Senate
21 June 1950

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- ROADS
QUESTION
- CHILD WELFARE
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
DUNTROON ROYAL MILITARY
QUESTION
- COLLEGE
QUESTION
- SOUTH AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA
QUESTION
- BUILDING MATERIALS
SUPERANNU ATION
COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950
STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1950
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DEADLOCKS) BILL 1950
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1950
WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 1) 1950
- Second Reading
WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 2) 1950
- Second Reading
WOOL REALIZATION BILL 1950
WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) ASSESSMENT BILL 1950
WOOL (RESERVE PRICES) FUND BILL 1950
NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP (BURMESE) BILL 1950
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Newsprint - Repatriation
PAPERS

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

page 4575

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– On the 7th June, 1950, Senator Critchley asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question concerning the employment in the Public Service on a permanent basis of temporary employees whose services are to be retained, and who, in many instances, have been employed in the service for ten or fifteen years. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information: -

In reply to the honorable senator, I point out that there is no legislative authority for permanent appointment to the Public Service by virtue only of service in a temporary capacity, and any amendment to the existing provisions could not be supported.

Many temporary employees who are exservicemen and who aTe .able to comply with the examination requirements of the Commonwealth Public Service have, in fact, been appointed to the permanent staff, but even for returned soldiers, who are entitled to preference, there is no legislative provision for permanent appointment by virtue only of service in a temporary capacity. One of the reasons for repeal of section 84 (9) (c) of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, was that ex-servicemen formerly secured permanent appointment merely by the fortuitous circumstance of having been available for temporary appointment while capable and efficient exservicemen who had not sought temporary work but who wished to secure permanent appointment were debarred because of the preference given to those who happened to have been employed in a temporary capacity.

Compliance with the request that temporary employees be granted permanent appointment merely on ‘ the grounds of employment in a temporary capacity would reintroduce the anomaly which the Parliament removed when it repealed section 84 (G) (o) of. the Commonwealth Public Service Act, and moreover would conflict with the preference conditions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945.

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Prime Minister consider amending the Commonwealth Public Service Act to provide that ex-servicemen may be permanently appointed to the Service after twelve months’ temporary employment, and that such legislation also apply to commissions controlled by the Government?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

A system of preference to ex-servicemen is operating in the Commonwealth Service under the Re-establishment and Employment Act in accordance with comparative qualifications and the length, locality and nature of war service. Preference is granted in accordance with the act in the Ailing of both clerical positions in the Third Division and non-clerical positions in the Fourth Division under the prescribed Public Service competitive examination system. Moreover, the standard of entry to the Third Division has been lowered for ex-servicemen only, from the leaving to the intermediate or junior standard. It would be inadvisable to replace the present fair competitive system of preference by procedure based on the fortuitous circumstance of temporary employment, under which preference would be granted to the man who happened to be on the spot available for temporary work against others not at the time available for a temporary post, but anxious to obtain permanent employment and possibly much better qualified than the one who secured temporary employment. For a career service like the Commonwealth, a definite system of appointment, subject to preference, is required, and for clerical posts a minimum standard of general education is essential.

“WHALING.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture by pointing out that the whaling industry off the coast of “Western Australia is conducted by a small company which operates two trawlers and that the Government intends to assist the development of ‘the industry by conducting short-based whaling from a factory, which will be completed in the near future. For that purpose it has obtained two vessels, Gascoigne and Carnarvon, which are lying at anchor awaiting the completion of the factory. During last week-end one of the two trawlers owned by the private company became a total wreck, so that pending replacement of the wrecked trawler, the catching capacity of the industry is reduced to one small vessel. Because of the importance to Australia of the whaling industry, which enabled us to earn £100,000 from the Dutch Government last year, will the Government, as a far-sighted act, as well as a generous gesture, consider leasing to the company concerned, one of its vessels, which, as I have pointed out, are not yet in use, until the company is able to replace its damaged trawler?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I am sure that all members of the Parliament regret very much the misfortune that has befallen the whaling company to which the honorable senator has referred. I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and he has informed me that he has made arrangements for the “Whaling Commission, which comes within his administration, to give all possible assistance to the company to overcome the difficulties that have been caused by the loss of its vessel.

page 4576

NEW GUINEA

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister been drawn to a state ment reported to have been made at Djakarta on Monday by the Reverend John Garret, secretary of the Australian Council of the “World Council of Churches, that -

Indonesia has a better claim to West New Guinea than Holland has and certainly much better than Australia.

It is shortsighted to antagonize Indonesia on the assumption that she cannot govern properly.

The whole area formerly under the sovereignty of Holland should become a united, peaceful, democratically governmented Indonesia.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. I ask you, Mr. President, whether the honorable senator is in order in reading from a newspaper report when asking a question ?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator George Rankin is out of order if he is reading from a newspaper.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I ask the Minister whether the. Government will inquire into this matter and ascertain whether the report is correct. If it is found to be correct, will the Government ask the Australian Council of the “World Council of Churches to restrain its members from making mischievous and dangerous statements in a foreign country.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I did not see the statement to which tho honorable senator has referred, but those of us who are mindful of the 7,000 Australian dead who lie in New Guinea appreciate that that territory is vital and dear to this country. I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Prime Minister.

page 4576

QUESTION

ROADS

Roads and Works Act will amount to £9,000,000 made up as follows:-

It is not possible to say precisely what a mount of these grants is held unexpended by the States at any one time, as in most cases the grants are amalgamated by the States in their road funds with moneys received from State sources, such as the proceeds of State motor taxes. However, I can tell the honorable senator that at the 28th Feburary last the States held credit balances totalling nearly £6,500,000 in their roads funds. That amount compared with £5,700,000 on the 30th June, 1949, and only £800,000 on the 30th June, 1939.

page 4577

QUESTION

CHILD WELFARE

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Government consider making finance available for the various State governments to develop appropriate pre-school services suitable to local needs in accordance with national minimum standards?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I understand that that matter is being considered at present by the Prime Minister and that direct approaches have been made by State premiers. I shall inform the honorable senator when I have any further information to impart.

page 4577

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate whether any negotiations have taken place between the Federal and State Ministers for Health to bring about some uniformity of payment of the 8s. a day bed subsidy to convalescent hospitals? If not, will the Minister take the matter up with the Minister for Health and endeavour to get uniformity so that all convalescent hospitals instead of only a few will receive that benefit?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– When the honorable senator brought this matter forward some time ago on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I promised him that I would get a reply to his question. I shall be pleased to take it up again with the Minister for Health or his department and see if a reply can be expedited.

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Is it a fact that Australia is committed to a policy of immigration for the next ten years? If so, will the Government consider the appointment to his department of medical trainees under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, in order to give an even more efficient service to the medical side of its immigration policy?

Senator COOPER:

– The Minister for Health has supplied the following reply to the honorable senator’s question: -

It is not customary to make statements on policy in answer to questions. However, medical graduates, including those trained under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, are eligible to apply for appointment to any position of medical officer in the Department of Health, many of which are vacant at the present time because of the lack of applicants.

Senator BEERWORTH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

How many conferences has the Minister had with representatives of the British Medical Association?
On what dates were such conferences held?
Was a complete record taken of the proceedings at any of such conferences: if so, at what conferences?
If records were not taken at any of such conferences, why not?
If records were taken, will the Minister make them available for the information of the Senate ?

Senator COOPER:

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

Two conferences have been held with the British Medical Association and discussions have taken place with representatives of that and other organizations on features of the proposed national health scheme.
The 17th January, 1950, and the 26th May, and subsequent days. 3, 4, and 5. The Senate will be fully informed of the results of deliberations when finality has been reached.

Senator MURRAY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, because, of Tasmania’s geographical position and the lack of medical specialists in that State, many patients are having to forgo treatment which entails interstate air travel ?
If so, will the Government consider the provision on the next Estimates of a sum for the purpose of providing air travel to those unfortunate people, in each State, who are compelled to travel interstate and receive specialist medical treatment?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

If the questions are primarily based on the premise that specialist medical attention is not available to the people of Tasmania then it is not a fact that many people have to forgo treatment because interstate air travel is involved. The primary responsibility for the provision nf medical attention rests with the States in so far as such activities” como within governmental functions. However, the Commonwealth Government does assist the Tasmanian Government in making specialist services available. Under section 0 of the Hospital Benefits Act, the Commonwealth refunds to the State the sessional fees of specialists who formerly attended persons in public wards of public hospitals in both the Royal Hobart and the Launceston General Hospitals on an honorary basis. The extent to which Commonwealth assistance is given may be gauged from the following table of specialists who are at present receiving sessional fees from the Commonwealth: - Physicians, 8; surgeons, 8; gynaecologists, 7; otorhinolaryngologists, 2; paediatricians, 4; anaesthetists, 4; diabetitians, 1; opthalmologists, 1; dermatologists. 1 ; plastic surgeons, 1 : neurologists and psychiatrists, 1. The Tasmanian Government also provides specialist attention by both consultants, and specialists on the staff of hospitals. All treatment both in-patient and out-patient in public hospitals is free of charge. Every specialty is now catered for at the Royal Hobart and Launceston General Hospitals, and the minor base hospitals arc visited by the specialists at regular fixed intervals. The orthopaedic surgeon, although performing most of his duties in Hobart and environs, regularly visits the public hospitals at Launceston, Wynyard, Latrobe and Queenstown. Two visits (during the year 1948) have been made by the plastic surgeon from Victoria, 35 operations being performed, in addition to JOB other patients being examined. A consultant neurologist from Victoria has also paid two visits, 35 patients being presented to him. The visiting medical staffs to the major base hospitals’, Royal Hobart and Launceston General, have been further expanded and augmented by specialists, who recently obtained their higher qualifications. The facilities for treatment at all public hospitals have been increased, especially as regards specialist treatment and the fact that both the Royal Hobart Hospital and the Launceston General Hospital are now recognized by the Royal Australian College of Surgeons as post-graduate training schools, proves that the services are of a very high standard.

page 4578

DUNTROON ROYAL MILITARY

page 4578

QUESTION

COLLEGE

Senator ROBERTSON:
through Senator Wedgwood

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

Is it a fact that cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, are asked to pay the cost of dry cleaning or laundering of their bed blankets?
If so, will the Minister consider relieving the cadets of this payment from their rather meagre allowance?
Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that certain regulations in force at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, are to be liberalized; if so, does this liberalization mean that alcohol facilities in the provision of a bar are to be introduced?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Yes.
In addition to being maintained at the college, cadets receive daily rates of pay, increasing according to their period of instruction at the college. In determining the rate of pay, which is by no means meagre, factors such as those represented by the honorable senator are taken into consideration. While at the college, cadets are taught to be selfreliant and to manage their own financial affairs. For this reason, it is not proposed that the department meet such expenses.
The Royal Military College Regulations are under review, and an endeavour is being made to incorporate in them the latest trends of military thought and modern customs. At the present time, there is no intention of providing a bar for staff cadets.

page 4578

QUESTION

SOUTH AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Senator MURRAY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, at the recent South-East Asia Conference in Colombo, it was agreed that Australia should make loans to various countries in South-East Asia for the purpose of rehabilitation and for the promotion of Australian trade?
If so, (a) what countries are to receive the loans; (b) what amounts are involved, and (e) under what conditions will the loans be made ?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for External Affaire has supplied the following answer : -

At the British Commonwealth Conference on Foreign Affairs held at Colombo in January of this year, consideration was given to the possibility of Commonwealth countries joining in a loan to Burma to assist that country in overcoming its serious budgetary difficulties. Following the conference, various Commonwealth governments, including Australia, agreed to offer Burma a loan of fstg.0,000,000. Australia’s share of the total was £500,000. The Government of Burma subsequently accepted this offer. The loan is to be made available to Burma in the form of blocked sterling repayable within two years, and is to be free of interest. No other special conditions attach to the loan. Honorable senators will remember that the Minister for External Affairs made a statement regarding this loan on the 25th March, 1950. The Colombo Conference of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers did not consider the question of any other loan by Australia or by other Com mon wealth countries.

page 4579

QUESTION

BUILDING MATERIALS

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing .the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice -

Will the Minister make available to the Senate the latest statistics regarding the quantities of basic building materials, viz. - bricks, hardwoods, pipes, tiles, asbestos-cement sheets, nails, screws, galvanized iron, and the like, now being produced or manufactured in Australia, and particularly the increase or decrease in quantities produced?
Is it a fact that ordinary wood screws are being imported from Japan?

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Works and Housing has supplied the following answers : -

. The following statement shows the production of the items mentioned for the years indicated : -
I have no knowledge of any imports of ordinary wood screws from Japan.

page 4579

SUPERANNU ATION

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I lay on the table of the Senate the following paper : -

Superannuation Act - Fifth Quinquennial Report on the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund covering the period up to 30th June, 1947.

The report has been approved by the Treasurer.

page 4579

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had agreed to amendments Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, IS, 19, 23, 24. 25, 26, 27 and 29 made by the Senate, had agreed to amendments Nos. 1 and 16 with the amendments indicated by the annexed schedule, and had disagreed to amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 2S, (full schedule of amendments, vide page 4539), and for the reasons shown therein (vide page 4569).

In committee : Consideration of House of Representatives’ message.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives upon Senate’s amendment No. 7 [vide page, 4557), be agreed to.

– It would depend on the nature of the organization and on the stand taken by that organization and by the Government in the matter. The proposition put forward by the Government is surely most acceptable, unless the Opposition is prepared to protect the interests of people who are members of Communist-dominated organizations and do not want to be cross-examined, as they would be if they entered the witnessbox and gave evidence.

The second matter that arises from consideration of the House of Representatives’ ‘amendment under discussion is that the Government rejects, and will persist with its rejection, of the suggestion brought forward by the Opposition, and incorporated in the bill in the Senate, that there should be an appeal from the decision of the Government of the day about whether an organization is one the continued existence of which would be prejudicial to the security ‘and defence of the Commonwealth. We have already argued that point at great length and the Government sees no reason to depart from the attitude that it has already adopted and explained in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We cannot concede that the function 1 of forming judgment on a matter that is concerned with the security and defence of the Commonwealth can be carried out effectively by any body other than responsible Ministers of the Crown, who are necessarily charged with the duty of protecting the people of Australia. We have already provided in the bill that a declaration will not be made until the material upon which it is based has been examined by a very responsible committee. We also say that the decision of that committee will be supported by a decision of the Government. Both the committee and the Government having reached a solemn decision that the continned existence of an organization would be prejudicial to security, it must be obvious to any sane person that the right to determine an appeal in relation to that question cannot be handed over to some person who had no responsibility at all for the implementation of a policy directed to maintain the security and welfare of the people of this land. That is not a reflection on judges or on the jury system.

Senator Grant:

– It is a reflection on democracy.

Senator SPICER:

– It is not a reflection on democracy, because we insist that matters of security and defence must be determined, in the final analysis, by the elected representatives of the people, and by the Ministers who are responsible to ‘the Parliament for those matters. Such matters cannot be handed over to any other body to determine. I repeat that that is no reflection on judges or on the jury system. When this measure was previously before the committee, I emphasized that if we were to add to the amendment that Labour had inserted in the bill, the proposition that the appeal in relation to questions of security and defence should, under another amendment, be heard by a. jury, we should be reducing the position to an absurdity. That is clear when we reflect that the committee of five unanimously reaches the conclusion that the continued existence of a particular organization would be prejudicial to security; the Ministry, too, reaches that conclusion; yet merely because one member of a jury of twelve is not prepared to acquiese in those decisions, the organization is to be permitted to continue its prejudicial activities. That would be an absolutely impossible situation and no attempt has been made in this chamber by any member of the Opposition to defend it. The proposal is so fanciful and ridiculous, that, in my opinion, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Opposition wishes only to destroy the bill altogether.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– With only one statement that has been made by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) can I agree instantly - that this matter was debated at considerable length when the measure was previously before honorable senators. I should have thought that that fact would have induced the Attorney-General not to open up the wide issues that he has traversed in the course of his remarks this afternoon. On behalf of the Opposition, I take umbrage at the statement that the Opposition does not want to make this bill effective. I repudiate that suggestion instantly. The Labour party in the Parliament has agreed to the banning of the Communist party, and the expropriation of its assets. We have agreed also to clauses that will enable the Government to follow the Communist party into other guises. We have acquiesced in the principle that a person who is a Communist should not be allowed to remain in the Public Service, or to hold office in a trade union covering a vital industry; yet because the Opposition is concerned with the preservation of the appropriate and proper process of the law in relation to the declaration of individuals and organizations, the Attorney-General has the effrontery to suggest that our desire is to defeat the bill! It is difficult to understand that reflection, not only on the Opposition, but also on the vote of this chamber itself. It is in keeping with what has happened in the House of Representatives. One of the reasons for the disagreement of the House of Representatives to certain amendments now under consideration is that they are allegedly designed to destroy, and will, in fact, destroy the efficacy of the proposed law. In my view that is a gross and grave reflection on members of this chamber, and should be resented, not only by members of the Opposition, but also by Government supporters who have an even higher duty than the Opposition has to uphold the dignity, prestige, and importance of this chamber in the Parliament of the Comm on wealth.

The Attorney-General has said that the bill is in accordance with the policy of the Government as expounded to the electors. I debated that claim with the Attorney-General when the measure was last before this chamber, but let me refresh his mind, and the minds of honorable senators. In his statement of joint Opposition policy, prior to the last elections, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said -

Subject to appeal, the Attorney-General will be empowered to declare other bodies substantially communist; to follow the party into any new form, and attach illegality to that new association.

– ‘Senator Gorton’s remarks have induced me to intervene in the debate again. I repeat that we have permitted the Government to follow the Communist party in any other form. I point out to the committee that we have not altered clause 5 (1.) in the slightest degree. The terms of that sub-clause, which relate to the kinds of organizations that may be deemed to be Communist organizations, are so wide that almost any organization in the country could be picked up. Paragraph (a) of the sub-clause covers any organization “which is, or purports to be, or, at any time after the specified date and before the date of commencement of this act was, or purported to be, affiliated with the Australian Communist party”. Paragraph (6) covers any organization, a majority of the members of which, or a majority of the members of the committee of management of which, are Communists. Paragraph (c) covers any organization which supports or advocates any of the objectives, policies, teachings, principles or practices of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin. We have already discussed at length the wide scope of that provision. Paragraph (d) covers an organization the policy of which is directed, controlled, shaped or influenced, wholly or substantially, by persons who are Communists or who make use of the organization as a means of advocating communism. The dragnet provisions of clause 5 (1.) cover every kind of organization, from a body affiliated with the Australian Communist party to kindergarten committees and school committees. I have said previously that I have knowledge of kindergarten committees and school committees that come within the provisions of paragraph (d).

– The Government proposes to do that.

Senator MORROW:

– First of all, the Government says that no charge is made against a person accused of being a Communist notwithstanding that he is “ declared “. The next important point is that once a person has been “ declared the only way in which the declaration can be annulled is by an appeal to the court. If the person “ declared “ appeals to the court he must enter the witness-box and, presumably, give evidence, although no charge has been made against him, and he does not know what he has to answer. That is not in accordance with British justice, which has always decreed that every person is innocent until he is found guilty.

Senator Spicer:

– Senator Morrow, of course, wants the bill to be ineffective.

Senator MORROW:

– The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) is one of those who anticipate everything. In fact, he can even anticipate the guilt of a person who is merely suspected of subversive activities. I want the rule of law to be observed and people who are accused under this legislation to be given a fair trial in the courts of the land. The onus of proof should clearly be placed on the Government.

Question put -

That the amendment of the House ofRepresentatives upon Senate’s amendment No. 7 be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. NICHOLLS.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The result of the division having been announced, and the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) having received the call from the Chair,

Honorable senators interjecting,

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Attorney-General has the call.

Senator Large:

– I rise to order. I want the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to withdraw the remark that he made to the effect that we are Communists.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Attorney-General has the call.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · VICTORIA · LP

– I move -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives upon Senate’s amendment No. 16 (vide page 4548) be agreed to.

Senator SPICER:

– I am not prepared to discuss the details of what will happen. The honorable senator may be overstating the position when he says there may be thousands of declarations. I remind him that this bill will not apply automatically to everybody who is a Communist. The Governor-General will have to be satisfied on two points - first, that a man is a Communist, and secondly, that his activities are, or are likely to be, prejudicial to security. I do not think there will be any difficulty in the mechanics of this measure. I cannot understand why I am being asked all these questions because the matters referred to are not at (present before the committee. The issue with which we are now concerned is one that will arise after an effective declaration has been made, and I suggest that we might usefully confine our attention to that matter.

Question put -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives upon Senate’s amendment No. 16be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 32

Majority…… 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the committee do not insist on the amendments of the Senate, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 28, to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

That sounds like a tall order, in one motion, but it reduces itself to a very small compass. If honorable senators will look at pages 3 and 4 of the schedule which has been circulated they will see a number of amendments which were made by the Senate and to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. I believe that Senator McKenna will agree that most of them are amendments which were consequential upon the amendments with which the committee has just dealt. Honorable senators need not worry about them. The question is whether the Opposition intends to insist upon its amendment that an applicant should be able to have a trial of his application by a jury if he so desires. The committee has already discussed that subject at considerable length and I do not propose to enter into a prolonged debate. I have indicated that in the view of the Government the amendment is entirely unacceptable. In disagreeing with these amendments, and particularly the one about trial by jury, the House of Representatives has set out its reasons. The first of those reasons is -

Because the amendments are designed to and will destroy the efficacy of the proposed law.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) laid great emphasis upon the need to protect the country against the subversive activities of Communists, who, under this legislation, would be declared and found guilty by the Cabinet. Well, the Opposition is prepared to give the Government a free hand to deal with the Communists, and what is he going to do about it? Evidently, after saying that they are engaged in subversive and treasonable activities, after declaring that the Government has the necessary evidence against them, he now proposes to let them slip through his fingers. All it is proposed to do is to declare the Communist party illegal, and to prevent Communists from holding positions in the Public Service, or in certain trade unions. Tha.t is a great penalty indeed for a person accused of treason. The Government says that it will, after declaring the Communist party, chase the Communists into other organizations, but if it has evidence that the persons concerned are engaged in treasonable activities, why let them go? Is it that the Government has so little evidence that it is ashamed to put it before a jury? I say now that the Government is engaged in a sham fight on this issue of communism. If it were sincere, it would not let the Communists go once it had them.

Action will probably be taken against individuals as well as organizations. On the say-so of a peace officer, Cabinet will declare a man to be subversive, and brand him as a traitor. The Cabinet will consist of laymen, with the possible exception of a couple of lawyers. If the Government is prepared to allow a Cabinet of laymen to decide the fate of Australian citizens in that way, why not deal with the matter according to law, and let them be tried by a jury of laymen? The only reason that the Government will not accede to the request of the Opposition in this respect is that it fears that it will not have sufficient evidence to place before a court. I repeat that if the Government were sincere it would not allow subversive persons to escape its clutches, but would charge them before a court, where they WOUld receive a just trial.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I had not intended to speak, but after listening to the hysterical manner in which some members of the Opposition have defended Communists and avowed traitors, I feel that it is time for me to say just where I stand. A powerful argument against trial by jury for a declared person is that one of their strongest supporters might be on the jury. Even if a Communist were caught blowing up the biggest munitions works in Australia, it would not be possible! to convince that juror that he was guilty. Senator Aylett said that a man could be declared on the word of a single peace officer. I suggest that he read the bill. The Government now proposes to appoint ii committee of responsible men to consider all suggested declarations, and only after the committee has recommended that a person or organization be declared will Cabinet take the matter up. Such a committee would not be likely to fail in its duty. If it did, it would lose the trust of the Government and of the people. The hypocrisy of the Opposition over the issue o of trial by jury is proved by the fact that, for the last six years, there has been no trial by jury in the Northern Territory, although, for the greater part of that time, it was administered directly by a Labour government. Senator Hendrickson said that the Opposition had conceded to the Government full power to deal with Communists; but, in view of the amendments which the Opposition has made to the bill, the Government, in dealing with the Communists, would be in the position of a man with -his arms tied behind his back trying to fight a man armed with a gun. I think that the Government has, perhaps, gone too far in its desire to reach agreement with the Opposition. In no circumstances should it give way any further. It should go to the country, and the people who decided against those traitorous dogs on the 10th December will decide against them again in a way that will stagger the Opposition.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– It is obvious that Senator George Rankin does not understand the Opposition’s amendments. If he did, he would not have said what he has said. One fact that causes honorable senators on this side of the chamber to be very doubtful of the sincerity of the Government in this matter is that a prominent member of the Liberal party, the honorable member for Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes), moved a very important amendment to this bill in the House of Representatives.

Senator Spicer:

– He did not move an amendment.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– He foreshadowed an amendment providing for the repeal of this measure after twelve months. The amendment was-

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. The committee is concerned only with the amendments made by the Senate with which the House of Representatives has disagreed. I submit that Senator Hendrickson’s remarks have no relevance to those amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator O’Byrne:

– Senator Hendrickson must confine his remarks to the amendments that are under consideration by the committee.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I do not know where the Government will put them, but I hope it will put them somewhere. Senator Aylett has pointed out that, although the Government has said that it intends to play “ Old Harry “ with the Communists, it has not said what it proposes to do. with them. In three or four years’ time, when the trade union leaders of this country may be forced to agitate against the conditions that then prevail, this measure may be used to. as it were, put them behind bars. We say that declared persons are entitled to be tried by a jury in the same way as any person who is charged with a criminal offence. I oppose the motion.

Question put -

That the Committee do not insist on the amendments of the Senate Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 1.1, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 28, to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator McKenna) put -

That Senators Ashley, Cooke and McKenna be a committee to draw up reasons for the Senate disagreeing to the amendments made by the House of Representatives upon amendments Nos.7 and 16 of the Senate.

The Senate divided. (The President -Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 22

Majority…. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.49 to 8 p.m.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– On behalf of the committee I bring up the following report: -

Reasons of the Senate for disagreeing to the amendments of the House of Representatives upon Senate’s amendments Nos. 7 and 16 -

Because the Senate amendments are designed solely for the purpose of providing adequate, proper and reasonable safeguards for securing the just and impartial administration of the proposed law in cases both of individuals and of organizations.

Because the bill in the form passed as amended by the Senate will carry into effect the policy of suppressing the Australian Communist party without unfairly and unjustly penalizing or endangering the civil rights and property of innocent citizens and innocent groups.

Because without the amendments of the Senate the bill represents a complete departure from the appropriate and just processes for the administration of justice and is in conflict with the rule of law well established in all British communities.

Question put -

That the reasons be adopted.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 10

NOES.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4600

STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representa tives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move - That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949. In October, 1949, awards were made by the Coal Industry Tribunal and the Central Reference Board by which long service leave benefits were granted to coal miners and members of certain other unions engaged in the coal-mining industry. This placed a substantial financial burden on the employers bound by the awards, and the previous Government decided that the financial burden involved ought to be spread equally over the whole of the coal-mining industry and that, if the States ‘ would undertake to reimburse to employers the cost of long service leave, the Australian Government would assist the States by way of grants in relation to such reimbursements and the expenses of the administrative machinery which would have to be set up by the States. An excise at the rate of 6d. a ton was accordingly imposed on coal produced in Australia after the 1st November, 1949, to meet the cost to the Australian Government.

In accordance with these decisions the Parliament passed the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long ServiceLeave) Act 1949 and the Coal Excise Act 1949. The former is a short act establishing a coal-mining industry long service leave fund into which is paid the amounts collected as excise on coal or contributed by the States in lieu of excise on coal produced in .State mines. The act also authorizes the payment, by way of grant, of amounts determined by the Treasurer to those States which have undertaken the liability of reimbursing to employers the cost of long service leave where the State has entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth and the agreement has been approved by the parliaments of the Commonwealth and the States.

On assuming office, the present Government decided to adhere to the decisions made by the previous Administration, and entered into negotiations accordingly with all the States that produce black coal. It was considered, however, that the principal obligations of the States ought to be embodied in statutory form, leaving only minor matters of detail to be covered by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, and the Government of New South Wales, with which the negotiations had reached the most advanced stage, agreed with this view. That State promptly introduced appropriate legislation, which has now been passed. I refer to the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Act 1950. The detail which will be covered by the agreement is in process of completion. In the negotiations which have been opened with the other States the Australian Government has proposed that legislation similar to that passed by New South Wales should be enacted by the other States, and has indicated the detail that would be covered by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States.

In view of this change in the method of approach, the Government considers that the present requirement that any agreement should be ratified By the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of each individual State is unnecessary, since it will relate only to matters of detail, and therefore the bill now before the Senate proposes to remove this requirement of parliamentary ratification. Instead of having a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the States to cover the matters that have to be provided for and to include this agreement as a schedule to ratifying acts passed by the parliaments of the Commonwealth and of the States, there will now be, in addition to the Commonwealth act authorizing grants to be made to the States, State acts placing on a statutory basis the principal obligations to be undertaken by the States, but leaving matters of administrative detail to be covered by exchange of correspondence between the Governments of the Commonwealth and of the States. Many acts of this Parliament do, in fact, authorize advances to a State in accordance with agreements which the legislation leaves to be negotiated by the Commonwealth with the States without the requirement of ratification. The amendment therefore relates to a matter of procedure, and I commend it to the Senate in order that arrangements may be put in hand immediately to permit of grants being made by the Commonwealth so that those entitled to benefits under the awards may receive them without delay.

Senator ASHLEY:
New SouthWalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition offers no objection to the bill, which is purely a machinery measure introduced to validate agreements arrived at by a previous government concerning the provision of long-service leave for those engaged in the coal-mining industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4601

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) put -

That Standing Order 08 be suspended up to and including Friday, the 23rd June 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 4601

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DEADLOCKS) BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 20th June (vide page 4507), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– During the last few weeks we have heard a great deal about the alleged delaying tactics of the Opposition in the Senate. The bill now before us is intended, we are informed, to prevent a deadlock between the Houses of the Parliament in the event of a double dissolution. If ever a chamber of review justified itself, the Senate has done so to-day. I understand that the Opposition proposes to move for the appointment of a committee to consider the whole question of Constitution alteration in relation to the Senate. This bill is ill-advised, illfounded and, instead of preventing deadlocks, it will make deadlocks almost inevitable. Obviously little consideration could have been given to the bill by the Government.. If the purpose of the bill is to prevent double dissolution deadlocks, and if the Ministers in this chamber had anything to do with it, the sooner we have a bill to prevent deadheads in the Senate the better it will be for this chamber. It is almost impossible to imagine a Government asking the people to vote on proposals such as this is. When this measure was first mooted, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) with “ballyhoo “ and hyperbole told the world that he proposed to make a sensational announcement in the Parliament at. a certain time. Everybody wondered what the announcement would be. We asked ourselves whether it could be that Australia had discovered a new super atomic bomb. But, lo and behold, we found that the Government had laboured and brought forth a mouse. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives and explained by this local Demosthenes with his usual forensic and histrionic ability but when people analysed the measure, they found it to be a mere empty gesture. Ever since federation, the Senate has been the butt of the

House of Representatives. The original method of electing members of this chamber continued right up to World War I. Senator Guy will remember this, as I understand his father was a member of Hie Senate at that time and from what I cun gather, he was a very fine gentleman.

Senator Spicer:

– So is his son.

Senator GRANT:

– I am speaking of the father and not of the son.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Was he a Labour man?

Senator GRANT:

– Yes, and a good one. The then Prime Minister, Mr. William Morris Hughes, tried to secure the appointment to this chamber of a Tasmanian named Ready. The presence of that gentleman in this chamber would have enabled Mr. Hughes to carry on his administration without a double dissolution. However, somebody let the cat out of the bag and his scheme did not work. A double dissolution was forced. Mr. Hughes then approached the problem in a different way. I was almost going to say that he attempted to solve his problem in the same way as he dealt many years later with the then president of the miners federation, Mr. Nelson, but I shall leave the matter at that. He decided that the method of electing honorable senators should be altered. He devised what became known as the “ one in, all in “ system. He knew that, under that system, if even only 51 per cent, of the electors voted on the Liberal party “ ticket “, every member of his team would be elected to the exclusion of Labour candidates. However, in New South Wales there was a very strong character, “ Jupp “ Gardiner, who had put up a great fight in the two anticonscription campaigns. Senator Gardiner’s efforts caused a split in the Hughes “ticket” in New South Wales, with the result that the Liberal party secured only 35 seats instead of 36.

The Labour party has been accused of having practised ledgerdemain in connexion with the Senate elections. Any one who knows how proportional representation works will admit that it is eminently fair, provided a start is made cn the proper basis. As T. said last night, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), and the rest of the Labour party learned quite a lot from what happened in New South Wales some years ago. I was a member of the old upper house in New South Wales. When that chamber was reconstituted, the then Premier, Mr. B. S. B. Stevens, said that he did not know who would be in the new house, but he knew one person who would not be in it, and that was Donald Grant. However, I was elected to the new upper house. The Stevens Government decided that it would get control of the Legislative Council for all time, so that never again would there be any possibility of the passage of extreme Labour legislation. A referendum was held, and the people of New South Wales, having been worked up into a state of hysteria, supported the Government’s proposal. The scheme can be described briefly. A general election had been held and the United Australia party had received an enormous majority in the Legislative Assembly but the numbers in the upper house were even. The Legislative Council at that time was a nominated house. So, Sir John Peden, a very astute lawyer, Sir Henry Manning, and other we’ll known tories, decided how the council should be constituted. The proposal was that it should consist of 60 members elected not by the general public, but by politicians.

Senator Spicer:

– What has all this to do with the bill ?

– Yes, and as they are more stupid in the other States there would be more there. Assuming the result was 60 to 40. That would be a supposititious instead of a suppositious case. Assume that would happen in New South Wales and in Victoria, although it would not happen there now while the anti-Labour parties are fighting among themselves. In New South Wales, as the situation is to-day, it is almost inevitable that whichever party pick No. 1 position on the ballot paper would win. Although in twelve months’ time the Labour party would beat the Liberal party from any position. A. similar result would occur in Victoria. In South Australia there is no reason to assume that the Liberal party would not do as well as last time. Give it all in and say there is a Liberal win of six to four in every State. That would be 36 Liberal to 24 Labour members. After three years, eighteen would go out on one side and twelve on the other, and if there was a swing to the Labour party in each State of one seat, the result would be 30-30 again and the same process would have to be repeated.

Senator LARGE:

– It would be necessary to get a new system then.

Senator GRANT:

– There would be no system ; everybody would be so sick that they would be dead. That is the proposition and it is nothing new. As soon as the Prime Minister came out with his bombshell containing this proposal a letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, and I had written a similar one about the same time, pointing out that this is nothing new. Yet the Government wants to submit to the people a referendum on a mass of nonsense such as this is. Are honorable senators opposite prepared to go on the hustings and say that this bill will solve deadlocks? The idea is absolutely absurd. Some wise guy blew down the ear of the Prime Minister and he accepted this scheme without consideration. He said, “That will do me. We can get .six to four if we act quickly”. He wanted to get the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950 to the people. The Government has accepted 40 amendments to that legislation. The Senate exists to see that such nonsense as is contained in this bill is properly ventilated. If the Government had had a majority in the Senate this rubbish would have gone to the people.

I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) will submit a constitutional proposal later. There should be a convention on the subject. Australia has a horse-and-buggy Constitution. It is suggested in all seriousness that the Parliament should submit this proposal to the people by referendum. That implies the expenditure of £100,000 or £200,000 so that the people may be asked to vote on what is essentially a silly proposition. Senator’ Ashley pointed out that no provision is made for casual vacancies. Senator McCallum said that that had nothing to do with the matter. It has something to do with it, though only indirectly. Senator Ashley’s point was that if anomalies in the Senate are to be dealt with, the Parliament should deal with all of them. I believe that I have shown that such a bill should not be approved in this Senate and submitted to the electors.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– Is the honorable senator frightened?

Senator GRANT:

– It is not a. question of being frightened of the bill. All wise men are frightened sometimes. The man who is_ never frightened has no brains. The highly sensitive man is alert to danger unnecessarily. The Government should admit that no serious consideration has been given to this bill. It has to show that what I and others have said is not true. It must prove that this bill will stop double dissolutions.

Senator Spicer:

– That is easy.

Senator GRANT:

– It may be easy for the Attorney-General, but it is not easy for honorable senators on this side of the chamber. The bill has only one purpose, and that is to get a majority for one party, lt is a matter of political expediency. Does the Government expect the Opposition to accept its invitation ? T arn reminded of the old couplet - “Will you come into my parlour?”, said the spider to the fly. “ It’s the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.”

Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have been much too long on the road to fall for that kind of proposition. The Prime Minister said that the Senate is holding up legislation. Upper houses throughout the British communities exist to hold up stupid legislation. If it were not for this Senate, the Communist Party Dissolution Bill would have been passed in its original form and the 40 amendments that have since been made would not have been included. Everything goes to show that the Senate is doing a good job. That particularly applies to this bill. I am pleased that the Labour party wishes to submit the anomalies that exist in the Senate to a select committee which could go into all aspects. From my point of view, proportional representation is the most intelligent form of election. Deadlocks will solve themselves without a stupid bill like this. Sometimes it is good to have deadlocks.

Honorable senators who were elected three or four years ago were elected under the Constitution for a six-year term. It is a good idea to have half the Senate standing for election at one time and the other half at another time. That system has been proved sound over hundreds of years of British parliamentary history. It stops people who are drunk with power, like some whom I could name in another place, from pushing something on to the electors before the people know anything about it. It gives the Senate an opportunity to slow down legislation so that it is not approved until the people understand it. I support the suggestion that this bill should go to a select committee and that the whole position regarding anomalies in the Senate should be considered. If necessary, the committee can draw up suggestions that may be submitted to the people for their consent or rejection.

Senator REID:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators have enjoyed the oration given by Senator Grant, who, in his genial way, has set out to put up a smoke-screen around the actual issue. Although honorable senators have enjoyed his speech, they do not agree with all that he had to say. Honorable senators should consider why this bill is necessary at this stage. In 1948, the government of the day decided that it would increase the size of the House of Representatives. To comply with the Constitution, it had to increase the number of senators also. A great deal of thought was given to devising a scheme for redistribution and the system of voting. For that reason I am sure that the speech of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) in another place was not new to those who supported the Chifley Government’s bill in 194S. It had such a situation in its mind . very definitely when it proposed the new system of voting for the enlarged Senate. The government of that day went carefully into the position and, knowing what happened in 1947 over the Banking Bill, it realized fully that it was not very popular with the public and would have a very big chance of losing its majority in the House of Representatives when it went to the election in 1949. The Labour party knew that, even though there might be a change of government, it would be able to hold up legislation by using its majority in the Senate, and if, by so doing, it provoked a double dissolution, it would have nothing to fear because, under the system of proportional representation, the parties would be returned in even numbers to the Senate. The system of proportional representation is the fairest one for Senate elections, but that was not the consideration that influenced the Labour Government.’ Only when that Government realized that public opinion was swinging against it, and that it was likely to be defeated in the 1949 election, did it introduce the system of proportional representation, and the alteration has had lie precise effect which the Labour Government expected. If, that Government had been really sincere, why did it not arrange for all senators to go for election at the same time?

Opposition members now claim that this Government hopes to obtain a political advantage under the method now proposed. We cannot go on as we have been going since February. The Government was elected by a large majority in the House of Representatives, but cannot get its legislation through the Parliament, because of the hostile majority in the Senate. The Government believes that it is obliged to give effect to the mandate that it received from the people to put certain legislation through the Parliament. It appears that it will be necessary to appeal to the people again, and it is possible that, under the system now proposed by the Government, it will reap a temporary advantage that will enable it to put through legislation for which it has received a mandate. There is just, a possibility that, even under the method now proposed, there could be a deadlock in the Senate, but it could happen only if three States voted one way and three the other, which is most unlikely. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) said that he did not expect a deadlock in the Senate even under the present method of voting, but I do not agree with him. To avoid a deadlock, it would be necessary for one party to poll more than 55 per cent, of the votes.

Another advantage of the proposed method is that the people, and not the Senate, will decide who shall be elected for six years, and who shall be elected for three years. The Constitution provides that, after a double dissolution, the Senate . itself shall decide which of the newly elected senators shall sit for six years, and which shall sit for three years. Naturally, the party that is returned with a majority would’be tempted to give all the six-year terms it can to its own supporters, leaving its opponents with all the three-year terms. It is possible, of course, that a majority party might, be big hearted, and would divide the long and short terms more or less equally, but. it is not likely. Under the proposed system, there will be no opportunity for juggling by any party.

When the proposed system is in operation, there will be more opportunity for the Senate to become an effective house of review. I was never in favour of the present method of preferential voting for the Senate, and the Australian Country party has always favoured proportional representation. I agree with Senator Grant that it is the fairest’ system of voting for the Senate, but that was not what influenced the Labour Government at the time it was introduced. The Senate was originally intended to be a State house, but we have, unfortunately, made it a party house. It cannot be an effective house of review unless the system of voting makes it possible for the minority party to be well represented. I agree that there is always a possibility that, when a government is returned with a large majority in the House of Representatives, it may go to the extremes, and sponsor legislation which it might not favour after more careful consideration. When the parties are more evenly represented in the Senate, this chamber can act as a house of review, and its former standing, in such circumstances, could bo restored.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– This bill is designed to enable a government that has gained a majority in the House of Representatives to avoid effective review of its legislation in the Senate. It is a very transparent device. The Government is embarrassed because the Senate is doing what it was constituted to do, which is, to analyse and to point out defects in hastily conceived legislation that would not be in the best interests of Australia. At the present time, the Senate is frustrating the attempts of the Government to fasten harmful legislation upon the people. The framers of the Constitution had in mind just such a situation as the present one when they provided that at, each triennial election for the Senate only half the whole number of senators should retire. That was done in order to ensure that there should be no hasty reversal of beneficial legislation upon the accession to office of a new government.

Senator Reid made the extraordinary statement that if the bill were passed, it would help to make the Senate once more a States house. That is not so. It would make the Senate a mere echo of the party that held a majority in the House of Representatives. The Government has now put forward a proposal which, it claims, will avoid the possibility of a deadlock in the Senate after a double dissolution. It will not do that, although it may reduce the possibility of it. Recently, there have been several State elections in which the voting has been very close. In the most recent election, that in New South Wales, the parties have been returned in almost equal numbers. The people of Australia will not tolerate fascist legislation.

This bill is designed to alter the present method of voting at Senate elections if a double dissolution occurs, but the system is one that the Government parties applauded when they were in Opposition. It meets with the approval of almost all of the democratically minded people of Australia. When the present Government parties were in a minority of three in this chamber, they applauded the action of the Labour Government that was then in power in initiating the system, because they knew that, under it, their representation in the Parliament would be in proportion to the number of electors that voted for them. The Government, having discovered that it cannot force this legislation through the Parliament because the Senate is not a “ yes “ house, now desires to remove effective opposition to its legislation in this chamber. The measure contains no guarantee that the representation of the political parties would be more just and equitable if it were put into operation.

Under the present system, if a double dissolution occurred, and at the general election the people took the view that the Senate should act as a brake upon hastily conceived legislation and did not give the present Government parties a majority in this chamber, recourse could be had to a section of the Constitution which the Government is trying to evade. I refer to section 57. It is an admirable section. The Government is trying to find a way to avoid negotiation between the opposing political parties upon legislation and to silence effective opposition to its actions. Section 57 of the Constitution makes provision for the circumstances that would arise after a double dissolution if the Government could not convince the Senate that it should agree to proposed legislation. It is designed to prevent deadlocks. It reads as follows : -

The Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representative!-, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representative* shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the King’s assent.

The Government, having found that it cannot get its own way and not wishing to negotiate, desires to alter the Constitution in order to gain a temporary advantage. If the bill were passed and the referendum carried, the provisions of the Constitution regarding the number of members of each House of the Parliament would be almost ridiculous. The Government suggests that the number of senators elected should be divisible by two without a remainder, but not divisible by four without a remainder. If the development of Australia proceeded to the stage at which it was necessary further to enlarge the size of the Parliament, the number of senators would, under the Government’s proposal, be increased by at least 24 and the number of members of the House of Representatives by a larger number. The position would then be thoroughly ridiculous. I believe that this bill is intended, not to remedy a difficult situation but to gain temporary advantage. Its real purpose is to enable the Government to overcome a deadlock without following the procedure described in section 57 of the Constitution or making use of conciliation and negotiation.

Having listened to the debates that have taken place in this chamber since this Government assumed office, I am convinced that the present deadlock or frustration of the Government is not due to the fact that legislation has not been rightly challenged. I am sure that honorable senators must be convinced of that. The Communist Party Dissolution Bill, conceived by the Prime Minister and other members of Cabinet, was presented to the House of Representatives as a perfect bill.

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. 1 submit that Senator Cooke is not in order in discussing a bill with which the Senate has just dealt.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - That is so. Senator Cooke must confine his remarks to the bill now before the Senate.

Senator COOKE:

– If a measure were introduced into the House of Representatives and was found to require amendments, and if, when it left the House of Representatives, it was said to be a perfect bill, and if there had not been an effective Opposition in this chamber to bring its deficiencies to light, the Senate would have been what, in fact, the Government wants it to be, that is, a mere “Yes” house or an echo of the House of Representatives.

I do not think that everything is as it should be in connexion with the powei’3 of the Senate and the method of electing senators in certain instances. I believe that there is a definite weakness in the provisions relating to the filling of casual vacancies in the Senate caused by death or resignation. The weakness was overlooked when proportional representation was introduced. If a casual vacancy occurs, it must be filled by a nominee of the Parliament of the State represented by the senator who has resigned or died. That may be undemocratic if all members of the State Parliament concerned are not elected on democratic lines. In some circumstances, the will of the people may not be given effect. This bill would accentuate that position.

The Government has disregarded the possibility that there may be more than two sets of political parties in this country. Its argument is based upon two sets of parties. It has disregarded independent members of Parliament or the possibility of other political parties entering the political arena. It is possible that the number of political parties- in this country will increase. Even on. the basis that there will continue to be only two sets of political parties, the Government’s argument is weak and cannot stand analysis. Honorable senators opposite have admitted that it is possible that three States may vote in one way and three States in another way and that, in those circumstances, there may be equal representation of the opposing parties in this chamber or the Government may not have a workable majority.

It is necessary that the Senate should not be merely an echo of the House of Representatives. If a government introduces legislation that it thinks is worthwhile, and if the Senate will not pass it, then the provisions of the Constitution should be complied with. If a government is frustrated in the Parliament, after the people have been given a reasonable time in which to assess the merits of proposed legislation; if a double dissolution then occur, and if at the general election the people give the Government parties a majority in the House of Representatives sufficiently strong to outweigh the majority of the Opposition parties in the Senate, a joint sitting of both Houses of the Parliament could be held. Then the deadlock would be resolved and the legislation passed.

Senator Reid said that the present system of voting at Senate elections was conceived by the Labour party for the purpose of maintaining its majority in this chamber. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. The present Government parties applauded the introduction of the present system. They wanted it badly, because they knew it was their only hope. The present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), according to a report in the Melbourne Herald, discussed this matter in December, 1949. It is apparent that he realized then that the people of Australia believed that a Labour majority in the Senate would act as a brake upon hastily conceived legislation, and upon action designed to lower their standards of living by depriving them of the benefit of social services either by trickery or Act of Parliament, and upon the selling out of many of the big schemes of national development by the Labour party. The report in the Melbourne Herald is as follows: -

Labour control in the Senate would safeguard the public - if any safeguard were needed - against extreme or unwanted Liberal legislation, Mr. Holt, M.H.K., said to-day. Labour could not lose control of the Senate in the Federal elections on Saturday, he said. With its majority there, it could block any Liberal legislation from the House of Representatives. The Liberals would then be forced either to drop the measures or force a dissolution of both Houses. If Labour were returned on Saturday, there would be no corresponding safeguard, because Labour would control both Houses.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move -

That, for the purpose of considering the matter of altering the provisions of the Constitution relating to the election of senators consequent upon a double dissolution and to the Senate’s relationship with the House ofRepre sentatives, the bill be referred to a select committee consisting of Senators Courtice, Arnold, Sheehan, Nash, Finlay, McKenna, and the mover;
That such committee be authorized to review the constitutional arrangement for settling disputes between the two Houses, and to make recommendations for preventing such disputes and overcoming any deadlocks ona basis which is just and democratic;
That such committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to move from place to place;
That the committee report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date.

I regret that the Government has not seen fit to join with the Opposition in referring the Government’s proposals to a select committee. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), has emphasized the importance of formulating definite rules for the election of senators and to overcome the difficulties presented by a deadlock following a double dissolution. I do not wish to repeat what has already been canvassed in the second-reading debate, but I suggest that the constitutional provisions under which the Senate functions to-day are entirely out of date, and that the appointment of a committee representing both sides of the Senate, and, in fact, both Houses of the Parliament, would be of great value in making recommendations to solve the problem which now confronts the Government. If the surmises of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and the Attorney-General are correct, namely, that after a double dissolution the Senate may be equally divided between supporters of the Government and members of the Opposition, I do not agree with the proposals embodied in this bill because they will not obviate the possibility of the Senate being equally divided. Under the Government’s proposals such a situation can arise, first, because of difficulties associated with the Government’s proposal that some senators be elected for a three-year term and others for a six-year term, and, secondly, ‘because three States may elect senators who will support the Government and three States may return senators who will support the Opposition. There are so many latent complications in the clumsy measure that has been introduced bv the Government to remedy the situation that the Opposition proposes that before this measure is enacted, the situation with which it deals shall be examined by a select committee. That committee would investigate and report upon the constitutional difficulties presented by a deadlock between the two Houses of the Parliament and also upon a number of other matters, including the filling of casual vacancies in the Senate, for which no satisfactory method has ever been devised. Reference has been made to proportional representation-

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley), but it appears to me that he is now elaborating the terms of the motion that he has moved, and that therefore this may be a convenient time for me to take formal objection to that motion. No notice was given of the motion, which provides for an investigation .by a select committee of a number of matters, including the relations between the two Houses of the Parliament. The motion is submitted under the authority of Standing Order 196a.. which provides that immediately after a bill has been read a second time, a motion, of which notice need not be given, can be submitted to refer the bill to a standing committee or to a select committee. In my view any such motion must be limited to the proposal to refer the bill itself, and nothing else, to the committee for examination. The motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition goes much further than that, and I submit that it does not fall within the terms of the standing order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - This is apparently the first time that the matter has been raised, and I rule that the motion is in order.

Senator Spicer:

– In the circumstances I regret that I must formally move -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Standing Order 429 states -

If any objection is taken to the ruling or decision of the President, such objection must be taken at once, and in writing, and motion made, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the Senate, and debate thereon forthwith adjourned to the next sitting day, unless the Senate decides on motion, without debate, that the question requires immediate determination.

Senator Spicer having submitted, in writing, his objection to the ruling.

Ordered:

That the question of dissent requires immediate determination.

Question put -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The Senate divided. (The President: - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator ASHLEY:

– When I was interrupted, I was expressing pleasure that most honorable senators had approved of the method of voting introduced by the Labour Government. Adoption of the proportional representation system has eliminated the possibility of serious inequality in the voting strength of parties in the Senate. The committee that the Opposition seeks could also give consideration to the functions of this chamber. It could consider whether the Senate should be a House of review, instead of a. mere echo of the House of Representatives. I remind honorable senators that the framers of the Constitution intended that the Senate should be a States house, capable of protecting the interests of the less populous States. The committee could give consideration to methods by which that could be achieved.

The sole purpose of the bill before the Senate is to prevent the Opposition, which has a majority in this chamber, from exercising its constitutional right to review legislation. In any event I am confident that the proposed referendum on this proposal to give advantage to one political party would not be carried. The very fact that the parties in this Parliament are divided on the proposal would be sufficient to ensure its defeat. In the history of the Commonwealth only four referendums have been carried. On occasions, referendum proposals that have had the support of all political parties have been defeated. One such referendum was the proposal to confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to legislate in respect of civil aviation. After that referendum had been rejected, the Commonwealth’s claim for control of civil aviation was justified by the decision of the State parliaments to confer that authority upon the Commonwealth. I believe therefore that the proposed committee could do valuable work. It could recommend reforms in relation to the Senate that would bring this chamber up to date.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Is the motion seconded?

Senator O’Byrne:

– Yes. I second it.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– This motion is an obvious time-wasting device by the Opposition to avoid voting against this measure. The speeches that have been made by honorable senators opposite on the bill have indicated their opposition to it.

Opposition Senators. - We are opposed to it.

Senator SPICER:

– Then why did honorable senators opposite not vote against the motion for the second reading The reason is obvious. If the Opposition merely voted against the bill, it would be disposed of by the Senate to-night, and, in three months’ time it could be re-submitted by the House of Representatives. Then, if the Senate again rejected it, the referendum could have been held. The Opposition clearly does not want the public to have any say on this matter. Therefore, honorable senators opposite have resorted to the device of appointing a select committee to inquire into a lot of matters, some of which are not referred to in this bill at all. I say without hesitation that this is a deliberate time-wasting device, designed to prevent the people of Australia from expressing their will on this measure. The conduct of the Opposition in this chamber to-night clearly demonstrates the truth of that assertion. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator

Ashley) said that it was a waste of time to put to the people any proposal to amend the Constitution.

Senator Ashley:

– I said that this proposal would not he carried.

Senator SPICER:

– The honorable senator said that no alteration to the Constitution would be supported by the people, yet he has moved for the appointment of a select committee which apparently will go perambulating this country, taking evidence on matters that are quite clear to anybody, with a view ultimately to recommending some alteration of the Constitution. Clearly the Opposition is quite insincere. I repeat that this is a device to avoid voting against the measure, and to enable honorable senators opposite to say at some future date that the Senate had not failed to pass the bill. That is what they are after as honorable senators will see in due season. It is obvious. There are other ways by which the Australian people will express their will despite the efforts of the Opposition to obstruct them. When they do get the opportunity, it will be a sorry day for the Opposition.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I should not address myself to this proposal and delay the Senate if it had not been for the provocative speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). He has imputed all sorts of motives to the Opposition in moving that this bill be referred to a select committee. I am interested in any method which might prevent a deadlock in the event of a double dissolution. When I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) make his speech in another place, I felt strongly inclined to support the proposal because I visualized the possibility that there would be a Labour Government in the House of Representatives and a hostile Senate in a few years time. The trouble prevailing then would be the same as that which befell the Scullin Government and has now befallen the Menzies Government. I find on examination of this proposal that the Prime Minister did not take his colleagues into consultation, but sprang it on another place without giving it due consideration. It was hailed as a bomb shell, but examination shows it to be an empty shell. It is a real squib.

If honorable senators opposite are eager to have an investigation to devise ways and means whereby this chamber can be made a more effective part of our parliamentary system, they should support this motion. They know the weighty proposals that were canvassed when this measure was being discussed in another place. Some people suggested that we should adopt a formula similar to that under which, after a certain period, the House of Lords has no right to prevent legislation passed, by the House of Commons from becoming operative. The same thing operates regarding the Senate of Eire and upper chambers in other parts of the world. The New Zealand Government proposes to abolish its upper house. If the Australian Senate is to be reduced to the condition that exists in the House of Lords, the sooner it is abolished the better.

All the ideas that have been expressed from time to time should be canvassed now that the question of an alteration in the composition of the Senate has been brought forward. The Government is responsible for initiating the move. Let something effective be done regarding this chamber. Through the swing of the pendulum a hopeless minority has represented a considerable percentage of the people at times. Honorable senators opposite have imputed an unworthy motive to the Labour party in introducing proportional representation for the last election. They have suggested that it did so in order that it might retain control of this chamber. When this matter was discussed, the Labour Government had not the slightest thought that it might be defeated. Members of the Labour party believed that the Labour Government’s record was such that the people would return it with an overwhelming majority. The leader of the party (Mr. Chifley), who was then the Prime Minister, said, “ If we are going to increase the size of the Senate, for goodness’ sake let us adopt proportional representation so that the other side can be represented “.

What would honorable senators opposite have said if the Labour Government had gone to tEe country at the last election on the old basis of electing senators, and had won? The aggregate votes cast throughout Australia for the defeated Chifley Government were greater than the number cast for the successful Menzies Government. The Labour Government could have gone to the country after enlarging the Senate to 60 members and would have been returned with 57 senators against three sitting on the opposite side. That could have happened to the Senate if the government of the day had not introduced proportional representation. When honorable senators opposite impute unworthy motives to the Labour Government for trying to make this a more effective institution, they should know where they stand. I hope that honorable senators will agree to this proposal in the interests of responsible government so that this chamber will be made an effective institution, and will not be derided as it has been in the past. I hope that the Attorney-General and those associated with him will review their attitude and will decide to co-operate with the committee that has been suggested by the Opposition to investigate fully the future of this chamber.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– As the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has suggested, this is an obvious attempt by the Opposition to avoid the responsibility of taking on its shoulders the blame for having failed- to pass this measure, which is designed to minimize the possibility of a deadlock arising out of a double dissolution. The wording of the resolution is somewhat fantastic. Apparently, some honorable senators are going to have a joy-ride at the public expense to any part of Australia that they care to visit. It is proposed that such a committee - shall have .power to send for persons, papers and records and to move from place to place.

What on earth can such a committee do? What can it produce by going from place to place interrogating people, calling for papers, books and records? The issue before the Senate is very plain and simple, and has been clearly explained by the

Attorney-General. There is another indication that this motion lacks a genuine desire to improve the knowledge of the Senate. When a select committee is appointed it is usual under Standing Order 294 to fix a date when a report shall be made by the committee to the Senate. The motion now before the chamber states that the committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date. That is after the committee has finished moving from place to place at the expense of the taxpayers on a mission which they must know is utterly futile. Standing Order 294 reads -

On the appointment of every committee, a day shall be fixed for the reporting of their proceedings to the Senate, by which day the final report of the committee shall be brought up by the Chairman, unless further time be moved for and granted; hut the Senate may at any time prior to such day receive the final report of the committee.

What do honorable senators find in this instance? Provision is made for travelling from place to place, and calling on people, and after these peregrinations have been completed, the committee is to report to the Senate “ at the earliest practicable date “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I am informed that it is desired that the motion be altered by leaving out the words “ at the earliest practicable date “ and inserting in their stead the words “not later than the 27th September, 1950”. In order to save time I inform the Minister of that proposed alteration.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That information saves time to this extent that the peregrinations of the futile and worthless committee will be limited to a certain time.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order. The committee that has been nominated comprises members of the Opposition who have been called futile, stupid and worthless. I take exception to that statement and ask that those words be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! If the Minister spoke of the committee proposed in this motion as futile and stupid, he should withdraw the statement.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That is a complete distortion of what I said. I am talking about the committee as a committee, and not about the people who form the committee. Honorable senators know I am not saying anything about them personally.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not sure whether I am philosopher enough to separate the committee from its members. The committee is to consist of six honorable senators, and I do not see how the Minister can separate them. It could be done only by some mental legerdemain. If the Minister designated the honorable senators as futile, I ask him to withdraw the term.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

-I referred to the functions of the committee. I made no aspersions against the characters of the honorable senators. I spoke of the functions of the committee, and not of the committee itself, and I am sure honorable senators appreciate that no reflection on the members of the committee was ever intended. I say that the functions of the committee are completely futile and useless. Honorable senators who form the committee will have their peregrinations limited to some time prior to the 27th September, but that period could be extended while the majority in this chamber remains as it is. I emphasize that this motion contemplates an inquiry into matters on which this Senate has no power to make any effective or binding recommendations. It is purely a time-wasting device, and, as the AttorneyGeneral indicated, it has been resorted to for the purpose of avoiding responsibility for failing to pass a very commendable measure.

Amendment (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed to -

That the words “ at the earliest practicable date” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ not later than the 27th September, . 1950”.

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 4612), as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4617

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1950

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 25th May (vide page 3195).

Clause 7 (Establishment and functions of Commonwealth Bank Board).

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I am not prepared to agree to this clause until the Government has explained certain points raised by the Opposition. The Government has not been able to point to a single example of a bank functioning better under a board than under a governor, whereas the Opposition has been able to demonstrate conclusively that the best results were obtained by the Commonwealth Bank when it was controlled by a governor. The proposed bank board will consist of persons appointed to serve sectional interests. The Government will not say what interests they will serve, nor will it disclose who five of the members of the board are to be.

Senator Spooner:

– I rise to order. Is the honorable senator in order in discussing the personnel of the proposed board when the clause before the Chair does not relate to that aspect, but deals specifically with the establishment and functions of the proposed board?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator O’Byrne:

– Order! I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the clause before the Chair.

Senator AYLETT:

– I am directing the attention of the committee to the manner in which banks that have been controlled by a board have operated in the past, and I am showing that such institutions have not always operated in the interests of the people. Gladstone, who was one of the most famous of British Prime Ministers, exposed the ruthless fashion in which the Bank of England and London’s financial interests, known as “ The City asserted their power. He said -

From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that, in the face of the Bank and the City, the State had an essentially false position as to finance. . . . The hinge of the whole situation was this: The Government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned. In the conditions of that situation I was reluctant to acquiesce, and I began to fight against it, by financial self-assertion, from the first … I was tenaciously opposed by the Governor and the DeputyGovernor of the Bank, and I had the City for an antagonist on almost every occasion.

That is a complete condemnation of the system of control of banks by boards. Gladstone showed that when the Bank of England was controlled by a board, it asserted supremacy over the British Government at a time when the British Empire was at its zenith, and that the British Government had to submit to dictation bv that institution. We had a similar experience in Australia when the Commonwealth Bank was previously controlled by a board. Thomas Jefferson, who was President of the United States a generation before Lincoln, put the matter to the American people in these words -

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first hy inflation and then by deflation, the corporation that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Firstly. - To place rulers and leading politicians under obligations by loaning them (and their Governments large sums.

Secondly. - To prostitute the press by granting or withholding patronage through business organizations which had borrowed, or hoped to borrow, money.

Thirdly. - To obtain the favours of colleges and churches by large donations and by posing as generous philanthropists.

Fourthly. - By paying writers constantly to spread the idea, that money is a mysterious subject that can be understood by only .a very few people.

The Rothschild family tried to hoodwink the people with the myth that money is a mystery. The Rothschild banks were controlled by boards.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I rise to order. What has the history of the Rothschild banks, which were private banks, to do with the proposal to establish a board to control the Commonwealth Bank, which is a government institution ?

The TEMPORARY Cil AIRMAN.T ask Senator Aylett to connect his remarks with the clause under consideration.

Senator AYLETT:

– I am attempting to do so. It is evident that what I am saying is more than Senator George Rankin can stomach.

Senator Mattner:

– I rise to order. Senator Aylett is discussing bank boards that were not appointed by governments. The clause relates to a government- appointed board. I submit that Senator Aylett’s remarks are not relevant to the clause.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask Senator Aylett to connect his remarks with the clause under discussion.

Senator AYLETT:

– I was endeavouring to do so when Senator Mattner rose to order. It is apparent that some honor:able senators opposite are not prepared to allow me to connect my remarks with the clause. The Government wishes to establish a Commonwealth Bank Board and to empower it to perform functions similar to the functions performed by the other bank boards to which I have referred. That is my point. What can we expect of a bank board the members of which will be representatives of the same financial interests as those that were represented by the members of the other bank boards that I have mentioned ?

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator is not discussing the clause under consideration, which states that there shall be a bank board and describes what it shall do.

Senator AYLETT:

– I have quoted what eminent authorities have said about the operations of banks under boards. It is apparent that that has hurt honorable senators opposite. I challenge them to tell me of one bank board in the world that has operated for the benefit of the people as a whole.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

Senator NASH:

– Yes. Answers should be given as soon as opportunity permits so that needless repetition may be avoided. I understood the Minister to say a few moments ago that the Senate is now dealing with the establishment and functions of the Commonwealth Bank Board. We are now discussing clause 7 and I assume that in doing so we may deal with any matter that comes within the scope of the new sections which are proposed to be inserted under that clause. Proposed new section 9 (1.) reads -

There shall be a Commonwealth Bank Board, which shall be constituted in accordance with Fart V. of this Act.

What necessity exists for the appointment of such a board? The Government has not advanced any reasons to justify a departure from the existing practice of administration of the bank by a governor with the assistance of an advisory committee. If this bill be passed the advisory committee will be dispensed with and we shall revert to the system of control that was brought into operation in 1924 as the result of interference by the then government with the control of the Commonwealth Bank.

The Government may have good reasons to justify the proposed change, but it has not yet stated them. We are entitled to know what motives have actuated it coming to a decision to revert to the system of board control. The committee has been given no information about the persons whom the Government proposes to appoint to the board. For all we know, it may intend to appoint persons who have an interest in banking, notwithstanding the fact that the bill specifically provides that a person who is a director or an employee of a corporation the business of which is wholly or mainly that of banking shall not be capable of appointment as a member of the board. This proposal to revert to the system of board control should be most carefully considered. The Commonwealth Bank was first established in 1911 and from then until 1924 it was administered by a governor and it progressed rapidly. The bank was so successfully managed that even the ridiculously small initial capital of £10,000 was not needed. In 1924 the bank was still progressing - indeed its progress was so great that it had begun to interfere with the business of the private banks - and the anti-Labour Government which was then in office decided that something had to be done to curb its activities, lt, therefore, abandoned the former system of control and established control by a board.

Senator Cooper:

– Under board control the bank made even greater progress.

Senator NASH:

– Not at all. The Minister’s figures are completely misleading. During the second-reading debate I cited figures relating to the business of the bank that I had extracted from the report of the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems.

Senator Cooper:

– The figures that I cited were issued by the Commonwealth Bank itself.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The Minister must refrain from interjecting.

Senator NASH:

– During the depression years the private banks issued far loss credit than they did in earlier years. Ir, cannot be denied that the private banks restricted credit and called up overdrafts at short notice in the depression years. As a result, thousands of small business people were forced out of business, while hundreds of thousands of working-class people were out of employment. Many lost their equities in their homes. Many workers lost almost everything that they possessed because the Commonwealth Bank Board did not face up to the national requirements of this country. The board was merely the agent of the private trading banks. Its policy was in consonance with the policy of the trading banks. It is well known that during the depression about 300,000 workers were out of employment in this country. When the Parliament required £18,000,000 to rehabilitate the farmers, the Commonwealth Bank Board refused to provide the government with accommodation, contending that such a. step would ruin the country by upsetting its equilibrium. What confounded rot and hypocrisy; The people were forced to starve. Since 1945 the Commonwealth Bank has been under the control of a Governor, assisted by an advisory council, which is absolutely independent of outside interests, and is composed of persons with no axe to grind. As a result the Commonwealth Bank has progressed tremendously. The greatest obstacle confronting it to-day is the difficulty of getting sufficient staff and. accommodation to develop still further. As honorable senators know, the Commonwealth Bank performed valuable work not only during the war period, but also during the immediate post-war years, by assisting the country to meet its financial obligations. Furthermore, it has kept the private banks under control. However, the Government wants to revert to the system of control by a. bank board, which would prevent the bank from expanding further. I repeat that this proposal is u pay-off to the trading banks by the political parties in office for the services that were rendered to them during the last general election campaign. I feel very hot under the collar about this matter. During that campaign the opponents of Labour made many untrue statements about what the Labour party would do if it were returned to office. However, prior to the commencement of tl at campaign, the Labour party had announced that it would abide by the decision of the Privy Council in relation to the proposed nationalization of banking. Although honorable senators opposite know of that announcement, they gratefully accepted the assistance of employees of the trading banks to spread the deliberate untruth that Labour wanted to socialize and interfere with banking in every possible way.

Senator Spooner:

– What about talking a little common sense for a change? I have never heard such tripe in all my life.

Debate interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Nicholls:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Senator GUY:

– The present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated in his policy speech -

We propose to set up, under control by Parliament, a small board of directors of the Commonwealth Bank, of which the Governor of the Bank shall be chairman.

In view of that statement, how can honorable senators opposite justify their contention that the Government did not receive a mandate to reconstitute the Commonwealth Bank Board ? The people of this country expressed their approval of the proposed action in no uncertain manner. Honorable senators opposite have greatly distorted the proposed functions of the body to be established. They have claimed that under one-man control the bank has progressed more than it did when the board system of control prevailed previously. I point out that under one-man control, the total profits of the Commonwealth Bank to date have been only about £17,000,000, of which the note issue has been responsible for approximately £13,000,000. During the period that I have mentioned the net profits of the Common/wealth Bank, including the Commonwealth Savings Bank, but excluding the profits from the note issue, were slightly more than £4,000,000. Over the same period the trading banks of Australia paid to th Commonwealth more than £11,000,000 in taxes. The taxes paid by shareholders on dividends were an additional return to the Treasury. During approximately three years of one-man control the Treasury has received more from the operations of the trading banks than it has received from the operations of the Commonwealth Bank. I suggest, therefore, that honorable senators cannot say with justice that the bank has made more favorable progress under one-man control than it did under the control of a board. Some honorable senators -opposite have alleged that the former bank board was responsible for the economic depression of the 1930’s. I remind honorable senators that the trade union movement generally in 1937 approached the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and asked for a prosperity loading on wages because of the splendid recovery that Australia had made from the effects of the depression. That recovery was largely due to the operations of the bank board. The board dealt with the problems caused by the depression so effectively that Australia was the last country to be affected by it and was also the first country to emerge from it. The banks of Australia generally expanded credit during the period of depression almost to a dangerous point. They financed the war effort and controlled the financial activities of the war in a masterly way. The board was not in any way responsible for the depression which, as has already been pointed out, was world-wide. A Labour government was then in control of this Parliament and Labour governments were in office in three or four of the States. I am not suggesting for one moment that they were responsible for the depression. They had no more to do with it than had the Commonwealth Bank Board. The economic position of Australia during the depression was the result of circumstances over which no government, whether Labour or Liberal, had any control whatsoever. That position was the result of the collapse of our export prices and the consequent collapse of our export industries.

The re-establishment of the Commonwealth Bank Board will definitely not adversely affect the operations of the bank, but indeed will develop and extend them and give -them a fillip. More importantly, it will give confidence to the people to know that a board of experts, instead of one man, is in control of their financial affairs. Some honorable senators have mentioned the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems. T. point out that one of the recommendations of that commission was that the Commonwealth Bank Board should continue to operate. I submit that no business of any magnitude in Australia or anywhere else is controlled by one man only. There is always a board, of directors. Yet the Opposition wishes to retain one-man control of such an important institution as the Commonwealth Bank, which influences the whole of our financial affairs. The socialist government of Great Britain did not deem it advisable to abolish the board of directors that controls the nationalized Bank of England.

Senator Robertson:

– That board consists of eighteen directors.

Senator GUY:

– Yes, there are eighteen of them. It is no innovation for a board to’ control a central bank. Indeed, it is the usual practice throughout the world. The only countries which do not have board control of their central banks are Russia and its satellite countries and Spain. The Opposition would like to see the banking methods of those countries used in Australia despite the wish to the contrary that the people expressed at the last general election. As I have said, the nationalized Bank of England has a board of eighteen directors. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is controlled by nine directors; the Bank of Canada by eleven directors; the Reserve Bank of India by fourteen directors; the South African Reserve Bank by eleven directors and the Bank of France by twelve directors. The Central Bank of Eire is controlled by a governor and thirteen directors. The national banks of Portugal, Roumania, Finland, and a number of other countries are all controlled under the board system. I suggest that if honorable senators are democratic they will accept the mandate that the people gave to this Government for the establishment of a bank board.

Senator Ward:

– The Government has no mandate in that respect.

Senator GUY:

– I arn sorry for the condition of the honorable senator’s intelligence, because the Prime Minister clearly stated in his .policy speech that if the present Government parties were elected to office, they would establish a board to control the Commonwealth Bank. If the honorable senator cannot understand plain English, I cannot supply him with the capacity to grasp facts, and I must leave him in his colossal ignorance.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The case of honorable senators in support of this bill seems to rest on the fact that the parties now in office went to the country on many issues and received a mandate to govern. Having received that mandate the Government considers that it has nothing to do but implement legislation in a manner that it did not describe to the public when it sought their votes at the general election. It has been most interesting to hear Senator Cooper and Senator Guy cite figures to illustrate the progress of the Commonwealth Bank from 1924 to 1931. Up to the year 1930-31 there was a progressive increase of profits while the bank was under the control of the board. That is admitted, but what was also happening then was that throughout a period preceding one of the worst depressions that we have ever experienced, the Government’s policy was to borrow money overseas. All honorable senators will recall the “ Tragic Treasurer “, Sir Earle Page. I admit that the banks then made profits, but they were not serving the people’s interests at a time when there was an abundance of supplies and material and when workmen were falling into unemployment. The reason for that fact was that the policy of the banks was one of the development. I do not lay the blame altogether for that upon the board except in relation to one point which, curiously enough, honorable senators opposite have ceased to discuss. I refer to the position of the board in its relation to the Commonwealth Bank and in relation to the welfare of the people of this country. The report of the board of directors of the Commonwealth Bank in 1929 stated in effect that the bank had been so successful in making profits up to 1929 that it was actually becoming a challenge to the private banks in fields that had been very lucrative to them. So in 1929 that board, which was responsible for the conduct and development of the Commonwealth Bank, which had been established to provide an alternative to the private banks in case the private banks failed, as they have done on many occasions in this and other countries and which have failed to meet their debits-

Senator Mattner:

– Why did they fail ?

Senator COOKE:

– They collapsed. The statement in the report of 1929 to which I have just referred is an extraordinary one. It was to the effect that the Commonwealth Bank could only perform such services within the ambit of central banking as the inclination or desire of the trading banks allowed. That was in 1929, immediately before the depression, and it is significant of the attitude of the members of the board that they recommended to the Government that the Commonwealth Bank should not operate as a trading bank. At that time a Labour Government was in office and it was desperately endeavouring to cope with the unprecedented conditions which beset Australia. At the same time the board of the Commonwealth Bank insisted upon shackling the efforts of the institution which should have been Australia’s greatest stand by in its hour of need. When the board assumed control of the Commonwealth Bank the bank had 60 branches, hut instead of opening new branches the board decided to convert many branches into mere agencies, so that intending customers of the bank could be referred to the competing trading banks.

The Government has said repeatedly that there is nothing sinister in its proposal to revert to the system of board control of the Commonwealth Bank. However, I point out that in the few months that have elapsed since the last election the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey), who had great business dealings with the United States of America, has induced a number of powerful industrial and financial interests overseas to acquire control of certain Australian enterprises with the result that the policy of those enterprises is being subordinated to those of their overseas competitors. The policy must inevitably undermine our economy.

Reverting to the depression, I remind honorable senators that in 1932-33, when it was apparent that despite the restrictive policy of the board. the Commonwealth Bank was making substantial inroads into the profits of the banks, the board recommended to the anti-Labour Government of that time that the bank should not be permitted to continue to engage in competition with the trading banks. In other words, the board wanted the bank to cease to function as a trading bank. As a result of the nation’s unhappy experience of the trading banks during the depression, a former Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, had consistently stressed the need to nationalize those banks. However, in 1938 the present Minister for National Development introduced legislation to convert the capital of the Commonwealth Bank into debentures and inscribed stock which should be offered for sale to the public. The effect of that proposal would have been to destroy entirely the Commonwealth Bank as a national institution. The present proposal of the Government will enable it to establish a board which can make decisions on matters of policy, and so long as those decisions do not conflict with the views of the government of the day the Parliament need never be informed of its decisions. For instance, so long as the decisions of the proposed board coincided with the views held by the present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), the Parliament would not be informed of those decisions no matter how important they might be. It is quite obvious that the trading banks did not pour out money to discredit Labour and to support the anti-Labour parties before and during the last election without any prospect of achieving something that they desired. Undoubtedly they hoped that the present Government would prevent the ‘Commonwealth Bank from continuing to compete with them effectively, and that ultimately they hoped to destroy that institution altogether as a competitor. The history of the Commonwealth Bank under Labour and anti-Labour administrations supports my argument. During the years that that institution, which was founded by a Labour administration,, functioned under the sole control of a Governor it expanded and prospered. In 1924 when a board was first appointed to manage the bank, the first period of expansion came to an end. Later, in 1929, when Labour attained office and removed some of the restrictions that were hampering the development of the hank, it again expanded. However, the activities of the board under the succeeding anti-Labour administrations effectively prevented the bank from developing and offering free and open competition to the trading banks. Instead, it was not until the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945, which removed the board and again placed the bank under the control of a Governor, was passed that it again began to expand. During the recent war, as in World War I, the trading banks were unable to provide the finance required for Australia’s war effort, and the Commonwealth Bank had to come to the rescue.

To give honorable senators some idea of the policy that might be pursued by a board such as the Government proposes to appoint, I mention that during the depression when the wheat farmers of Western Australia were in sore straits and were receiving only ls. lid. a bushel for their wheat, and they applied to the former board of the Commonwealth Bank for assistance to market their crop, their request was refused. They had to go to a co-operative bulk handling organization, which approached the cooperative movement in England and obtained a loan of approximately £4,000,000. The Commonwealth Bank- even refused to handle the transfer of the credit involved, and the bulk handling organization had to go to the English, Scottish and Australian Bank to handle the transaction for them, at considerable cost. I emphasize that the board, and not the bank itself, was responsible for that institution’s failure to assist the wheat farmers in a matter of national importance. The proposed board may decide to increase interest rates or to do a number of other actions which it is empowered to do as the central reserve bank, and so long as its decisions do not conflict with those of the Government those decisions may never be brought before the Parliament for review. Honorable senators will realize the harm that might be done by a board which, was not acting in the best interests of the nation. The proposed board, which will consist of three representatives of the Government and seven other members, will not be a small one. The Government has assured us that the individuals who will be appointed to the board will be competent, and I have no doubt that they will possess reasonable competence according to their qualifica tions. However, I think that any board appointed should act only in an advisory capacity to the Governor of the Bank. It is quite evident that if the views of the members of the proposed board conflict with those of the Governor of the bank, their views will probably prevail, notwithstanding that the Governor of the bank is an expert in banking and thoroughly understands the institution which he controls. After all, the most important attribute which the controllers of the national bank can possess is a thorough understanding of hanking. It follows, therefore, that the Government’s proposal to appoint to the board persons representing interests other than banking will not necessarily increase the effectiveness of that institution but, on the contrary, may do positive harm to it.

The bill represents a move by the Government to introduce a body to act as a buffer between the Government and the people. Its existence will enable the present Government to repudiate responsibility for actions taken by the board that coincide with its policy, and generally to carry out the negative policy that characterized the previous board. Once again I emphasize that unless the proposed board comes into direct conflict with the Government of the day the Parliament will be kept in ignorance of its actions. The only way in which the board is likely to come into conflict with the present Government is by taking action which adversely affects the interests of the trading banks and other financial concerns. When overdrafts were called up in 1931, the value of property was at a very low ebb. The farmer -lost, and the country lost, when foreclosures occurred, but the bank never lost. When the banks foreclosed, their advances were well covered by the proceeds from the sale of the properties, even when the values of those properties were at their lowest ebb.

Some form of control of the Commonwealth Bank is required whereby if it ever again occurs that there are plenty of commodities, workmen and materials and work to be done, it will be possible to formulate a financial policy whereby this . country, which is almost undeveloped

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social .Services · New South Wales · LP

– I should think that there would be general agreement on both sides of the Senate that one of the most important institutions in Australia outside of this Commonwealth Parliament is the Commonwealth Bank. Clause 7 of the bill contains the formula under which the Government proposes that that Commonwealth Bank shall be managed and controlled. That being the case, I submit that this is probably the most important clause in the bill. Therefore, I cannot help but commence my remarks by being critical and by saying that during this debate the Opposition have given surprisingly little attention to that formula, under which it is proposed that the bank should he controlled and directed, and which establishes tho relationship of the bank to the National Parliament. Far too much time has- been devoted by the Opposition to dealing with what occurred during the depression. The Opposition must learn that the wheels of the world- move on, and that the depression occurred twenty years ago. This legislation has been designed to deal with banking in the year of grace, 1950, not that of 1930. The conditions provided for in this bill are entirely dissimilar to the conditions under which the Commonwealth Bank was controlled in 1930. This bill provides that the will of the National Parliament shall prevail. It provides that, in the event of a dispute, the Treasurer on behalf of the National Parliament may instruct the directors of the Commonwealth Bank upon what policy they shall pursue. That was not the position in 1930, so that all these sob stories which honorable senators have told about the depression are entirely inappropriate to- this measure.

Senator Ward:

– The Government wants to appoint the board again in order to damage the bank.

Senator SPOONER:

– After Rip Van Winkle had slept for 20 years he came back and found a new set of conditions. That, Senator Ward, is your situation. You listen to. the debates, you make the rudest remarks to everybody. You rely upon your old age to protect you from retaliation, and you are discourteous to everybody present.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator must address the Chair.

Senator Ward:

– I know what a Liberal government does.

Senator SPOONER:

– I suggest that the attention of honorable senators should revert to the bill. This clause provides the formula whereby it is proposed that the bank shall be controlled. That formula is within the four corners of the policy which the Liberal party placed before the people before the last general election. That party said to the people, “ These are our proposals with regard to this national institution, the Commonwealth Bank “. It was announced that a hoard would be established which would be subject to the direction of Parliament. The establishment of that board has been provided for in this bill. More important is the fact that this proposal is in keeping with the modern trend of banking conditions. So far as I am aware, there is no central bank in any democratic country which is not controlled by a board of a composite nature such as is proposed in this bill. The alternative to the board is that this great national institution shall be controlled by a small coterie of officers who would be under the political domination of the Treasurer of the day. The Government does not believe that that method of control should be retained. The Government believes that there should not be any hole and corner arrangement in regard to this great national institution. It considers that the clear light of day should be allowed to shine on all banking transactions of moment upon which there is a dispute between the bank and Parliament. That principle is embodied in this clause sothatin any great national crisis which may occur the Parliament which, in the final analysis, has to take the responsibility, will have all the facts before it.It will have the facts of the matter which is in dispute set out together with the views of the bank and the views of the Treasurer. A recommendation will be received from a board which will have been constituted in accordance with the recommendation of the banking commission, and in accordance with the modern world trend of banking in such a manner that all may clearly see the problem with its implications.

For those reasons I commend the clause to the committee.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator J. H. O’Byrne.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause negatived.

Clause 8 consequentially amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 negatived.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17 negatived.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Postponed clauses 4 to 6 negatived.

Schedule negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4628

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 1) 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion of Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Snipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now road a second time.

The Government and the Opposition in another place gave this bill their unanimous blessing. Five bills are involved, four being complementary to the first. I shall deal with the subject-matter of all the bills in this speech. I have given Senator Courtice a copy of my speech. The Government is anxious that these measures should be passed without delay so that the relevant department can set up the machinery to commence operations under the scheme on the 1st July. The.proposal envisages preparations for the possible establishment of a scheme of reserve prices for wool. This bill and the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, are designed to impose a contributory charge on the sale of wool foi- use in Australia or for export, in order to provide finance for a future scheme of reserve prices for wool. They will replace the existing Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945. The proposed legislation is of an unusual character in that it would confer authority to raise a levy for a scheme which has not yet been agreed upon. The reason why the Government is seeking that authority now is because the legislation would have to be passed during this session if the new charge is to be collected during the next wool season and so take advantage of current high prices. In a bill which will be dealt with later, it is proposed that, in the event of no scheme being in operation by the 30th September, 1951, the moneys collected under the contributory charge legislation shall be repaid.

There is provision that the legislation shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. That provision was included because the Government intended that the legislation would not be put into force until it was satisfied that the wool-growing industry generally approved of the principle of a levy. Before the legislation was introduced into the Parliament the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the Australian Primary Producers Union informed the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture that they approved of the imposition of the new contributory charge, or levy, on the conditions which the Government had announced. Since then the senior body representative of woolgrowers - the Australian Wool Growers Council - has also advised the Minister that it approves of the principle of the levy. When a conference was convened in London last January to review the operations of the Joint Organization it was considered by the governments and growers in the three Dominions that it would present an appropriate opportunity to consider whether some suitable arrangements, on similar lines to those of the Joint Organization, could be continued after the disposal of war-time stocks had been completed.

So far as Australia is concerned, the initiative in regard to proposals for a post Joint Organization scheme was taken by the wool-growers’ organizations. The most important difference between the proposals of the various organizations concerned the sources of finance. What was common ground was the proposal that there should be a scheme, embracing the four partners in the existing plan, for the maintenance of reserve prices. Before the Australian delegation left for London, the present Government made it clear to representatives of the woolgrowers’ organizations that in any scheme- the wool-growing industry would be required to provide the main capital. The Government also set out the essentials of the kind of scheme which was contemplated. These were first, the auction system of wool selling was to be maintained; secondly, reserve prices should be determined annually; thirdly, the three wool-growing Dominions should be partners in the scheme with the United Kingdom as the fourth partner if possible; fourthly, the wool-growing industry should have an effective voice in the controlling authority in Australia and should be at least as strongly represented as it is on the present Wool Realization Commission ; fifthly, the principal capital should be provided by the industry; and sixthly,’ any acceptable scheme should be backed by the ultimate guarantee of the Government. The London conference reviewed the operations of the Joint Organization and noted that its disposals operation was nearing completion. The conference recommended that the Joint Organization should continue its existing functions until the 30th June, 1951, unless before then it was superseded by another organization.

The conference devoted the greater part of its time to an examination of the question whether an arrangement similar to the wool disposals plan was practicable and desirable for the future. It drew up proposals for a reserve price scheme. Those proposals are generally in accord with the views of this Government and in their main principles follow closely the lines of the proposals submitted prior to the conference by Australian woolgrowers’ organizations. Before a scheme is finally evolved there will be opportunity for both the Government and the industry to give further consideration to all aspects of the matter. The United Kingdom delegation at the conference suggested that the proposals for a future scheme should be submitted to the international wool study group. It made this suggestion because the United Kingdom Government would .be unable to participate in any kind of post Joint Organization scheme unless the scheme had general international consent. The wool study group comprises representatives of the Governments of countries interested in the production, consumption and trade in wool. It is an advisory body set up to consider wool questions on the international plane.

The Australian Government decided that an approach to the wool study group was the best course possible in the circumstances, and informed the wool-growers’ organizations that it would do so subject to the following provisos: First, that the Governments of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa also favoured that course; secondly, that the woolgrowers’ organizations desired the Government to approach the study group; and thirdly, that the wool-growers’ organizations would agree beforehand to the principle of a levy so that the Government would have the assurance that growers were prepared to provide finance. The wool-growers organizations have indicated that they approve of an approach being made to the International Wool Study Group as soon as possible, and they have also agreed to the principle of the levy. This disposes of two of the provisos referred to above. In regard to the other proviso, I can inform honorable senators that the Government has been advised that the New Zealand Government is prepared to submit the London conference proposals to the study group. The latest advice of the position of the Government of the Union of South Africa in the matter is that that Government will make a decision very shortly following meetings of South African wool-growers. Acceptance of the principle of the levy by wool-growers’ organizations does not bind them to accept any scheme that might be evolved as a result of further international negotiations. It is appreciated that wool-growers will wish to examine any scheme very critically before they decide to accept or reject it. In this connexion it should be pointed out that this Government is fully aware that wool-growers do not want government control of the sale of wool.

The Government has said very definitely that it does not wish to have that control. The Government has said that if it is to back a scheme by giving a guarantee, so that the financial strength of any scheme may be unquestioned, the Government should have the final say in the determination of the level of reserve prices and would be concerned with the rate of re-offering of bought-in wool. The Government would not seek to exercise its authority beyond the obvious necessity to protect the Treasury. Honorable senators will note that the legislation lays down a maximum for the rate of the contributory charge that may be imposed in any season. That maximum is a rate of ten per cent, and it applies to the sum of the charge for the existing wool disposals plan and the charge to be imposed for a new scheme. The Government - and this is provided in the legislation itself - will consider the views of the wool-growers’ organizations as well as those of the Australian Wool Realization Commission in fixing the actual rate of the charge, or levy, that may be prescribed for a future scheme.

As the legislation is designed to promote the stability of the largest of Australia’s primary industries and as the Government has made it clear that any scheme which is evolved will be subject in the- final analysis to the approval of the wool-growers themselves, I feel that the legislation should command the support of all honorable senators. There should not, I think, be any doubt but that the present is the appropriate time to take steps to provide for the future security of the wool-growing industry. I therefore commend the legislation to honorable senators and ask that the measures be dealt with expeditiously in order that there will be parliamentary authority for the imposition of the levy from the start of the next wool season.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The Government has been good enough to take the Opposition into its confidence on this measure. It has discussed the bill fully with members of the Labour party, who are keenly interested, and the Opposition believes that there is no occasion to oppose the measure in any way. It has been the policy of the Labour party for a long time to encourage schemes of this kind which lend themselves to stabilizing industries, particularly the primary industries. I believe that it would be wise to make provision for the wool industry when prices are high to help itself to meet the time when there may be a. reduction in prices. Woolgrowers are amply protected by the measure. Actually the bill is ahead of the industry because it has not yet decided whether it will agree to a scheme of this kind, but there are indications from various sources that something of the kind is desired by the industry. If the scheme does not come into existence for any reason, provision is made for any levy that may have been collected to be returned to the wool-growers.’ I think that the measure is a good one. It is in line with my own ideas and with the general policy of the Labour party. I think that the Government is to be congratulated upon planning to meet any situation that may arise. The scheme is purely voluntary. The wool-growers do not want any government control and are prepared to finance the scheme.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I cannot allow this proposal to pass without congratulating the Government on adopting the policy of the Labour party. I am pleased that the Government has found that it is necessary to adopt stabilization schemes. Not long ago the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who introduced the bill to-night, fought members of the Labour Government when they introduced stabilization schemes such as this one. The Government has now recognized that where it has to supply certain finance, it is necessary to have some control over the actual disposal of the commodity affected because it has to stand up to financial obligations, in this case on behalf of the wool-growers. I rise only to congratulate the Government on adopting policies that have been set out,

Mid propagated by the Labour party for a number of years.

Thursday, 22 June, 1950.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation. For a number of years I was engaged in the wool industry and I regard this legislation as a landmark in its history. This is the staple industry of the Commonwealth and the country’s greatest revenue producer, and I am pleased that the co-operative effort which I have assisted personally for twelve or fifteen months has been brought to a successful conclusion. I am certain that this scheme will give stability that was missing after World War I. I support the measure and congratulate the Government on a piece of progressive legislation.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I, too, believe that this is a good piece of legislation. I am pleased that the Government is prepared to foster a socialization scheme among wool-growers whereby they can protect their industry. The Minister has said that the scheme is backed by the Government. I presume that if the amount levied on wool to carry out the stabilization of the industry a nd the marketing of the product is insufficient, or if the time should come when the purposes of the scheme cannot be met by the contributions that are levied, the Government will he prepared to take over the liabilities and ensure the stability of the scheme. In any circumstances this scheme should have the fullest confidence of the wool-growers since it is hacked by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4631

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 2) 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) zen,(1 a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Snipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is complementary to the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill (No. 1) 1950.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4631

WOOL REALIZATION BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 4631

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) ASSESSMENT BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 4631

WOOL (RESERVE PRICES) FUND BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 4631

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP (BURMESE) BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

The the hill be now read a second time.

This bill deals with a subject which, I believe, is in no way contentious, though it involves, in its minor aspects, some difficult points of law. At this stage, I propose to confine my remarks to the broader aspects of the measure, endeavouring to make clear its background and general objectives, and leaving to the committee stage the difficult technicalities.

The necessity for the bill arises from the fact that Burma ceased to be a part of His Majesty’s dominions on the 4th January, 1948. This has, of course, been recognized by Australia as well as by the United Kingdom and the other British Commonwealth countries. The United Kingdom Government passed the Burma Independence Act, which came into force on the 4th January, 1948, and provided, as a logical consequence of the change in

Burma’s status, that Burmese should no longer he British subjects solely because of their connexion with Burma. That act also provided that Burmese domiciled or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in its dependencies should have the right to elect to remain British subjects. No corresponding statute has so far been passed in Australia. I am advised that in the absence of such a statute, the common law position is that Burmese who left Burma permanently before its independence was recognized or “ within a reasonable time afterwards “ are still British subjects under our law. British nationality was lost only by those who were inhabitants of Burma at the time when it became a foreign country.

This existing position under our law L° unsatisfactory because, first of all, it differs from the law of the United Kingdom, and this means that some persons who are aliens in the eyes of the United Kingdom Government, are British subjects under our law, and vice versa. This, in itself, is undesirable, being a contradiction of the long-accepted principle that persons who are British subjects in one part of His Majesty’s dominions should have the same status in other parts of those dominions. Furthermore, it is not considered desirable that native Burmese should remain British solely because they were not domiciled in Burma when independence was proclaimed ; some of these persons may have taken up residence in other foreign territory and may have as little connexion with the British Commonwealth as those who remained in Burma. ‘ In addition, the common law position is conducive to uncertainty in determining the national status of individuals; for example, it must inevitably be a matter of opinion as to whether some individuals left Burma within a “ reasonable time “ after that country ceased to be British. For many years, it has been the rule that the law pertaining to nationality should be defined by statute, so that there should be no more obscurity about this difficult subject than is absolutely necessary. Finally^ the common law on this matter is at variance with the general principles of our statutory law, under which a man’s British nationality, or his lack of it, depends upon specific factors, such as his place of birth and his descent, or upon some clearly described act of his own, and not upon such generalities as departure from an area within “ a reasonable time “. These are, I think, sufficient reasons for the introduction of the bill, and I shall now endeavour to deal briefly with the main clauses, which are clauses 2 and 3.

Clause 2 provides, in effect, that persons who have ceased to be British subjects under the Burma Independence Act of the United Kingdom shall cease to be British subjects under our law also. Since the bill, therefore, seeks to bring a part of a United Kingdom statute into our law, I have caused to be made available to honorable senators the relevant extracts from that statute, and I propose to outline its provisions. The latter are not by any means simple but their effect is not in doubt, namely, that under the act, no person ceased to- be a British subject if either he himself, or his father, or his paternal grandfather, was born in British territory, or even- in British protected territory; and, moreover, no woman whose husband possessed any of these qualifications ceased to be British, even if she had no other claims to British nationality. These effects of the United Kingdom act are the effects that are sought by this bill. The idea may be expressed in the positive way by saying that the only persons who did cease to be British subjects under the Burma Independence Act and who will, therefore, lose British nationality by reason of this bill, are those whose only claim to be British subjects has been their birth in, or some other connexion with, Burma. It may, therefore, be reasonably claimed that clause 2 of this bill represents the natural consequence of Burma’s departure from the British Commonwealth.

Clause 3 gives to those few former Burmese who became Australian citizens on the 26th January, 1949, that is, upon the commencement of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, an opportunity to retain that citizenship, by a simple declaration. It is, I think, only logical that persons upon whom this country so recently conferred its citizenship should not now be summarily deprived of it. This right of election, being confined to persons who are already Australian citizens and therefore, have every right to reside permanently in Australia, in no way affects the long established immigration policy of the Commonwealth in relation to nonEuropeans.

I sum up my remarks by saying that this bill deals with no great question of policy, but rather seeks to “ tidy-up “ our nationality law, to bring it into line with that of the United Kingdom and with the accomplished fact that Burma is a foreign country. I commend the bill for the approval of the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– The Opposition has given consideration to this bill, and regards its objectives as a necessary adjustment of our nationality law. On behalf of the Opposition, I have pleasure in stating that we support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4633

ADJOURNMENT

Newsprint - Repatriation

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I desire to direct the attention of the Senate very briefly to a matter of public importance, namely, the importation of newsprint from the dollar area. I do not pretend that this is the first time that the Government has heard of the subject, and I have no doubt that honorable senators generally have heard references to it from time to time. A case has been submitted to me, and after having closely studied it, I am convinced that those who have made representations to me have reasonable grounds for their claim. I feel that I should preface my remarks by repeating the words of Voltaire: “Although I disagree wholeheartedly with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it “. We on this side of the chamber do not plead innocent to the charge that we have said some hard things about the newspapers, but they have returned the compliment, probably with much greater effect than we have been able to achieve.

I put forward three considerations: the newsprint requirements of the industry, the efforts being made to buy newsprint outside the dollar area, and a proposal in regard to the Government’s machinery for handling dollar expenditure in relation to newsprint. The newspaper proprietors had long-range contracts with Canada, which produces five times as much newsprint as does the rest of the world. Because much of the nondollar newsprint comes from European countries that are not outside Russian influence, the position is unstable. When the 1949 contracts expired, the newspaper proprietors tried to renew them but, because of the worsening dollar position, the matter came under government control. The early negotiations were for the importation of 130,000 tons. No doubt, that allowed a considerable margin for saving. Eventually, the proprietors signed contracts for 45,000 tons because of the need to conserve dollars. During 1949, those 45,000 tons were imported, together with an additional 5,000 tons from the 1950 allocation.

It is recognized that any industry seeking to import goods from a dollar area should first convince the Government that it has exhausted all possibilities of getting its requirements from other than dollar areas. The newspaper proprietors have bought all the newsprint obtainable from England, Scandanavia and France, and still find themselves 25,000 tons short. In addition, they have expended another £3,000,000 on the newsprint plant in Tasmania. As for the allocation of dollars for imports, committees have been appointed to consider the needs of various industries, and I should like to know whether there is a committee to inquire into the importation of newsprint. I understand that the committees make their investigations, and then report to a central committee which submits recommendations to the Government. Perhaps the time has arrived when this machinery should be overhauled. The position in regard to newsprint could be very serious, because Canada is the only effective source of supply. If Aus. tralia were to drop its Canadian contracts, Lt would have to depend upon the limited

European market for supply. Other British-speaking countries have allocated considerable amounts in dollars for the purchase of newsprint. If there is a scarcity of newsprint, the employment of many skilled workmen will be jeopardized. It has been claimed that some newsprint is misused, or that the newspapers could save considerable quantities of paper. If it is possible for them to do so, they should. Most honorable senators have received representations on- this subject, and I know that the Government, too, has been approached. I have examined the case of the proprietors carefully, and I believe that it is worthy of consideration. Perhaps some industries which receive dollars for the purchase of such goods as tractors, motor cars, &c, could obtain their imports from non-dollar areas, thus releasing dollars for the purchase of newsprint.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– On the 14th June, I asked a series of questions regarding the dismissal of Dr. P. B. James from the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. I understand that the Parliament is going into recess to-morrow, and I have not yet received a reply to those questions. Dr. James had war experience, and was later, for a’ considerable time, employed at the Heidelberg Hospital. He is regarded as a very efficient doctor. His superior officers have said that he is competent and trustworthy, and has worked efficiently and well. The professor of Physiology at the University of Melbourne has eulogized Dr. James for his work and skill. Patients and doctors at the hospital have signed petitions praying the department to reinstate Dr. James pending an inquiry. While one person was getting signatures of patients to a petition a security officer asked. her what she was doing. When she told the officer, she was asked to go to the office. There, the security officer took the petition from her, and it has not been seen since. It is a strange thing that security officers should be interesting themselves in the matter. Many people believe that Dr. James has been victimized. A lot of rumours have been floating about at the Heidelberg Hospital, some of them not to the credit of Dr. James. The doctor has written to his superior officer asking why he was dismissed, but no reply has been forthcoming. Dr. James would welcome an inquiry into his work, but it has been denied to him. On the 31st May, I asked the Minister for Repatriation (‘Senator Cooper) a series of questions, one of which was as follows: -

Is it a fact that, when this doctor’s annual leave became due, the authorities requested him, owing to the pressure of work, to defer taking his holidays?

To that question the Minister replied, “ No “. According to information that has been given to me, the departmental officers have supplied the Minister with incorrect information on that point. I have been informed that when Dr. James’s annual leave became due he was asked, owing to pressure of work, to defer taking his holidays. The Minister has also been misled in respect of the next question that I addressed to him. It was as follows : -

Is it a fact that Mr. H. C. Laussen, Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation, wrote to the Medical Superintendent of the Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital, informing him that the Public Service Board had decided that the temporary appointment of Dr. P. R. James would be terminated as from Wednesday, the 7th June, 1950, and that he would not be eligible for pro rata payment in lieu of recreation leave?

To that question the Minister replied -

Yes, but Dr. James has since received payment in lieu of all recreation leave not availed of by him.

I am informed that that statement is not correct. The Minister is an honest man, and I have no doubt that he has accepted information that has been supplied to him by his departmental officers. I have shown that those officers have supplied incorrect information in two instances. Does not that fact raise a doubt about whether Dr. James’s dismissal may have been due to a mistake or to some misunderstanding? After all, it is a serious matter when a Minister, in replying to questions, supplies information that is incorrect. I again appeal to him to give to Dr. James the opportunity to have his case investigated by a board of inquiry. I have no doubt that he would be able to convince such a body that he had not contravened the hospital regulations, and that he had carried out his work satisfactorily at all times. Considerable concern has been evidenced about this case in many quarters. Several newspapers which have taken up the matter have emphasized that the dismissal Has cast a serious slur upon Dr. James’s character, particularly as it could be related to a particular measure thatwas being debated by the Parliament at that time. I again appeal to the Minister to reconsider his previous decision, and to set up a board of inquiry to investigate the circumstances of Dr. James’s dismissal.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

, - Several questions that still appear on the notice-paper in the name of Senator Morrow will be answered in due course. I am satisfied that 1 have not been misled in any respect by my departmental officers in the information that they have supplied to me.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4635

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Vnblic Service Act - Appointment - Department of the Interior- -J. H. Hunter.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance - 1950 - No. 3 - United States EducationalFoundation in Australia.

Superannuation Act - Fifth Quinquennial Report on the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund covering the period up to 30th June, 1947.

Senate adjourned at 12.39 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 June 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500621_senate_19_208/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 June 1950

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator MURRAY:TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

NEW GUINEA

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:VICTORIA · CP

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:VICTORIA · CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

ROADS

QUESTION

CHILD WELFARE

Senator WEDGWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator AYLETT:TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator MATTNER:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:

Senator BEERWORTH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:

Senator MURRAY:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

DUNTROON ROYAL MILITARY

QUESTION

COLLEGE

Senator ROBERTSON:through Senator Wedgwood

Senator SPOONER:Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

SOUTH AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Senator MURRAY:

Senator SPICER:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

BUILDING MATERIALS

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator SPOONER:NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

SUPERANNU ATION

Senator SPOONER:LP

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950

Senator SPICER:AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

Senator ASHLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPICER:

Senator Grant:

Senator SPICER:

Senator GRANT:

Senator SPICER:

Senator Grant:

Senator SPICER:

Senator GRANT:

Senator SPICER:

Senator Grant:

Senator SPICER:

Senator McKENNA:Tasmania

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senate
21 June 1950

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEERWORTH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator ROBERTSON:
through Senator Wedgwood

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator O’Byrne:
TASMANIA

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · VICTORIA · LP

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP