Senate
7 December 1948

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3986

QUESTION

JAPANESE PEACE TREATY

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– Now that the War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo has concluded its work and the president, Mr. Justice Webb, has returned to Australia, can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel make a report to the Senate upon the progress that is being made towards the negotiation of a treaty of peace with Japan ?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not in a position to answer the question offhand, but I shall make inquiries from the Minister for Defence with a view to obtaining the information sought by the honorable senator.

page 3986

STATES GRANTS (ADMINISTRATION OP CONTROLS RE-IMBURSEMENT) BILL 1948

Assent reported.

page 3986

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel make a report to the Senate before the Parliament goes into recess about the supply of refined sugar for industrial and domestic use in Victoria? Has the situation in that State improved since he last reported to the Senate on the subject?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I shall have inquiries made to ascertain whether the supply of sugar to Victoria has improved. The fact that there have been no complaints recently about sugar supplies in that State indicates that the position has improved.

page 3986

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– On the 18th November, Senator Murray asked the following questions: -

As the lllth Anniversary Regatta of the Royal Hobart Regatta Association will take place on Saturday, 12th February, and Tuesday,15th February, 1949 -

Will the Australian Naval Squadron be in southern Tasmanian waters at that time?

What will be the composition of the squadron?

Can the Australia be made available as a flagship for the regatta?

What will be the approximate number of officers and men on board the squadron?

The following answers have been supplied by the Minister for the Navy : -

  1. H.M.A. Ships Australia (wearing flag of Flag Officer Commanding His Majesty’s Australian Squadron), Arunta andCondamine will be in southern Tasmanian waters at the time of the111th Anniversary Regatta.
  2. See above.
  3. H.M.A.S. Australia will be available to act as flagship for the regatta.
  4. The approximate number of officers and men in theships of the squadron present will be- Officers, 77 ; ratings 950.

page 3986

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– As the only publicity given in the press of Tasmania to the result of the municipal elections in Sydney on the 4th December concerned allegations regarding the regularity of the ballots, can the Leader of the Senate, inform me of the result of the elections of aldermen to the council of the City of Sydney ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The only information that I can supply is that given by the press, according to which Labour gained an overwhelming majority of the aldermanic seats. The latest information indicates that Labour will win nineteen seats against eleven seats by the opposing candidates

page 3987

QUESTION

SNOWY RIVER SCHEME

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, the following questions : -

  1. Will he lay on the table of the Senate this week the report of the committee which has been investigating proposals for the diversion of the Snowy River?
  2. Is it a fact that two alternative proposals for the use of the waters of the Snowy and other streams iii the Kosciusko region have been put forward in the report?
  3. If so, does one proposal provide for the application of 885,000 acre feet of additional water for irrigation purposes in the Murrumbidgee Valley within eight years, whilst the other will provide only 25 per cent, of this amount in ten years, and from eighteen to twenty years will elapse before water will he available for irrigation?
  4. Is the difference in estimated power output of the two proposals of a comparatively negligible nature, namely, not more than 10 per cent. ?
  5. Will the Government, in deciding ite policy in this connexion, give the utmost consideration to the urgency of making this additional water available at the earliest possible moment, so that the great increase in land settlement and production which will follow may lie brought about without delay?
Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No definite decision has yet been made and, in consequence, no report is yet available for presentation to the Senate. The matter is receiving consideration, and a subcommittee of Cabinet will meet to-morrow night to make a decision. I trust” that a report of the matter will then be made to the Senate.

page 3987

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing seen reports in the press that the rate of construction of houses in Victoria this year is only approximately 1,000 fewer per annum than in 1923, which was the peak year of house construction? Will the Minister make a statement to the Senate showing exactly how the policy of the Government has assisted in the construction of houses? Will he also inform the Senate of the degree of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in the construction of homes throughout Australia?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP

– I shall be only too happy to bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Minister for Works and Housing. Although the honorable senator referred to 1923 as the peak year of house construction in Australia, according to my information, the statistics in respect of the number of houses constructed that year have never been authenticated, and there is some doubt about whether they are correct. In the opinion of informed people the number of houses constructed in Victoria and in other parts of Australia during the current year will exceed that of any previous year.

page 3987

QUESTION

MOTOR CARS FOR DISABLED EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a report of the British Ministry of Pensions that within the next two years 2,000 seriously disabled British war pensioners will receive a car each from the British Government, which will provide the cars free of charge, and with tax and insurance paid, and a £45 grant each for maintenance, for selected seriously disabled pensioners who are unable to use ordinary transport?
  2. Will the Government consider making similar facilities available to totally and permanently disabled ex-members of the Australian Forces?
Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The British Ministry of Pensions is being contacted with a view to obtaining the fullest possible particulars in relation to the scheme in operation in the United Kingdom. Some little time may elapse before the particulars requested are to hand, and until an opportunity has presented itself of studying them, together with the legal aspects involved, it would be inadvisable to give full consideration to the matter.

page 3988

QUESTION

TEA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen the report of a statement by the President of the Queensland Grocers and Retail Traders Association, Mr. W. Raymont, that retail grocers in that State unanimously favoured abolition of tea rationing, that most people had more tea coupons than they needed, that grocers had ample stocks, and that, if rationing were lifted, tea sales would not increase to any extent?
  2. Will the Minister state whether a similar position exists in other States?
  3. In view of the recent statement of Sir Percival Griffiths, adviser to the International Tea Marketing Expansion Board, that the world would soon have more tea than it could use, will the Minister explain why the Government does not contemplate the early abolition of tea rationing?
Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · through Senator Ashley · ALP

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

  1. I have not seen the report referred to.
  2. It could be accepted that the retail trade in all States is anxious to abolish rationing because it involves more work. The retail trade does not, however, speak for consumers who are subsidized to the extent of about 2s.6d. on each pound of tea consumed. While such a heavy subsidy exists rationing will continue.
  3. The statement by Sir Percival Griffiths that there would soon be a surplus supply of tea is discounted in the tea trade. At the moment it is difficult to secure adequate supplies of tea of Australian standard and prospects for the immediate future are not bright. It is believed, however, that supply will equal demand in a couple of years. The question of continuance of rationing of tea is continually being examined and the Government’s decisions are based on the considerations I have mentioned.

page 3988

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator Ashley) put -

That Standing Order68 be suspended up to and including Friday, the10th December next, to enable new business to be commenced after 10.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3988

ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL (No. 2) 1948

Bill presented by Senator McKenna, and read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) put -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to make an amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act necessitated by the fact that many public and private offices are now closed on Saturday mornings. Sub-section 2 of section 36 of that act provides that where the last day allowed for the doing of any act in the law falls on a Sunday or on a holiday, the action may be taken on the first day following which is not a Sunday or holiday. In view of the closing of Commonwealth offices, solicitors’ offices and other offices on Saturday, it is desirable in order to prevent public inconvenience, that this provision should be amended so as to provide that where the last day for doing any such act falls on a Saturday, it may be done on the next business day, that is, on the next day which is not a Sunday or holiday. The proposed amendment is supported by the Law Council of Australia and there is no doubt that it will be advantageous to the business community and to the general public.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3988

COAL PRODUCTION (WAR-TIME) ACT REPEAL BILL 1948

Motion(by Senator Ashley) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the repeal of the Coal Production (War-time) Act 1944, for the collection of statistics in respect of coal, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) put -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New SouthWales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to enable the Coal Production (War-time) Act 1944 which now applies to all States, except New South Wales, to be repealed, State by State, by proclamation; and to empower the Joint Coal Board, constituted under the Coal Industry Act 1946, to collect statistics relating to the production, distribution and use of coal throughout Australia.

The Coal Production (War-time) Act 1944 which was assented to on the 8th March, 1944, established a Commonwealth Coal Commissioner and subordinate authorities for the war-time control of the coal industry throughout Australia. Honorable senators will recall that in 1946 joint legislation was passed by this Parliament and the Parliament of New South Wales to give effect to an agreement reached between the Governments of the Commonwealth and of the State of New South Wales for the joint control of the coal industry in New South Wales in peace-time.

One of the effects of that joint legislation was that on its complete proclamation which operated from the 1st March, 1947, the Commonwealth Coal Commissioner ceased to have any duty, powers or functions in respect of the coal industry, of coal mines or of coal produced in the State of New South Wales. This was subject to the exception that the commissioner retained his powers and functions in respect of coal which, having been produced in New South Wales, was carried outside that State and was not the subject of any continuing order, direction or requirement of the Joint Coal Board. In addition, the commissioner retained his powers and functions in respect of the coal industry, of coal mines and of coal produced in each of the States other than New South Wales.

It has been the Australian Government’s policy that the Coal Production (War-time) Act 1944, which was enacted under the defence power, should be repealed at the earliest possible moment consistent with ensuring that adequate provision shall be made for orderly transition to peace-time control of the industry in States where control is necessary.

The only State government which has formally notified the Australian Government of its intentions is the Queensland Government, which has rejected the system of joint legislation and has secured the passage of Queensland legislation for the establishment of a State coal board to control the coal industry in that State. The Queensland Government has publicly announced that the State Coal Board will commence to function in the new year and the Commonwealth desires to ensure that the Coal Production (War-time) Act 1944 will cease to apply to that State by the end of this year.

The AustralianGovernment proposes that, where necessary, other States be given a further opportunity to inform it of their intention regarding control of those aspects of the coal industry in the respective States which appear to require at least temporary control. The main aspect with which the Commonwealth Government is concerned is that of the distribution of locally mined coal and of coal imported from New South Wales. With the demand for coal still exceeding supplies throughout Australia it is obviously necessary that distribution in all States be controlled. The Commonwealth has a real interest in this matter apart from its general concern for the welfare of the people of all States. The position is that all States import coal from New South Wales where the Commonwealth is spending large sums of money for the organization of the industry, and it is clear that the distribution of coal from New South Wales imported into other States cannot at the present stage be left uncontrolled in those States. That matter hasbeen attended to, up to date, by the various State coal committees operating under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Coal Commissioner, and exercising powers and functions under the Coal Production (War-time) Act 1944.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’ Sullivan) adjourned.

page 3990

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides machinery by which certain research work now being performed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research may be transferred from the council to an appropriate department of the Commonwealth Public Service. In a statement on Australian defence policy made by the Minister for Defence (Mr.Dedman), on the 23rd September last, it was explained that the Government had assumed a substantial commitment for co-operation in British Commonwealth defence in respect of defence research and development. In his statement, the Minister intimated that, in addition to the long-range weapons project and associated activities, research and development projects included works dealing with the development and design of aircraft and a large number of other projects relating to armament and other war material which, on account of security requirements, could not be described in detail.

In relation to the wide field of research covered by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in connexion with primary and secondary industries, the proportion of work relating to defence carried out by the council is small. Nevertheless, there is some work which the Government has decided would now be better placed under the Department of Supply and Development, which is responsible for the major part of defence research. Under this bill, the GovernorGeneral, by notice published in the Gazette, may determine from time to time what work of the council should be carried out in a department of the Commonwealth Public Service and which Commonwealth department should assume control of that work. Machinery is provided for the transfer of the work and the officers and employees engaged on it to the Commonwealth Public Service. Commonwealth officers and employees so transferred will not suffer any loss of salary. Those whose tenure of office is permanent, to all intents and purposes, will become permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Service which counted for leave and superannuation purposes with the council will be counted in a like manner under the Public Service Act.

The immediate intention is to transfer to the Commonwealth Public Service about 250 officers and employees of the Division of Aeronautics of the Council. There may be developments which cannot be immediately foreseen which would make it desirable to transfer other sections or divisions of work. The bill leaves the way open to make further transfers from time to time should circumstances warrant such action. The bill also provides that all employees to be transferred to the permanent staff in the Commonwealth Public Service must take an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the King and to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Provision is made for an amendment of the Public Service Act to enable the Public Service Board to require all temporary employees of the Commonwealth now employed, and those engaged in or transferred to the service in the future, to take the oath or affirmation. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 3990

IMMIGRATION BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill <be now read a second time.

The principal objective of the bill is to give the Government power to control the activities of persons in Australia who act as agents in connexion with applications for the admission to this country of intending migrants or who arrange or secure passages for migrants. This will be achieved by - (1) requiring such agents to be registered, and prohibiting unregistered persons from acting as agents; (2) prescribing the fees or charges which may be made by agents for services rendered; (3) providing for the cancellation of the registration of those agents who neglect the interests of their clients or are guilty of misconduct; and (4) providing that amounts paid in excess of the prescribed fees or charges shall be refunded.

The Department of Immigration has received numerous complaints of misrepresentation and excessive charges having been made in connexion with the preparation and lodgment of applications for the admission of aliens who wish to settle here. It has been stated that, in some cases, the fee charged for such a service has been £100 or even more. To justify such a charge an unscrupulous agent would allege that, if he was to succeed in obtaining approval for a migrant’s admission, it would be necessary for him to make a special visit to Canberra. In not a few cases the agent was alleged to have claimed that, if the case was to be brought to a successful conclusion a gift of money was essential. I am happy to say, however, that in not one case has any public servant accepted money from an agent. It has been announced publicly on more than one occasion that there is no necessity whatever for any agent to visit Canberra in connexion with an application for the admission of a migrant, that such visits are not welcomed, and, in fact, only hinder the work of the department. That is still the case.

The Department of Immigration has an office in each capital city, where appli cations for the admission of migrants are dealt with, and all that is required is that an application in the prescribed form shall be lodged at such an office. It will then be dealt with on its individual merits in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government, and the employment of an agent does not, and will not, in any way influence a decision in favour of an intending migrant. The form of application for the admission of a migrant is quite a simple document, which any person who is not illiterate is capable of completing properly without calling upon the services of an agent. Furthermore, officers of the department will render any assistance necessary if an applicant is in doubt on any particular point. In regard to persons who arrange or secure passages to Australia for intending migrants, instances have come under notice where charges have been made which were not warranted by the services rendered. It has been reported that one agency charged, in addition to the actual cost of the passage to Australia, an agency fee of £5 and 10s. for postage. The company for which this agency acted at no time had at its disposal any ship which could bring migrants to Australia. Yet the agency booked over SOO passages and, in every case, retained £5 10s. for agency fees and postage. It has been stated that another company operating outside Australia stipulates if a .passage is provided but the migrant is unable to take advantage of it - and he may have excellent reasons for not doing so - only 50 per cent, of the passage money will be repaid. It is also understood that that company claims the right, in the event of damage or delay, to disembark passengers at any port, retaining the whole amount of the passage money without any obligation to convey passengers to their destination. The Government cannot, of course, control the activities of, or charges made by, persons or companies operating outside Australia. It can do so, however, in respect of persons or companies operating here, and the bill will enable the Government to take effective action against those acting as agents for overseas firms who seek to charge exorbitant fees or render inadequate service. Irrespective of any agreement entered into with any person or company in Australia, the bill will ensure that moneys paid in Australia for a migrant’s passage shall, at the direction of the Minister, be repaid in full if the passage is not provided within a reasonable time. This will apply not only to passage moneys paid in future, but also to those paid before the act commences to operate. In addition, the bill provides for the imposition of heavy penalties for breaches of the law, and enables a court to grant adequate reparation to any person who suffers loss by reason of any offence committed by an agent.

Complaints of misrepresentation and the charging of extortionate fees by unscrupulous agents are not a new experience for the department. Numbers of such complaints were received in prewar days, but unfortunately there was no legislation in existence under which those undesirable activities could be banned or curbed. The Government’s view, with which I am sure all honorable senators will fully agree, is that such a state of affairs should not be tolerated any longer. The bill will put an end to the abuses which unscrupulous agents have perpetrated in the past and, therefore, fills a long felt need. As such, I strongly commend it to the favorable consideration of the Senate. One point which I should like to make clear is that the provisions of the bill will apply only to persons who accept payment for their services. Individuals who desire to aid intending migrants out of friendship, and institutions and organizations which are interested in migration, but are not profitmaking concerns, will not be required to register as agents.

The introduction of the bill affords an opportunity to make certain amendments to existing immigration law which for some time have been regarded as desirable. The principal amendment is in relation to persons who have been allowed to enter Australia temporarily under certificates of exemption, and have over-stayed the period for which they were admitted, or have failed to comply with the conditions of their admission. Under the law, as it now stands, action can be taken to enforce the departure of these persons only after they have been given notice in writing to leave within a specified period. In practice this provision has proved anything but satisfactory, as on receipt of the notice many of the persons concerned disappear and the department is put to considerable expense and trouble, sometimes entailing months of work, in endeavouring to round them up. It has, therefore, been decided to revert to the practice, which originally operated under immigration law, by which an order can be issued by the Minister for the deportation of any person whose exemption has expired or has been cancelled, without having first to serve notice on him.

The remaining provision of the bill which calls for comment is a machinery clause designed to provide that an immigrant shall be in possession of a passport issued by a government recognized by the Australian Government, instead of, as is now the case, a government recognized by the government of the United Kingdom. This amendment Wil] also rectify an existing anomaly in that it will enable legal recognition to be given under the act to vises granted on foreign passports by an Australian consular or passport officer, as well as to those granted by other British officials.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) adjourned.

page 3992

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP BILL 1948

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 3703), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– There seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding about the reason for the introduction of the measure, and the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), who introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, has not been greatly assisted by his political supporters. It is gratifying that when he introduced the bill the Minister stated -

The bill is not in any way designed to make an Australian any less a British subject, but to help him express his pride in citizenship of this great country -

A lot of the misunderstanding and a certain amount of fear arose from some of the irresponsible statements made by the supporters of the Government. That great statesman, Mr. Winston Churchill, before he was defeated for the leadership of the Government of the United Kingdom, stated that he had not been appointed the King’s first Minister for the purpose of presiding over the dissolution of the British Empire. I invite honorable senators to contrast that statement with the pronouncement of another outstanding political leader of the British people, Sir Stafford Cripps, who exercises great power and influence in the present Government of that country. He made bold to say that the disintegration of the British Empire is a prerequisite to the implementation of his party’s programme of socialism. Of course, it is quite true that in England, as in Australia, there are socialists and socialists. Some Australian socialists, who are also members of the Australian Labour party, are prepared, according to the blunt statements which they have made from time to time, to see the dissolution of the British Empire.

Senator Sandford:

– Rubbish !

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I think that it is rubbish, too.

Senator Nash:

– Name some of the Labour men who have made such statements.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

-If the senator cares to read the statements which are made by his colleagues of the Australian Labour party from time to time he will realize that what I have said is quite true. Of course, the attitude of socialists varies considerably, and it is gratifying, therefore, that the Minister for Immigration, when he introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, made it abundantly clear that the dismemberment of the Empire is not the Government’s aim in introducing the measure. In the course of his speech, he stated -

It should he clearly understood, and this is a point which I cannot too strongly emphasize, that creation of an Australian citizenship under this bill will in- no way lessen the advantages and privileges which British subjects, who may not be Australian subjects, enjoy in Australia.

That is very reassuring, and I believe that some of the opposition to this measure, and the confusion that it has caused, would not have arisen had the Minister for Immigration not been handicapped by the support of some of his friends. There is another portion of the Minister’s speech that I shall quote. Too much publicity cannot be given to this aspect of the matter, at this time of turmoil and trouble, when there are in the world many people who would view with great pleasure any sign of the disintegration of the Empire. We, of the British tradition, believe that the greatest contribution that we can make to peace is to foster the closest possible association and co-operation between the various elements of the Empire. Those who are opposed to our way of life, however, see, in the disintegration of the Empire, a prospect of forcing their ideology upon the world. I believe that, psychologically, the present time is rather unfortunate for the introduction of this measure, unless its purport is clearly and forcibly emphasized. I was pleased, therefore, to read the following passage in the Minister’s secondreading speech : -

Incorporated in the Australian flag is the Union Jack and similarly in this bill there is complete recognition of our close ties with the United Kingdom and the other countries of the British Commonwealth. Provision is made for us to remain British subjects while identifying ourselves as Australian citizens. . . .

It is well that Australians should bear that in mind. It is a sentiment which should be widely disseminated overseas, not only amongst the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but also amongst others who may hope for some sign of the disintegration of the Empire.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Does the honorable senator mean the Empire or the British Commonwealth of Nations? Does he differentiate between the two?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– No, they are the same. However, whether the time for the introduction of this bill is appropriate or not, the measure is an inevitable consequence of the Statute of Westminster. It has been pointed out that corresponding legislation has been passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and by the parliaments of the other Dominions. From a machinery point of view, the bill has certain advantages. For instance, in the United States of America to-day, there is a British embassy and an Australian embassy, a British consulgeneral and an Australian consul-general. The passage of this measure will enable the Australian consul-general to know precisely to whom his responsibility extends. Australia is a growing power in the Pacific. Some day, I trust, it will bc- a dominant power. Inevitably, as Australia develops, there will be in the eastern countries Australian consuls working side by side with British consuls. This measure will enable the duties, obligations, responsibilities, and privileges of British subjects, whether they be British citizens or Australian citizens, to be determined clearly. There is another feature of the measure which may be of advantage. There are coming to this country at present many Europeans who are completely lacking in any British background. Apart from the respect that they have for British institutions and the privilege, which I am sure they value, df living under our flag, they have no emotional or blood attachment to Great Britain. Their children will be born here as Australian citizens. When these children grow up, they will have only a vague idea of where their emotional national attachment should lie. They will not have any British blood in their veins. This measure will confer upon them a specific citizenship in which they may take full and justifiable pride. That citizenship will assist the fulfilment of an emotional objective which, under our present law, cannot be fulfilled.

Generally speaking, I do not raise any objection to the bill. It has some commendable features. My only regret is that the present international atmosphere makes this a rather unfortunate time, psychologically, for the introduction of the measure. I trust that in whatever debate may ensue upon the bill, we shall make it clear, not only to the people of thi6 country, but also to the people overseas that the passage of the measure does not represent any disintegration of the close ties that bind us as partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I congratulate the Government on introducing this bill, which is most necessary and timely. I also commend the

Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) and his staff for the manner in which the bill has been presented, and upon the complete information that has been provided. Unlike the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan), I believe that the measure is overdue, and is in keeping with the march of progress all over the world, particularly in the British Commonwealth of Nations. The object of the bill is to establish, for the first time, the principle of Australian citizenship and, at the same time, to maintain between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations ‘the common bond of nationality. The Statute of Westminster established the Dominions of the Commonwealth of Nations as equal partners, independent of each other, but with a common bond of allegiance to His Majesty the King. There is no question of disintegrating the British Empire. Basically, under the provisions of this bill, we Australians will be no less British subjects than we are to-day. We shall not lose any privilege or precedence; but we shall be Australian citizens in addition to being British subjects. We shall not lose anything; we shall gain something. As I see it, we shall acquire a Christian name. It has always been recognized, and understood, that citizens of the United Kingdom and the colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon, are British subjects. At various stages, the parliaments of those countries passed legislation bringing into effect which was known as the “ common code “ system of British nationality, and establishing a common surname “ British “. But the “ common code “ system has broken down. It has proved unworkable. On the 1st January, 1946, Canada passed legislation similar to this measure, thus adding the Christian name, “ Canadian “ to the family surname “British”. On the 1st January, 1949, New Zealand will do likewise, and on the same day, the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster will proclaim similar legislation co-ordinating and consolidating the citizenship of the British Commonwealth of Nations. There will then be a new conception of the British

Commonwealth of Nations. Each member will decide for itself, in its own legislature, who are entitled to the privileges of its citizenship, and the sum total of the people of the various British Commonwealth Nations will be British subjects. The Government has chosen next Australia Day, the 26th January, to proclaim the measure and announce to the world our Christian name. No day, or time, could be more fitting to take such action. Australia has made remarkable progress since the first settlers arrived in New South Wales, but I believe that the real awakening of national independence began in the days of the gold rushes, which brought to these shores virile, free men from the four corners of the earth. Their virility and courage eliminated the convict strain which contaminated Australia’s blood stream. We recall with pride the battle of the Eureka Stockade at Ballarat in December, 1854. On that occasion the gold miners hoisted the Southern Cross flag. To-day the Southern Cross and the Union Jack are embodied in the Australian flag, not as gestures of defiance and distrust but as symbols of mutual respect and admiration. Now, in the same month, 94 years later, we are participating in another historic event in the life of the Australian nation.

This bill is designed to express the pride of Australians in themselves and in their country. Our prestige is high, and our future bright. One has only to travel overseas to realize how high Australia stands in the eyes of the world. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, who was a member of the Empire parliamentary delegation which has just returned from overseas, told me that everywhere he went he was impressed by the great admiration and the high regard which all the people he met have for Australia and none more so than the people of Great Britain. When I visited Japan recently as a member of the parliamentary delegation, I was particularly struck with the high regard for Australia which all people I met entertain for Australia and Australians. They included not only Japanese who, to-day, are a defeated and subjugated race, but also Americans, Dutch, French and Chinese. All of them displayed great interest in Australia and our affairs. That is a wonderful tribute to the achievements of this young nation. Despite the allegations made by members of the Opposition parties in the House of Representatives this bill is not the beginning of the end of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Although our fighting men are proud to be known as British soldiers - the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan now consists solely of Australian troops - they are prouder still to carry on their shoulder tabs the name “Australia”. The march of time has turned the eyes of the world on the valiant deeds of our fighting men and women in two world wars as well as on the skill and industry of our workers, the products of our fields, forests, mines and seas. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quoted a statement by Mr. Winston Churchill to the effect that he did not wish to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. I hold in my hand a photograph of the dominion Prime Ministers taken at Buckingham Palace in the company of His Majesty the King at an interlude in the proceedings at their recent conference in London. Their common objective at that conference was to cement the bonds of national independence and respect among all countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations. There was no suggestion of any country breaking away from the Commonwealth of Nations. This photograph, a copy of which can be viewed by honorable senators in the Parliamentary Library, suggests anything but the dissolution of the British Empire. However, members of the Opposition parties complain that this measure means the end of Empire? unity and, full of woe, they predict the downfall of the British race. That is nonsense. I remind honorable senators that in the days of Pitt the Younger, the American colonies seceded from the Empire. At that time, the whole world ganged up against Great Britain. There was an economic crisis in that country and hunger and unemployment stalked the land. Pitt himself declared, “ There is scarcely anything around us but ruin and despair “. Yet in Pitt’s lifetime Great Britain achieved supremacy in world trade and power previously unparalleled in British history. Again in the 1840’s- the “hungry ‘forties”-

Disraeli declared, “In industry, commerce and agriculture there is no hope “. But, once more, in the Victorian era, Great Britain made gigantic strides at home and abroad. We remember the disasters at Dunkirk and Singapore, but Australia still lives; and the Mother Country still lives. I refuse to take any notice of the “ dismal Desmonds “ and “ calamity Kates “ who now predict the eclipse of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We heard much the same from the “Bombay” brigadiers when Great Britain granted dominion status to India and Pakistan. I believe that we are on the threshhold of greater things in the history of the British race, and that the close co-operation about which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had so much to say is about to become an established fact. That co-operation can best be secured on the basis of the mutual independence of thought and spirit of each member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The bill also contains important divisions with respect to the status of married women. I consider it to be most objectionable that simply because a woman marries a man of another nationality she must accept his nationality. This measure provides that every woman, married or single, shall be free to determine her nationality. In addition, it restores British nationality to women who by reason of marriage may have become aliens. During the war a large number of Australian women married Americans, Dutch and other nationals and automatically they adopted the nationality of their husbands whether they wished to do so or not. The measure will rectify that anomaly. It also provides that in future all passports issued to Australians shall indicate Australian citizenship. The endorsement will be, “ Australian citizen and British subject “. I can see nothing wrong with that provision. It simply provides for the acknowledgment on an Australian’s passport of the country from which he, or she, comes and I have no doubt that all Australians will take pride in that fact.

Some time ago I stressed the importance of impressing upon non-British migrants the privilege of becoming Australian citizens, and I criticized the shoddy and undignified method hitherto adopted by the authorities in conferring that honour and recognition. I made those observations as the result of a conversation which I had with a German who had become an American citizen. Later, he resided in Australia for many years. He married an Australian woman and after bringing up a very fine family and establishing a profitable business he wished to become an Australian citizen. He was very critical of the method by which the oath of allegiance was administered to him. After he took the oath before a magistrate his papers were sent to him through the post just as his income tax assessment, or dog licence, would be forwarded to him. It was just as casual and as unimportant as that! I am glad that under this measure provision is being made for the oath of allegiance to be administered with due dignity in open court where the Australian flag shall be prominently displayed and an appropriate address shall be given by the presiding judge upon the privileges, responsibilities and benefits of the applicant’s new status as an Australian citizen. That provision is long overdue. We cannot over-value the privilege of becoming an Australian citizen. I heartily endorse the bill and consider that it would be appropriate at this stage to repeat these immortal lines -

Breathes there a man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land !

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I support the measure and should like to comment on some of its features. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said -

We . . . owe much to our forebears who pioneered this country, with few of life’s amenities but with stout hearts and limitless courage; who opened its fertile plains, explored its rivers, won the bounty of its soil and the mineral treasures below. We owe it, too, to those who will come after us to develop the splendid heritage that is ours. We must hand it on to them untarnished.

This measure is in consonance with the development of that splendid heritage inasmuch as it is an extension of the idea that was in the minds of our forefathers, and is in ours, namely, to expand, develop and make Australia into a true, living democracy. I approve of the measure as long as it does not foster and instil a too definite form of nationalism into our people. I use the word “nationalism” in the sense of “ parochialism “ or “ isolationism “. It is very pleasing to know that we have reached a stage in our history when we can call ourselves a nation and our people can have their own citizenship. This measure represents, one of the many different steps that have taken place in the history of our country. Australia has developed much since the time when the colony of New South Wales spread south as far as Wilson’s Promontory. That condition was largely the result of the administration of the colonial office in England, and the inhabitants of New South Wales at that time were among the pioneers who have already been referred to in this debate. When those opposing the present measure suggest that, by it, the Australian people will lose something, their attitude is much the same as assuming that Tasmanians and Queenslanders, for instance, lost something by the federation of the Australian States into the Commonwealth of Australia. Far from losing by that federation, those States gained in status, in reputation, and economically and socially as Australians and as members of the Commonwealth of Australia. This measure is an extension of a similar process. Australia, having passed through the process of being a number of colonies, and then a number of sovereign States which united into the Commonwealth of Australia, is developing further by establishing its own citizenship while yet maintaining its identity within the framework of the British Commonwealth, with status equal to that of other members of the British Commonwealth. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) referred to the disintegration of the British Empire the thought .flashed through my mind that, in these days when a great event has just taken place in the British Commonwealth - the birth of a new prince - we have also witnessed the passing of an old system and the birth of a new order. The difficulties that are associated with the birth of the new British Commonwealth are many, hut nevertheless the process of the emergence of the new commonwealth continues. I say, without fear of contradiction, that within the new British Commonwealth we have the power for good, the power to keep peace on the earth. In many quarters it is taken for granted that the only two great world powers to-day are the United States and the Soviet Union; that they are the only nations now with the resources to start a third world war. That may be so at the present time, but we can also see right throughout the British Commonwealth the most amazing application of peoples to an idea and an ideal. History reveals that all the great achievements that have taken place have been the realization of ideals. One of the most impressive aspects of recent history has been the slow but sure recovery of the great British people who have bent their backs to the task of rehabilitating themselves after the terrible blows that they experienced during the war, when Britain’s cities were bombed, its overseas investments were liquidated and when it found, at Dunkirk, that the British people had no friends and faced the battle for democracy and peace alone. Those people have started, as Rudyard Kipling has said, to -

  1. . stoop and build (again) with worn out tools.

They have shown the world that they have a substance that is not evident in any other people. I am proud that this bill will give us ‘Co-equal nationality with those great people inside the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Another aspect that we must bear in mind during the present stage of the evolution and the alinement of powers in the world to-day is that we British people form a vast, loosely-knit but nevertheless well-bound commonwealth which, instead of disintegrating, is assuming a new, enduring strength. We find to-day that great races of people who previously have been subject people and remained inside the Empire only because of domination, are now applying voluntarily for membership; I refer to the new independent selfgoverning republics of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. It is creditable to the British nation that it has retained its prestige and the respect of those people who have been for so long in an inferior position and who now, when they are completely free, desire to join the British Commonwealth. Those people will have their own nationality and their governments will probably introduce legislation similar to the measure at present before this chamber. I shall be pleased indeed when they reach that state within the British Commonwealth which has more than half the population of the world. It is formed of peoples that are bound together, not by force, not by any Gestapo or Ogpu or un-American activities committee, but by some spiritual force. It is in that ideal and that force that we shall find the neutralizing power that can be weighed against any future aggressor ; and therein lies the promise of future peace. Any power which desires to wage war upon any other power, or group of powers, will have to reckon with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the power which is latent in the British people, who, as I have said, constitute half the population of the world, can be thrown against an aggressor. I say that, as a partner in that Commonwealth, Australia should be very proud to have equal status with the British people. This measure is the outward expression of the status that we are about to achieve. During the short speech that Senator O’sullivan made on this bill, he said that he hoped that in the future Australia would become the dominant power in the Pacific. I cannot quite understand his meaning. I hope we will not become the dominant power in the Pacific, but that we will become a force for cooperation and tolerance in the Pacific. We are witnessing in the Pacific a further development of the ideals which are embodied in the Atlantic Charter and for which we fought during the war. The allies agreed during the war to give to nations, both great and small, the right to self-determination and the right of free access to raw materials. The ideals of the Atlantic Charter are being challenged again, and weak nations are asking once more for an affirmation of the promises given by the countries which subscribed to the charter. We are witnessing amongst the vast masses of the Asiatic peoples the growth of enlightenment which has led them to ask that they shall not be kept any longer in a state of subjection, but shall be given the rights which were promised to them under the Atlantic Charter. Some of our closest neighbours in the Pacific area are friendly, simple peoples, who have the will to develop their countries but have few of life’s amenities. They are now demanding independence and an acknowledgment of their status. The manner in which the ideals and high principles of the British Commonwealth have been honoured has inspired the peoples of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon to remain within the framework of the Commonwealth, and other Asiatic races, having witnessed this process, believe that the British nations will be tolerant towards them also, and will understand their aspirations. These peoples are to-day giving expression to a longrepressed feeling that there must be a change from indifference towards the conditions of their teeming millions to a feeling of sympathy and tolerance. Only by being sympathetic and tolerant can we be true to our professions of real humanity and a desire for peace on earth.

This bill will give expression to Australia’s status within the British Commonwealth. We have grown to nationhood during the last 50 years. We have had our baptism of blood in two world wars, and we have become a nation in our own right as the result of our own actions. We are now earning the right to retain that status by developing this great country. .Strategically, Australia is an important part of the great British Commonwealth, which extends to all parts of the world. Those who say that the old Empire is disintegrating are ignorant of what is intended by the new form of the British Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth will be an extension of the idea of Empire. I am certain that those who know anything of the history of that era in which the British Empire prospered, and therefore know of the acts that were committed in the name of Empire, will be pleased to see it pass for ever. I trust that, in the new British Commonwealth, we shall be able to make amends for many of the sins that were committed in the name of Empire. Many people seem to believe that the idea of a British Commonwealth is only a dream, and that the structure will lack strength. It will be only temporarily weak. That fact has been demonstrated by the magnificent achievements of the British people in their drive for increased production. Australia’s statistics, as we were told earlier to-day, show that we have almost reached the level of the peak year of housing construction of 1923, and we are gaining strength in every field of industry, thereby adding to our prestige and increasing our contribution towards the relief of the starving peoples of Europe, who were the victims of a political creed that we seek to replace with this great conception of a British Commonwealth. Anybody who writes off as being negligible the dogged determination of the British people is lacking in common sense. I am very proud that I have the opportunity to assist the passage of this bill. As the Minister for Supply and Development (Senator Armstrong) pointed out, this is an historic occasion in the life of our nation. The bill will establish for the first time the principle of Australian citizenship, while maintaining between the components of the British Commonwealth of Nations the common bond of British nationality. The importance of the measure lies in the fact that it marks another step forward in the development of Australian nationhood and in the enhancement of our prestige. I sincerely commend the hill to the Senate. I am sure that its provisions will be of great benefit to Australia in diplomatic circles and to Australians who travel overseas, and that generally it will be of advantage to every citizen within the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - There is little that I need add to the comments of honorable senators upon this bill. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) and other honorable senators for the reception that they have accorded to it. I regret that the debate upon this measure in the House of Representatives developed upon the theme that it might play some part in the dissolution of the British Empire. Supporters of the Government cannot be blamed for that. I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the discussion on the measure in the House of Representatives, and I consider that the Opposition, not the Government and its supporters, erred in adopting that line of argument. Members of the Opposition in that chamber, in effect, quoted Mr. Churchill’s declaration that he had not been made the first citizen of the British Empire in order to preside over its dissolution.

Senator Large:

Mr. Churchill would have more to do with its dissolution than would anybody else.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That might be so, but that is not the point of this discussion. The fact is that this bill recognizes the inevitable growth of Australia as a nation. Australia had to reach this stage at some time, and, as Senator Murray has said, the present is the ideal time for giving effect to the bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that he considered the time to be inopportune. One excuse for inaction which I will never accept is the assertion that “the time is inopportune “. Whatever a government may endeavour to do, somemembers of the community will inevitably declare that, although they agree with the action, the time is inopportune and theaction should be postponed. I assert that, if a thing should be done, the only time to do it is the present. The Government has seized the opportunity, following closely upon the actions of the United Kingdom Government and the Canadian Government on similar lines, to pronounce the right of every Australian tobe called an Australian citizen. The bill marks a development of Australia’sstatus among the nations of the world of which we can all be justly proud. We are a young nation. Certain events mark various stages of our growth as a nation, and I believe that this bill marks a very important stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

> - The Minister for Supply and Development (Senator Armstrong) indicated in his second-reading speech that he proposes to have this bill proclaimed as an act on what is commonly known as Anniversary Day or Foundation Day, the 26th January. Other students of history have a different idea as to what should really be Australia’s foundation day. The 26th January, 1788, was the date of arrival of the first settlers in Australia. But they were not free settlers; they came on a convict ship. There were 750 convicts and 300 marines and sailors. The real foundation day for Australia was the day when Captain Cook raised the British flag in this country, the 30th April, 1770. Suggestions have been made, and I think that they are highly commendable and well worth the earnest consideration of the Minister, that a more propitious date for the proclamation of the act, associated as it is with a further step in the development of Australian nationhood, would be the date of the actual founding of Australia by Captain Cook rather than the date upon which we received our first convicts from the Old Country.

Senator Ashley:

– Some of them proved to be good men.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– They did, indeed. Although they were convicts, many of them were sent here for political acts which might perhaps appear to be highly commendable in the light of subsequent history. Others, who were transported for offences against society, had committed offences which to-day might call for only slight punishment. Nevertheless, the 26th January, 1788, was the day upon which convicts were first landed in this country, and it is not a very happy day to perpetuate. The 30th April, 1770, when the Union Jack was first raised in Australia, is a much more propitious day upon which to base out nationhood. April also includes another date that is very sacred in this country - Anzac Day. After the solemn remembrance of the 25th April there could be an “ Australia Week “ finishing with a new celebration on the 30th April, a celebration worthy of the traditions of our country.. Therefore,. I suggest that the bill be proclaimed as an act on the 30th

April instead of the 26th January, as indicated by the Minister.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– I was very interested to hear the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) about the date upon which this bill should come into operation, but I must beg to disagree with him. I believe that I can truly say that no Australian to-day has any inferiority complex arising from the fact that the first men who made the effort to lay the foundations of what is becoming a very great nation were mostly convicts. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, their crimes were not great. The history of the early settlement of this country recalls to our minds Barrington’s famous couplet -

True patriots all; for, be it understood,

We left our country, for our country’s good.

Although Barrington undoubtedly left his country “ for his country’s good “, it is possible that he did no great harm to the country to which he came. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the misdeeds of many of the early convicts were civil and political rather than criminal.. In those days human life was not regarded very highly, and if a person’s offence was at all serious he did not live very long. However, it was necessary for the British Government to dispose of those who were not sentenced to death, and Australia was chosen as the place of disposal because it was almost the only place offering at that time. Any Australian who can trace his family descent to the original consignment of 750 convicts may feel justifiably proud.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– It depends on the offence for which his ancestor was deported.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– As I have said, most of them were deported for minor civil and political offences. I believe that Australia Day means more to us than any other because it marks the beginning of settlement in this country. It is true, of course, that some years prior to Phillip’s advent the flag had been raised in Australia by Cook, hut raising flags and laying, foundation stones seems to have been a popular pastime in those days not only of politicians but also of sailors and soldiers. In any event, explorers and adventurers from other countries had arrived in Australia and raised the flags of their respective nations even before Cook. The reason why the British Government followed up Cook’s discovery so quickly was that it was beset with the problem of clearing its over-crowded gaols. Had that factor not operated the settlement of Australia would undoubtedly have been delayed for many years. Frankly, I am proud of the fact that we have achieved so much from such humble beginnings. Although I shall convey the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), I cannot put them before my colleague with any force because I share his view that Australia’s history really began on the day that the ships bearing 750 convicts and 300 marines anchored in Australia.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 - (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ protected person “ means a person under the protection of the Government of any part of His Majesty’s dominions;

Amendment (by Senator Armstrong) agreed to -

That, in the definition of “ protected person “, sub-clause (1.), after the word “person” (second occurring) the following words be inserted: - “who is included in such prescribed classes of persons as are “.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– The definition of a “naturalized person “ contained in sub-clause 1 of clause 5 is as follows: - “ naturalized person “ means a person who under any law, whether in force before or after the date of commencement of this Act, becomes or became a British subject or an Irish citizen by virtue of a certificate of citizenship or a certificate of naturalization granted to him or in which his name is or was included or, in a case of a married woman, by virtue of a declaration that she desires or desired to acquire British nationality, and includes a person who under any such law was deemed to be a naturalized British subject by reason of his residence with his father or mother;

I am concerned about the position of the wife of an alien. The husband has been confined in a mental institution for a considerable period, and although, under the law of Victoria, his wife would be entitled to obtain a divorce from him on the ground of his insanity, she does not desire to do so because she has a sincere and abiding affection for him. I understand that some alteration was made to the present law to enable women in such circumstances to obtain naturalization. Can the Minister for Munitions (Senator Armstrong) inform me whether the present measure will preserve to alien women the benefit of that alteration?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– Like a number of other problems which sound difficult the solution of the honorable senator’s problem is easily found. The measure will confer on women in circumstances such as those mentioned by the honorable senator the right to apply in the ordinary course for naturalization.

Senator Sheehan:

– I understand that the prohibition on naturalization which formerly existed has been removed from the present act.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Each member of an alien couple is entitled in his or her own right to apply for naturalization. Apparently cases similar to that mentioned by the honorable senator have arisen in the past.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Registration as Australian citizens).

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I should like some information from the Minister for Supply and Development (Senator Armstrong) concerning the requirements that an applicant for naturalization must be able to engage in conversation in, and read and write, the English language. Many elderly foreigners who have been in Australia for many years, particularly in country areas, have not had sufficient opportunity to converse in the English language to enable them to comply with the requirements of the present act. Can the Minister inform me what provision is made in the bill for such people?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– Clause 15 of thebill provides that persons who havebeen in Australia for more than twenty years need not possess an adequate knowledge of the English language in order to obtain naturalization.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Declaration of intention to apply for naturalization).

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Sub-clauses 1 and 2 of clause 14 are as follows: - (1.) An alien or a protected person shall not be entitled to obtain a certificate of naturalization unless, not earlier than one year after his entry into Australia or NewGuinea, he makes a declaration in the prescribed form of his intention to apply for the grant of a certificate of naturalization as an Australian citizen. (2.) An alien or a protected person may make application in the prescribed form for the grant of a certificate of naturalization as an Australian citizen not earlier than two years and not later than seven years after the making of the declaration of intention or, in any case in which a declaration of intention is not required, not earlier than one year after his entry into Australia or New Guinea.

Can the Minister for Supply and Development (Senator Armstrong) inform me what action will be taken concerning any alien who has resided in Australia more than seven years but has not made application for naturalization? Will he be deported, or will he then be given an opportunity to apply for naturalization?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– The matter of deportation, does not arise. An alien who has resided in Australia for the prescribed period can make application for naturalization at any time he chooses.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 53 agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4002

PASSPORTS BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd December (vide page 3886), on motion by Senator Armstrong -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4002

HOSPITAL BENEFITS BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd December (vide page 3831), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Second Schedule).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– In clause 2 of the agreement, “ public hospital “ is defined as meaning a hospital which -

  1. is ordinarily recognized as a public hospital; and
  2. b ) is in receipt of a grant for maintenance from the State.

Will the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) indicate whether denominational hospitals such as Freemasons’ hospitals, St. Martin’s, the Church of England hospital at Brisbane, and hospitals run by various orders of nursing sisters, are eligible for the Commonwealth subsidy of 8s. a day for each occupied bed? Are they public hospitals within the meaning of the definition?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– According to the first part of the definition, “public hospital “ means a hospital which -

  1. is ordinarily recognized as a public hospital ;

That is coupled with the second part which states -

  1. is in receipt of a grant for maintenance from the State.

The two conditions must be satisfied. Dealing first with the question whether hospitals of the type mentioned by the. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) come within the ambit of paragraph a, I say at once that I am not at all familiar with the circumstances of those particular institutions. However, I can instance another hospital, the Lewisham Hospital in Sydney. I have been familiar with the operations of that institution for some time. Reverting first to the position that existed two years ago, I point out that at the Lewisham Hospital there were two separate buildings, housing two separate sides of the activities of that hospital. One was a purely private institution, and the other was an ordinary public hospital in which the means test was imposed, and indigent patients were treated without charge. There was also an out-patients department in which similar conditions in regard to charges obtained. Unquestionably, the Lewisham public hospital was ordinarily regarded as a public hospital. However, that would not have been sufficient to bring it within the definition of “ public hospital “ in our hospital benefits legislation because that definition provides that to be regarded as a public hospital an institution must be in some way subsidized by a State. Until about two years ago, the public section of the Lewisham Hospital was in receipt of a State subsidy. That subsidy is no longer paid, and consequently the hospital does not now come within the scope of the existing definition, and unless some change is made, it will not come within this definition. The provisions of a and b of clause 2 of the agreement are cumulative.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– If the denominational hospitals to which I have referred do not now come within the definition of “public hospitals “, will the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) give consideration lie bringing them within that definition? [ am not familiar with the financial relationship, if any, that exists between the public hospital known as the Mater Misericordiae and the Queensland Government, but I do know that the doors of that institution are open to any member of the public. It serves practically the whole south side of the river. Ambu lance cases from the south side are usually taken to the “ Mater “ rather than through the city to the Brisbane General Hospital. If that institution does not now come within the definition of “ public hospital “ in the hospital benefits legislation, will the Minister give favorable consideration to widening the definition to ensure its inclusion?

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– Since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) raised this matter, I have been informed that the Mater Misericordiae Hospital at Brisbane is a public hospital for the purposes of the existing hospital benefits agreement. The mere fact that it comes within the scope of the hospital benefits scheme signifies that it complies with the two conditions of both this agreement and the original, that is, it is ordinarily regarded as a public hospital, and also it is in receipt of a grant from the State. Saint Martin’s Hospital is an approved private hospital where the patients hitherto have been receiving the benefit of a reduction of 6s. a day in their accounts.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is the same as the “ Mater “ private hospital? .

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, if there is a private section. Non-public wards in a public hospital are treated on the sami; basis as private hospitals. I do not think that the honorable senator would suggest than any hospitals that wished to remain outside the ambit of the scheme should be brought into it forcibly. In fact, the public portion of the Lewisham Hospital has relinquished its State grant for the expressed purpose of remaining outside the scope of this agreement.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– There will be no coercion ?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– No. The matter is left to the discretion of the governing bodies.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– An executive of a public hospital has suggested to me that that institution does not receive the full payment to which it is entitled under the Hospital Benefits

Act, and that the State Government retains a certain percentage of the Commonwealth payment. I am informed also that the hospital suffers a disadvantage because, prior to the introduction of the original legislation, its committee of management was able, through local efforts, to raise certain sums of money to enable accommodation to be provided for patients without calling upon those patients to pay what might be regarded by some people as an equitable rate, but which might be regarded by others as an exorbitant rate for maintenance. It is considered that this institution suffers in comparison with hospitals which, prior to the introduction of the Hospital Benefits Act, charged higher rates to patients in public wards. I should like to know whether there is any foundation for this complaint, and if so, whether it would be possible to devise means whereby hospitals which previously charged fair rates to patients, could now receive the full benefit of the payments that are made available by the Commonwealth for the assistance of public hospitals.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– To answer the honorable senator’s question it will be necessary for me to review briefly the purpose of the Hospital Benefits Agreement. The prime purpose of the agreement was that there should no longer be any charge on patients in public wards of public hospitals. In other words, the Commonwealth’s aim was to benefit the patients.’ In effect, the Commonwealth said to the States, “ If you agree no longer to make any charge for accommodation, treatment and medicines to patients occupying public beds in public wards, we shall pay to you what you would otherwise have collected from them “. “We established a base year and decided to reimburse the .States at least the amounts that they had collected in that year. It is true that the hospitals that entered into the agreement had been collecting fees from their patients at varying rates. One might have been collecting 2s. 6d. a day, and another 10s. a day. We made a survey and, taking Victoria as an example, ascertained that collections had averaged 3s. 3d. a day for each occupied -bed. We decided to pay to the Government of that State a sum representing 6s. a day for each occupied bed. The task of making an equitable distribution to the various institutions rests with the State Government. The Commonwealth does not deal directly with individual hospitals; it deals solely with the States. As I have said, although the average collected by public hospitals in Victoria was found to be only 3s. 3d. a day for each patient, the Commonwealth decided to pay 6s. a day, the balance of 2s. 9d. a day to be paid into a trust account. The moneys in that account could be disbursed only on capital expenditure on public hospitals, and then only with Commonwealth approval. However, we have also allowed that fund to be used in connexion with the other matter raised by the honorable senator. We realized that the provision of free accommodation and medicines in public hospitals would bring a number of changes and repercussions. For instance we appreciated that it was not likely that public hospitals would get as many donations as they had received in the past from charitably disposed persons. Accordingly we provided that the State could take out of that capital fund an amount that would keep donations at the level ruling for the base year. So, the capital fund is for two purposes : First, for expenditure on capital projects of a public hospital nature; and, secondly, to reimburse hospitals in the scheme any falling off of donations that might follow the introduction of the hospital benefits scheme. Now, we are taking that position a good deal further. We are saying to the States, “ You have certain big sums in your capital trust funds accumulating at the rate of £420,000 a year. From the 30th June we shall discontinue payments to those funds, and instead, we shall pay you 8s., not 6s. a day. Instead of getting the 3s. 3d. or 3s. 9d. a day which was known formerly as the hospital expenditure rate, you may take the whole 8s. and apply it to the maintenance of your institutions, but no longer will we give you any guarantee about making up any deficiency in donations “. I say frankly that the Commonwealth has very generously met the States. In giving them 8s. a day we take up the really generous position that we are paying to the States a good deal more than they would, ever have collected from patients. So, we let them apply that money for maintenance purposes only. In the tuberculosis field - and this is the reason for the exclusion of tuberculosis hospitals from this measure - we shall in future be paying all capital expenditure from the 1st July this year and all maintenance expenditure over and above the net expenditure incurred by the States on tuberculosis during the last financial year. There is no longer any need for tuberculosis benefits in respect of those public beds. Under the Tuberculosis Act recently passed power is taken to enter into arrangements to provide money for capital purposes in the medical service and dental service fields and also to provide moneys for the maintenance of those institutions. There is no fixed principle laid down. I dealt with that set-up under the Tuberculosis Bill. The role of the Commonwealth in the hospital field for as many years as I can readily foresee will be to come to the financial aid of the States in helping them with capital expenditure and helping them with in globo grants for the maintenance of their various institutions.

Reverting to the two points made by Senator Sheehan, I point out that if there are any hospitals participating in the scheme which do not get what they claim is their full amount, the Commonwealth has paid more than enough to the States to enable them to get it. That is a matter between the individual hospital and the State Government. With regard to any falling off of donations, we have paid more than enough to enable the States to make good any deficiency. Nearly all of the States have signified acceptance to the new proposals, and I think that that is the best assurance I can give to the Senate that the proposals are at least not ungenerous.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– I should like the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) to explain more fully the following provision: - “ qualified person “ means a person who was ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of admission to a public hospital and is occupying a bed for the purpose of hospital treatment and includes, where two or more children are bom at one birth, any child born at that birth in excess of one, and also any newly born child except during the time thu mother of that child is occupying a bed, but does not include the persons referred to in sub-clause (1.) of clause 3a hereof:

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Where there is only a single birth and not a multiple birth the child born to the mother is not reckoned as a child in respect of whom separate benefit is payable.

Senator Rankin:

– The mother gets the benefit?

Senator McKENNA:

– If the mother is in a public ward occupying a public bed there is no charge to her at all. It is not so much a direct benefit in cash to her as that there is a complete absence of charge in a public ward. Nor is there any charge to the patient in respect of the child. What we are considering is how much the Commonwealth pays to the State, and we say that in respect of a mother with a child just born we shall pay 8s. a day.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– What about a private hospital?

Senator McKENNA:

– We are dealing with two things. First, there is the patient in a public bed in a public ward. In that case we pay Ss. to the State. Secondly, in some public hospitals there are non-public wards, where the patients do, in fact, pay. In those cases, pursuant to this agreement, we contribute to the State at the rate of 8s. ti day towards the charge made by the hospital in respect of the patient.

Senator Sheehan:

– That would be in an intermediate ward ?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, in an intermediate, or non-public, ward. This agreement covers those two cases. Apart from those two aspects, there is, under separate legislation, provision for private hospitals divorced altogether from public hospitals. Here, we are dealing with public hospitals in their two aspects - in their fully public ward section and in their non-public, or intermediate, ward section. In each case we pay the subsidy.

Senator O’SULLIVAN (Queensland- - Paragraph 6 of sub-clause 2 of proposed new clause 3a of the agreement reads - (ft) who has received, may receive or is entitled to receive, whether by way of damages or otherwise, portion of his fees, or an amount representing in whole or in part portion of his fees, under any law (including the common law) in force in the State, or in settlement of a claim under any such law; or

Lt appears from the wording of that provision that whatever the amount a patient may recover by process of law, or otherwise, in respect of hospital expenses - it may be only a very small fraction of the amount of expenditure actually incurred - no money is to be paid to the patient in respect of that amount. Is that the intention of this provision ?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– That is plainly not the intention. Sub-clause 1 of proposed new clause 3a of the agreement dennes persons who are not qualified persons. Paragraphs a, b and c of that sub-clause deal with people the whole of whose costs is paid by somebody else. Sub-clause 2, to which the honorable senator has referred, deals with cases where portion only of the fee is paid, and what happens in those cases is covered by the remainder of the sub-clause - the portion of the fees, or the portion of an amount representing fees, referred to in this sub-clause shall, for the purposes of this subclause, be deducted from the total hospital fees payable in respect of the hospital treatment of that person and the number (calculated to the nearest whole number) arrived at by dividing the remaining amount by the daily hospital fee shall be deemed to be the number of days during which that person was a qualified person for the purposes of this agreement.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Commonwealth receives back only what a patient recovers from a third party?

Senator McKENNA:

– We do not contribute in respect of any amount which some third party actually pays. Let us assume that the normal charge of ft hospital is £1 a day, and that the patient is in hospital for 100 days, making his total bill £100. Assuming that he is entitled to receive by way of damages, or otherwise, an amount of £50 only towards his costs, we deduct the £50 from the £100, leaving £50. We contribute in respect of 50 days at the rate of 8s. a day. I assure the honorable senator that there is complete equality of the treatment in all cases. This is only a machinery provision to achieve the same result as between persons covered by sub-clause 1 and sub-clause 2.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– The Minister’s reply brings to my mind a case in which compensation is payable. Assuming that a patient is in hospital for one hundred days and his total bill amounts to £100, if he is granted workers’ compensation amounting to £500, of which £25 is granted in respect of medical expenses, what would be his position under thi? provision?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Let us assume that the charge is £1 a day and that the patient is in hospital for 75 days. Of course, we are now regarding the patient as a private patient. We assume also that under workers’ compensation the patient is entitled to receive £25 only. We would deduct the £25 from the £75 leaving £50. that is at £1 a day, and we would contribute 8s. a day in respect of those fifty days. I warn honorable senators that at this juncture I am dealing not so much with public hospital patients as with the position of patients in a nonpublic ward in a public hospital which is analagous to a private patient in a private hospital. He gets the full benefit. It is a simple calculation. We take the total bill, deduct the amount allowed to him by way of damages, or workers’ compensation, and divide what is left at the daily bed rate. I have taken the simple case of a charge of £1 a day and ascertained the number of days on which the patient is deemed to be a qualified person. Whether the person is a patient in a public ward in a public hospital or in a non-public ward in a public hospital or a private patient in a private hospital, we make our contribution of 8s. to the State or the individual according to his location. I assure the Senate that a great deal of thought has been given to this matter, and that the scheme operates to the greatest possible advantage of the patient.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4007

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd Decem ber (vide page 3832), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4007

WAR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd December (vide page 3832), on motion by Senator Ashley-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4007

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd Decem ber (vide page 3881), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill proposes the establishment of an International Trade Organization. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.20 to 8 p.m..

page 4007

HIDE AND LEATHER INDUSTRIES BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to understandings reached in discussions between Commonwealth and State Ministers that the Commonwealth would be prepared to co-operate with the States in a co-ordinated effort to ensure the orderly marketing of hides andleather in Australia after the existing Commonwealth marketing scheme, which has been administered for the past nine years under National Security Regulations, expires on the 31st December, 1948. The States have been concerned, and not without good cause, regarding the problems likely to arise in relation to the homeconsumption price structure and the supply position in respect of leather, boots and shoes and other essential leather goods unless some effective marketing machinery should continue to operate until conditions become more normal. It was thought at one stage that it might be possible to rely solely upon existing Commonwealth powers under which exports of hides, leather and leather goods could be regulated. On close examination, however, it became apparent that the exercise of such powers by the Commonwealth would not alone be sufficient to avoid serious dislocation of activities in the leather and boot and shoe industries so long as the wide disparity between export prices and Australian home-consumption prices should remain.

  1. proposed new arrangement was then evolved on lines somewhat similar to those of the present Commonwealth marketing scheme, which has operated so effectively. This provided for a central pool of Australiangrown hides, from which Australian requirements would be allocated to the tanning industry at fixed prices and the balance sold in the open market for export abroad. The returns from homeconsumption and export sales would be pooled, and the hide producer would receive the equalized returns. It was found that complementary Commonwealth and State legislation would be necessary to implement the plan. The States unanimously agreed among themselves to introduce any necessary legislation before the end of this year and requested the Commonwealth to do likewise. The Commonwealth Government agreed on the explicit understanding that a Commonwealth act would not become operative unless and until the States had passed their own legislation. Commonwealth and State legal representatives have conferred in the preparation of the Commonwealth and State draft bills. In many respects, the general marketing arrangement that will be provided by the Commonwealth and State legislation is on lines similar to the marketing provisions of the wheat industry stabilization legislation, the main points of difference being that there is no Commonwealth guarantee behind this plan and that- acquisition by the Commonwealth in respect of territorygrown hides and by the States in respect of State-grown hides is provided for in lieu of delivery to a central pool.

The foregoing briefly covers the nature of the plan and the Commonwealth’s part in it. Unless the plan is implemented it will be difficult, if not impossible, for a home-consumption price structure to be maintained for leather products in Australia. A failure in that direction would mean a dislocation of important industries, a probable shortage of footwear for the public and an increase of prices of up to fi a pair for boots or shoes. The bill now before the Senate provides for the appointment by the Commonwealth Government of a central marketing board comprising a chairman and eleven other members. In contrast with the present Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board, on which there is only one representative of cattle-raisers as such, provision is made in the new board for six representatives of cattle-raisers, one from each State. There is a special provision in the bill which will enable any section of the hide and leather industries with particular problems to be present at a board meeting by invitation. The bill provides for the appraisement and acquisition of territory hides and the basis of payment for hides thus acquired. It also makes similar provision in respect of hides acquired in pursuance of powers conferred by a State act. The administrative machinery necessary for the appraisement and the allocation of hides is stated in the bill, as well as the procedure to be adopted in the marketing of the hides, that is, disposal at home consumption and export sales. The general powers of the new board are stated in the bill. These include the taking over of the authorities, functions, assets, rights and liabilities of the present Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board for the purpose of winding up the existing Commonwealth scheme. Other provisions in the bill include the licensing of dealers, the exportation of hides and leather, the furnishing of returns, financial arrangements, offences, the operation of State laws and the making of regulations.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) adjourned.

page 4008

WOOL REALIZATION (DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS) BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make provision for the distribution to woolgrowers of any profits which may accrue to the Australian Government from the war-time arrangements between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government in respect of the marketing of Australian-grown wool and sheepskins and from the operations of the post-war wool disposals plan. The final results, and consequently any ultimate profits, will not be known until the Government’s responsibilities under the wool disposals plan terminate. Honorable senators are no doubt aware of the wartime arrangement by which the Australian Government acquired and the United Kingdom Government purchased all wool produced in Australia except such quantities as were required for use in Australia. The period of the arrangement was for the duration of the war and one full wool year thereafter. Any profits arising from the sale by the United Kingdom Government of Australianproduced wool to third countries were to be shared equally between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government. It was agreed that the ultimate profits could not be ascertained until all of the wool had been disposed of.

In 1942 the then Prime Minister, Mr. John Curtin, stated that the Australian Government’s share of any profit would be distributed to the Australian woolgrowers in proportion to their contributions of wool to the whole scheme during its operation. The war-time arrangement, as such, terminated on the 31st July, 1945, and the wool disposals plan then came into operation. The details of this plan, to which the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are parties, are given in the schedule to the Wool Realization Act 1945. The transfer, in pursuance of the plan, of the accumulated stocks of Australian wool to the joint ownership of the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government involved a capital commitment for Australia of about £40,000,000 as the net purchase price of a half share in the stocks. Payment of the Australian Government’s share of the capital cost of the stocks was to be spread over four years, with the proviso that our share of the proceeds of current sales of stock wools could be used to meet Australia’s capital payment obligations. So far, our capital commitments have been met entirely from the proceeds of sales and there is a substantial credit in the Australian wool trading account of the Joint Organization.

However, one of the obligations under the disposals plan is the maintenance of a reserve price for each individual description and quality of wool. This may at any time involve the buying in of wool by the Joint Organization at the reserve price, if that figure is not obtainable from commercial buyers. Consequently the accumulated credits may be affected at any time if it should be necessary to buy in considerable quantities of wool from current or future clips coming within the period of the plan. The matter of ultimate profit or loss cannot therefore be finally determined in the meantime, although an appreciation of the position can be made at any time. When the wool disposals plan came into operation on the 31st July, 1945, the accumulated stocks of Australian wool taken over totalled 6,796,000 bales. By the 30th June, 1948, these stocks, including the quantities bought in by the Joint Organization in the meantime, had been reduced to 2,271,000 bales. After discharge of the original capital obligations to which I have referred, the accumulated cash resources of the Joint Organization in respect of the United KingdomAustralia partnership are approaching £A.30,000,000, and the remaining stocks of Australian wool are costed in the books at above £A.30,000,000. The progress made in the disposal of the accumulated stocks has been so favorable that the original estimate of ten years must now be considerably reduced, and the time when any profits will be distributed becomes so much closer. In October, 1947, the Government confirmed that Australia’s share of any ultimate profit from the wool disposals plan would be paid to Australian wool-growers in proportion to the appraised value of wool supplied, by them during the years when the appraisement scheme operated. This bill is designed to give effect to the Government’s undertaking.

The provisions of the bill are fairly simple and self-explanatory. Part I. is principally concerned with definitions. The most important of these is the definition of wool disposals profit, which indicates that the wool disposals plan and the war-time sheepskins marketing arrangement are being regarded as one in the determination of any ultimate profit. This is in pursuance of an understanding with the United Kingdom, although the sheepskins arrangement was not actually incorporated in the wool disposals plan. The Australian share of the profits on sheepskins is somewhat less than £A.1,000,000, and that amount has already been paid to the Australian Government. Part II. sets out the procedure for notification of the amount of the profits and provides for the method of making preliminary payments if such payments appear to be justified on firm estimates. Part III. of the bill sets out who shall be entitled to participate in any distribution of profits and the basis on which payment is to be effected. This part includes a reference to nonparticipating wools. These include all wool derived from sheepskins, manufacturers’ addments and other wools which, under the direction of the Central “Wool Committee, were included in the nonparticipating section of appraisement catalogues. The position of dealers in relation to wool submitted for appraisement is defined in this part, which also provides for action in the case of bankrupt estates, deceased estates, defunct companies, companies in liquidation, dissolved partnerships and other cases which may arise. Part IV. deals with the method of distribution of the profits and the utilization of the services of the wool-selling brokers. Part V. covers the financial aspects of the distribution. Part VI. contains a number of necessary miscellaneous provisions and provides for the making of regulations. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 4010

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4007).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I urge the Government to hesitate and to give further consideration to the matter before legislating to implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As honorable senators are aware, the International Trade Organization had its genesis in 1945, when the United States of America made it a condition of a loan granted to Great Britain, which was then badly in need of dollars, that Imperial preference would be replaced by a world trade organization in which the United States would play a dominant part. It will be interesting to observe the reception which the agreement under consideration receives in the various countries concerned, and particularly in the United States and Great Britain. Of course, the reception given to the scheme will vary according to the economic conditions obtaining in each country. So far as Australia is concerned, the outstanding feature of the agreement is the termination of Imperial preference. Honorable senators will remember that in 1932, when the Ottawa Agreement, which imparted the final touch to Empire preference as we know it to-day, was concluded, that agreement was strongly criticized by members of the Australian Labour party who were then in Opposition. The present right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), Mr. Beasley and Mr. Forde, who were then leading members of the Parliamentary Labour party, expressed particular objection to the Ottawa Agreement. Unfortunately for Australia’s economy, Mr. Beasley, High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom, was one of those who negotiated the international agreement which is now under consideration. The enactment of this measure will fulfil his longdelayed desire to abolish Empire preference. It is interesting to consider the effect upon the Australian economy of the operation of Imperial preference. The relevant statistics are most interesting. From 1932 until the outbreak of war our exports to British countries increased from approximately £166,000,000 to approximately £252,000,000, which is an increase of more than 50 per cent. Exports from British countries to the United Kingdom during that period increased from £284,000,000 to £405,000,000, an increase of 64 per cent. Honorable senators may have received, as I have, some literature published by the Empire Industries Association and the British Empire League. The information contained in that literature is most interesting and affords us an opportunity to appreciate the reaction to the international trade agreement of people in the United Kingdom, whose opinions are entitled to considerable respect. One of the publications states -

Why is the Empire now able to send us so much? Because in 1019 we introduced a measure of Imperial preference for the first time for 80 years. This stimulated Empire production. Here are some examples. In 1020 we imported 5,000,000 cwt. of Empire sugar; in 1927 we bought 20,000,000 cwt.

The terms of the agreement which we are being asked to ratify will completely jeopardize the protection now enjoyed by Australia under the International Sugar Agreement. The proposed international trade agreement contains no guarantee whatever that the privileges and safeguards now enjoyed by the Australian sugar industry will not be completely wiped out. If action were taken to alter the status quo and the safeguards at present enjoyed by the Australian sugar industry, Australia’s protest against any such alteration would be heard only as a whisper. The organization proposed to he- created will usurp the functions now enjoyed and exercised by the various sovereign countries. The imposition of trade restrictions, duties, tariffs and prohibitions will pass from the control of the countries which are signatories to the agreement to the proposed International Trade Organization, where, I am informed, they will be handled hy a staff of more than 5,000 people. Those 5,000 people are to become the planners of the world. We know from our own experience how impracticable it is to attempt to plan the economy of even one country, and those of us who are socialistically minded know how difficult, indeed, how utterly impossible, it is to regiment the economy and the people of this country. Nevertheless, the International Trade Organization is expected to plan the economy of more than 50 nations. One can imagine the scant consideration that will be paid to a small nation like Australia in that planning. The pamphlet continues -

In 1920 we bought 147,000 cwt. of Empire raisins. In 1937 we received 530,000 cwt.

Our dried fruits industry is worth a considerable amount, particularly to Victoria and South Australia, and the prosperity of that industry and the livelihood of the thousands engaged iri it are dependent entirely on the Imperial preference which the industry enjoys. The preference enjoyed by that industry is also to be thrown into the melting-pot. We are confronted by the possibility that the flourishing dried fruits industry, which has been made to flourish largely because of the generous assistance extended to it by Commonwealth and State Governments, through the expenditure of public money on irrigation and other projects, may come to an end, and the arid areas which that industry transformed may again become a wilderness.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– .Does not the honorable senator .agree that the maximum production of food will be necessary to feed the starving millions of Europe?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Charity begins at home, and we must remember that the standard of living of many of the peoples of Europe is much below ours. Whilst it is highly desirable that we should contribute everything in our power to the uplift of humanity, it is idle for a nation with a population of 7,500,000 to endeavour to raise the standard of living of other nations which aggregate thousands of millions of people. The pamphlet continues -

In 1920 we purchased only 15,000,000 lb. of unmanufactured Empire tobacco. In 1937 we imported 57,000,000 lb. We are reaping the benefit now, but if Imperial preference is thrown away supplies will dwindle once more. The Havana Charter will destroy Imperial preference.

Another publication emphasizes the tremendous assistance which Great Britain received during its period of semistarvation from the Empire countries which sent so much foodstuffs to Great Britain, and points out that such a volume of assistance was rendered possible only by the Imperial preference enjoyed by the nations of the British Empire. Another small pamphlet headed “Rations!” reads -

page 4011

QUESTION

RATIONS!

Yon ait your meagre rations but do you ever stop to think where- they come from? They come from the British farmer, first of all. of course but after that -

During the 52 weeks of 1947 the Empire provided -

Butter - 391,000,000 lb. That is 2,087,000,000 rations of 3 oz. eachenough for the rations of the whole population of Great Britain (49,000,000) for 43 out of the 52 weeks.

Cheese - 272,000,0001b. Or enough for everybody’s 2-oz. ration for 44 out of the 52 weeks.

Bacon - 220,000,000 lb. Or enough for a 2-oz. ration for 36 out of the 52 weeks.

Imperial preference built up the production of the Empire countries from which these rations came.

The Havana Charter will destroy Imperial preference.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The Empire Industries Association and the British Empire League. Another pamphlet states -

page 4012

QUESTION

WHO IS FEEDING US?

We cannot grow all our own food.

Empire countries often sacrifice themselves to supply our needs.

Here is the record for the year 1947.

Empire goodwill plus Imperial preference made most of this possible.

Without these we should be near starvation.

Imperial preference must not be sacrificed for loans or anything else.

The Havana Charter will destroy Imperial preference.

Let us see what will be the effect of this idea. As I indicated earlier, it will mean that our fiscal policy will be altered. The traditional fiscal policy of the Labour party has been strict, rabid protection. I, too, am a strong protectionist, and I should like to know why, without rhyme, reason or explanation, the Labour party has suddenly departed from this fixed, and, in my opinion very worthy, policy of protection for our primary and secondary industries, to embark on what eventually must be a policy of world free trade under which the economy of this country will be sacrificed in the face of competition from other countries with living standards nowhere approaching ours. Why is this change being made? No explanation has been given. No possible benefit has been pointed out by the Minister who introduced this measure, and those who spoke in support of it, in the House of Representatives. We have everything to lose and not one possible advantage has been suggested. We are proposing to hand over to a world organization in which we shall have a voice amounting only to a squeak, if any voice at all, the executive and legislative authority to determine what our fiscal policy shall be - what duties we shall impose upon imports, and what preferences, if any, we shall grant. The effect of all this will be first a whittling down, and eventually a complete annihilation of existing Empire preferences, and the elimination of any possibility of new preferences being accorded. Why are we being called upon to make this sacrifice? The Minister, in his reply, may be able to indicate some possible advantage, but, so far, none has been suggested. This proposal is fraught with grave dangers to both our primary and secondary industries, without any possibility of compensating advantages. Another very serious effect will be this: It is generally agreed - I have read the accounts of speeches made in other places by Labour representatives - that a strong British Commonwealth is essential, not only for our own preservation and the maintenance of our own way of life, but also to prevent, if possible, a third world catastrophe. If there is to be peace in the world, British countries and British people must play a predominant part in world leadership. To do that the Empire must have not only noble hearts and good minds, but also economic resources. No matter how worthy poor people may be, rarely are they people of great influence, and what is true of individuals is also true, and perhaps truer, of countries. For the British Commonwealth of Nations to play that part that we trust it will play in the leadership of the world, it must be strong economically, but one of the inevitable results of the ratification of this agreement will be the destruction of the British Commonwealth as an economic unit. It will mean that instead of being one complete economic unit, the British Commonwealth of Nations will be a lot of scattered, disintegrated units.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– From the provisions of the charter which will whittle down Empire preferences to the point of elimination because all parties to the agreement must be given “ mostfavourednation “ treatment. The treatment that we give to the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom gives to us will have to be made available by both countries to Japan should Japan become a signatory to this agreement, as appears probable. Any concessions that we may grant to another country will have to be made available to all other countries that are signatories to the agreement. That is why I say that the British Commonwealth of Nations will become disintegrated.

Senator Sheehan:

– I do not accept that view.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It is not a matter of whether the honorable senator accepts it or not. I hope that he will not accept it, but I am afraid that he will have to do so if this agreement is ratified because that will be its effect. For the information of the Senate, I shall make an interesting quotation reflecting the American point of view. I remind the Senate that the agreement has not been received entirely favorably in either Great Britain or the United States of America. There are some people in the United States of America who are much wiser, and apparently hold a much wider view of the rest of the world, than do those who are championing the immediate implementation of these proposals. They realize that it is unhealthy for the United States to monopolize the trade of the world. They appreciate that if that country is to enjoy a condition of solid prosperity and peace, the rest of the world also must enjoy a degree of contentment and prosperity. I have before me the text of a speech delivered by Mr. Arthur Besse, president of the American Association of Wool Manufacturers, entitled : “ The Defects of the Havana Charter “. Mr. Besse said -

The philosophy behind this Charter is such that the resultant document is a conglomeration of unrealistic proposals. The Charter should bc discarded in toto and an entirely new start made on n drastically different basis with limited and simplified objectives. The International Trade Organization should be an advisory body, designed to provide for an exchange of ideas for the advancement of foreign trade where such trade may be advantageous. The organization should not be a world-planning body seeking to direct the commerce of the world. This latter concept is obviously the one held by the framers of the Charter.

Planned economy on a national scale hardly seems to have been enough of a success to suggest the desirability of planned economy on a global scale. …

That we are trying to lead the world is evident. All the pressure for the Charter comes from our own planners. We have gone so far as to include in the E.R.P. Agreements a pledge that the aided countries will support the Havana Charter, an indication that in that quarter at least there is a considerable lack of enthusiasm for the Charter. . .

There is considerable confusion, too, as tn the nature of trade and a lack of appreciation of the fact that trade, either domestic or international, is essentially competitive and leads to rivalry, often of considerable intensity. Trade begets rivalry, but there seems to be a school of thought that believes if yon only have enough trade, the rivalry will somehow disappear. T cannot share such hope. . . .

I have explained why the charter is receiving support in certain quarters in Great Britain. No doubt, honorable senators have read, as I have, the statement attributed to Sir Stafford Cripps that to implement socialism it is necessary to liquidate the British Empire. The proposals now under discussion are calculated to do just that. They will destroy the concept of the British Empire as an economic unit. That the agreement has the support of certain members of the Labour party is not to be wondered at because when the acme of Empire preference arrangements was consummated by the Ottawa Agreement, in 1932, the then leaders of the Labour party in this country pledged themselves to destroy the agreement as soon as they were in a position to do so. Although the benefits tha* have flowed from the Ottawa Agreement have been stupendous, not only to Australia but also to all other parties to the agreement, those Labour leaders are now happy, by the adoption of this most intricate and involved agreement, to destroy not only all the benefits of the Ottawa Agreement, but also the very concept of Empire preference. They are prepared tn throw us all to a world of freetrade. or at least to a world in which our fiscal policy shall be decided by dream planners. 1 object to the measure.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– This bill is a weighty document. There is much in it, and I do not think that even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) can possibly have absorbed all its implications. Our task is to decide whether the agreement is good or bad for Australia. We sent to Havana a very experienced Minister, who, on Australia’s behalf, entered into an agreement on tariffs and world trade. It was his task to negotiate with the representatives of other countries for an agreement which would ensure an organized and balanced flow of trade. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised the matter of the Empire concept. No matter what this Government does, there is always some one who will express the fear that it is contributing to the downfall of the Empire. I defy any one to point to anything in the sixteen-page second-reading speech made by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) on this bill that would suggest the downfall of the Empire. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about coffee, eggs and bananas but said nothing about markets for our wool and wheat. Those two primary products practically form the basis of our rural economy. To sum up the honorable senator’s criticism in cricket parlance, I should say that he has given a display of weak bowling against strong batting. Every one of his arguments could be “ hit for six “. He said that support of the International Trade Organization would weaken Australia’s policy of protection. I am surprised to hear any member of the Opposition parties attempt to impress upon a Labour government the value of our protectionist policy.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Why throw that policy away?

Senator MURRAY:

– By joining the International Trade Organization we shall strengthen the principle of protection. After all, Australia cannot live to itself. We must enter into agreements with other countries and thereby facilitate the sale of our primary products overseas. Countries which are short of raw materials offer good markets for our pro- ducts, but international trade can be profitable only if organized on a sound basis. The test to be applied to the International Trade Organization is whether it will benefit Australia. As I have no doubt that it will do so, I wholeheartedly support the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) one might be led to believe that Australia was entering into these arrangements without the knowledge of Great Britain or the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Our signing of the instruments of acceptance of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Havana charter is conditional upon their being signed by the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition argued that under these arrangements Australia would give away much but would receive little in return. It must be obvious that we shall benefit by enlarging markets overseas for our products. I remind him that when the preferential trade agreements which we had with other countries were interfered with in 1938 by an antiLabour Government, Australia received nothing in return. The bill also provides for the acceptance of certain protocols in connexion with the agreement and the charter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that these arrangements had an interesting reception in Great Britain. One might be led to believe from his remarks that Great Britain, or the United States of America, was not a party to them but, of course, those countries, together with each of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, are parties to them. The honorable senator also said that these arrangements would result in the breaking up of the British Empire. On the contrary, they will help to cement Commonwealth relations. He was also very concerned about the effect of the measure upon the sugar industry in Queensland, and I was pleased to note that he was not too parochial in his approach to the bill because he referred to its likely effect also upon the raisin industry which is centred in the Mildura district. He also referred to the effect of the measure upon the tobacco industry. I point out that at present we are not able to export tobacco or to increase our exports of sugar simply because our own people cannot obtain their requirements of those commodities, and will not be able to do so for a considerable period. Those shortages exist not because of international factors but as the result of full employment in Australia at the present time and the consequent increased consumption of those commodities in this country. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also claimed that in entering into these arrangements the Government was departing from the Labour party’s policy of protection. One cannot but be a little perturbed at the concern evinced by the honorable senator over the Labour party’s policy. The Government is not departing from its policy of protection. It is joining with 58 other nations with the object of facilitating the flow of international trade. The arguments advanced by the honorable senator really mean that we should isolate ourselves completely and depend solely upon our home markets for the disposal of our primary products. Such an argument, of course, is absurd. The Government is still strongly attached to the principle of Imperial preference. At the Havana Conference our representatives fought strenuously to maintain those preferences and they surrendered none of them without justification.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Approval of acceptance of agreement and charter).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– The official statements which have been made with respect to the adoption and implementation of these agreements indicate that they are specifically designed to impair the quota system upon which the prosperity of the sugar industry is based and, at the same time, to whittle down the system of Imperial preferences. Many of our primary indus tries are dependent almost entirely upon the preservation of that system. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which I advanced in my speech during the second-reading debate. I move -

That the following sub-clause be added to the clause: - “ (3.) Nothing in this Act shall in any way restrict the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia from making reciprocal preferential trade and tariff arrangements with the United Kingdom and other countries, territories, or dependencies within the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations with respect to products of primary industries, including the following: -

sugar,

butter and cheese,

bacon and ham,

fresh and canned fruit and dried fruits,

eggs,

condensed milk and other milk products,

honey,

h ) wines,

leather,

tallow,

k ) copra,

flour,

canned and fresh meats,

base metals.”.

I have pleasure in throwing down that challenge to supporters of the Government who say that the implementation of these agreements will not prejudice or endanger Imperial preference. If that be the case, they should have no objection to including in the bill a specific provision to that effect. My amendment will give to them an opportunity to show how sincere they are in their contention that the implementation of the agreement and the charter will not endanger Imperial preference. I contend that it will; but if my amendment be agreed to our industries will be guaranteed the protection through the preservation of Imperial preference.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment which has been hawked around in many places. A similar amendment was proposed in the Parliament of New Zealand when these proposals were under consideration there, and later the amendment was proposed in the House of Representatives. It was rejected in both those instances, and it will be rejected again on this occasion, because it will in no way be beneficial to Australia, or to any country in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– There are two parties to any agreement. Any preference that is granted must be as the result of agreement between the various components of the organization.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Ottawa Agreement is still effective.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The honorable senator has suggested that Australia is solely responsible for any alteration that may take place, but that is not so.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– We are responsible for our own acts.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– What could we do if some other part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or another contracting nation, decided that henceforth there would be no preference for Australian goods? That would not be an act of this Government or one arising from this agreement. The fact that this agreement is being established between the various governments concerned will mean a greater protection to Australia. We shall know exactly where we stand. The raisin-growers of Mildura and surrounding districts will know exactly the position that will operate in the parts of the world where their goods are sold. They will not be in the position that they were in a few years ago when they had to depend on the good graces of certain people to keep their farms going. They will now know that as a result of this agreement they will be guaranteed a price that will mean more than a mere living to them.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– No such thing.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Of course they will ! We shall have it established.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– is the provision that gives such a guarantee?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– .The agreements entered into are the guarantee.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Nonsense !

Senator SHEEHAN:

– To hear the honorable senator one would think that this Government was out to destroy all the conditions that have been won. This agreement will guarantee stable prices to nil our primary producers. I do not know why the honorable senator wishes to mention certain articles, unless it is for political purposes. Fairy stories have been told to certain sections of the community. The Opposition parties have one objective in view - the destruction of the Labour Government. They do noi care how they achieve it. They know that the only way in which it can be achieved is to wean public support away from the Government, and therefore their organizations and their press are striving to destroy the Government by starting these fairy tales on their rounds among certain sections of the community. They tell the fruit-growers of the Shepparton district in Victoria and the Lismore district in New South Wales, and the banana-growers in Queensland, that this Government, through this agreement, is likely to affect their interests prejudicially.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– We do not tell them that. They know it already.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Then they havenot analysed the subject. The Opposition tells them fairy stories and consequently the primary producers, because they do not analyse the position carefully, are misled. We know that if they did analyse the position carefully, the Government would be safe.’ By constant reiteration, and by awakening and playing upon the fears of the primary producers, the Opposition hopes to wean away sufficient votes to destroy the Government.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

not wean the votes away. The Government has lost them.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The Opposition does not care what happens to Australia’s industries. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) cares to visit the tobaccogrowing area of Queensland, his own State, he will find propaganda being indulged in by tobacco-growers. They blame the Government for what ha? happened to their industry. They forget, that it was the Lyons Government, which was a non-Labour government, that destroyed the tobacco industry in Australia. The Opposition does not care what happens as long as it can destroy the Government. The Scullin Government was destroyed by the propaganda that was used against it.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– It was destroyed by disintegration.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It was destroyed by the propaganda indulged in by the Labour party’s opponents, which resulted in people voting against it. What happened after that to the tobacco industry ? To-day it is ruined, or is, at the best, struggling for existence. The honorable senator could visit other places. He could go to Victoria where a nourishing tobacco-growing industry was beginning to develop and was destroyed. If it had not been for the agreement entered into by a Labour government where would our dried fruits industry be? Mr. Parker Moloney, who was Minister for Commerce in . the Scullin Government, went to Ottawa to negotiate the agreement that has meant so much to the dried fruits industry of Australia. The honorable senator could go elsewhere and find other agreements reached when Labour administrations were in office that have helped Australian primary industries. What the Opposition does is to select certain items and repeat its propaganda about them over and over again. It believes that if it cries out loudly and long -enough, people will believe that there is something prejudicial to their interests in this agreement. But I believe that the primary producers of Australia and others likely to be affected by implementation of the agreement are not so likely to be misled to-day as they were a few years ago. They are beginning to think for themselves and to analyse matters, and they are familiar with the conditions that exist in various parts of the world. Australia cannot have things all its own way. We must co-operate. This Government stands for protection of Australia’s interests and its industries. The secondary industries of this country have developed because of the Labour Government’s fiscal policy, and to-day Australia is one of the great manufacturing countries of the world. Manufacturers are prepared to establish businesses here. The amendment has been put to divert attention away from the real purpose of this agreement, and is designed to hood wink the people. I know that the committee will reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4017

ALIENS DEPORTATION BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd December (vide page 3883), on motion by Senator Armstrong -

That thebill be now read a second time.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I cannot understand the definition given in clause 3 which states - “ alien “ means a person who is nota British subject, an Irish citizen or a person under the protection of the Government of any part of His Majesty’s dominions;

I am not sure of the position, but it appears to me that the poor old Irishman is going to get a whack on the ear again. I desire to know just what the definition means. Does it mean that an Irishman who has come to Australia, and was a British subject in the days when Ireland was associated with Britain, may be deported from this country? I understand that the association between Britain and Ireland has been altered. I should like a clear explanation of the definition,because many bills have come before the chamber recently which required some effort to follow, because of the drafting of their clauses. Some honorable senators are not sure what certain provisions mean until something “bobs up “ some time later, when a court may give an interpretation to a provision which makes it mean something different from what most people had previously thought. Can the Minister inform me what is the. position of an Irish citizen in Australia at the moment?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - I can assure the honorable senator that this is one instance in which there will be no injustice to Irishmen. We are putting Irishmen in a completely separate category.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– So confinement !

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Irishmen are not affected by this bill, and the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) will be perfectly safe under the provisions of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ alien “ means a person who is not a British subject, an Irish citizen or a person under the protection of the Government of any part of His Majesty’s dominions;

Amendment (by Senator Armstrong) agreed to -

That the definition of “alien” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following definition: - “ ‘ alien ‘ means a person who is an alien within the meaning of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948; “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Deportation of certain aliens).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– The wording of this clause implies that the Minister for Immigration will have a very arbitrary power. It is fit and proper that he should have wide powers without being answerable specifically as to the motives of the act complained of in relation to a prospective deportee if the security of the country is at stake, but in times of peace the power that will be conferred by this clause could be abused. I have no brief for any particular alien who may incur the displeasure of the Minister, but our system of jurisprudence is sacred to us and we should not depart from it lightly. Sub-clause 3 states -

The Commissioner shall make a thorough investigation of the conduct and character of the alien without regard to legal forms and shall not be bound by any rules of evidence, but may inform himself on any relevant matter in such manner as he thinks fit.

I have no specific amendment to propose, but we should be loyal to our very high tradition of jurisprudence. We have traditionally a very high respect for personal liberty and the rights of individuals, whether they be Australian citizens or not. The Minister might well give consideration to re-drafting the provision so that, when the security of the nation is not involved, if the Minister considers that the conduct of an alien is reprehensible and worthy of scrutiny, the alien should at least be called on to show cause why he should not be deported. Details of any offence against the law of the land charged against him should be given to him, and he should be given an opportunity to be heard in reply to those charges. When there is no suggestion of the security of the country being involved, I see no reason why the rules of evidence, which have stood the test of centuries and are the embodiment of justice itself, should be departed from. The application of this clause could involve the liberty of a person who had been in Australia for years without having bothered to become naturalized. His wife and his children could likewise be affected. Although he might have an excellent record of faithful observance of our laws over a long period, he could, by virtue of an adverse report being made upon his conduct, be thrown out of the country. I am glad that any such person will have the protection involved in the appointment of an independent commissioner. I observe with satisfaction that a commissioner shall be of the status of a judge of the Supreme Court of a State or a territory of the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding that provision, I say that we ourselves should not idly depart from our traditional system of jurisprudence and method of administering justice. When the security of the country is not involved, a man should have an opportunity to show cause, in a proper court where the rules of evidence are applied, why he should not be deported.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Develop raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan · New South Wales · ALP

, but the Government does not consider that a provision such as he suggests is essential. A procedure similar to that provided in the clause was previously carried out, admittedly in war-time, in relation to prisoners of war. That procedure was commended by the Opposition at the time. Prisoner’s of war were examined in order to determine whether they should be deported or allowed to remain in Australia. They were allowed to have legal representation, and I think the laws of evidence were completely observed. There is no provision in the bill that aliens shall not have representation and be allowed to present their cases to the best of their ability to a man of high judicial status in the person of a commissioner. The Government did not expect that any objection would be taken to the procedure proposed in the clause. All evidence that an alien may have to submit will be submitted to the judge who is acting as commissioner. I do not know of any reason why such an alien should not have legal representation if he is not able to submit his own case. If the commissioner should decide that the man should not be deported, the Minister will not be able to reverse the decision and the man must not be deported. However, should the commissioner decide that he should be deported, the Minister will be able to exercise his discretion as to whether the final step of deportation should be taken. I shall submit the honorable senator’s views to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), but I consider that the safeguards provided in the bill are adequate.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 12 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4019

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Broadcasting - Composite profit and loss account of the national broadcasting service for year 1946-47.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Interior - J. W. Connolly.

Postmaster-General - W. P. Ham, K.

Langevad, D. B. Molloy.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - Orders -

Control of new commercial motor vehicles.

Control of new motor cars.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes -

Ascot Vale, Victoria.

Cloverlea, Victoria.

Hughenden, Queensland.

Kapunda, South Australia.

Leongatha, Victoria.

Murrami, New South Wales.

Olinda, Victoria.

Senate adjourned at 9.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19481207_senate_18_200/>.