Air Force in the recently constructed Century Building at the corner of Swanston and Little Collins streets, Melbourne?
  2. Who pays this rental, the British Government or the Commonwealth Government?
  3. Howmany of the persons employed there have been enlisted for administrative duties as distinct from ground personnel and intheair personnel?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The replies to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -

  1. There are no rooms occupied in Century Building by personnel of the Empire Air Force. All the rooms occupied are occupied by personnel of the head-quarters of the Royal Australian Air Force. The annual rental is £14,549.
  2. Commonwealth Government.
  3. Personnel employed at Century Building consists of: - Royal Australian Air Force officers. - General duties branch, 50; administrative branch and special duties branch, 22; equipment branch, 15; medical branch, 7; commissioned warrant officers, 11; total 105. Airmen. - Clerks, 210. Civilians.- Clerks, typists, messengers, cleaners, &c., 300. Total,615.

page 304

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

colour PATCHES.

Senator BRAND:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the colour patches worn by the present Australian Imperial Force infantry are the same as those worn by the old Australian Imperial Force infantry, with the exception of the 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th Battalions ?
  2. If that be so, will the Minister give instructions for the colour patches of these famous battalions to be “ perpetuated “ in the Australian Imperial Force?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers : -

  1. No, there are other units which are not represented.
  2. As far as possible all distinguishing colour patches, as issued to the various unite of the original Australian Imperial Force, are being reproduced with a light battleship grey background and allotted to units of the second Australian Imperial Force. Owing to the change of organization in the present force from that of the original Australian Imperial Force, some differences are unavoidable, as the actual number of battalions in a division has been reduced. The unite mentioned by the honorable senator were initially part of the First Division, but were subsequently transferred to form part of the Fourth Division of the original Australian Imperial Force. It is hoped that it may be possible for the colours of the 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th Battalions to be reproduced and allotted to units of the second Australian Imperial Force.

page 305

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF CANNED FRUITS

Senator BRAND:

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

  1. What quantity of canned fruits has the British Government purchased since the declaration of war, from the United States of America and Australia respectively?
  2. What was the price per dozen tins in each transaction, and how docs it compare with the 1938-39 price?
  3. What is the increased percentage in freight and insurance due to war risk?
  4. What are the prospects of the balance of this year’s pack being sold to the British Government ?
  5. Is it a fact that the average expenditure of £23 per acre is entailed before harvesting; if so, can the Minister give any guarantee as to what quantity of next season’s pack will be sold to the British Government?
  6. If not, will the Government take steps to ensure preference being given to Australian canned fruit?
Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers : -

  1. I have no official advice as to what quantity of canned fruits has been purchased from the United States of America. The United Kingdom Government has purchased 750,000 cases of Australian canned apricots, peaches and pears from the 1940 pack.
  2. I have no official advice regarding American prices. As far as Australian prices are concerned, as we are still negotiating for the sale of the balance of the 1940 pack, and other countries are also negotiating with the United Kingdom Government in competition with us. it is not considered advisable to disclose the prices at present.
  3. Freight rates have increased from £2 10s. per ton to £4 5s., equivalent to 70 per cent. War risk insurance has increased from1/4 per cent. to 4 per cent., an increase of 1,500 per cent. These costs were borne by the British Ministry of Food, as the purchase was on an f.o.b. basis.
  4. Representations are being made by the Commonwealth Government to the United Kingdom Government in an endeavour to dispose of the unsold balance of the 1940 pack.
  5. I have no information concerning the average expenditure per acre before harvesting, and am not in a position to give any guarantee in connexion with the disposal of next season’s pack.
  6. All possible steps will be taken to ensure that the best arrangements will be made for next season’s exports.

page 305

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND POTATOES

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

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

How many sacks of potatoes were rejected by the New South Wales authorities from those imported from New Zealand this year?

Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answer: -

The New South Wales authorities ordered that approximately 1,200 sacks of New Zealand potatoes should be picked over. A large proportion of these was. however, rebagged and sold as No. 1 grade; those from which a small portion had been cut were sold as No. 3 grade; a small number would have been rejected entirely.

Australian-grown potatoes, as well as New Zealand potatoes, are frequently picked over on the wharf.

Senator AYLETT:

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

  1. Who purchased the potatoes recently imported from New Zealand - the Government, or Sydney merchants?
  2. What price per ton was paid for them f.o.b. New Zealand?
  3. What quantity was purchased, and is the supply of New Zealand potatoes into Australia to continue, regardless of the thousands of sacks now awaiting shipment on Tasmanian wharves for Sydney?
Senator McBRIDE:

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The arrangements for the importation of New Zealand potatoes provided for the marketing to be undertaken by the New Zealand Internal Marketing Department. The Producers Co-operative Distributing Society, Sydney, is acting as Australian agents for the department.
  2. See answer to No. 1.
  3. Arrangements were made in June for the New Zealand Government to export approximately 5,000 tons of potatoes to Australia - 1,000 tons per month for the months of July, August and September, and 2,000 tons at a later date - to meet a shortage in the Australian supply. Latest advices indicate that under normal conditions the Australian market will absorb the total Tasmanian production and the New Zealand shipments. In the meantime to conserve the Australian stocks, deliveries from Tasmania are being regulated. By this means it is hoped that a shortage with its accompaniment of high prices will be averted later. Under the arrangements made for controlling supplies, excess stocks on the wharves in Tasmania are not being allowed to accumulate, and no deterioration has taken place in Tasmanian potatoes on account of New Zealand shipments, lt was necessary to introduce these shipments gradually over a period, because there was no guarantee that shipping space would be available for concentrated shipments in a short period when the Tasmanian supplies were approaching exhaustion. In. controlling shipments the Government is maintaining a constant check upon supplies available not only in Tasmania but nieo in the other States, and every effort is being made to regulate weekly deliveries in accordance with the supplies available and with the desire of the Government to maintain a price that is equitable to both producers and consumers.

page 306

QUESTION

PRODUCER-GAS UMTS

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -

  1. In view of the impending petrol rationing scheme, has the Government given consideration to measures designed to encourage the manufacture and use of producer-gas units?
  2. If so. can the Minister give any information on this subject?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answer: - 1 and 2. The Government has already given, and will continue to give, every encouragement to the manufacture and use of producergas units. A technical advisory committee has been set up at my ‘department, and facilities have been provided in some States and are in course of establishment in the other States whereby manufacturers may submit their units for test and approval. A Director of Substitute Fuels has been appointed for the purpose of implementing the Government’s decision that the production and use of substitute fuels, including producer gas and charcoal, should be extended to the utmost limit. A producer-gas committee has been set up in each State to investigate and advise on any producer-gas and charcoal problems which manufacturers and users may have. The Government recently guaranteed the sale of 425 producer units with a view to encouraging their manufacture by mass production methods.

page 306

QUESTION

GLEN DAVIS SHALE OIL

Senator ASHLEY:
through Senator Keane

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that last December the Government refused assistance to the company at Glen Davis for the production oE an additional 20,000,000 gallons of petrol yearly?
  2. Is it a fact that the assistance desired was exemption from excise similar to that provided in tho agreement on the production qf the first 10,000,000 gallons yearly?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answers : - 1 and 2. During December, 1939, the Government gave consideration to the action that would be necessary to increase the output of the Glen Davis shale oil project by a further 20,000,000 gallons of petrol per annum, but it was found that it would be preferable to defer consideration of the matter until more reliable information could be obtained following upon the more advanced development of the project towards the original anticipation of output of 10,000,000 gallons of petrol per annum. Since that date the Government has decided to protect all shale and coal spirit to the extent of 7.4d. per gallon over imported petroleum spirit and 5.5d. per gallon over petrol refined in Australia from imported crude oil for a period of fifteen years on the understanding that there will be no limit as to the quantity which can be produced; but production must be undertaken within the next two years. These were the full rates of duty which applied to these imported products prior to the outbreak of war. It is expected that, as a result of this protection, production will be expanded at Glen Davis and will be undertaken in other localities.

page 306

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -

In regard to the rationing of petrol, will the Government give first and special consideration in supplying petrol to those country residents who need petrol for carting wheat and other produce, and similar purposes, and whose only means of transport between their farms and the railway is by motor transport?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answer: -

The Commonwealth Liquid Fuel Control Board includes a representative of the rural industries in its personnel, and the honorable senator may be assured that the interests of those country residents who require petrol for the cartage of farm produce will be adequately safeguarded.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -

  1. In view of the necessity for petrol rationing, will the Minister inquire into the alleged waste caused by overlapping and lack of coordination of motor transport at military camps, as reported in the newspapers?
  2. Will the Minister consider the appointment of a transport co-ordinating officer to conserve petrol supplies?
Senator FOLL:

– The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. There is no evidence of waste by overlapping and lack of co-ordination of motor transport at military camps. Horse transport has been provided at camps for short distance haulage in order to conserve petrol.
  2. No. Ample safeguards are provided at present.

page 307

QUESTION

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES REGULATIONS

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Co-ordination, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that regulation 15 of the National Security (Fire-arms and Explosives) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1940, No. 108) has been amended?
  2. If it has not been amended, will the Minister state whether an order has been privately issued to the New South Wales police countermanding regulation 15 of the above regulations ?
  3. If such an order has been issued, will the Minister inform the Senate who are the persons concerned in thus interfering with a Commonwealth law ?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Defence Co-ordination has supplied the following answers : -

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to No. 2.

page 307

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT

Motion to Disallow Regulations

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That regulations Nos . 1, 2, 3 and 4, under the National Security Act 1939-1940, contained in Statutory Rules 1940, No. 128, be disallowed.

I have moved for the disallowance of the regulations in Statutory Rules, No. 128, issued under the National Security Act passed on the 21st June, 1940, because these regulations, which are the first instalment of industrial conscription, supersede Statutory Rules, No. 91, issued on the 24th May, 1940. Clause 2 of regulation 59a reads - (2.) The training and employment of any person in accordance with any such arrangement shall be lawful notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment other than the National Security Act 1939, or in any instrument (including any award, determination or agreement) having effect by virtue of any such enactment, but nothing in this regulation shall authorize the imposition of any form of industrial conscription.

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Statutory Rules, No. 91, are identical with clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Statutory Rules, No. 128, with the exception that the vital words “ nothing in this regulation shall authorize the imposition of any form of industrial conscription” are omitted from clause (2) of thelatter. The omission of these words, which are so vital to the workers of Australia, have compelled me to move for the disallowance of the regulations. The Minister cannot deny that those words havebeen omitted, and that the amended regulation means the removal of the safeguard which existed to prevent industrial conscription. The regulations issued on the 24th May, 1940, prohibited any form of industrial conscription ; but on the 21st June the Government amended the legislation to permit the marshalling of men, women and children and to subject them to certain forms of industrial compulsion. The Defence Act provides that only persons between the ages of 18 and 60 years can be called up for military service in the Commonwealth; tout under these regulations there is no age limit, and it is possible to apply industrial conscription to boys and girls of fourteen years of age and under. These regulations give the Government the right to take children from the control of their parents and to place them in industry, and in that way prevent their parents from directing their education. They can also be deprived of the right of determining the employment in which they shall be engaged. That can. be done unless their parents can give good reasons why their services are required elsewhere, or they are able to secure a permit to leave their present place of employment. Under the regulations no employer could accept them for service unless they produced from their previous employer a certificate that they had completed their term of employment or that their employer was prepared to allow them to leave. This is the first step to secure deliberate control over the people of Australia. In effect, clause 1 of regulation 59a provides that if it appears to the Minister that the efficient prosecution of the war is likely to be prejudiced by reason of a shortage of persons skilled in any particular trade, he may introduce other persons into the industry. This, of course, will lead to the dilution of labour, which will be done on the recommendation of Mr. Essington Lewis or of a State Munitions Board. Naturally the Minister would agree to any request made by those authorities. Therefore employers would be subject to the direction of authorities other than this Parliament. Who are the members of these boards which have such power? Let us examine the political credentials of the sponsors of the so-called Labour representatives. Sir Phillip Goldfinch, who is the chairman of the New South “Wales Munitions Board, is manager of the sweetest of all monopolies, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, and a former United Australia party member in the New South Wales Parliament. There is also Mr. T. J. Hartigan, Railways Commissioner for New South Wales, and Mr. F. Kneeshaw, general manager of the Australian Portland Cement Company. He was, and may still be, a member of the United Australia party consultative council. As a New South Wales senator I am not well acquainted with the . personnel of the Munitions Boards of Victoria and Western Australia. In Victoria the chairman of the State Munitions Board is Sir Alexander Stewart, consulting engineer and director of various industries, including subsidiary companies of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. He is not likely to be a Labour sympathizer, and does not appear to me to be a suitable selector of labour representatives. Sir Alexander has the valuable support of Mr. Norman Harris, chairman of the Victorian Board of Railways Commissioners, and Mr.

Charles Ruwolt, a leading engineering industrialist. In Western Australia the chairman of the board is Mr. R. 0. Law, the president of the Cham’ber of Manufactures. The other members of that board are Mr. Ellis, the Railways Commissioner ; Mr. Brisbane, a leading manufacturer; Mr. Tomlinson, a leading industrialist, and Mr. F. Mills, the chief mechanical engineer of the Western Australian Railways. In view of the power given to Mr. Essington Lewis he is virtually Parliament, Cabinet and Prime Minister combined. The workers will not forget that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is the greatest iron and steel monopoly in the world, and has for years been an industrial octopus and the arch-enemy of the workers. The socalled labour members appointed to the Munitions Board include Mr. Cranwell, of New South Wales, who was not appointed by the Australasian Council of Trade Unions or the Trades and Labour Council, and was not recommended by any union. He was appointed ‘by those who control the Munitions Board in New South Wales. In Victoria the labour representative is Mr. Cleary. His appointment was not recommended by the Australasian Council of Trade Unions or by the trade unions. In Western Australia Mr. Trainor, who is the labour representative, was recommended, not by labour organizations, but by persons who support this Government. The Prime Minister admitted in the House of Representatives yesterday that the labour representatives were selected and appointed by the Munitions Boards. The trade-union movement did not recommend these people for the jobs, and, as a consequence, trade unionists will not have any more faith in them than they have in other members of the Munitions Board. Apparently, on the recommendation of such men as Mr. Essington Lewis the Government has already agreed to the dilution of labour in some defence industries. Under regulation No. 2 the Government is empowered to break all arbitration awards whether they have been made by agreement between the parties or by decisions of the arbitration courts. Clause 3 of this regulation permits the dilution of skilled labour by unskilled or juvenile labour. This is a most extraordinary procedure. In Australia there is ample scope for the absorption of unemployed in key industries, without resorting to the use of juvenile or female labour. There is a danger that this action will give rise in Australia to the same state of affairs which existed in Great Britain during the last war, when women and children were given jobs in munitions factories. On that occasion the trade unions were promised that the measure was only a temporary one, and that normal conditions would be reverted to upon the cessation of hostilities. That promise was not honoured and’ now, although 25 years have elapsed, the men have not gone back into the factories. Instead they are on the unemployed scrap-heap. Women are doing their jobs. The same thing will happen in this country if these regulations are not disallowed. Under this provision for the dilution of labour unscrupulous employers will be able to employ skilled men at labourers’ wages.

Clause 4 of regulation No. 2 provides, amongst other things: -

For the purposes of this regulation “ munitions of war “ includes the whole or any part of any ship, submarine, aircraft, tank or similar engine, arms, ammunition, bombs, torpedo, mine, or other article, material or device . . .

That means that this regulation applies to almost every Australian industry. It applies to any “ article, material, or device “ and is so far-reaching that it will affect practically every factory in the Commonwealth.

Senator Dein:

– Why not finish the paragraph ?

Senator AMOUR:

– Very well - . . (whether actual or proposed) intended or adapted for use in war.

That does not affect my claim that the regulation will cover every industry and every factory in Australia. It will cover the production of screws, boots, clothes, food, all rural products and, in fact, almost everything that is made in this country, because, directly or indirectly, all articles produced are used for war purposes.

Senator Dein:

– That is not so.

Senator AMOUR:

– I doubt that Senator Dein knows enough about this matter to interpret correctly these regulations. If he seeks expert advice he will discover that the language is so comprehensive as to include all industries. Obviously it is the intention of the Commonwealth Government to industrially conscript the workers of Australia. Mr. Essington Lewis will have complete control of the various munitions boards and, through them, of the lives of the people of this nation. For that and other treasons, these regulations should be disallowed. Surely no honorable senator is in favour of taking away from the working man his individual rights. Clause 1 of regulation No. 3 states -

An employer shall not engage any employee to whom this regulation applies unless he produces -

a document signed by the employer by whom he was last employed stating that he has consented to the termination of that employment; or

a written permit issued by the Director of Labour, Department of Munitions, or by a person authorized by him to issue such permits.

I have here a letter written by Mr. A. S. Ford, manager of the small arms factory at Lithgow, to Mr. W. F. Cannon, 6 First-street, Granville, New South Wales, stating -

With reference to your telephonic conversation with our Mr. Forsyth, requesting certificate of permission to leave the employment of this factory, you are hereby notified that as you have already left this factory without permission, no future action can be taken. However, we would inform you that should you be desirous of again seeking employment at this factory in the very near future, your application will receive every consideration.

Believing that this Statutory Rule 128 under the National Security Act would not become operative until the following Monday, this man Cannon and twelve others decided to leave the Lithgow small arms factory on the Friday. They discovered subsequently that these regulations which were laid on the table of the House only yesterday had become effective as from the 5th July. As a consequence, the men are now unable to obtain employment anywhere else, unless they first return to Lithgow and receive certificates of permission to leave that factory.

Senator Dein:

– Why did they leave their jobs at Lithgow?

Senator AMOUR:

– Because they believed that when the National Security Regulations were introduced they would be unable to receive increments in their wages. They were offered better jobs and they decided to leave Lithgow.

Senator McBride:

– Apparently they did not want to help the war effort.

Senator AMOUR:

– Of course they did. But they saw no reasons why they should not be able to help the war effort and, in accordance with their democratic rights as Australians, benefit themselves at the same time.

Senator Gibson:

– Who offered them better jobs and better pay?

Senator AMOUR:

– They sought better jobs and better pay. Surely that is the prerogative of every man and woman in Australia. These regulations prevent advancement and destroy initiative. Regulation No. 4 prevents an employer from offering an employee wages in excess of those provided in the second schedule. That is a denial of the first principle of arbitration, which merely fixes the minimum in awards. It compulsorily makes the minimum the maximum, and leaves no margins for tie recognition of skill and efficiency. Clause 2 of regulation No. 4 does not reduce the higher marginal rate payable to persons engaged before the introduction of the regulation, and as a consequence, an undesirable state of affairs will arise in factories in which men doing the same work on the same machines will be paid different rates of pay. Fully-skilled men going into defence industries now will not be paid the same wages as others who went in prior to the making of these regulations, although their work in each case is identical.

Senator Dein:

– This regulation does not reduce wages.

Senator AMOUR:

– That is so, but it does not allow an employer to pay a greater margin than that provided in the second schedule. Clause 2 of regulation No. 4 reads -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Regulation the pay of any employee who, at the commencement of thisRegulation was employed in any of the classifications mentioned in the Second Schedule to these regulations and was in receipt of a higher marginal rate (exclusive of hourly hiring and shift allowance) than is specified for that classification in the second column of that schedule shall not be reduced by reason of this regulation.

That means that if an employee were working in an industry prior to the making of these regulations, and was receiving a higher remuneration than that specified in the schedule, he would not be reduced in salary; but should a man obtain employment in a factory now, then, despite the fact that he might be doing the same kind of work and using the same machines as his fellow employee, he would not receive the same extra margin. That state of affairs would foment trouble in a factory. For that reason I ask the Government to disallow the regulations.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– All that was understood when the bill was agreed to.

Senator AMOUR:

– When the bill was before the Senate we told the Government what would happen. Senators Armstrong, Arthur and myself voted against the bill because we knew that these regulations would follow. We do not propose to interfere with the first or second schedules which merely set out classifications and marginal payments. So far, it would appear that the Government does not intend to attack these standards; but no doubt they will be attacked in the future. We shall not be a party to any interference with them because we regard them as the irreducible minimum.

SenatorFOLL (Queensland - Minister for the Interior) [3.44]. - I am quite sure that there is no need for me to ask the Senate not to agree to the motion submitted by Senator Amour, who claims to be the leader of what he calls the non-Communist Australian Labour party. The attacks made by the honorable senator upon some of the most reputable trade-union leaders in this country contrast strangely with his claim to be the leader of any section of the Labour party. This agreement has been entered into between the Government and the Amalgamated Engineering Union solely for the purpose of enabling us to proceed as rapidly and efficiently as possible with the manufacture of our munitions requirements. Senator Amour knows that the greatest difficulty with which we have been confronted in the past in this connexion has been a serious shortage of skilled labour.

Senator Cameron:

– Whose fault is that?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– I can lay the blame foi such a state of affairs largely at the door of the honorable senator and his political friends.

Senator Cameron:

– For years the Government has allowed young men to go untrained.

Senator FOLL:

– The short-sighted policy supported by the honorable senator of refusing to allow boys to be trained as artisans is very largely responsible for the position that we are faced with at the present time. In entering into this agreement with the Government, the Amalgamated Engineering Union has shown far more patriotism than Senator Amour has exhibited this afternoon in moving for the disallowance of these regulations. The honorable senator endeavoured to lead us to believe that the regulations provide for what he termed the conscription of labour in every walk of industry. He knows perfectly well that exactly the reverse is the case. The regulations provide for the carrying out of an agreement in relation to certain classes of labour which are set out definitely in the first schedule. Honorable senators are aware of the numerous appeals made by the Government for the co-operation of workers of all classes in order to enable us to utilize our manpower in industry to the full in carrying out our war programme. The regulations are designed to help us to achieve that objective. In addition, the rights of workers affected are completely protected under these provisions. Senator Amour objected to any prohibition designed to prevent skilled men from travelling from shop to shop, with a view to securing higher wages. ‘ Every honorable senator will admit that in view of the urgency of munitions manufacture, we should do everything possible to prevent competition of that kind. Indeed, that has been one of the difficulties with which we have been confronted when we have previously attempted to utilize our skilled labour to the full. As the result of open competition between shops, operations in various units in munitions manufacture were seriously disturbed and the output retarded.

Senator Keane:

– So far as he should understand it, will the Minister outline the union’s attitude in respect of this regulation?

Senator FOLL:

– The union is a party to this agreement, which is set out in the Gazette, of the 8th July, signed by the president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union.

Senator CAMERON:
CP

– -Does the agreement provide for the issue of these regulations?

Senator FOLL:

– I have here a copy of the agreement, and the honorable senator can study it for himself. I do not propose to go over all of the ground covered by Senator Amour, because he made a series of mis-statements, and dealt with many matters which are irrelevant to the subject. Sub-clause b of regulation No. 3 provides that a permit to enable a worker to transfer from one shop to another, or from one industry to another, may be issued by the Director of Labour in the Munitions Department. To-day, that office is occupied by Mr. Chifley, who was a member of the Scullin Labour Government. At this moment, Mr. Chifley is in conference in Victoria endeavouring to settle a minor dispute which !has arisen in connexion with defence works coming under the control of my department. When the dispute developed, I was glad to seek his advice and help in clearing up the matter. Under this regulation, Mr. Chifley is empowered to grant a permit to a man to transfer from one factory to another. However, it is ridiculous for any honorable senator to suggest at a time such as the present, when we require the services of all skilled workers in the prosecution of our war effort, that we should not adopt this system for the dilution of labour. Every honorable senator knew that this was the Government’s idea when the matter first arose, and insofar as the Government’s proposal was embodied in the National Security Act, only three honorable senators voted against it. Consequently, it cannot be said that any honorable senator was not aware of the Government’s intention to proceed along lines as set out in the regulation to which objection is now taken.

Senator Sheehan:

– The regulation represents a flagrant abuse of the powers given to the Government.

Senator FOLL:

– That is not so. The interests of the men have been safeguarded in every possible way. The rates of pay set out in the regulation are well above the ordinary award rates, whilst better conditions are provided than is the case in other industries. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government should not take a stand on this matter, and provide that, wherever practicable, skilled men shall apply their craftsmanship in a way in which they can best contribute towards the country’s war effort.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– A similar responsibility should he placed upon the employer.

Senator FOLL:

– That is being done. This regulation will apply just as much to the employer as to the employee ; it will prevent an employer from endeavouring, by the offer of more attractive wages and conditions., to induce workers to leave employment in munitions factories.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Under the act itself, an employer is prohibited from engaging a man who leaves hi3 employment in munitions factories.

Senator FOLL:

– That is so. “When we consider what we are up against to-day, we realize to what degree our war effort is dependent upon the services of our skilled workmen. Consequently, the Government says that it shall have first claim on the services of these men, which are so valuable to us in our present need. Our soldiers who are serving in England and Palestine will demand that we utilize to the full the skill and brains of our craftsmen in order that we may be able to supply to them the munitions and guns necessary to enable them to play their part effectively in the sphere of hostilities.

I point out that no complaint against this agreement has emanated f rom the members of the union concerned. Tt has simply come from Senator Amour, who is protesting simply because of the political “scrapping” that is going on in the ranks of honorable senators opposite. The honorable gentleman said that those who claimed to speak on behalf of the men involved were not leaders of industrial unions. The gentlemen who signed the agreement on behalf of the union are industrial leaders of the highest repute, and they render a far greater patriotic service to Australia than Senator Amour when he seeks to have this regulation disallowed. Under the regulation, unscrupulous employers will be prevented from inducing skilled workers to leave employment which is most vital to the interests of this country. If the schedule of rates, which forms pari of the regulation, were to disappear to-morrow, the wages of the men concerned would be automatically reduced by approximately 6s. a week. If honorable senators opposite had had the same experience that I have had in connexion with the construction of defence works, they would readily realize the necessity for this system of the dilution of skilled labour. Recently, in order to expedite construction on certain defence works, we found ourselves obliged to draw on skilled labourers engaged on unimportant private work. It was in connexion with that matter that I sought, Mr. Chifley’s intervention.

Senator Amour indulged in cheap sneers at the expense of industrial leaders, whom he described as prominent members of the United Australia party. That shows just what kind of a man the honorable senator is. There is no greater or better industrialist in this country than the Director-General of Munitions Supply, Mr. Essington Lewis, the head of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. As a member of the Ministry, I have had the opportunity to witness the industrial revolution that Mr. Lewis has brought about since taking control of the Munitions Department. Honorable senators may be interested to know that ever since the outbreak of war he has given the whole of his time to the service of this country without one farthing reward. That is more than can be claimed by Senator Amour. The way in which Mr. Lewis . has organized industry in this country is a tribute to his genius. We should go down on our knees and thank God that we have a man like him willing to devote himself to the interests of the nation in its time of crisis. Who are the other men at whom the honorable senator gibed? Every one of them is a man who has been responsible for the creation of industry and employment in Australia. They should not be sneered at in this Senate because they have been successful in the industrial world and are ready to come forward and give their services to this country at this time. These men have all done something big in life, built ships, erected factories, created new industries and given work to thousands of people. Yet in consequence of a political feud in the party opposite, they are sneered at by a man like Senator Amour, who is not fit to clean their boots. I say that because I have knowledge of the service that they have given. There if no reason why the regulations should be disallowed, and I am certain that they will not be. The regulations are working well. The interests of the men are protected ; I know of no request from them that there should be any breaking of the arrangement that exists. The men engaged in the production of munitions realize the responsibilities that have been cast upon them. I am convinced that after the vote has been taken the regulations will continue to operate and that the defence programme will go on undisturbed.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– We have not yet had time to study these regulations. Copies were not available until this afternoon. In order to enable us to confer with the unions involved, I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - The Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to do that.

The motion that we are debating is that Statutory Rule No. 128 be disallowed. On behalf of the Opposition, I have promised over and over again to co-operate with the Government in its war emergency measures, and I shall stand by that promisein the vote that I shall cast on this motion.

The regulations under the National Security Act 1939-1940, which the Senate is asked to disallow, are to he found in Statutory Rule No. 128 of 1940, which reads -

I, the Governor-General in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Regulations under the National Security Act 1939-1940.

Dated this fifth day of July, 1940.

Gowrie

Governor-General

By His Excellency’s Command,

Robert G. Menzies

Minister of State for Defence Co-ordination.

National Security (Employment) Regulations

  1. These Regulations may be cited as the National Security (Employment) Regulations.

In order to appreciate fully the significance of these regulations, it is desirable to refer to the National Security Act itself. This is Act No. 15 of 1939. It reads as follows : -

An Act to make provision for the Safety and Defence of the Commonwealth and itsterritories during the present state of War. [Assented to 9th September, 1939.] Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excell ent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: -

This Act may be cited as the National Security Act 1939.

This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “Australia” includes the Territories of the Commonwealth; “ Commonwealth officer “ means any person holding office under the Commonwealth, and includes any person permanently or temporarily employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth or in or in connexion with the Defence Force, or in the service of any authority or body constituted by or under any Act; “ constable “ includes any member of the Police Force of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, and any Peace Officer appointed in pursuance of the Peace Officers Act 1925; “ the present state of war “ means the state of war existing between His Majesty the King and Germany during the period commencing on the third day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirtynine, at the hour of nine-thirty o’clock post meridiem reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory and terminating on the date of the issue of a proclamation that the war between His Majesty the King and Germany has ceased; “ the present war “ means the war between His Majesty the King and Germany existing during the present state of war.

This Act shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as are prescribed, to every Territory of the Commonwealth.

– (1.) Subject to this section, the Governor-General may make regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the Commonwealth and the Territories of the Commonwealth, and in particular -

for providing for the apprehension, prosecution, trial or punishment, either in Australia or in any Territory of the Commonwealth, of persons committing offences against this Act;

the taking of possessionor control, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of any property or undertaking; or

the acquisition, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of any property other than land in Australia;

for prescribing any action to be taken by or with respect to alien enemies, or persons having enemy associations or connexions, with reference to the possession or ownership of their property, the conduct or non-conduct of their trade or business, and their civil rights or obligations;

for prescribing the conditions (including the times, places and prices) of the disposal or use of any property, goods, articles or things of any kind;

for requiring or authorizing any action to be taken by or with respect to aliens, and for prohibiting aliens from doing any act or thing;

for applying to naturalized persons, with or without modifications, all or any of the provisions of any regulations relating to aliens;

for requiring any person to disclose any information in his possession as to any prescribed matter;

for preventing money or goods being sent out of the Commonwealth except under conditions approved by any Minister of State:

for authorizing the entry upon or search of any premises; and

for providing for the charging, in respect of the grant or issue of any licence, permit, certificate or other document or the giving of any consent for the purposes of the regulations, of a fee not exceeding Five pounds. and for prescribing all matters which, by this Act, are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for the more effectual prosecution of the present war, or for carrying out or giving effect to this Act. (2.) Any provision of any regulation made under this section with respect to aliens may relate either to aliens in general or to any class or description of aliens. (3.) The regulations may provide for empowering such persons or classes of persons as are prescribed and thereto authorized in pursuance of the regulations, to make orders, rules or by-laws for any of the purposes for which regulations are authorized by this Act to be made, and orders, rules and by-laws so made shall not be deemed to be Statutory Rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act 1903-1934. (4.) Section forty -eight (except paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1.) and subsection (2.) ) and section forty-nine of the

Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1937 shall apply to orders, rules and by-laws, which are of a legislative and not an executive character, in like manner as they apply to regulations. (5.) The Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1937 shall apply to the interpretation of any orders, rules or by-laws made in pursuance of the regulations in like manner as it applies to the interpretation of regulations, and, for the purposes of section forty-six of that Act, those orders, rules and by-laws shall be deemed to bo Acts. (6. ) Where a regulation made in pursuance of this Act confers a power to make orders, rules or by-laws, the power shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to rescind, revoke, amend or vary any such orders, rules or by-laws.

I draw particular attention to the next sub-section - (7.) Nothing in this section shall authorize -

  1. the imposition of any form of compulsory naval, military or air-force service, or any form of industrial conscription, or the extension of any existing obligation to render compulsory naval, military or air-force service; or
  2. the making of provision for trial by courts-martial of persons not subject to naval, military or air-force law under the Naval Defence Act 1910-1934, the Defence Act 1903- 1939 or the Air Force Act 1923.

    1. Unless the contrary intention appears, any provisions contained in, or having effect under, any regulation made under this Act shall-
  3. in so far as they specifically impose prohibitions, restrictions or obligations in relation to ships, vessels or aircraft, or specifically authorize the doing of anything in relation to ships, vessels or aircraft, apply in relation to all ships, vessels or aircraft in or over Australia, and in relation to all ships, vessels or aircraft registered in Australia, wherever they may be; and
  4. in so far as they impose prohibitions, restrictions or obligations on persons, apply to and in relation to all persons in Australia, and to and in relation to all persons on board any ship, vessel or aircraft registered in Australia, wherever it may be.

Reverting to the wording of Statutory Rule No. 128, the trade unions directly involved in the three capital cities with which I have been able to make contact, in the hurried and unfavorable conditions under which I have been called upon to take partin this debate, have assured me that they desire that this rule shall not be disallowed, because it has given them decided advantages with regard to wages that they have never previously enjoyed.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am now referring to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, in which all of the persons referred to in the second schedule to the rule, are employed. But employees in other sections of the metals industry, who do not come immediately under the provisions of this rule, are also desirous of being brought under it. I wish to be fair to these unions, and to say that, in the short time that I have had for a conference with them, I have ascertained that they have a decided dislike to regulation No. 3, giving power to do certain things to which the workers might take exception. I pointed out to them that the Opposition could not amend the rule, but must either agree to its disallowance or vote for its continuance.

I realize that I shall be charged with supporting the Government in its nefarious designs to impose industrial conscription on the workers, but I can prove that that accusation is unsupportable. When Australia is threatened, as it is to-day, any government needs these powers in order to prepare satisfactorily at least for the defence of this country. I still think that the Government has not used its powers as adequately as it should have done. The defences of Australia should have been in a far more advanced condition than they are at the present time. There is nothing wanting in the powers already given to the Government, and I contend that it has fallen down on its job.

The Opposition realizes that nothing is now to be gained by criticizing the Government for having left undone what it might have done; but we must face the realities of the situation, and do what is now urgently necessary. I regret that there should be any suggestion of a division of opinion on a matter of this kind. I shall read a communication that I have received from London. There, a personal friend of mine, Mr. Ernest Bevin, was, until lately, general secretary of the greatest transport workers’ organization in the world, and is now Director of Labour. This organization in Great Britain has 750,000 members, not including railway men, who have their own organization. I want to show what a Labour man in that country is able to do. I know that, if they can prevent it, the members of this Government will not allow the state of affairs which I am about to mention to occur in this country; but they will be unable to prevent it. Before there is a trial of strength at the forthcoming general elections, I am anxious to free myself of any charge that I have ever done anything to prevent the Government from doing the right thing in its effort to provide for the defence of this country. The statement reads -

page 316

HOW BRITAIN IS FARING

(Alex Thompson’s War News.)

Each for All and All foreach. (Special - By Air Mail.)

London, June 8

As if by the wave of a magic wand, Britain has become practically a Socialist state. Not only the lives of the people but their property also have come under the control of the Government, and what some of us have spent a long lifetime to achieve has been brought about by the war emergency in two hours. It is true that Mr. Churchill, an inveterate individualist, remains Prime Minister. It is true that some of the Stick-in-the-Mudders still cling precariously to office by tolerance of colleagues who arc reluctant to cause a break in Parliamentary unity. But the seats of real power are occupied by Labour.

Yesterday, I read an extract from a speech by this Labour Minister, in which he said that he must have control of industry and of men, and that he must have the right to say that employees must go where directed. He also said that he must have the power to protect their wages and conditions, and that he intended to go on doing so. The Statutory Rule which the Senate is now considering provides only a further step to take complete control, and had the Opposition been offered a balance of power in a national government we would have been compelled to make a similar demand.

Senator COLLINGS:

– We were not offered a balance of power in a national government. Mr. Ernest Bevin has been a loyal unionist and Labour man all his life; but because he is in England and not in Australia honorable senators opposite allegedly support his policy. If the position were reversed and he were an Australian Labour man, they would hate him and deride everything he suggested.

Senator Amour:

– The honorable senator is on the wrong side of the chamber.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Of course I am, but the honorable senator is always on the wrong side here.

We do not deny that, if the situation deteriorates further, some such action as this Statutory Rule provides for must be taken. Although we hope that it will not, there is a strong probability that it may. This is One country in the world where every adult person enjoys a greater measure of liberty than do the people of any other country. I am merely stating facts and expressing the earnest hope that we will be victorious in the struggle in which we are engaged. I say without reservation that I oppose this motion for the disallowance of the regulations. If I could amend the regulations, I would endeavour to do so; but, under the Standing Orders, I have not that right, ft is the responsibility of every member of this Parliament to make himself acquainted with the laws of this country. I. a in not suggesting for a moment that the (Government is doing this job in the way that I think it should bc done. If the Government were amenable to reason, it would arrange for a secret session of this Parliament, such as has been sought, at which we could clear up some of the difficulties. Had such an opportunity been provided, I would have asked the Government to reconsider regulation No. ?>, but we are denied that opportunity. Section 7 of the National Security Act reads - (1.) A person shall not, by reason of anything done by him on behalf of the Commonwealth during the period commencing on the twenty-fifth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, and ending on the date of the commencement of this Act, be liable to any proceedings if the doing of that tiling could validly have been authorized had ti,is Act been in force throughout that period. (2.) Where during the period specified in sub-section (1.) of this section the GovernorGeneral or any Minister or officer has purported to make any regulation or order, or to do any act or thing which could have been validly made or done if this Act had been in force throughout that period, that regulation, order, act or thing shall be deemed to be as valid and effectual, and shall, at all times, as on and from the date of the making or doing of the regulation, order, act or thing, bc deemed to have been as valid and effectual, as if this Act had been in force on that date, and the regulation, order, act or thing had been made or done under or in pursuance of this Act.

I know that honorable senators opposite are deriving a great deal of satisfaction from a situation which they created deliberately this afternoon in the -belief that it might prove embarrassing to us.

Senator Foll:

– That is not fair; the motion was not moved by an- honorable senator on this side.

Senator COLLINGS:

– If the supporters of the Government are not satisfied with the position, they should not have recorded the vote they did.

The PRESIDENT ( Senator the Hon.’ J. B. Hayes). - I direct the attention of the honorable senator to Standing Order No. 415, which reads -

No senator shall reflect upon any vote of the Senate, except for the purpose of moving that such vote shall be rescinded.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I merely said that the supporters of the Government are deriving a great deal of satisfaction from a situation which they created. I then suggested that if they were not satisfied with the position, they should not have recorded the vote which they did. That was not a reflection on the vote of the Senate. This is not the place in which to reflect on votes cast; but the attitude of the Government in this matter will undoubtedly be mentioned on the hustings in a week or two.

Senator Foll:

– We shall also have something to say.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I know that it is disorderly to interject or to reply to interjections; but in order to protect every member of the Opposition from misrepresentation during the approaching election campaign, I ask the Minister for the Interior to remember that the Opposition in this chamber, with the exception of the two responsible for this motion, has never refrained from supporting any war measure which this Government has introduced. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and be honorable enough to admit it on the hustings. The Minister can reflect upon me personally, if he so desires. Having experienced political persecution, slander and misrepresentation since I was eighteen years of age, when first I became interested in politics, I have become inured to abuse from my opponents. I am, however, not unmindful of the honour which should be associated with the proceedings in this chamber and I do not wish Ministers to endeavour to score some mean political advantage by misrepresenting the party to which I belong. Honorable senators opposite have a perfect right to cite what we have said as recorded in Hansard: but they must not misrepresent us. I am making this appeal now in the hope that, later, they will not commit political perjury.

Sections 8 to 13 of the National Security Act read -

  1. – (1.) If, with respect to any proceedings (whether instituted before or after the commencement of this Act), the court (not being a court of summary jurisdiction) before which the proceedings are taken is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the public safety or the defence of the Commonwealth or any Territory of the Commonwealth so to do, the court -

    1. may give directions that throughout or during any part of the proceedings such persons or classes of persons as the court determines shall be excluded; and
    2. may give directions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information with respect to the proceedings. (2.) The’ powers conferred by sub-section (1.) of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers of the court. (3.) If any person contravenes any directions given by a court under sub-section (1.) of this section, then, without prejudice to the law relating to contempt of court, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  2. – (1.) Every document purporting to be an instrument made or issued by the Minister or any other authority or person in pursuance of any provision contained in, or having effect under, the regulations, and to be signed by or on behalf of the Minister, authority or person, shall be received in evidence, and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be an instrument made or issued by the Minister, authority or person. (2.) Prima facie evidence of any such instrument may, in any legal proceedings (including arbitrations), be given by the production of a document purporting to be certified to be a true copy of the instrument by, or on behalf of, the Minister or other authority or person having power to make or issue the instrument.
  3. – (1.) Any person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any provision of any regulation made in pursuance of this Act, or with any order, rule or by-law made in pursuance of any such regulation, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act. (2.) An offence against this Act may be prosecuted either summarily or upon indictment, but an offender shall not be liable to be punished more than once in respect of the same offence. (3.) The punishment for an offence against this Act shall be -

    1. if the offence is prosecuted summarily - a fine not exceeding One hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both; or
    2. if the offence is prosecuted upon indictment - a fine of any amount or imprisonment for any term, or both. (4.) An offence against this Act shall not be prosecuted summarily without the written consent of the Attorney-General, or the Minister of State for Defence, or a person thereto authorized in writing by the Attorney-General or the Minister of State for Defence, and an offence against this Act shall not be prosecuted upon indictment except in the name of the Attorney-General. (5.) For the; purpose of the trial of a person summarily or upon indictment for an offence against this Act, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which it was actually committed or (subject to the Constitution) at any place in which the person may be. (6.) In addition to any other punishment,a court may, if it thinks fit, order the forfeiture of any money or goods in respect of which an offence against this Act has been committed.
  4. Any person who does any act preparatory to the doing of any act the doing of which would be an offence against this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punishable as if he had committed the firstmentioned offence.
  5. Where a person convicted of an offence against this Act is a body corporate, every person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was a director or officer of the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he used all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
  6. – (1.) Any person who is found committing an offence against this Act, or who is suspected of having committed, or of being about to commit, such an offence, may be arrested without warrant by any constable or Commonwealth officer acting in the course of his duty as such, or by any person thereto authorized by the Minister, in the same manner as a person who is found committing a breach of the peace may, at common law. be arrested by any constable or person.
The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Has all this matter a direct relation to the National Security Regulations now under discussion? I have not a copy of them.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I regret that you have not a copy, Mr. President, and for your enlightenment I shall read them -

page 319

STATUTORY RULES

  1. No. 128.

page 319

REGULATIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 1939-1940.*

I,TheGovernor-General in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Regulations under the National Security Act 1939-1940.

Dated this fifth day of July, 1940. gowrie

Governor-General

By His Excellency’s Command,

Robert G. Menzies

Minister of State for Defence Co-ordination.

National Security (Employment) Regulations

I ask honorable senators who have not made themselves thoroughly conversant with the import and purport of Statutory Rule No. 128 to listen carefully while I read the regulations.

  1. These Regulations may be cited as the National Security (Employment) Regulations.
  2. – (1.) If it appears to the Minister of State for Munitions that the production of munitions of war or supplies required for the efficient prosecution of the war is likely to be seriously prejudiced by reason of a shortage of persons skilled in any particular trade, he may make such arrangements as he considers necessary for the training of a sufficient number of persons in that trade or in any branch of that trade, and for the employment of persons so trained in connexion with the production of munitions of war or supplies. (2.) The training and employment of any person in accordance with any such arrangement shall be lawful notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment other than the National Security Act 1939-1940, or in. any instrument (including any award, determination or agreement) having effect by virtue of any such enactment. (3.) Where, by any enactment or instrument referred to in the last preceding subregulation, provision is made for the increase of the number of tradesmen in the Metal Trade classifications as stated in clause 5 of the Consolidated Metal Trades Award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration (Serial No. 3477) and varied prior to the first day of May, 1940, the enactment or instrument shall have effectsubject to any arrangement which has been or may be made in pursuance of this regulation, except in so far as the Minister of State for Munitions, by notice in the Gazette, otherwise d i rects. (4.) For the purposes of this regulation “ munitions of war “ includes the whole or any part of any ship, submarine, aircraft, tank or similar engine, arms, ammunition, bomb, torpedo, mine, or other article, material or device (whether actual or proposed) intended or adapted for use in war.

I omit clause 5, which is merely a machinery provision. As I said before, this provision could be improved but we were not given’ an opportunity to amend it. Regulation No. 3 reads -

  1. – (1.) An employer shall not engage any employee to whom this regulation applies unless he produces -

    1. a document signed by the employer by whom he was last employed stating that he has consented to the termination of that employment, or
    2. a written permit issued by the Director of Labour, Department of Munitions, or by a person authorized by him to issue such permits. (2.) This regulation shall apply to the employees specified in the First Schedule to these Regulations.

Then follows regulation No. 4, which appears to me to safeguard the wages of employees, and, in addition, to prevent employers from competing with one another for the services of tradesmen by offering wages higher than those laid down in the second schedule. Unless that safeguard were included it would be possible for employers whose undertakings had no relation to defence work to attract workmen from essential industries.

The first schedule details the kind of work which is to be covered by the regulations. It reads -

First Schedule

Electrical fitter.

Electrical mechanic.

Forger and/or faggoter.

Instrument maker.

Machinist (Engineering - First class).

Toolmaker

Tradesman - gun manufacture.

Tradesman - fitter and/or turner.

The second schedule provides that electrical fitters shall receive 33s. a week, plus a special allowance of 3s. over and above the award wage covering the industry. I have taken the trouble to ascertain the position from Mr. Chifley, who has informed me that employees in any particular State will be covered by the awards in operation in that State. Each State has its own awards, and on top of the awards will be the increases provided for in the second schedule.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I suggest to the Minister that the honorable senator to whom he has just referred should be excused. He and his party of one are playing the same kind of political game as the one to which I took objection when honorable senators opposite were playing it earlier this afternoon.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- It was quite a pleasure to listen to some parts of the speech just made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) because at times he forgot to argue, and poured out his soul with such enthusiasm as to reveal a robust patriotism which, coming from the Opposition side, was quite refreshing. Apparently Senator Collings was quite sincere and honest, when he made the admission, rarely heard from the other side of the chamber, that the object of this war was to preserve for Australians living conditions and working standards which are second to none in the world. That is very seldom acknowledged by members of the Labour party, and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on that phase of his speech. At the same time, t regret that he has been placed in such an unenviable position by certain honorable senators opposite.

Senator Amour, in moving for the disallowance of these regulations, fell in badly when he advanced reasons in support of his contention. Some of his statements were really ridiculous, coming from a man of his training. For instance, he told a pathetic story about the hardships of women and children employed in factories, who might be prevented from transferring to other employment, even at the request of the members of their families. If the honorable member will look at the regulations, he will see that, according to the schedule, those affected are persons employed as electrical fitters, electrical mechanics, forgers and faggoters, instrument-makers, machinists, tool-makers and tradesmen - fitters and turners. I have been in the manufacturing business for a long time, but I have never yet seen a woman or child engaged in any of those trades. The honorable senator has been mistaken in his interpretation of the regulations. These regulations were found to be necessary because there was a great shortage of skilled labour in factories engaged upon munitions supplies. We must provide munitions of war in tremendous quantities in order to safeguard the lives of those in the fighting services. In this war munitions are as important, or perhaps more important, than man-power. If the fighting men cannot get munitions, they have no chance in modern warfare. They would be murdered. Those who are working long hours in the factories producing munitions are doing their duty just as much as are the men in khaki. As I have said, there is a great shortage of skilled tradesmen. I shall not endeavour to assign the responsibility for this, though I could do so if necessary. The shortage exists, and we must overcome it. The disallowance of the regulations would play into the, hands of the profiteers. Private manufacturers engaged upon civil work would then be able to lure away skilled tradesmen from the munitions factories, and employ them for their own profit.

Senator Amour:

– It is not proposed to scrap the schedule. The motion is that regulations 1, 2, 3 and 4 be disallowed.

Senator Foll:

– If the regulations are disallowed, there can be no schedule.

Senator LECKIE:

.Senator Amour’s strong suit is the denunciation of profiteers. In fact, it is probably the only suit he has. Now he is seeking to do something which would have the effect, of helping private manufacturers to make profits at the expense of those who are fighting for the safety of Australia. Perhaps he does not realize that that is the position in which he is placing himself, but I assure him it is so.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to-

That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the disposal of the motion moved by Senator Amour for the disallowance of Statutory Rules 1940 No. 128, National Security (Employment) Regulations.

Senator LECKIE:

– Owing to the scarcity of skilled labour, men in munitions factories, and even apprentices, have had to work twelve hours a day. Those who have had any experience in such matters know that a man may work twelve hours a. day for a short while, but if he continues to work such long hours over a period, his health will suffer and his output will diminish until, in the end, he will be actually producing less than the normal output for an eight-hour day. These regulations are necessary to protect the men. I know that certain of the workers, tempted by the extra money and ignoring the fact that long hours of work are bound to undermine their health, have asked the employers to allow them to work for twelve hours a day, and have threatened to leave their employment and go elsewhere unless this were conceded. Therefore, the regulations are necessary in order to protect the men against themselves.

Senator McLeay:

– The representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union have agreed to the regulations.

Senator LECKIE:

– I know, but I am inclined to think that there has been some misunderstanding regarding the proposal for the dilution of labour. The Amalgamated Engineering Union deserves great credit for realizing the situation, and agreeing to what hasbeen called the dilution of labour - that is, permitting the introduction of unskilled men who would gradually work up to the position of skilled tradesmen. They made the condition that any man thus doing a tradesman’s work should receive a tradesman’s pay. A further condition was that such men should be the first to be put off if, after the war, there was a scarcity of employment. That was a reasonable proposal from the point of view of the union, and is, I think, fair to both sides. If extra men have to be employed at this time, it is not right that they should displace the old, skilled tradesmen should jobs become scarce later. It is to the credit of the Amalgamated Engineering Union that in the present crisis it agreed to disregard its ordinary rules and make this agreement in order to allow of the dilution of labour. I think, however, that some misunderstanding exists as to the connexion between the agreement and the regulations itself. The agreement was made between the Government and the union apart altogether from the regulations.

Senator McLeay:

– We have been advised that the union has agreed to the regulations.

Senator LECKIE:

– I trust that the agreement will be kept by both employers and employees in the spirit in which it was made, namely, for the benefit of the people of Australia. At the same time,

I should not like to see any misunderstanding arise as to the connexion between the agreement and the regulations. Senator Amour’s attack upon our industrial leaders was rather pathetic. This constant barking on the part of honorable senators opposite at the heels of people bigger than themselves is rather amusing, particularly when we realize the ability and the work of the men they attempt to criticize. Every one knows that in all of the works with which Mr. Essington Lewis is associated every amenity for the comfort of employees, in the form of modern bathrooms, rest-houses and nursing sections, has been provided on a scale unrivalled in other works in Australia or elsewhere. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, of which Mr. Essington Lewis is the head, has achieved a reputation for the manner in which it looks after the interests of its employees.

Senator Sheehan:

– It has provided such conditions only because of the growth of unionism.

Senator LECKIE:

– The contention that employees receive such concessions only because employers are forced to provide them is the silliest I have ever heard. The fact remains that employees of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited are given conditions which excel those provided by any other industrial organization. Within 25 years it has become the key industry of Australia and, to-day, in the face of the enemy, we rely almost solely upon it to enable us to proceed with the manufacture of munitions and war material on an adequate scale.

Senator Sheehan:

– Did not the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited sell lead to Germany?

Senator McLeay:

– We also sold wool to Germany; and we were pleased to do so.

Senator LECKIE:

– Certainly, when we were friendly with Germany, we endeavoured to maintain friendship with that country by trading with it. As a matter of fact we were anxious to help it through its economic difficulties. In any case, we were justified in trading with Germany in a time of peace. Now, however, when an armed Germany is facing the world, it is ridiculous for the honorable senator to charge any organization with having traded with it in years of peace.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the action of the Labour party in Great Britain in participating in the government of Great Britain, and he quoted Mr. Bevin in order to show what was being done for labour in England. All honour to the Labour party in Britain for what it has done in co-operating in Britain’s war effort ; but I cannot reconcile the attitude of the British Labour party with the stand taken up by the Labour party in this Parliament. Honorable senators opposite say that they are willing to participate in the formation of a national government provided that they enjoy the balance of power in such a government. Surely, in view of their numerical minority in the Parliament itself, such a request is unreasonable. We on this side charge the Labour party with refusing to shoulder its fair share of responsibility. We give to members of that party full credit for their honesty and sincerity in refusing to hamper the activities of the Government. But the people expect something more from them. They should accept direct responsibility in a national government on behalf of the great body of workers whom /they directly represent.

Senator Sheehan:

– Surely, the honorable senator does not expect us to be associated with the greatest team of muddlers that has ever been in control of affairs in Australia? The honorable senator’s own friends have made that charge against this Government.

Senator LECKIE:

– All I can say in reply to the honorable senator is that should the Labour party be returned to power at the next election this Government will not hold the record for muddling.

Senator Keane:

– Why then ask us to participate in the formation of a national government ?

Senator LECKIE:

– We do so with the object, not of securing better brains in the Ministry, but in order that the great body of workers of Australia may be given directly a part in the defence of Australia.

Senator Collings:

– Are not the workers playing their part in the defence of this country?

Senator LECKIE:

– Yes, but not to the degree which they would be enabled to do if they were directly represented in the Government. The Leader of the Opposition applauded the attitude adopted by the Labour party in Great Britain, but when an offer is made to his own party to co-operate on a similar basis in the government of this country it refuses to do so.

Senator Collings:

– The offer made to us is on an entirely different basis from that made to the Labour party in Great Britain. In any case, it was not made until a week ago.

Senator LECKIE:

– The Prime Minister said that he would establish a Ministry of Labour, and would put a Labour man in charge of it. That is the Prime Minister’s offer. Why not accept it, and go to the people in order to see if they will not a.gree to it?

I hope that honorable senators will reject the motion for the disallowance of these regulations. The provision protects the interests of the men concerned, and prevents bargaining as between one factory and another. At the same time it consolidates the workers’ position in munitions factories. In addition it will prevent our munitions factories from being depleted of vital workmen who would, otherwise probably be enticed elsewhere by the offer of higher wages. I strongly support the regulations also because they will do away with 12-hour shifts which are abominable. If such long shifts be worked the efficiency and health of the men will be detrimentally affected. For these reasons these regulations will operate in the best interests of the workers themselves, the employers and the men who are fighting to keep Australia safe.

Motion (by Senator McLeat) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 13

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put -

That regulations Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 under the National Security Act 1939-1940, contained in Statutory Rules 1940, No. 128, be disallowed.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. J.B. Hayes.).

AYES: 4

NOES: 25

Majority 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

page 323

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral the following communication in connexion with the Address-in-Reply: -

Mr. President,

I desire to acquaint you that the AddressinReply at the Opening of the Second Session of the Fifteenth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on the 17th April was duly laid before His Majesty the King, andI am commanded to convey to you and the honorable senators His Majesty’s sincere appreciation of the loyal assurances to which your Address gives expression.

Gowrie,

Governor-General. 2nd August, 1940

page 323

GOLD MINING ENCOURAGEMENT BILL (No. 2) 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaAssistant Minister for Commerce · UAP

– The Gold Mining Encouragement Act 1940 was assented to on the 4th June, 1940, and regulations designed to give effect to the provisions of that act were made on the 17th July, 1940. The purpose of this amending bill is to remove certain drafting defects in the original act and to make other adjustments of a minor character which it is considered advisable to make in the light of advice offered by mining experts whose assistance the Commonwealth invited and obtained during the drafting of the regulations.

The proposed amendments are four in number -

  1. Section 7 (1) relating to refunds to prospectors, is being amended to remove an ambiguity in the existing wording of that section as regards “ fine gold “.
  2. Section 10 (1) a is to be amended to alter the basis of determining the cost of mining and treating ore.
  3. Section 10 (1) c requires amendment to correct an error in drafting in fixing the maximum allowance of £2 per oz. of fine gold for development.
  4. New section 10a to give a discretion to the Commissioner of Taxation to adopt a variation in the quarterly period, as defined in the act, for the making of applications for refunds.

Section 7 (1) of the principal act, which relates to refunds of gold tax to bona fide prospectors, provides that -

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth shall, subject to the regulations, refund to a person who is a bona fide prospector the amount of tax upon the first 25 oz. of gold upon which he directly or indirectly pays tax. in any year.

It is proposed to insert the word “fine” before the word “ gold “ in this subsection, in order to remove an ambiguity inherent in the existing wording. The intention of the section is that a refund shall be made of the amount of tax on 25 oz. of “ fine “ gold and not on 25 oz. of gold as expressed in the sub-section. The amendment proposed will remove any ambiguity.

The present provision in section 10 (1) a relates the cost of production to average cost of gold production in the quarter during which the gold is produced. The difficulty with this is that the ore, from which that gold is produced, is not itself necessarily mined in the same quarter. It sometimes happens that no actual ore is mined during a quarter, even though the ore, previously mined, is treated during the quarter. The Commissioner of Taxation is convinced, as the result of advice tendered by gold-mining experts and Mines Department officials in the various States, that the present provision is inequitable and should be altered so that the cost of production will have reference to the cost of the actual ore treated.

A drafting correction is necessary in section 10 (a)c in order to ensure that the maximum amount to be taken into account as the average cost of development shall in no case exceed the sum of £2 per oz. of fine gold. This was the definite intention set out in the secondreading speech on the original bill, but the existing provisions fail to give proper effect to that intention.

Mining experts consider that a fixed quarter is not a convenient period for all producers in the industry. Books, statistics and records are, in some cases, kept either on a weekly or four-weekly basis. The proposal is : that the act be amended to provide for variation in the period of a “ quarter “. A new section 10a is being inserted in order to give discretion to the Commissioner of Taxation in determining the exact period on an application from a producer.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cunningham ) adjourned.

page 324

PAPUA BILL 1940

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Collett) read a first time.

page 324

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.

page 324

ADJOURNMENT

Conscription for Overseas Service -

Ban on Yugoslav Newspaper - Importation of New Zealand Potatoes - Flax Fibre - Inquiries by Department of Information.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I bring under the notice of the Government a matter which is deserving of serious consideration. I should like the responsible Minister at some future time to be able to give an assurance that the matter of which I intend to complain is not the result of instructions given by the Commonwealth. Government. As the Senate, no doubt, is aware, the question of conscription is agitating the minds of many of our people, and during the course of discussions, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, assurances have been given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and other responsible Ministers that there will be no conscription for overseas service. As a matter of fact, legislative provision has been made to prevent conscription for overseas. Notwithstanding assurances on that score, and also the declaration of the Prime Minister that freedom of speech and assembly will continue in Australia, I am advised that, at least in Melbourne, those who desire to address the people on the subject of conscription are having all sorts of difficulties placed in their way. The police have interrogated them and asked for their names and addresses.

Senator McLeay:

– What would be done with them in Germany?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– That is not the question. We. still have freedom in Australia. We still believe in democracy. In view of the assurances given by the Prime Minister and other responsible spokesmen of the Government that these subjects are open for public discussion, it seems that some subterfuge has been resorted to by officials of the Commonwealth in order to authorize harassing tactics. I hope that the Leader of _ the Government in the Senate is in a position to assure us that these activities are not carried out at the express direction of the Commonwealth Government. But it is significant that the Government saw fit to-day to curtail discussion in this chamber of national security regulations. The importance of the subject warranted a lengthy debate. How can we accept the assurances of the Government that industrial conscription will not be introduced when the tactics of which I have complained are being carried out by underhand methods? A great deal of- the uneasiness which prevails in the Labour movement at the present time will be allayed if the honorable gentleman will give the assurance that I seek.

The Government has endeavoured to cloak the undesirable features of certain national security measures by promulgating regulations containing provisions which trade unions supported, but which also include obnoxious provisions to which the unions object.

Senator McBRIDE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– To which unions does the honorable senator refer ?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Not one union in Australia would agree to industrial or military conscription. Efforts are being made, either by the Government or its responsible officials, to prevent people from speaking against conscription.

Senator Dein:

– That is not correct.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It remains for the Minister to prove to me that the police force in Victoria has not received instructions from the Government to interfere with speakers publicly directing attention to the danger of the introduction of conscription in Australia.

Senator McLeay:

– Those speakers tried to misrepresent the facts, as the honorable senator himself has done so often.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am not endeavouring to misrepresent the facts; I am merely seeking information. I am prepared to accept an assurance, if the Leader of the Senate is able to give it, that the action taken by the police in the cases I have mentioned was not initiated by the Commonwealth. Citizens have visited me and written to me to complain about these cases, giving details of dates and times of the occurrences. Therefore I am justified in bringing the matter to the notice of the Senate and asking the responsible Minister for information on the subjectHonorable senators on this side of the chamber agreed to give to the Government powers that we would never have dreamt of giving in time of peace. We did. so because we were anxious for a 100 per cent, war effort in Australia. Now it seems that certain abuses have occurred in spite of the solemn assurances given to us.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorable senator twisted the first time he was tested.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The interjection of the honorable gentleman is unworthy of a Minister who has been entrusted with the responsibility of leading the Government in the Senate. A man who is so impulsive as to make a remark of that kind shows himself to be unworthy of the great trust which his colleagues in the Government have reposed in him. It should demonstrate to the people outside of Parliament the unworthiness of the honorable gentleman to be a member of this chamber. The action that the Government has taken is a betrayal of the promises given in this chamber when the special national security legislation was passed.

Senator Dein:

– That is not correct.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is correct. At that time, a definite promise was made that neither industrial conscription nor military conscription would be introduced. Nevertheless, it seems that these things may be brought in by some subterfuge.

Senator Abbott:

– Is the honorable senator speaking of military conscription for overseas service or home defence?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– If the officers of the law in Victoria acted against anticonscriptionist speakers at the instruction of the Commonwealth Government, it proves conclusively that the Government is preparing the stage for the introduction of conscription for overseas service. I ask the Minister to supply the information I have requested.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– I ask the Leader of the Government in tho Senate to investigate the histories of some newspapers that have been suppressed by the censorship authorities. These authorities have permitted the publication of certain newspapers printed in French, Greek and Yiddish to continue, whereas a newspaper, the Napredar, printed in the Jugoslavian language, was suppressed without prior warning from the Government. I have been assured that the publishers of this journal have at no time done anything to conflict with the wishes of the censorship authorities. Without any previous notification, instructions were suddenly issued that the publication of this newspaper should cease. If it be right to allow newspapers to be published in French, Greek and Yiddish, sound reasons should be advanced for the action that has been taken. Many of the readers of the Jugoslav journal can speak English, but cannot read the English language. I am assured by those responsible for the publication of this newspaper that they have carried out to the letter every request made by the censor. In Western Australia, these nationals have unmistakably displayed1 their loyalty to Australia, and many of them are naturalized British subjects.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I protest emphatically against the importation of New Zealand potatoes into the Sydney market. There was no justification for the action taken by the

Government in this regard. . In reply to a question asked by me to-day, the Assistant Minister for Commerce (Senator McBride) said that, “ according to his experts there was a shortage of potatoes in Australia. If everything is to be done according to the experts, then I say, “ God help Australia “. My remark applies with particular significance to our defence preparations. The Minister stated, in reply to my question, that there was no accumulation of surplus potatoes in the ports of Tasmania. I say definitely that potatoes have been accumulating during the last three or four weeks on the wharfs all along the coast of Tasmania. Up to 15,000 sacks have so accumulated. Only about a fortnight ago, when 40,000 sacks were on the wharfs, Tasmania was allowed to ship to Sydney only 20,000 sacks.

Senator McLeay:

– That was done in order to keep up the price.

Senator AYLETT:

– If the Minister wants to maintain the price, why does he admit New Zealand potatoes, seeing that Tasmania could meet the requirements of the Sydney market? The Government has brought in the New Zealand potatoes for one purpose only.

Senator McLeay:

– Is there likely to be a shortage of potatoes in Australia?

Senator AYLETT:

– People in a position to know estimate that 300,000 sacks of potatoes are still to come from Tasmania.

Senator McLeay:

– Is there likely to be a shortage?

Senator AYLETT:

– The Minister, who is so fond of interjecting, applied the “ gag “ last night, and he has not hesitated to jeer across the chamber at members of the Opposition. I have listened to him by the hour while he has read printed speeches that have been prepared for him by departmental officers. The least he can do now is to maintain silence while members of the Opposition place before the Government matters in which they are interested.

Senator McLeay:

– Is there likely to be a shortage of potatoes in Australia this season?

Senator AYLETT:

– According to the information that I have at the present time, I consider that a shortage is unlikely ; ‘but, even if there were a shortage, why should we victimize the Australian growers? Why should not Australian potatoes be permitted to go upon the market while they can be supplied? We have no reason to believe that the Tasmanian growers will fail to meet the needs of the market for at least another two months. If any growers are to be called upon to store their potatoes, why should not the New Zealand growers do that until the Tasmanian crop is marketed ?

Senator Gibson:

– Will new potatoes be on the market two months hence?

Senator AYLETT:

– Yes, but, even so, Tasmania has more than sufficient potatoes to supply the market in the next two months. In reply to my question to-day, the Minister said that potatoes did not deteriorate while stacked on the wharf awaiting shipment. That answer shows his lack of knowledge and his unfitness for his office. The Government’s action in this matter is another injustice to Tasmania, which has suffered many injuries at the hands of this Government. If we take into account the returns from potatogrowing over a number of years, it will be found that the growers do not make huge profits. There is only about one good season in four seasons.

Senator Gibson:

– The proportion is more like one in eight.

Senator AYLETT:

– I speak for my own State; the position may be different in Victoria. The least the Government should do for the Tasmanian growers of potatoes is to enable them to market their produce before potatoes from New Zealand are allowed to flood the market and force prices down. The Government has seen fit to fix a maximum price for potatoes in Sydney. I desire to know whether it is prepared to fix a minimum price for the whole year, and if so, whether it will be sufficient to cover the cost of production. Had it not been that the seat of a supporter of the Government was in jeopardy, the embargo on the importation of potatoes from New Zealand would never have been lifted.

I wish now to make a brief reference to a question which I asked to-day concerning flax. In his answer, the Minister said that negotiations with Flax Fibres Proprietary Limited had been deferred.

Senator Gibson:

– Does the honorable senator know anything about that company?

Senator AYLETT:

– I understand that it is a subsidiary of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. A representative of the company has told the growers of the urgent need to grow flax, but no one has told them what they are likely to be paid for the flax when it is grown. The Minister has told us that no contract between the company and the Commonwealth Government is in existence. If it be intended that the Commonwealth Government shall take over the whole of the flax crop, I desire to know what is to be done with the flax, and whether the company referred to is to process the fibre. If that is the intention, surely it is time that the Government announced the terms of the arrangement. The Minister also said that the flax would be paid for according to its quality. It is time that the Government announced the price that will be paid. There are rumours that about £5 a ton will be paid.

Senator Gibson:

– For what?

Senator AYLETT:

– For the flax, not the processed fibre.

Senator Gibson:

– Does the honorable senator know what flax straw is?

Senator AYLETT:

– Flax straw is the flax after it has been cut, and when it is ready to be carted to the mill for processing. In view of the fact that in England processed fibre is worth £160 a ton, that the Australian Government was offered £180 a ton for it, and also that the British Government is paying to the growers from £10 a ton for the raw flax before it is processed, surely the Commonwealth Government is in a position to say something more definite than that the flax will be paid for according to its quality. Since the farmers undertook to grow so many acres of flax, the cost of fertilizers has risen considerably, and the growers may find that they have produced the flax at a loss. I do not wish to say anything which might restrict the acreage to be sown with flax.

Senator Leckie:

– The honorable senator is doing his best in that direction.

Senator AYLETT:

– No. I submit that the time is overdue for a definite statement on this subject, and I hope that when it is made, the Minister will place before us more reliable information than he has given to date.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- If Senator Aylett, who has just resumed his seat, does not know more about potatoes than he knows about flax, I am afraid that his knowledge is limited. Through the Government of Northern Ireland the British Government has purchased, at £4 per ton, flax straw produced from 60,000 acres. Evidently Senator Aylett does not know what straw is. It is flax from which the seed has been removed. For this the grower is paid about £28 a ton. The price of seed varies considerably according to the quality and kind of flax. The 400 tons of seed which arrived in Australia from Britain is of special quality. This flax of a special quality produces a small quantity of seed and a high percentage of fibre. Therefore it is necessary to pay a higher price for the straw for fibre. The growers in Ireland will receive a return of approximately £20 an acre on this basis. I do not know what the growers in Australia are likely to receivebecause no arrangements have been made with Flax Fibres Proprietary Limited, a company which the honorable senator says is a subsidiary company of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. I have never heard such an absurd statement. Those associated with the company are well-known persons; I know who they are, but I do not intend to enlighten the honorable senator. The Government, I understand, proposes to purchase, at a fair price, the British Government’s requirements of straw which is made into fibre, and also to pay a reasonable price for the seed. That is all that can be done until the position becomes clarified and the necessary arrangements are made by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron). I am confident that Australian producers of flax will get a reasonably good return for the production of this commodity. The production of flax is not a new industry in Australia.

Senator Aylett:

– What will the producers get?

Senator GIBSON:

– An agreement has not yet been reached, but the growers can rest assured that the Government will give them all that there is in it. The Government is not interested in the industry for what it can get out of it, but is anxious to assist the producers. Flax has been grown in Australia for over 30 years. Crops are produced in my district, and the product sent to the factories, where it is treated. I understand that a new process is being evolved which seems to embody an excellent idea. This new process is at present being investigated by interested officials. Inbuying flax for the British Government the straw will be cut and threshed and the seed removed, and instead of retting it, it will be crushed and the residue, which is stock fodder and contains 3 per cent. linseed oil, removed. The crushed fibre in an untreated form will be shipped to Great Britain, where there are the necessary retting pits and machines. In a year or two we may be able to treat the crops grown in Australia.

Senator Aylett:

– The Government is telling the people that it is going to establish retting mills.

Senator GIBSON:

– I have never heard such a proposition mentioned. The Government is merely telling the fibregrowers, that for the present, it proposes to despatch the fibre to Britain for final treatment.

Senator Aylett:

– Why not tell the farmers that? Negotiations have been in progress since last October.

Senator GIBSON:

– The seed was only landed on Monday last, and I have not the slightest doubt that those who are interested know what is proposed. The honorable senator knows nothing of the subject which he has raised. I believe that many persons will be able to produce flax successfully in this country, and that the flax industry will become well established particularly in late districts such as Ballarat and in parts of Tasmania and of Queensland. Eventually, flaxgrowing should become an important industry. We do not want only to grow flax but to handle it and to process it. Something in this direction will have to be done because we cannot continue to produce wheat and other primary products for which there is no overseas market. Flax-growing is an industry whichcould be carried on in conjunction with mixed farming and should prove profitable. The growing of flax has been carried on profitably by many farmers in my district. A neighbour of mine has 200 acres under flaxand others have50 acres or more. Iam certain that the Government will takethe necessary steps to see that the farmers producing flax will receive very fair treatment and that they will not be deprived of a single shilling.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

. -On Tuesday last I asked an intelligent question, and although I am under the impression that I speak the King’s English the Minister to whom the question was directed was apparently unable to understand the English language. I endeavoured to obtain some information about “Cooper’s snoopers”. I asked whether the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullet t) had engaged menand women to obtain information on certain subjects as has been done by Mr. Duff Cooper in England. Several days ago a woman came to Queensland and engaged people to go around and ask questions of certain individuals. Money was paid for doing the work. I know one person who was so engaged and I am anxious to ascertain whether such persons arc associated with any governmentactivity or with a private organization. I understand that the name of this body is the “ Markets Research Specialists of Australian Census of Public Opinion “ but I have been unable to find any one who has engaged these people. Are these Australian “ Cooper’s snoopers” some of “Murdoch’s mystery men “ or have they been engaged by the Australian Broadcasting Commission? One question asked was “ What do you think of the Federal Government’s war effort?” The answer given was “What war effort? “. I cite some questions and facetious answers which appeared in the Truth newspaper published in most of Australia’s States -

If Australia’s war effort is good, what Ministers do you think are responsible? - We would blame themall.

What do you think of Mr. Menzies as Prime Minister? - He is a nice bloke.

Who would you like to be Prime Minister? - Darby Munro; a vote would be wortha winner.

Do you listen to the 7 p.m. radio sessions of the Department of Information? - If there were one station on the air which did not have to broadcast it, it’s popularity with listeners at 7 p.m. would be amazing.

I now ask the Minister in all seriousness whether he will inform me next week who is responsible for the appointment of these persons, and whether they are in any way associated with any governmental activity. The Criminal Investigation Branch in Brisbane tried unsuccessfully to discover by whom they were appointed and I now suggest that inquiries should be made by the Commonwealth Investigation Branch, I should like to be assured that Government money is not being wasted in obtaining answers to suck foolish questions.

Motion (by Senator Dein) agreed to.

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 329

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of the Interior - L. G. Alexander,

Senate adjourned at6.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 August 1940, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1940/19400808_senate_15_164/>.