House of Representatives
14 March 1927

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
MISREPORT IN NEWSPAPER
- Personal Explanation
QUESTION
- DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL
QUESTION
- WIDOWS’, INVALID, AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC
QUESTION
- NAVAL CADETS AT CANBERRA CELEBRATIONS
QUESTION
- ROAD-MAKING MACHINERY
QUESTION
- REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CANBERRA HOUSING CONDITIONS
QUESTION
- GERMAN REPARATIONS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- EXPORTS
QUESTION
- CONCRETE MANHOLES
PAPERS
STATES GRANTS BILL
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom) took the Chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 338

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Wharfage at Rabaul.

Mr. MACKAY, as Chairman, brought up the report of the Public Works Committee, together with minutes of evidence, regarding the proposed selection of a site and erection of a wharf at Rabaul, New Guinea.

Ordered to be printed.

page 338

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Threatened Cessation of Work

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories whether it is a fact that a cessation of work has been threatened by men at Canberra, owing to the fact that certain contractors working for the Commission are not observing the provisions of an award applicable to the Northern Territory; if so, will the Minister take early action to remedy the grievance?

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– A newspaper report to the effect that there wasdanger of the cessation of work at Canberra was brought under my notice. On inquiry I found that no official intimation concerning the matter has been received,but the circumstances of the case are such that I do not think there should be any difficulty about asettlement. An ordinance was passed in the Territory to enable any unionist employed under an award to sue in any court having jurisdiction in the Territory if the award were not observed by a contractor. There was a case in which an infringement of an award was alleged and an action was brought at Queanbey an. For some reason which it is difficult to follow thecourt found against the unionists, apparently on the ground that the ordinance was invalid. Steps have been taken for the issue of a further ordinance. This has been approved by the Minister, and is now under consideration in the Attorney-General’s Department. When it has been promulgated there will be no difficulty in dealing with the matter which appears to have been the cause of the trouble referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton).

page 338

MISREPORT IN NEWSPAPER

Personal Explanation

Mr KILLEN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to make a personal explanation. A scurrilous article which. I feel, reflects on my honour as a member of this House appeared in the Labour Daily of Friday last, in connexion with the pair which I gave to the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Parker Moloney) on the previous day. This is the article to which I take exception -

The matter of pairs troubled the Government Mr. Killen, who had paired with an absent

Labour member, was recalled hurriedly to the House, and on his return demanded that his pair be broken. Party pressure had been brought to bear upon him to commit the greatest breach of honour in the parliamentary code. All day Mr. Killen sat gloomily in the House, and, when the division was called, refused to move out of the chamber. The Labour Whip, Mr. Fenton, drew attention to the breach, and eventually opinion became so strong that he walked out of the House.

The facta are these: - On Sunday I received an urgent message from Sydney informing me that my brother-in-law ha-I died. I had to leave that night to attend the funeral on the following day. I came to the House to arrange about a pair, and the first man I met was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton). Mr. Hunter, the National Party Whip, was not in the building at the time. I told Mr. Charlton the position, and he very kindly offered to assist rae to secure a pair. I subsequently saw one or two other honorable members, and told them my difficulty, and later I saw Mr. Hunter, who said there would be no difficulty, in the circumstances, in obtaining a pair for me. I left that night by train, and returned to Melbourne on “Wednesday. I saw Mr. Hunter on my return, and said to him, “Does my pair stand?” He replied, “ That is all off. The pair was arranged for to cover only the period until you returned.” I thought no more about the matter, but the following day Mr. Parker Moloney came to mc when I was sitting in my seat in the House. He said he was a sick man, and asked me if I would give him a pair. I said, “ I am quite willing to do so provided our Whip (Mr. Hunter) is agreeable. You will have to consult him first.” Mr. Hunter came into the chamber a few minutes later, and when I asked him about the matter, he said he would get Mr. Parker Moloney a pair with somebody else. T looked upon the matter then as finished, so far as I was concerned, and did not think any more about it. I promised Mr. Parker Moloney that I would see him, and tell him what I proposed to do, or that Mr. Hunter would see him. Mr. Hunter said he would arrange the matter. I went to look for Mr. Parker Moloney later, but could not find him in the House. When the division was called, I, of course, assumed that a pair for Mr. Parker Moloney had been arranged with somebody else. When the division bells began to ring, naturally I did not attempt to leave the chamber, because I did not consider that I was paired with any one. Mr. Penton, the Opposition Whip, then came to Mr. Hunter, and said that arrangements had been made, or ought to have been made, to pair Mr . Parker Moloney with somebody on this side. Mr. Hunter immediately consulted Mr. Marr, and then came up to me just before the bells stopped ringing, and asked me if I would give a pair to Mr. Parker Moloney. I immediately got up from my seat, and was able to leave the chamber just before the bells stopped ringing. I immediately left the chamber, though I was under no obligation to do so. I have quoted what this scurrilous newspaper has made out of the incident. I contend that the paragraph I have quoted is a scandalous and libellous statement which no decent reporter would write, and no decent newspaper would print. I take strong exception to it, and I intend to put the matter into the hands of my lawyers with a view to taking action against the newspaper.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation relating to the matter referred to by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen). I think the proprietors of the newspaper to which the honorable member has referred will be fair enough to admit that they have published a misstatement of the facts, because in the paragraph quoted, the facts have been misstated. Without going over the whole ground, I went to Mr. Hunter one day last week and asked him to give me a pair, and he was kind enough to say that lie would see that a pair was obtained for me. The pair was given, as the honorable member for Riverina has said. Nothing definite, apparently, was done, and there was some misunderstanding regarding pairs last week. I did not speak of the matter at all, but I should like to say that 1 never have refused, and never will refuse, a pair tu a sick man. My experience has been such as to prevent me from ever doing anything of the kind. In this case, Mr. Killen did the fair thing, when spoken to on the matter by the party Whip. He left his seat and went out of the chamber to give me a pair.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– “Without any hesitation.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, the honorable member did so without any hesitation. I regarded his action as a great kindness to me. I still so regard it, and am sorry that it has been misrepresented in the newspaper paragraph quoted. I feel sure that the proprietors of the newspaper will, in the circumstances, be prepared to apologize for the mistake which has been made.

page 340

QUESTION

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– In this morning’s press appears a statement that the Dairy Produce Control Board of New Zealand has met with such violent opposition from the selling firms in Great Britain that the returns to the producers in the Dominion has been adversely affected to the extent of over £1,000,000. I should like to know from the Minister for Markets and Migration what is the attitude of these firms to our Dairy Produce Export Control Board, and whether our butter producers are being similarly penalized. I should also like to know what proportion of Australian butter already exported remains unsold ?

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– 1 have seen the article to which the honorable member has referred. It would be improper for me to comment on criticism levelled at a board operating on behalf of a sister dominion, though, perhaps, I might remark that the article contained only the plaintiff’s case, and possibly an equally good case might be made out for the defendant. As to our own Control Board, any reference which has been made to its operations and to its policy in London, has been rather commendatory than otherwise, and I assure the honorable member that the stocks of Australian butter now held in London are comparatively small.

page 340

QUESTION

QUESTION

ROAD-MAKING MACHINERY

Remissions of Duty

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– As it is the bad practice of State Governments, State Railway Departments, other State instrumentalities, and municipal councils to import machinery for road-making which is dutiable and could be manufactured in Aus- tralia, I should like to know from the Minister for Trade and Customs if it is a fact that his department allows certain remissions of duty on such machinery, and if he will give instructions that in future these departments and instrumentalities must pay the full duty if they import dutiable machinery ?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am unaware that public bodies throughout Australia do not pay the full Customs duties when the articles imported are capable of being commercially manufactured in Australia. Every request for a remission of duty, before being granted, is fully inquired into by the Tariff Board, the department, and, finally, the Minister, and if allowed is gazetted. It was only last Saturday that I found that there had been a very satisfactory development in the Australian manufacture of road rollers, road-making machinery, and road engines, especially since the last tariff was imposed-, and, so far as I know, there are no concessions or remissions of duty on machinery of this class. Upon another class of machinery, such as steam engines, of any horse-power, that is satisfactorily made in Australia, no concessions are given. In regard to internal combustion engines, or, rather, kerosene and petroldriven engines, the line of demarcation is at present 50 horse-power. All applications for remission of duty on such engines of over 50 horse-power are usually granted, but all applications for remission of duty on engines of this type of less than 50 horse-power are refused. However, on Saturday, I also learned that larger engines of this class are now in process of manufacture in Australia, and that application was to be made to me to raise the line of demarcation to 75 horse-powei. If these larger engines are being commercially and satisfactorily manufactured in Australia, I shall have no hesitation in acceeding to that request. A further class of machinery for which applications are frequently made under the concessional items, is electrical equipment. It is the most difficult class to adjudicate upon, but the department absolutely refuses any concession on this class of machinery where the articles can be commercially made in Australia, and when the application is on the balance, our leaning is to the side of the Australian manufacturer.

page 341

QUESTION

REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that the Government proposes to appoint a select committee to inquire into the Commonwealth Constitution ?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The question of revising the Commonwealth Constitution is now under consideration by the Government, and, in the course of a few days, I hope to be in a position to make a statement regarding it.

page 341

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Judicial Administration

Mr COLEMAN:

– Can the AttorneyGeneral tell me whether it is proposel to deal with the judicial administration of the Federal Capital by ordinance or by enabling legislation ?

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · NAT

– There are no definite proposals afoot for dealing with the matter referred to by the honorable member, but consideration is being given to the advisability of so amending the Judiciary Act as to make it possible to provide, at once, for certain needed modifications now affecting Canberra. It has not yet been determined how much will be left to be done by ordinance and how much will be done by direct legislation; but it is very probable that the exigencies of the case will require the use of ordinances to a certain extent.

page 341

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

Allegations Against Officials

Mr COLEMAN:

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that charges alleging graft in the purchase of motor cars, petrol, and other items have been made against certain minor officials of the Federal Capital Commission ?
If so, what is the nature of such charges, and what action, if any, has been taken to have them investigated ?

Mr MARR:
NAT

– Inquiry is being made of the Federal Capital Commission in regard to this matter, and, as soon as a reply thereto is to hand, the information desired by the honorable member will be made available. °

page 342

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOUSING CONDITIONS

Mr E C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

In view of the fact that officers who are shortly to bc transferred to Canberra and have been allotted houses by the Federal Capital Commission, in some cases, over six months ago, are unable to obtain information as to the rent or purchase price of the houses or the value of the land, probable amount of rates &c, will he take steps to ensure that officers will be advised of these necessary particulars before they are transferred?
In the case of single officers, will he arrange that some announcement be made as to where and at what rates boarding accommodation can be secured?

Mr MARR:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

A. statement has been issued for the information of public servants containing inter alia, particulars of the costs of the Commission’s types of houses, and the weekly payments required for rental or purchase thereof. Particulars of the costs of other types will be made available at an early date. The statement also informs public servants that a schedule of blocks allocated to public servants, showing values, is available for inspection at the office of the Director of Transportation, 31 King-street, Melbourne. The Commission has been requested to supply information regarding the likely amount of rates. This information will bo conveyed to officers as soon as received.
The pamphlet issued in April, 1920, for the information of public servants contained, on page 55, particulars of the hotel and boardinghouse tariffs which would apply to public servants for the first six months from the date of their transfer to Canberra.

page 342

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Mr FENTON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What sums of money have been paid to the Commonwealth by Germany by way of reparations ?
What amount has been paid to the British Government in reparations?
What amounts have been paid to other oversea dominions in reparations?
What is the total amount of reparations expected in the future so far as Australia is concerned?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

£1,513,697.
The exact amount is not known, lt is understood, however, that Great Britain has received on reparation account about £35,000,000.
The exact amounts paid to other dominions are not known. The distribution of the British share of reparations within the Empire was decided by an Imperial Reparations Committee in London in July, 1921. The apportionment arrived at was -
It is not possible to make a reliable forecast of what Australia will receive in the future. The receipts will depend upon two factors, viz.: - (i) the capacity of Germany to pay reparation in her own currency, and (ii) the ability of the Reparation Commission to transfer such payments to other countries without dislocating exchanges.

page 342

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Holiday Pay

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– On the 4th March, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Cook), asked me the following questions upon notice: -

What is the total number of employees in the service of the Commonwealth?
What is the total cost of the holiday allowance paid during the past twelve months?

I am now in a position to furnish the following information : -

On the 30th June, 1926, the number of permanent officers in the Commonwealth Public Service was 27,039, and the number of temporary and exempt employees was 20,341; total, 47.3S0.
The total amount of holiday pay for 19’i5- 26 was £4.7,802.

This information relates only to employees under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. A considerable amount of work would be entailed in compiling the figures in regard to employees under other acts; but if the information is specially desired in regard to these, I will have it compiled and furnished a.3 early as possible.

page 343

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Primary and Secondary Products - Inspection

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– On the 2nd March, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) asked the following questions: -

What was the value of exports of secondary industries during theyears 1924-25 and 1925-26?
What classes of industry and manufacture in Australia were they composed of, specifying class of product and value for each year?
What was the value of exports of secondary products, the produce of other countries and re-exported during 1924-25 and 1925-26?
What was the value of primary products exported during the same periods?

I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -

The following return, preparedby the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, dated the 23rd February, 1927, showing the value of the principal articles of Australian produce exported from the Commonwealth during the years 1923-24, 1924-25, 1925-26, arranged in general classes according to industries, very largely gives the information sought.

Mr PATERSON:
CP

– On the 9 th March, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Cook) asked the following questions : -

What is the number of inspectors engaged on the inspection of primary products for export? 2.What is the total amount of salaries and travelling expenses paid annually to such inspectors?
What is the total of the inspection fees paid for examining primary products exported?
What are the respective amounts paid for inspecting dairy produce, canned fruits, dried fruits, and meats exported?

I am now able to furnish the following information for the year 1925-26: -

Sixty-nine permanent officers are engaged on this work. In addition, there are 114 temporary officers, including officers of the State Departments of Agriculture in the several States, who, during brief periods of the year, act as Commonwealth officers for the inspection of produce intended for export.
£57,964.
£39,947.

page 345

QUESTION

CONCRETE MANHOLES

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

– I promised to investi gate the replacement of concrete manholes, to which the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) referred on the 2nd of March. The facts are that, during the past twelve months, it has been found necessary to enlarge 22 manholes. They varied from approximately3 ft. 6 in. x 3 feet to 4 feet x 3 feet, and the new manholes which have been built are of three sizes - 6 feet x 4 feet, 6 feet x 6 feet, and 7 feet x 6 feet. The original manholes were constructed about 1911, and since that time very considerable telephone developments have taken place. It has been necessary to provide cables much beyond the capacity of those contemplated fifteen years ago. It would have been impracticable to develop the system without reconstructing the manholes in question.

page 345

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Transport in Australia - Report (Volume I.) by Sir George Buchanan on Transport in Australia, with special reference to Port and Harbour Facilities.

Ordered to be printed.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Commonwealth Bank of Australia, - Aggregate Balancesheet at 31st December, 1926, and Statement of the Liabilities and Assets of the Note Issue Department at 31st December, 1926; together with the Auditor-General’s Reports thereon.

Public Service Act - Public Service RegulationsStatutory Rules 1926, No. 212.

New Guinea Act - Ordinances of 1927 -

No.6 - Native Administration.

No. 7 - Superannuation.

No.8 - Judiciary.

page 345

STATES GRANTS BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 11th March, vide page 335) :

Clause 2 -

Sections four, five, six, and seven of the Surplus Revenue Act 1910 are repealed as from the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six.

The clause having been already amended by the omission of the word “ twenty-six,” Mr. Gregory had moved, by way of further amendment -

That the word” “ twenty-nine “ be inserted in place of the word omitted.

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

.- The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has moved to postpone the operation of the measure until June, 1929; but it seems to me that if, as the honorable member has stated, there is now no necessity for the bill, then the time taken in the preceding debate has been entirely wasted. This legislation has been delayed too long. The right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) pointed out that the State Premiers were very much more alive in 1910, when he was one of them, because, when the Braddon section of the Constitution was about to expire, they were able to place alternative proposals before the Commonwealth Government. Does any honorable member think for one moment that if the Surplus Revenue Act of 1910 had expired in 1920, the State Premiers would not have been equally anxious to proffer alternative suggestions ? We know the position only too well, so why should we listen to this special plea for delay? I am glad that the amendment has given me an opportunity to speak, because the silence of honorable members supporting the Government has been taken by the Opposition to mean that we do not agree with the principle of the bill, but are merely voting with the party out of loyalty to the Government. Loyalty we all commend, even if it be mistaken at tunes; but my opinion is that the bill should have been passed years ago. The per capita payment is made, not out of Customs revenue, but out of Consolidated Revenue, because for some time past the Customs revenue has not been sufficient to meet Commonwealth expenditure. Even when I was a member of the Parliament of New South Wales I held the opinion that the per capita payment should be discontinued. During the weekend I took the opportunity of . reading debates that took place many years ago on this subject. A few extracts from a speech made by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) in 1909 should, I think, do more to show the urgency for passing this measure than probably anything that I could put before the committee. At that time Mr. Deakin, the Prime Minister, proposed that the Constitution should be altered to embody in it the per capita payment for all time. In reply, the right honorable member for North Sydney spoke for two hours, and the whole of his speech was an able castigation of the Government for introducing such a proposal. He said -

After ten years of a burden, which, as time went on, became almost intolerable, does any one think the Commonwealth is justified in neglecting an opportunity to come into its heritage? Are we justified in approving an agreement which, in all essentials, binds the Commonwealth for all time in fetters not less intolerable and vexatious than those of the Braddon section itself? Comparing the Braddon section with the proposed agreement, it has to bc said that the former, unwise, illogical, and unscientific as it was, at any rate was agreed to by men who, in some sense of “the word, were admittedly placed in a difficult position. I do not believe that the position was really difficult; but the consummation of federation depended on assent by the smaller States, which did not regard their financial position as assured without some such proviso. The section was introduced into the Constitution without any clear conception of its effects; but, after nine years’ experience, can any one say that, if it were submitted to the people, they would reaffirm it? Never! Yet, after nine years’ experience, the Prime Minister calmly asks the House to make permanent a provision which, in all essentials, so far as principle is concerned, is not less obnoxious or less harmful to the interests of true national government in this country.

The attitude which the right honorable member adopted at that time was perfectly consistent with his attitude in 1919.

Mr Cook:

– What party did he belong to at that time?

Mr MANNING:

– To the Opposition. Another extract reads -

I am not a unificationist at all; I never was. But, at the same time, I never have been, and never shall be, a supporter of that cause which, under the guise of State rights, is deliberately intended to put back the hands of the clock of reform. The people of this country are determined that the wealthier classes shall pay their fair share of taxation; and wriggle about as that party may, first to one side and then to the other, Federalists at one moment and State righters at another, the people - who, the Prime Minister said the other evening, are the same people, whether acting as electors of the States or of the Commonwealth - have awakened, and no effort of the honorable member, or of any other like him, can pull enough wool in front of their eyes to blind them to the true facta of the case.

The right honorable gentleman the other day said that the discontinuance of the per capita payment would place an additional burden on the shoulders of people living on the bread line. In 1909, and also in 1919, his views were to the contrary. At that time he contended that under the per capita principle the wealthy people escaped a burden which was unjustly placed on those least able to bear it. It has been said that this measure seeks to deprive the States of their rights. I maintain that a great many of the difficulties of this country have been brought about by too much centralization, and I believe that, if unification as advocated by honorable members opposite were introduced, the present position would be accentuated. Speaking of State rights, the right honorable member for North Sydney said -

What State right is threatened by any action of this Parliament? Do we propose to deprive any man of his liberty, or to take a penny from his pockets? No. The Prime Minister himself exposed the fallacy of the assertion that State rights are in danger when he said that all taxation comes out of the one pocket. The only question is whether the taxpayer will pay his money to Peter or to Paul.

That is exactly the position to-day. Taxation must come out of one pocket, and the question is whether it should be paid to the Commonwealth to be handed over to the States, or direct to the States. The opponents of this bill have been guilty of gross exaggeration. The right honorable member also said -

I am merely following the example, good or bad, set by the Prime Minister. I am en- deavouring to show that the question of State rights, about which we have heard so much, gave rise to the Conference and to the agreement now sought to be forced upon us. 1 am showing at the same time that the Constitution provides for the Senate as the guardian of the rights of the States.

– The honorable member did not quote anything to that effect. When the Labour party went to the country about seven or eight months later, we said to the people, “ We accept this agreement and will enshrine it in a statute; but it should not be put into the Constitution.” I took the same stand in this Chamber the other night. When we went to the country in 1910 the people adopted the view expressed in the speech that the honorable member has quoted. They rejected the proposal to embody the agreement in the Constitution; but they accepted the agreement itself, and enshrined it in a statute. My friend and leader, Mr.

Fisher, was returned to office, and the Labour party gave effect to the decision. No objection could be taken to that. The honorable member remarked that I was against the per capita payment, and that I was not what is called a State rights man. I never have been that. As I said last week, I have led, until the last one, every referendum fight to give the Commonwealth extended powers; but Ilansard or any other official record would be searched in vain for evidence that I have ever sought to sandbag the States or to force them to their knees. That is the whole difference between my attitude and that of the present Government. We are a long way from 1909 ; but in 1922, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) was Treasurer in my Government, he said, speaking at Brisbane -

He supported the claim of the States for a continuance of the per capita payments, and Foresaw what has since become one of the principal arguments used by all of them - the difficulty of getting, by additional local taxation, an amount sufficient to compensate for the loss of the revenue received from the Commonwealth.

According to the Brisbane Daily Mail the Prime Minister further said -

The payment to the States amounted to £7,022,500. As matters were in Australia, this could not be done away with. Possibly, the future held a different form of government in store for Australia. Certainly we had many Governments, to the point of being over-governed; but, until there came some changes in the basis of government in the Australian States, the payment must be continued.

– The direct assault of the Opposition having failed last week, honorable members who supported it have launched this flank attack, which, if it be successful, will emasculate the bill. I can understand honorable members of the Opposition seeking to do this; but they speak with their tongues in their cheek when they deprecate party voting, because the Labour party alone is voting solidly against the bill. I must confess, however, that it regards it as its duty to oppose, so, as the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mi-. Hughes) said, opposition from Labour members on this issue can. scarcely be counted against them. But I cannot understand the objections on the part of honorable members from Western Australia. It is difficult to know exactly what they want, because the history of the uniform per capita payments is so clear. The proposal has been before the people on two occasions. It was fully debated at the Federal Convention, and definitely rejected. The late Sir George Turner, who at that time was Premier and Treasurer of Victoria, tried repeatedly to have included in the Constitution Bill a clause providing that the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth should be returned to the States on a per capita basis; but it was ignominiously defeated. Section 94 of the Constitution leaves this matter entirely in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, providing that the surplus revenue shall be returned to the States in such a way that the Commonwealth Parliament deems fair. The return of surplus payments to the States on a population basis was rejected by the Federal Convention on the ground that it would be inequitable so long as there were differing stages of development in the various States. The late Sir George Reid, one of the delegates from New South Wales on the Convention, said -

I believe that it is self-evident, putting figures and tables aside, that in the operation of any tariff applied to the different colonies which might compose this Federation, for some time - the time doubtful, the fact certain - for some time the distribution per capita, which would be a distribution we would all at once adopt if we could, because it is so simple, would be unfair, . . . . it is pretty generally admitted, the extent of the unfairness being very much in dispute - we must admit that we have no solution which we can ask the people to adopt.

Later, he stated -

Every one admits that, in the case of Western Australia, a per capita distribution would work the grossest injustice to that colony.

The late Mr., afterwards Sir Winthrop, Hackett, representingWestern Australia, expressed his view in the following words : -

It is simply out of the question that we could join under any system which involves a per capita return, excepting, of course, for a limited experimental period.

The late Sir Frederick Holder, one of the delegates from South Australia, and practically every member who had an insight into the future, adopted the same attitude. Consequently, the distribution to the States of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth on a per capita basis for all time was deliberately excluded. In 1909, the year prior to the expiration of the Braddon section of the Constitution, the representatives of the States agreed to the return of surplus revenue on a population basis; but when that proposal was submitted to the people for their acceptance as a permanent solution of the problem, it was deliberately rejected. Western Australia objected originally that a distribution of the surplus revenue on a population basis would not be fair, and that State requested, as a condition precedent to its acceptance of the 1909 agreement, that it should receive an additional amount of £250,000. The 1910 proposal having been definitely rejected, the Labour party declared that it had a mandate from the people. The late Mr. E. A. Roberts, at that time a prominent member of the party, said -

The country gave the party having a majority in this House absolute power to do as they please in this matter. Honorable members on this side might, if they so desired, have proposed to give much less to the States, and they could claim that they had the mandate of the people to do so. The people said that the party in power in the Federal Parliament should have the right to deal with the finances as they thought best in the interests of the Commonwealth.

Dr Earle Page:

– There will not be much revenue distributed under that provision.

Mr THEODORE:

– Whether the amount be great or small why perpetuate the farce in a clause of this measure which re-establishes a principle which the Treasurer contends was not recognized by the founders of the Constitution, and therefore should not be recognized today? The honorable gentleman went on to quote the views of earlier statesmen against the principle of per capita payment. Sir George Reid apparently questioned the wisdom of entering into any permanent arrangement to distribute Commonwealth surplus revenue to the States on a per capita basis. The Treasurer referred again to a speech made in 1909 by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). I do not know where these references carry us, because it has not been contended from this side or by opponents of the bill on the other side during the debate on the second reading, or so far in committee on the bill, that it is a principle which should be established for all time that the States are entitled to and should receive 25s. per capita from surplus revenues of the Commonwealth. That is not what we are contending for on this side. We are asking for a settlement of the question in a reasonable way between the Commonwealth and the States. We say that there are other interests to be considered as well as Commonwealth interests, and others whose opinions should be. given consideration as well as those of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. These gentlemen seem to think that because they have made up their minds on the matter, are determined about it, stated their determination at the Premiers’ Conference in 1923, and again in 1926, and made some obscure references to the question in their policy speeches in 1925, they are now justified in going ahead with their proposal whatever the consequences may be, and however much evil may follow the passing of this measure. No one has said that we should never have a revision of the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. No one has contended that the question should not be considered at the present time, or that the time is not fast approaching when it should be considered and settled. The whole question is whether it should not be settled in agreement with the State governments, in a reasonable and rational way at a conference or a convention, or in some way in which the rights of both parties can be considered. I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister on the amendment, and I have read the remarks he made a few days ago at the 23rd anniversary meeting of the Australian Women’s National League. He said -

Various views, opinions and prejudices existed upon this subject, and the people were confused, and did not know right from wrong.

– They may or may not, but they certainly do apply to the measure now under consideration. A real fear has been expressed concerning the position of the finances of the States if this bill is passed. I do not believe that these views have been ‘given expression in order to embarrass the Government or to take a political advantage of the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. I do not think that that is the spirit actuating the tremendous body of opposition to the measure throughout the country. It is a very live issue in South Australia,

Queensland, and, in fact, in all the smaller States. If one could ascertain the real reason actuating the Treasurer in persisting in his determined and dogged fashion with this measure it would be very interesting and possibly very illuminating. I confess that I do not know what the real reason is. I read the honorable gentleman’s speech in introducing the bill and have listened to all the speeches he has made upon it since. It seems to me that he is shifting his ground. In his speech in reply to the second reading debate he indicated, as I mentioned just now, that possibly there would be further modifications of the Government’s proposal. He suggested that further modification might be submitted at the conference with the State Premiers in June and then pleaded that in the meantime the House should pass this measure. I think that would be a mistake. In his speech on the second reading of the bill the Prime Minister indicated the alterations which are now about to be made in it. They are intended to provide that, for another twelve months, the per capita payments should continue on the same basis as in. the past, in order to give further time for the discussion of the question with the State Governments. I object to the bill even in the modified form now proposed, because if it becomes law it will be operative whatever the decision of the conference may be. The principle will have been established and it cannot afterwards be altered by the conference. I cannot help adverting to a statement made by the Treasurer when discussing this measure in June of 1926. What the honorable gentleman said was quoted by the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) and his remarks are very significant in view of his persistence and determination to have this bill passed. He said -

The principle underlying the notion of the Government in connexion with the abolition of the per capita payment was that the people would know whom to blame lor the effects of taxation and its incidence.

– We will not deal with that. Except for one or two speeches, the debate on this bill has been conducted on a very high plane. It has been an education to take part in it. There has been very little intrusion, of personalities. I am glad to note this, because I think it advisable to avoid personalities in every possible way. The question as to what demand lias arisen for a bill of this sort centres largely in the nature of the alleged mandate to the Government. The principal reason for urging delay is the fact that we claim that we are not justified in taking a step of such importance without a reference to the people. If one wanted additional proof of the fact that there has not been any public expression of opinion upon the need for this legislation it is found in the small majority by which the second reading was passed. The House is perfectly justified in passing a bill by a majority of one, and it is entitled to proceed with this bill, even with the small majority recorded on Thursday night. But is it expedient or advisable to do so when the House is so divided in’ itself, and when there have been such extraordinary ruptures of party organizations? Honorable members have not recorded their votes against the Government on this matter in any light spirit, as has been suggested, or for personal reasons. It is absurd to suggest that those who have found it necessary for the time being - not permanently, I hope - to sever’ their connexion with others with whom they have been working for years, and to run the risk of the misrepresentation that has been, and will be, levelled at them, have been actuated by foolish personal ambition and are devoid of any sense of responsibility to their electors. The fact is that they have taken the step of opposing the bill only after the most weighty and serious deliberation; and it only serves to show how strongly divided are the opinions of honorable members on this issue. I have not the slightest doubt that if the party restrictions were removed the bill would have no chance of going through. Some of the gibes we have heard from the Ministerial side about deserters betray really the bitterness of heart of those who feel that they are not acting according to their .consciences in supporting the bill. They can justly level no reproach at those who took their courage in their hands and opposed the bill. All the evidence goes to show that there has been no public demand for this legislation, and the fact that the House is so divided in regard to it is further proof of my assertion that there is considerable public opposition to the bill. In the circumstances, I maintain that when those who are advocating its passage and

– I have no aim but to serve the public of Australia, and I have never been other than a servant of the nation. Sir George Reid also said -

It should increase automatically with the growth of the revenue and population, or at least with the population growth.

In the convention, at which the late Lord Forrest, then Sir John Forrest, represented one of the sparsely populated States, that great man urged the per capita principle on the ground that the first duty of the Commonwealth Parliament was to preserve the solvency of the States. If the States are not solvent, there is little possibility of progress and prosperity. He contended that we were one people, and that we could not cripple the States without crippling the Commonwealth, or cripple the Commonwealth without crippling the States; and he said that the distribution of Customs revenue, on the principle at first introduced, would be impracticable. If honorable members will consider it for a moment, they will see that it is impracticable. Sir George Reid’s final statement was -

Why should the States, with their great and expensive public works to carry on, be put in the position of being at the mercy of the Federal Parliament? The Federal Parliament could cripple the States, and bring about endless confusion and irritation, and bitter quarrels. If there is one thing which will keep Federal and State Governments revolving peacefully, usefully, and harmoniously, it is the rigid definition of their appointed courses, in writing, so that nothing may be left to chance interpretation.

I want that to sink into the mind of every honorable member, because we are all representatives of the people of Australia, and I realize that my first responsibility is to them. Another prominent figure in those days was Mr. Dugald Thomson. A more esteemed man, or one of better character, never sat in this chamber. He was chairman of the Chamber of Commerce for many years, and the members of that organization wanted to keep him for ever, and allowed him to go out of office only on condition that his advice and assistance would always be available. If members of this House ever loved a man because of his goodness and power, they loved Mr. Dugald Thomson. He was an upright man, without bias, and he said -

When subsequently the period of the operation of the Braddon section was limited, it was expressly declared to the people of Australia from platform after platform, and specially acknowledged by the member who had most to do with the alteration, that it was recognized that the State Governments should continue to receive a fair share of the Commonwealth revenue from Customs and Excise. … It was claimed that the Federal Parliament would never fail to do justice to the taxpayers of Australia in view of the fact that they were also the taxpayers of the States. . . . Squeeze the States into submission by starving the services of the State! It is not only strangling the States, but it is strangling the people who have the right to have the appeal made to them.

This is the first government that has ever put forward such a proposal, and decided to pass it by hook or by crook, which is about the closest thing possible to the betrayal - that is not too strong a word, I am sorry to say - of the people. That was not the intention of the giants whose portraits are hung in the Queen’s Hall, and who gave us our Constitution. An old friend of many honorable members, Mr. Bruce Smith, after speaking on similar lines, concluded by saying -

Some honorable members have talked of a payment for ten years as if it were to be the final provision of the Commonwealth. It is nothing of the kind.

The great Mr. Deakin said -

As I understand the position, we all admit that, in federating the services, the States must not bo deprived of that gain which they have been deriving from them in the past - upon which their past budgets have been built, and on which their future budgets must also be built - unless their whole financial systems are to be dislocated.

Slate of Tasmania versus Commonwealth and State of Victoria - 1., Commonwealth Law Reports, 329-340 - in which case the late Chief Justice said that the States had “ an absolute vested right “ to the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable member connect his remarks with the amendment?

Mr COLEMAN:

– I am replying to the argument adduced by the Treasurer.

Dr Earle Page:

– I think that I made the matter clear in reply to a point raised by the honorable member for Dalley last Friday.

Mr COLEMAN:

– The Minister said that section 94 showed that the States had no legal right to the surplus revenue.

Dr Earle Page:

– The honorable member has either misquoted me, or is under a misapprehension as to what I said.

Mr COLEMAN:

– I think not. In the course of his speech the Treasurer also referred to the different motives that actuated the delegates to the Federal Convention in deciding upon the limitation of the operation of section 87, the socalled “Braddon blot.” Let me further quote Sir Harrison Moore: -

The first financial problem which lay before the framers of the Constitution was how to secure to the colonies - Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia - which had depended largely upon Customs and excise, such a return of revenue from those sources as would enable them to provide for their needs without dislocating their finances and requiring a resort to new methods of taxation. The second problem was how to find a fair and acceptable basis of distribution among the several States. The difficulty was increased by the fact that New South Wales had already come largely to depend on direct taxation, and was concerned to secure to the Federal Parliament a free hand in determining economic policy.

The action of Sir George Reid in delaying his ultimate agreement to section 87 was due to a desire that the Commonwealth should refrain from adopting a fiscal policy for the protection of its industries. Various text-books which set out to interpret the Constitution, deal specifically with the Braddon section and the other sections affecting the financial relations of the Commonwealth and the States, which are the most important and involved sections in the Constitution. Sir Harrison Moore pointed out that, in limiting the. operation of the Braddon section, the idea was to leave the ultimate adjustment with the Commonwealth Parliament. It was thought that a period of ten years would be sufficient to determine the future fiscal policy of the Commonwealth, the revenue which might be expected from Customs and excise, and the expenses of administration, so that an equitable adjustment could be made. It was not intended that the per capita payments should cease at the expiration of that period. The Treasurer’s reasoning is entirely erroneous. I trust that those honorable members who supported the second reading of the bill will see the wisdom of now supporting the amendment moved by the honorable member for Swan.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

– I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). Were it not that some members of the Ministry have an inflated sense of their importance and of the functions of the Commonwealth as compared with those of the States, they would not try to rush this proposal through, thus making it extremely difficult to obtain a harmonious solution of the financial difficulties of the Commonwealth and the States. [Quorum formed.] Were honorable members on the other side free and unfettered, they would vote for the amendment, which provides that the altered arrangement shall not come into operation until the people of Australia have had an opportunity of saying whether they are in favour of it. The election was fought on a spurious issue, referred to in the propaganda published in support of the Government candidate as “ Constitutional Government versus mob rule.” It is true that the Prime Minister’s policy speech contained a reference to the per capita payments, in that he stated that there should be a conference to review the financial position of the Commonwealth and the States, because it was not considered right that one authority should impose taxes and collect revenue to be handed over to another authority for spending; but no definite statement that the per capita payments would be abolished was made to the electors. No Government which stands for democratic rule would endeavour to force its will on the States in the face of their unanimous opposition to it. If the amendment is agreed to, the Government will be in a better position to confer with the States than if the bill is passed in its present form. I remind honorable members that, in reference to this matter, Sir William McPherson, who for many years was the Treasurer of Victoria, said recently -

If both chambers betray the people and the States, they will have to face the gravest dangers. Our social services may have to be curtailed. And direct taxation, so injurious to trade, commerce, and industrial development, will remain at the present high level.

Sir William McPherson is competent to speak on this matter; he knows the effect upon the finances of the States of the proposal of the Treasurer.

Sit ting suspended from 6.30 to8 p.m.

Mr FORDE:

– I emphasise that the Government has no mandate from the country to abolish the per capita payments, for no direct reference to the subject was made in the Prime Minister’s policy speech. It is usual at the opening of the session for the Government to outline in the Governor-General’s speech the important matters that it intends to submit to Parliament; but it did not indicate, even when that speech was delivered, that it intended to introduce this proposal. Will any one say that this is not an important question ? In my opinion, it transcends in importance anything that has been submitted to Parliament since the election. It is a matter which surely demanded very careful and lengthy consideration, but evidently it had not been seriously considered up to the time the Governor-General’s speech was delivered. This appears to me to be merely a pet scheme of the present Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), who probably desires it to overshadow the new States scheme and some others of his which have never been brought to fruition. In these circumstances, there is every reason why we should agree to the amendment. Our opponents opposite tell us that they represent the taxpayers of Australia. Recently I received a communication from the Taxpayers’ Association of Queensland, which indicates to me that honorable members opposite are not voicing the views of the taxpayers.Any one who cared to run down the list of names printed on the letter-paper of this association would discover that there is not a single Labour supporter among them. At any rate none of them is actively associated with Labour. The letter points out that on the 11th June last year the association resolved that, although it was against the principle of dual taxation, it was of the opinion that the per capita payments should be gradually reduced in proportion to the degree in which the Federal Government evacuated the field of direct taxation. Since that time, however, the members of ibis association have given careful consideration to this matter, and the letter which I have just received from them is in the following terms: -

In consequence of further information since published, and in view of the fact that comparatively recently the Prime Minister himself, when he was Federal Treasurer, expressed the opinion that the capitation grant to the States could not be done away with, but must bo continued until there came some change in the basis of government in the Australian States, and as no such change has taken place, the council of the Taxpayers’ Association of Queensland, in order to avoid any ambiguity in the above-mentioned resolution, now states that it is of the opinion that the capitation grant to the States should be continued.

These are the sentiments of those who assisted to return the present Government to office. The Prime Minister has gone back on a definite promise that he made to these people in Brisbane in 1922 that the per capita payments would not be abolished unless some fundamental change was made in the basis of government in Australia. The right honorable gentleman’s speech on that occasion was reported in the Courier, the Telegraph, and the Daily Mail, which are published in Brisbane. The letter goes on to say -

This council is further of opinion, in view of the continued buoyancy of the Customs revenue, that the Federal Government should steadily reduce its direct taxation as circumstances permit, without transferring any portion of it to the States. This council is also of the opinion that, if the capitation grant in future be limited to the present amount paid to each State, then the saving thereby accruing to the Commonwealth shall be used by the Federal Government annually, as far as may be necessary, for the establishment and maintenance of a sinking fund which shall wipe out at the end of about 50 or 00 years all the States’ debts existing at the time such sinkingfund is inaugurated.

In conclusion, the association states that these views have been formulated only after some months of careful consideration. In Queensland, at least, thereis a great body of public opinion, not confined to any one party, which is totally opposed to the abolition of these payments. The matter has been considered by them from a non-party standpoint. One of my grievances is that the Government has not allowed its supporters to consider the matter from a non-party attitude; if it had done so, there would be an overwhelming majority against the Government’s proposal. But some honorable members opposite seem to be tied hand and foot. Had they been free men, they would certainly have voted against the bill, which, if it should become operative, must have the effect of utterly dislocating the finances of the States and, at the same time, of involving the State taxpayers in heavy additional taxation which they can ill afford to meet. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), in a speech that he delivered in Sydney last year, stated clearly that he wished to focus public attention upon the direct taxation authorities - which means the States - so that the people would know, in the future, who were to blame for the heavy taxation which they were obliged to pay. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), in the speeches that he has delivered in this Chamber in the last few days, has told us that he desires to assist the States to meet and overcome their financial difficulties. The two declarations cannot be reconciled, and it is hard to know where the Government really stands. It is true that the motion for the second reading of this bill was carried, but it was by such a narrow majority, in comparison with the large following that the Government has, that it was a moral defeat It does not say much for the Government that it had to threaten its followers with expulsion from the party if they failed to respond to the Whip’s appeal. In spite of the pressure that was applied, however, twelve men refused to vote in favour of a principle to which they were strongly opposed. On this aspect of the matter, the apt remarks of Sir Alexander Peacock, an ex-Premier, a prominent Victorian Nationalist, and Treasurer in the Victorian Government, are worth quoting They were as follows : -

There aru sonic victories that are worse than defeats. If I were in the position of Mr. Bruce, and I saw the calibre of the members who are going to vote against the bill because of the strong and conscientious objections they hold on a momentous issue, I would hesitate to proceed. I would rather be wrong with mon of the status of those who are about to vote with the Noes “ than be right with the lesser lights who are standing by the Government.

– The first measure dealing with this subject-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bayley).Order ! The question before the Chair is the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory).

Mr Watt:

– I rise to order. I submit, sir, that you allowed the Treasurer to discuss the bill in second-reading form on this amendment. Later, you directed attention to the fact that, in your opinion, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) was exceeding the limits of f air debate; but I submit that if the Treasurer, in discussing the amendment, is permitted to cover the whole ground, the same consideration should be extended to the honorable member for Henty.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !. I admit that the Treasurer appeared at times to depart from the question immediately before the Chair, but the points that he raised were made in an endeavour to give reasons why the bill should come into operation before 1929, as proposed in the amendment. Had the Chair been of the opinion that the Treasurer had transgressed, he would have been called to order. The honorable member for Henty has now been asked to confine his remarks more closely to the question before the Chair.

Mr GULLETT:

– I bow, sir, to your ruling. I am endeavouring to show that the Government is ignominiously giving way on the bill; that it has thrown overboard practically 90 per cent, of the original measure; and that I am still hopeful that it will abandon the remaining 10 per cent. In the original measure, it was proposed to discontinue the per capita payments without compensating the States in any way ; but to give the States the right to collect certain direct taxation which the Commonwealth at present raises. In the first place, the States were not to receive any compensation, but it is now proposed to hand over to them £8,000,000 a year, provided the Commonwealth can dictate to the States the maimer in which it shall be spent. In other words, the Treasurer, who for some time has assumed the role of an absolute dictator to the States, now appears in the guise of a pawnbroker, and says to the States, “You can have this money provided you pawn your autonomous rights with me as security.” I do not propose to labour that aspect of the question; but, in view of all that has been said, and the aspersions that have been cast upon the twelve honorablemembers on this side who voted, against the second reading of the bill, I venture, on their behalf, and on behalf of honorable members opposite, to take credit for our attitude from the outset. In consequence of our opposition to the proposal during the last six or seven months, there is every prospect that, if the Government proceeds with it, the States will be £8,000,000 better off than they would have been under the original bill. I should like to congratulate the Treasurer upon his extraordinary personal triumph in carrying this bill beyond the secondreading stage. I credit him with the initiation of this proposal.

Mr Watt:

– He has subjugated the Prime Minister.

Mr GULLETT:

– I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is not behind the bill; but we know what was the attitude adopted by the right honorable gentleman in 1922. Any impartial reader of the speeches that have been delivered by the Treasurer since he has been in the Commonwealth Parliament must conclude that the honorable gentleman is a straightout, wholehogger unificationist. Their perusal has given me an insight I did not formerly possess into the ability, the capacity, and tlie purpose of the honorable gentleman. Ever since he entered this Parliament he has sought to destroy the sovereignty of the States. Why that should be, in view of his professed desire to have further States created, I cannot imagine.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bayley).Order! The honorable member is not discussing the amendment.

Mr GULLETT:

– I desire the postponement of this measure, and its submission to the people at the next election, in order that they may have brought before them prominently the question of direct and indirect taxation. I am surprised that neither the Treasurer nor any supporter of the bill has during the debate discussed principles of such importance as those relating to direct and indirect taxation, or whether it is possible for the States to aggregate incomes in the event of the Commonwealth being inclined to vacate the field of direct taxation. I should particularly like to hear the views of the Treasurer regarding the evils of indirect taxation. If the Commonwealth fails to arrive at an agreement with the States it will be necessary to vacate the field of direct taxation with the exception of 60 per cent, of the income tax. What is the opinion of the Treasurer in relation to the extraordinary economic position that will then be created? Speaking on the tariff in this chamber on the 7th April, 1921, the honorable gentleman, then a private member, said -

Pitt, something like 150 years ago, pointed out that by means of indirect taxation it was possible to tax the coat off a man’s back without his being conscious of it. And that is what is happening under this tariff.

The Customs revenue, which in that year so alarmed the honorable gentleman, amounted to £17,000,000. During this financial year it will amount to more than double that sum. In the course of the same speech the honorable gentleman said -

I hope to give irrefutable proof that it is practically impossible, by means of a tariff alone, such as this, to establish rural industries.

I draw the particular attention of the committee to what follows : -

All that we oan do under present conditions of constitution and size of States by means of such tariffs, is to continually increase the population of the big capital cities, where the living conditions are rapidly becoming worse and worse; where the health of the children is deteriorating, and where their chance of becoming physically strong is becoming less and less, while at the same time people are fleeing from the country districts as from a land of desolation. The power to overcome that undesirable state of affairs is largely in the hands of the Federal Government itself.

The manner in which the honorable gentleman has grappled with the problem since he has assumed office as Treasurer has been to double the receipts from indirect taxation. As I view the matter, the Government by this proposal is making war upon the States. In a political sense this is the worst of all wars; it is a politico-civil war. Although the federation has been in existence for 27 years, the affections of the people still lie rather with the States than with the Commonwealth. That fact should exercise a strong influence upon honorable members in the consideration of any legislation that might be construed by the people as an attack upon the sovereign rights of the States. In Tasmania and Western Australia, the preference of the people for the State Parliaments is strongly apparent; It will take a much longer period than 27 years for the people of great political entities like the States of New South W ales and Victoria to surrender their sovereignty and cling with greater affection to the Commonwealth than to the State Governments and Parliaments. If I were asked why the Australian people continue to adhere more closely to local than to national government, I should say the reason lies deep down. Upon what does the genius of Anglo-Saxon government the world over rest ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr GULLETT:

– I submit that T am giving reasons why this amendment should be carried. I am endeavouring to show that the postponement of the coming into operation of the bill will be to the interests of, not only this Government, but also the Commonwealth Parliament. The genius of government by the British the world over has its roots in local government. Britain, on a memorable occasion, had one grim lesson, which it learned well, when it sought to interfere violently with the supreme independence and sovereignty of local government within the British Empire. There has been no necessity to teach that lesson a second time. This Empire only stands together, and endures, and is the marvel of the world, because of the complete local autonomy that is enjoyed in every portion of it. That rule applies, or it should, to a federation such as ours, in which the States have retained their sovereign powers. The clay when this Parliament fails to recognize the complete sovereignty of the States, which was granted to them when federation was established, and seeks by corruption, as is attempted under this bill, to deprive them of their sovereign powers, it will be up against a fundamental instinct of our race : the infinite respect that is held for local government wherever it exists. This forcing of the States to surrender their powers is a tragic step 1o take, and will prove fatal to honorable members of the Nationalist party when they go before the electors. I go further, and say that it will have harmful effects upon the development of a national spirit. Frequent mention has been made of a proposed special Federal session to discuss constitutional amendments. What a farce it is for the Government to suggest that the people be asked to approve of an amendment of the Constitution by constitutional means, after it has given such a demonstration of brute force as that of which it bao been guilty in this instance! I have said, and I say again, that if this bill is forced through Parliament, and the States decline to barter away their sovereign rights for so many pieces of silver, the amendment of the Constitution which is so urgently desired by those who have the interests of this country at heart will be put back a decade.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I desire to make a few- valedictory observations upon the bill. I have been greatly moved by the speech just delivered by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), by its eloquence on the one hand, and by its skilful irrelevance on the other. I have listened to the debate for several days past, but, in order to be clearly within the Standing Orders, I shall refer specifically only to what has been said to-day. I have been struck by the wealth of argument against the passage of this bill by honorable gentlemen usually found supporting the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Bruce), in committee paid a tribute to those distinguished gentlemen. I think he said that they were all skilful - I am sure he said they were all old - parliamentarians; ripe in wisdom, strong in political strategy and ability, and full of historical knowledge. We all recognize that in every Parliament there are men who fill the public eye more than others who, with equal honour, discharge their lesser part. I ask myself how it is that all these outstanding parliamentarians upon the Government side - those practised debaters, those men who have been associated with the political history of the Commonwealth since its inception, as well as those who have distinguished themselves in, or in association with, the convention before the constitutional instrument was fabricated at all - are opposed to the bill. And I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you, with your intimate knowledge of the personnel of this Parliament, would be the very first to admit that those members not in the Cabinet but supporting the Government–

– I am not saying that the honorable member had no right to do what he did. 1 do not say that the party Whip would have had no right to approach me, but that it is a fact that I was not approached by him. I make the statement deliberately. I voted as I did upon the measure, purely of my own volition, and with a full sense of responsibility for my vote. Some reference has also been made during the discussion to the violation of party pledges. As honorable members are aware, I am a member of the Victorian section of the

National Federation. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) made a reference to certain platform pledges. I propose to read a section of the report of the last conference of the National Federation. The conference was held on 21st, 22nd, and 23rd of September, 1926, or subsequent to the last Federal elections. I quote from page 12 of the report of the conference, some motions that were discussed at it -

Per Capita Payments.

Wendouree - That, in the opinion of this conference, the per capita payments, instead of being discontinued, should be doubled, and that the Commonwealth should leave the States to attend to their own roads.
Daylesford - That the question of the abolition of the per capita payments to the States be submitted to a referendum of the people.
Wendouree - That the action of the Commonwealth in abolishing per capita payments, on the pretext that taxation should not be imposed by one authority and spent by another, and at the same time imposing a petrol tax to provide money to foe spent by the States on roads, is illogical and a contradiction in policy, that it will only result in overlapping, and in wasteful expenditure and increase in the burden of taxation, and that no real benefit will result.

When those motions came before the conference, Senator Pearce and the Hon. F. W. Eggleston, who were present, were invited to address the gathering. The report from which I am quoting goes on to say -

At the invitation of the conference, Senator the Eight Hon. G. F. Pearce and the Hon. P. W. Eggleston delivered addresses, explaining the views of the Federal and State Governments respectively, after which the above motions were debated.

The Wendouree branch amended its motion (a) to read, “ That this conference proposes that the per capita payments should not be discontinued “ - Rejected.

Motion (fc) and (c) were withdrawn, and the report proceeds -

A further amendment was then moved - “ That in the opinion of this conference there should be full consultation between Federal and State Governments before any action is taken with respect to the existing per capita payments.”

Mr.Theodore. - The financial issue was distinct.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Yes, but it played only a minor part in the election.

Mr Scullin:

– The financial issue was the subject of a separate referendum.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Yes, but the votes of the people were influenced by their attitude towards the rival parties in the field. And exactly the same thing would occur again if the amendment were agreed to and this issue were submitted to the people in 1928. The Labour party would not fight the election on that issue alone; it would not drop its child-endowment proposal and the many other features of its policy in order to get a clear-cut vote on the per capita payments alone. That would be merely one of many issues which would be obscured by the larger issue of Labour versus the Nationalist and Country parties. The division taken on the second reading of this bill showed that the forces which are supporting a bigger national future for the Commonwealth are quite secure in this chamber, and that there is in this Parliament a healthy trend, which I think will be reflected in the country, to make the Commonwealth not only supreme in the financial sphere, but sovereign throughout Australia in respect of all matters.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Gregory’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to -

That the word “ twenty-seven “ be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 - (Payment to the States).

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I invite the committee to negative this clause. Originally, provision was made in the schedule for compensating payments. The necessity for that provision has disappeared owing to the fact that payments equivalent to the per capita payments are to be made to the States next year.

Clause negatived.

Clause 4 -

In addition to the payments made under the last preceding section to the State of Western Australia, there shall be payable to that State, in equal monthly instalments, during the period of five years commencing on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twentysix, the sum of Three hundred thousand pounds per annum.

Clause consequentially amended.

Br. EARLE PAGE (Cowper- Treasurer) ‘[9.44]. - I move -

That the following sub-clause be inserted: -

All sums paid to the State of Western Australia during the period from the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, to the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven, in pursuance of section five of the Surplus Revenue Act 1910, shall be deemed to have been payments made to that State in fulfilment of the obligations of the Commonwealth to that State under sub-section (1) of this section in respect of that period.

The object of the addition is to provide that instead of the payment to Western Australia continually being reduced each year, it will remain constant for five years.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- Regarding this clause and the subsequent one affecting Tasmania, it is evident that the provision was placed in the bill for the purpose of inducing the members representing those two States to support the measure. When we consider that we already have two acts of Parliament providing for the grants to both those States, it is obvious that there was no necessity to include clauses 4 and 5 in the bill. In view of these two clauses honorable members representing Western Australia and Tasmania would hardly vote against the bill for fear of jeopardizing the grants. As we have two acts of Parliament covering those grants, they could easily have been left out of the bill and so allowed those honorable members to give an untrammelled vote without fear of penalizing their States. These clauses are designed to have a similar effect in another place, because they will restrict the votes of members who are elected to look after the interests of their States.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– In reply to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) that an attempt has been made by improper means to influence honorable members of this Parliament in casting their votes, I would remind the committee that the Government made it perfectly clear that it was prepared to make these grants to the States of Western Australia and Tasmania. It is equally clear that the Government included these provisions in the bill as part of the general scheme, without any desire to influence the vote of honorable members. It would not make the slightest difference to these grants even if the measure were not. carried. I think that both the States know that after inquiries were held respecting their financial disabilities I pledged my word to give them assistance; and even if this Government were not now in office we should undoubtedly take every step possible to carry out that pledge. I certainly think that it is quite improper to suggest that honorable members of this Parliament were influenced by the inclusion of this clause in exercising their vote on the bill.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I would point out to the committee that what the Prime Minister says is not correct. It was not perfectly clear - to use his own words - that these special grants to Western Australia and Tasmania were something entirely apart from this measure and this proposition. If honorable members will cast their minds back to the second-reading speech of the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) last year and to the schedule that he presented then to this Parliament, they will know that he declared that under the proposed arrangement for the withdrawal of the per capita payments the States would benefit to the extent of £1,500,000, and that that sum was made up by adding the special grants to Western Australia and Tasmania; so that the point taken by the Leader of the Opposition is a good one. The bait was held out to the . ‘States that they were to benefit under the proposed schedule and under the new arrangement to the extent of £1,500,000, whereas, as a matter of fact, special grants to Western Australia and Tasmania of something like £800,000 had already been agreed to by this House without one dissentient. . The Prime Minister’s statement is misleading, because it is contrary to the Treasurer’s remarks respecting the schedule. It is rather late in the day for the Prime Minister to tell us that the special grants were not included in the bill as an inducement to the States to accept the scheme that the Treasurer originally brought down.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5, consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clause 6 -

In addition to any payments made under the last three preceding sections, the Treasurer shall pay to the several States, m proportion to the number of their people, any surplus revenue in his hands at the close of each financial year.

Clause consequentially amended.

Mr THEODORE:
Dalley

.- The Treasurer was not very definite on the necessity for the continuance of this farce about handing over surplus revenues to the States. 1 take it that this clause is necessary on account of section 94 of the Constitution. That section provides for the distribution among the States of surplus revenues, but, to me, it does not appear to be mandatory. It seems to me to be optional upon the Commonwealth to hand over to the States certain surplus revenues. In any case, since 190’S, no surplus revenues have been handed over. The High Court in that year gave a ruling which endorses the action of the Commonwealth Treasurer in retaining surplus revenue under the device that is now resorted to. I am not making a plea that the surplus revenue should be handed to the States. That would be ridiculous. The original provision was impracticable. In fact, it has never been carried out, and the fact that the States have never prosecuted any claim they may, morally, have had against the Treasurer, shows that it is unworkable, and should be ended. I certainly object to the continuance of the farce. Here is a solemn obligation proposed to be re-enacted by the Federal Parliament, that certain surplus revenues shall, at the close of the financial year, be distributed amongst the States.

Mr Watt:

– -Surplus revenues that do not exist.

Mr THEODORE:

– There is no intention whatever, whether the surplus revenues at the end of certain years be real or technical, to hand them over to the States. There has recently been a succession of surpluses. Last year there was in the Commonwealth accounts a technical deficit, b t the Auditor-General showed it was really a surplus. In his report, which was presented to Parliament a few days ago, he says -

The Surplus Revenue Act of 1910 provides that any surplus revenue is to be distributed amongst the States. In practice, no surplus is shown in the Consolidated Revenue’ Fund at the end of the financial year, because any remaining credit is transferred to the trust fund under authority of appropriations made by Parliament. It is thus available for expenditure when required.

The Auditor-General criticizes this practice. He states that the disposition of these balances shows charges against the Consolidated Revenue, but does not disclose actual disbursements. We know that that is a fact. The Treasurer when he sees an apparent surplus takes the opportunity of using appropriations of Parliament to transfer to trust funds moneys which are not actually distributed, and which may not be required possibly for a year or two afterwards. This practice is adopted so that the transaction may be made in accordance with the Audit Act, and it effectively disposes of surpluses which could otherwise be claimed by the States under the Constitution. That has evidently been the reason for inserting this clause in the bill. I should like the Treasurer to say whether there has been any definite legal advice as to whether section 94 of the Constitution is mandatory.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– Section 94 of the Constitution is regarded by the Crown Law officers as being mandatory, and it is therefore essential that there should be in the statutes of the Commonwealth some definition regarding what shall be done with any surplus revenues, otherwise the States would be able to apply to the High Court for a declaration as to the manner in which those moneys should be distributed All honorable members will agree that the proper authority to decide the way in which surpluses should be distributed is the Commonwealth Par- liament. Accordingly, this clause has been inserted in the bill. In the Surplus Revenue Act of 1910, which deal with surplus revenues and the per capita payments, a similar provision with the exception of a slight alteration in the verbiage was made.

Mr Watt:

– Does the Crown Law Office regard this clause as a technical safeguard ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Yes.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

– I have been reading this clause, in the light of the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the Treasurer. I am under the impression that a big mistake has been made in the drafting of the clause. On the second line of the clause after the word “ shall “ the important word “ not “ has been omitted. A certain gentleman at one time said that he could make a few slight alterations to the Ten Commandments by taking out all the “ nots.” I certainly think that a big alteration could be made to this clause by putting in the word “not.” I would not say that I should approve of such an alteration, but the Government having been so successful in its tactics, may very well bo able to draft the clause as it likes. I ask the Prime Minister to read the clause. He has said that the handing over of moneys by the Commonwealth to the States is a vicious principle, iniquitous and wrong, yet in this clause the Government is incorporating that principle. Then, again, the Prime Minister has said that it is inequitable to distribute moneys on a per capita basis. I maintain that these words “shall pay to the States in proportion to the number of their people “ sounds very much like a per capita payment.

Mr Watt:

– I suggest that after the words “ surplus revenue “ the words “ if any “ be inserted. Then the fiction would be revealed.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The better amendment would be to put in brackets “We do not mean this.” I have listened for days to the expounding of this great “principle, and just as the committee has become impressed - I have not - with the idea that it is a vicious principle for the Commonwealth to collect money for the States to spend, we reach clause 6, which says that the Treasurer “ shall pay to the several States in proportion to the number of their people, any surplus revenue in his hands at the close of each financial year.” Notice that it says he “ shall “ do it.

Mr Gregory:

– Are not the Government consistent?

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– They are consistent only in their inconsistency. We have had as many variations in the performance by the Government as we expect at a theatrical variety show. In a friendly way, I suggest to the Treasurer that he has not had the clause correctly drafted. It suits me; but I doubt whether it suits the Government.

Amendment (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to -

That the following sub-clause be added : - “(2.) For the purposes of this section, the number of the people of a State shall be deemed to be the number as ascertained according to the laws of the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Statistician as at the thirty-first day of December in the financial year in respect of which a payment under this section is to be made to that State.”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 - (1.) The Treasurer may advance to any State, in anticipation of the collection of revenue by that State, such amounts as he thinks fit. (2.) Any advance made under this section may lie made free of interest, and shall be made on the condition that it shall be repaid not later than the thirtieth day of June in the financial year in which it is made.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I ask the committee to negative the clause, with a view to the substitution of another. The schedule refers to amounts which correspond roughly to the per capita payments as well as we can determine them ahead. They are fixed amounts arbitrarily based on the increase of population in preceding years. It will be noticed that the proposed new clause commences, “ Subject to the terms of any agreement.” These payments are being made so as to permit the bringing into operation of any other scheme adopted at a conference with the States, subject to the approval of this Parliament.

Mr Watt:

– If the schedule is approved and clause 7 altered as proposed, will these be special appropriations until cancelled?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– For one year.

Mr Watt:

– Or subject to agreement.

Mr Bruce:

– Yes.

Clause negatived.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to-

That the following new clause be inserted: - “ 7. Subject to the terms of any agreement made between the Commonwealth and all the States, and adopted by the Parliament, the Treasurer shall, during the financial year commencing on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven, make payments to each State, in equal monthly instalments, to the amount specified in the schedule, opposite to the name of that State.”

Clause 8 verbally amended, and agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Schedule -

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- When this bill was before the House last year I tabled a notice of amendment stipulating that if the per capita payments were abolished the States should be relieved of a proportionate amount of State debts. I intended to move it because it appeared to me that the connexion between the per capita grant and State debts has existed as a moral obligation on the Commonwealth since the passing of the Surplus Revenue Act of 1910. It seemed to me that the least this Parliament could do was to give what I regard as honorable compensation to the States for depriving them of the per capita grants. The majority of the committee has decided otherwise. In the circumstances, after the long debate that has taken place, and because of the view of the majority of the Government’s supporters, I feel that it would be only an infliction upon the committee for me to prolong what has already been a protracted debate. I still believe in this principle; but it is obviously useless for me to proceed with the amendment. I know when to give way before the pressure of superior forces, which are used without regard to the opinion of the public. Having entered that protest, I shall not move the amendment.

Schedule negatived, and (on motion by Dr. Earle Page) the following new schedule inserted -

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page)-

That the bill be now read a third time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 385

ADJOURNMENT

Communications with Tasmania.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I move-

Thai the House do now adjourn. 1 take this opportunity of informing honorable members that the subject of communications between Tasmania and the main land of Australia, has been referred by the Government tothe Joint Committee of Public Accounts for consideration and report. Numerous representations have been made to the Government during the last few weeks by members of both branches of the legislature with regard to the necessity for a full inquiry into that matter, and I have communicated with the chairman of the committee, asking that the investigation be made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 March 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1927/19270314_reps_10_115/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives14 March 1927

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Mr CHARLTON:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

MISREPORT IN NEWSPAPER

Personal Explanation

Mr KILLEN:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr E RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL

Mr J FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr PATERSON:Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

WIDOWS’, INVALID, AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr CHARLTON:

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC

Mr BLAKELEY:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

NAVAL CADETS AT CANBERRA CELEBRATIONS

Mr BOWDEN:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MARR:Honorary Minister · PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

ROAD-MAKING MACHINERY

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr COLEMAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr COLEMAN:

Mr LATHAM:Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

Mr COLEMAN:

Mr MARR:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOUSING CONDITIONS

Mr E C RILEY:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr MARR:NAT

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Mr FENTON:

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PATERSON:CP

QUESTION

CONCRETE MANHOLES

Mr GIBSON:Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

PAPERS

STATES GRANTS BILL

Mr MANNING:Macquarie

Mr Cook:

Mr MANNING:

Mr Maxwell:

Mr MANNING:

Mr HUGHES:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; IND NAT from 1929; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr MANNING:

Mr Hughes:

Mr MANNING:

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr MANNING:

Mr HUGHES:North Sydney

Mr Manning:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Manning:

Mr HUGHES:

House of Representatives
14 March 1927

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr KILLEN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr BOWDEN:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MARR:
Honorary Minister · PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr MARR:
NAT

Mr E C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr MARR:
NAT

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PATERSON:
CP

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

Mr HUGHES:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; IND NAT from 1929; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

Dr EAELE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr THEODORE:
Dalley

Mr MANN:
Perth

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield