House of Representatives
7 August 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. NormanMakin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and offered prayers.

page 5585

PETITION

Mr. KILLEN presented a petition from primary producers’ organizations throughout the Commonwealth praying that the burdens upon primary production be reduced.

Petition received and read.

Motion (by Mr. Killen) proposed -

That the petition be printed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No motion may be made at this juncture except by leave.

Mr McGrath:

– As it is not in order for an honorable member to read his speech, was the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen) in order in getting the Clerk to read a speech for him?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The honorable member for Riverina, in presenting the petition, accepted full responsibility for its contents, and for its conformity with the Standing Orders and the requirements of the House.

page 5586

QUESTION

SUGAR AGREEMENT

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make any new sugar agreement conditional upon the approval of the Commonwealth Parliament. I now ask him whether, in connexion with any negotiations that are pending, he will give this Parliament an opportunity of discussing and dealing with the new agreement before it is finally approved ?

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I gave an answer to the honorable member yesterday.

Mr GREGORY:

– Will the Prime Minister give a definite reply whether Parliament will have an opportunity of dealing with the sugar agreement before any binding contract is entered into ?

Question not answered. .

page 5586

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Arncliffe Automatic Telephone Exchange

Mr. LACEY, as chairman, brought up the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence, relating to the proposed establishment of an automatic telephone exchange at Arncliffe, New South Wales.

page 5586

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report on Tasmania’s Disabilities.

Mr. YATES brought up the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on Tasmania’s Disabilities, together with “ The Case for Tasmania.”

Report ordered to he printed.

page 5586

QUESTION

LIMBLESS SOLDIERS

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– According to a report presented to the annual meeting of the Limbless Soldiers Association at

Brisbane, the views of limbless soldiers were taken by questionnaire, and, in almost every case, the reply was that artificial limbs were useless. Will the Minister inquire into this matter with a view to the manufacture of more satisfactory artificial limbs?

Mr ANSTEY:
Minister for Health · BOURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall supply the honorable member with information on the subject as early as possible.

page 5586

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Mr LACEY:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– During the recess, when the work of the officers of the Trade and Customs Department has decreased to some extent, will the Minister institute an inquiry into the price of petrol and the profits derived from its sale, with a view to bringing about a reduction in price?

Mr FENTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– This question, in all its aspects, is now being investigated by the Tariff Board.

page 5586

QUESTION

CANADIAN TRADE TREATY

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister received any official communication which would lead him to believe that the policy of the new Canadian Government is, as reported in the press, to abrogate the trade treaty with Australia? Did he, when in Canada, take the opportunity of getting into touch with the then Opposition; and, if so, does he know whether it was its intention to abrogate the trade treaty if it assumed office ?

Mr FENTON:
ALP

– Like the honorable member, the only information that I have is the press statement that the new Canadian Government intends to abrogate trade treaties generally. When passing through Canada I got into touch with the members of the Government and made certain preliminary negotiations for the establishment of better trade relations between the two great domin ions, and I am hoping, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, to enter into further negotiations with the new Canadian Ministry to bring about the successful issue of those negotiations.

page 5586

QUESTION

GUARANTEED PRICE FOR WHEAT

Mr STEWART:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– In view of the serious position of the wheat industry as the result of the rejection by another place of the Wheat Marketing Bill which provided for a guaranteed price, will the Prime Minister giveconsideration to joining with those States that are proposing to institute State wheat pools - if that is possible under the Constitution - with the object of giving a reasonable guarantee of a first advance to the farmers in the States in which pools are established ?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– The only authority under which the Commonwealth could act in conjunction with the States in that matter was that which would have been given to us under the Wheat Marketing Bill which has been rejected in another place.

page 5587

PATENTS OFFICE

Transferof to Canberra

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– The Canberra Times of July 17, published a statement that the transfer of the Patents Office was to begin on October 1. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Blakeley) announced yesterday that the transfer to Canberra of the Patents and Trade Marks Branch will commence on that date. The Canberra Times of to-day publishes the following statement by the last Civic Commissioner of the Federal Capital Territory : -

The expense of transferring a department was large. On the 1st October the Patents Office will be transferred, which will mean the addition of 300 or 400 persons to the community.

As the House goes into recess to-morrow, will the Minister definitely state whether it is intended to transfer the Patents Office to Canberra, and also whether it is intended to keep a sub-branch at Melbourne for the convenience of local patent attorneys t

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am not responsible for the press statements on this subject which have been published from time to time. The whole matter has been under review for the last few weeks. That review has not yet been concluded. The Government will take what action it thinks necessary in the circumstances.

Mr White:

– During the recess?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Yes. The retention of a sub-branch in Melbourne will receive consideration should the Patents Office be transferred from Melbourne to Canberra.

page 5587

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA HOUSE

Inquiry by Mr. Coleman, M.P.

Mr LATHAM:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– Has the payment of £3 3s. a day to the honorable member forReid (Mr. Coleman) in London yet ceased ?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– I anticipated that, at the outside, the inquiry would take four weeks from the date of commencement. The report should now be prepared, and I have given the honorable member for Beid a date upon which to post it so that it may reach me at Colombo.

page 5587

QUESTION

DARWIN MUNICIPALITY

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Home Affairs inform me whether any one has yet been appointed to administer the affairs of the municipality of Darwin, and, if so, who?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– A provisional council of five persons has been appointed to carry on the affairs of the municipality until such time as an election can be held.

Mr Latham:

– Who selected them?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I did; on the recommendation of the Government Resident.

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Is it the intention of the Minister to issue an ordinance for the holding of an election in the municipality of Darwin at a time when it cannot be scrutinized by Parliament, or does he intend to defer the taking of such action until Parliament reassembles after the recess ?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Action has already been taken to issue an ordinance drafted in the usual form, providing for adult franchise in the municipality. It will be gazetted as soon as. possible. There will be no time to submit it to the House before we rise.

Mr NAIRN:

– Will the Minister furnish me with the names, addresses, and occupations of the persons who constitute the Provisional Council?

Mr.BLAKELEY.- I shall let the honorable member have the information to-morrow morning.

page 5588

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Mr GREGORY:

– In view of the facts revealed in the report which I presented to the Prime Minister in relation to the sale of agricultural machinery by Melbourne manufacturers, and the high cost of freight, amounting to about 12 per cent., which the farmers of Western Australia will have to pay for such machinery over and above the amount paid for it by the farmers of Victoria, does the Prime Minister propose to lift the embargo on the importation of this machinery, so that the farmers of Western Australia may be able to purchase it. at a more reasonable price?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– I understood that the communication placed before me by the honorable member was confidential. I presume, therefore, that I am not at liberty to use it. As to the latter part of bis question, I remind him that it is not usual to make statements of policy in reply to questions.

page 5588

QUESTION

TRADE WITH PACIFIC ISLANDS

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Trade and Customs intend, before the House rises, to give lorne relief to the Pacific Island traders whose business has been drastically affected by the tariff schedules tabled recently ?

Mr FENTON:
ALP

– I do not anticipate that anv more tariff schedules will b* tabled.

page 5588

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF SOLDIERS’ PENSIONS

Mr WHITE:

– With a view to reducing the administration costs of the Repatriation Department and meeting the convenience of ex-soldier pensioners, will the Minister in charge of repatriation give consideration to the payment of ex- soldier pensions by cheque? Payment in this way is optional in regard to oldage and invalid pensions.

Mr ANSTEY:
ALP

– I have previously stated that the matter is under consideration.

page 5588

QUESTION

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS

Cost of Preparation

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been called to a statement appearing in this morning’s issue of the Canberra Times to the effect that it cost a public department ?200 to prepare the answers to certain questions asked by an honorable member of this House ? If so, is the report substantially correct, and does the Prime Minister consider that expenditure of this nature should be incurred at present?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:

– In asking a question it is not in order to seek the expression of opinion from a Minister.

Mr PATERSON:

– Is it the policy of the Government to continue incurring heavy expense in preparing answers to questions?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– At present I have no knowledge of the cost of preparing the answers to thequestions referred to by the honorable member; butI do not think it was so high as has been stated. On two previous occasions I have requested honorable members asking questions to have regard to the amount of clerical work and overtime that may be involved in preparing the answers required. Ministers have been asked to interview members who ask long and involved questions, the answering of which would involve a considerable amount of expense, with the object of having the questions modified. The Government does not believe that heavy expenditure should be incurred in preparing answers to questions.

page 5588

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr. Kakichi Uchida

Mr SPEAKER:

– A distinguished visitor from Japan, Mr. Kakichi Uchida, a member of the Japanese House of Peers, and formerly Governor-General of Formosa, is within the precincts of the House. With the concurrence of honorable members I shall provide him with a distinguished stranger’s seat beside the Speaker’s chair.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr. Kakichi Uchida thereupon entered,

page 5589

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONERS

Maintenance in Institutions - Medical Examinations.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many institutions, if any, are there in the Commonwealth which accommodate and maintain, free of charge, persons who would be eligible to receive the old-age pension if not in such institutions?
  2. What are the names and addresses of such institutions?
  3. How many of such persons are so provided for?
  4. How many of such persons have had their old-age pensions discontinued because of having been received into such institutions?
  5. What is the estimated saving to the Commonwealth per annum in old-age pensions, the payment of which has thus been discontinued or refused?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– The replies to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. The number cannot be stated, but it is understood that all public charitable institutions in the Commonwealth maintain, without charge to the inmate, persons who, if resident outside, would be eligible to receive the oldage pension.
  2. See answer to No. 1.
  3. The number of inmates of these institutions cannot he stated, but at 30th June, 1930, there were5,236 persons in benevolent asylums who were receiving pensions of 5s. 6d. per week, and who would be eligible to receive pensions if resident outside the institutions.
  4. Three thousand three hundred and twenty, but in all of these cases the Commonwealth, in addition to paying the inmate 5s. 6d. per week pension, pays the institution 14s. 6d. per week for his maintenance, making a total payment of £1 per week in each case.
  5. There is no saving to the Commonwealth in these cases, because the amount paid in respect of pension and maintenance is equal to the amount of pension which the pensioner was receiving prior to his entering the institution.
Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. In view of the many complaints being made by lady pensioners of abrupt treatment by certain medical men in their examination, will he issue an instruction that, where a female nurse is not present at such an examination, each lady pensioner shall have the right of bringing a lady friend. with her?
  2. Are any fees paid to medical men attached to the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Department for examining applicants for pensions; if so, what are the fees?
Mr SCULLIN:

– The replies to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. No complaint of abrupt treatment of lady pensioners by medical men has been received.

The department has no objection to female applicants attending for examination being accompanied by a lady friend; but the question of so arranging seems to be a matter for the applicants themselves.

  1. Yes. A fee of 10s. per examination is paid by the department where the examination takes place at the doctor’s consulting rooms. Where the doctor visits the claimant to make an examination thefee is 1 5s.

page 5589

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

asked the Minister for Markets and Transport, upon notice -

  1. How many war service homes have hecn built or are in course of construction?
  2. How many completed homes are ‘ unoccupied?
  3. What are the totals of advances and repayments’ for homes since the inception of the scheme?
  4. How many ejectments have been made since the inception of the scheme?
Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The replies to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. Thirty -six thousand five hundred and thirty-nine homes have been provided; 104 are at present in course of construction.
  2. One hundred and one completed homes are unoccupied.
  3. Total advances, including land purchased, &c, £28,560.430; total receipts, £15,444,801.
  4. Thirty-two ejectments have been made since the inception of the scheme, the last of which took place in October, 1929.

page 5589

QUESTION

FILM INDUSTRY

Manufacture of Talking Pictures - Income Tax on Earnings.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he consider assisting the building and equipment of a recording studio for the manufacture of talking pictures, if any State government fs willing to contribute half the cost of such undertaking?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– As I intimated in reply to a question by the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Long) yesterday, certain proposals in connexion with motion picture production in Australia were recently submitted to the Commonwealth Government by a delegation from various interested bodies, including the Actors Federation, and these are receiving consideration.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Will he request the Cabinet to consider the question of making the talking film interests pay income tax, say, at half rates, as is imposed upon any theatrical or operatic company that comes to Australia at great expense ?
  2. As the Government possesses power to compel any visiting actor or operatic artist to pay income tax, will legislation be introduced to compel talking picture interests to pay their share of income tax, in view of the email expense the owners of such films incur in sending their productions to Australia?
Mr SCULLIN:

– The proposals of the Government for the taxation of film interests are set out in the amending Income Tax Assessment Bill now before Parliament. The question of adopting new methods of taxing talking picture interests is a matter of policy which cannot be dealt with in reply to questions.

page 5590

QUESTION

SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Unsuitable Accommodation for Staff

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that during March of this year, despite the objections, in the interests of good health of the officers concerned, the Postal Department transferred the offices of the telephone telegraph accounts section from the fifth floor of the new building, G.P.O., Sydney, to a small room on the third floor of the old building?
  2. Is it a fact that the Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia, ion behalf of the officers concerned, has drawn attention to the objectionable features of this transfer, by pointing out that the accommodation to which the officers have been removed is portion of a structure built for a store-room that it has been used as such during the years when office space was at a minimum, that part of the room in question was used as a lavatory for the time, with the same wooden floor as at present, that it is badly ventilated, that it is almost without any natural light, that to accommodate the 35 officers transferred there a partition was removed between the room and a large store-room where telegrams and stationery are kept prior to destruction, that as a result there are dust, dirt and vermin in the store-room, that the place is infested with fleas and bugs, and that at least twice during heavy rains the water has poured into the room, damaging stationery and causing general unpleasantness ?
  3. Is it a fact that the association named has asked for a medical investigation, at which it is desirousof presenting evidence, apart from what an inspection of the room will demonstrate?
  4. Is it a fact that the department has refused these requests and persists in making these officers work in quarters which they consider highly objectionable and a menace to good health?
  5. If so, will the Ministercause these matters to receive immediate and proper attention, and punish the officials responsible?
Mr LYONS:
Minister for Works and Railways · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP

– The replies to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. The officers referred to were transferred to a room on the third floor of the original building. It is not correct to describe this room as small; it contains over 1,700 square feet and provides about 55 square feet per officer.
  2. The organization mentioned has raised objections to the use of the accommodation for its present purpose.
  3. Yes.
  4. The department has had a medical investigation made and is quite satisfied that there are no legitimate objections from the stand-point of health or comfort of the staff.
  5. It is considered that the matter hat already received proper attention.

page 5590

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF RETURNING OFFICERS

Mr CROUCH:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Who were the applicants when the vacant position of Divisional Returning Officer for Kennedy was advertised some months ago?
  2. In the subsequent appeals against the provisional appointment of Mr. R. J. Robinson, who were the appellants?
  3. On what grounds was Mr. Robinson appointed, and the appointment subsequently confirmed, over so many capable and senior applicants ?
  4. Were the factors which led to Mr. Robinson’s promotion given the same relative consideration in other promotions of clerks to like positions during the past few years, for example, in the Divisions of Darling, EdenMonaro, Gwydir, Herbert, Hume, New England, Richmond, Riverina, and Robertson?
Mr BLAKELEY:

– The information desired by the honorable member will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 5590

QUESTION

BALTIC TIMBERS

Tariff Board’s Report

Mr GUY:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Does the Tariff Board’s report, dated 10th June, 1930, state that there is approximately twelve months’ supply of baltic timbers in the Commonwealth at the present time; if so, why are the increased duties on baltic timbers deferred until January next?
  2. Is it a fact that in deferring this duty the few mills at work in Tasmania will be obliged to close down, causing a further increase in unemployment?
Mr FENTON:
ALP

-The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. The Tariff Board’s report states* that the opinion was expressed at the conference of representatives of the timber trade that the existing stocks were equal under the existing conditions to from 9 to 12 months’ requirements. The Government’s action is in accordance with the Tariff Board’s report made after a conference at which all the interests of the timber industry were represented.
  2. I am not aware that the deferment of the further increase of duty will have the effect stated.
Mr GUY:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that orders are being forwarded for Baltic timbers to arrive in Australia before the 1st January next, so as to avoid the increased duty; if so, will he accept and put into operation the Tariff Board’s recommendation to impose a super tax of 20 per cent. on the present duty of 20s. ?

Mr FENTON:

– It has been brought under notice that orders have been placed, but the extent of the orders is not known. The imposition of a super-tax of 20 per cent. was not recommended by the Tariff Board. It was mentioned in the board’s report as an alternative expedient that might be used if necessary, to prevent excessive stocking up. There is no present evidence that excessive stocking up is contemplated.

page 5591

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Training for Senior Positions

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Are there 14 warrant officers, and 83 petty officers and men still retained in the Australian Navy filling positions for which Australian-trained warrant officers, petty officers and men are alleged to be not qualified ; if so, what are these positions?
  2. What offices are filled by petty officers and men for which Australian-trained personnel are alleged to be not qualified?
  3. As the Australian Navy has been in existence for over nineteen years, why is it that Australians have not been trained for these positions, and who is responsible for this unfortunate condition of affairs?
Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

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

  1. The numbers are 14 warrant officers and 86 petty officers and men. The warrant officers comprise 6 commissioned gunners; 2 gunners; 1 commissioned signal boatswain; 1 commissioned telegraphist; 2 warrant telegraphists; 2 commissioned electricians.
  2. Sixteen chief petty officers; 20 petty officers; 22 leading seamen; 6 able seamen; 2 chief petty officer telegraphists; 6 petty officer telegraphists; 6 leading telegraphists; 3 chief electrical artificers; 4 electrical artificers; 1 supply chief petty officer. These are distributed throughout the ships and naval establishments.
  3. Every opportunity is given to Australians to be trained for these ratings. Special courses are conducted at Flinders Naval Depot. The numbers belonging permanently to the Royal Australian Navy far exceed the numbers on loan from the Royal Navy which are being reduced gradually.

page 5591

QUESTION

PROHIBITION OF IMPORTED LITERATURE

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the law of the Irish Free State under which the importations of newspapers which largely report crime is prohibited?
  2. Are papers called News of the Week, The People, and The Empire News, included in this prohibition ?
  3. Has he any power to prohibit the importation of newspapers which deal largely in crime reports; if so, does he propose to do so?
Mr FENTON:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. No information is available on the point.
  3. The Customs Act prohibits the importation of any article that is blasphemous, indecent or obscene, and there is also power under that act to prohibit by proclamation the importation of any article. No consideration has been given to the matter mentioned, nor has such a suggestion previously been made.

page 5591

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Rental of Offices

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. How many offices in Canberra are rented by the Commonwealth Government?
  2. What are the names and addresses of the landlords and the amounts of rental paid in each case?
  3. What are the total rentals paid?
  4. Is there any accommodation vacant sufficient for -such offices ?
  5. Under which government were tenancies from private landlords arranged?
Mr BLAKELEY:

– The information desired by the honorable member will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 5591

QUESTION

MIGRATION OF BARNADO BOYS

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many Barnado boys, or boys introduced by the Salvation Army or other agencies, have arrived in Australia during the last twelve months?
  2. Do these migrants receive any assistance from the Commonwealth Government?
  3. Is it a fact that many Australian lads are unemployed and walking the roads seeking work?
  4. Is it possible to suspend this immigration until better economic conditions exist in Australia 7
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

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

  1. A total of 404 have arrived in Australia during the past twelve months, covering the period 1st August, 1929, to 31st July, 1930. Of this number. 371 represented definite commitments which existed when the present Government entered into negotiations with the British Government on the subject of assisted migration.
  2. Only in respect of passage-money contribution on the following basis: -

Boys under twelve years of age, £8 5s. each; boys from thirteen to sixteen years of age, £13 15s. each; and boys from seventeen to eighteen years of age, £11 each.

  1. Prevalent unemployment is unfortunately acute, and the Commonwealth Government has, in view of this fact, substantially curtailed arrivals of boys who are brought to Australia pursuant to requisitions by State Governments, notwithstanding that the majority of these migrants will not reach an employable age for at least two or three years, and will not, therefore, have any immediate effect upon the labour market.
  2. The migration in question is proceeding under what is known as the £34,000,000 agreement. Whilst the Government has succeeded in obtaining considerable modifications of the migration provisions of the agreement, the obligation to accept a limited number of hoys will continue, pending a review of the whole question at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. The Commonwealth Government will do all that is possible, pending the proposed further review of the agreement, to safeguard the position of Australian boy workers.

page 5592

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Alleged Increase of Entrance Fee

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Telephone Officers Association has, since the Government announced that employees of the Commonwealth who are not members of organizations would not be paid the established award rates, &c, increased its entrance fee from 2s. 6d. to £5?
  2. If the Postmaster-General is not aware of the facts, will he make inquiries to discover whether improper advantage is being taken of the policy of the Government by the association mentioned or by other associations?
  3. If the facts are as indicated in paragraph ( 1 ) , will he take any action to deal with the matter 5
Mr LYONS:
ALP

– I shall inquire into the matter, and consider what steps, if any, are necessary.

page 5592

QUESTION

SILVER CURRENCY

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. In view of standard spot silver being quoted on the London market on the 1st instant at ls. 4d. per oz., and as one ounce of silver mints into 5s. 6d. silver currency, what is the percentage of profit of minting silver at ls. 4d. per oz. ?
  2. What amount of silver currency would be obtained by minting £1,000,000 worth of Australin silver at such price paid for by £1,000,000 of Australian notes?
  3. If men at present unemployed were given work and paid in silver currency, would it ease the present stringency of finance without inflating the note issue.
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s, questions are as follow : -

  1. The profit represents 238 per cent, on the cost of the silver, plus the cost of minting.
  2. The expenditure of £1,000,000 in purchasing minting silver would provide silver coin to the face value of £3,385,000.
  3. No; the issue of notes and silver in the manner proposed would result in inflation.

page 5592

QUESTION

BRITAIN’S WAR LOANS

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– On the 5th August, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Keane) asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What was the amount loaned by England to other countries for war services during the great war?
  2. What efforts have been made by the debtor countries to liquidate their liabilities?

The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Papers laid before the British Parliament by the Treasury showed that at 3lst March, 1926, £1,856,818,000 was due to Great Britain by foreign countries.
  2. Funding arrangements in regard to the debt have been made with France, Italy, Roumania, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and Belgian-Congo, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Esthonia, Hungary and the Serb-Croat-Slovene kingdom. Particulars of these arrangements are included in British parliamentary papers. No arrangement has been made with Russia, Austria or Armenia.

page 5592

QUESTION

EXPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Mr FENTON:
ALP

– On the 22nd July, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) asked the following question, upon notice -

What has been the class, quantity, value, and destination of agricultural machinery exported from Australia during the year 1929-30? [ aru now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -

page 5594

QUESTION

TARIFF INCREASES

Mr FENTON:
ALP

– On the 3rd July, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr; Bernard Corser) asked the following question, upon notice-

  1. What particular commodities in raw or manufactured state have been scheduled for increased tariff protection by way of customs duty without first being subject to report by the Tariff Board?
  2. What particular items have been included in the new schedule after having been reported on by the Tariff Board?
  3. What particular items are now under reference to the Tariff Board?

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

  1. The rates of duty on the goods covered by the following proposed tariff items have been increased since the present Government assumed office without having formed the subject of a report by the Tariff Board: - 1, 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (e), 3 (g), 8, 12, 13, 18 to 23, 38, 44 (e),53 (a), 63 (c) and (d),54 (1),74 (8), 74 (c), 79, 80, 82 (a) to (f), 94, 98 (b), 105(d) (1), 105(g), 112, 113(a), 117, 119 (b), 120 (b), 122 (i), 126 (b),. 161 (b) (2), 161(c), 168(b), 170(a) (2), 176 (i), 177 (b), 178 (b) to (d), 179 (d) (5), 179 (g), 180(c), 180 (i), 180 (j), 180 (k), 187(b), 190, 192, 194, 208 (a), 208 (c) (Rim Locks), 209, 211, 219 (a), 219 (b), 222, 226, 229 (c) (1) and (3), 231 (g) (1), 231 (h), 232 (a) and (b), 237 (a) and (b), 241 (b), 242 (b) (2) , 250 (b) and (c), 251 (a) and (c), 255 (a) and (b), 266 (c)(1), 279 (b), 281 (n), 285 (b), 290 (c), 301 (d), 303 (a) and (b), 305, 309, 311 (b), 313 to 315, 319(a) (5) and (6), 319(b) (1), 320 (b), 325 (a), 326, 329, 332 (a), (b), (c) and (e), 333 (a) 334 (g)(1) and (3,) 334 (l) (2) and (3), 334 (v), 338 (a), 340 (a) to (c), 341 to 343, 352 (a) (4), 355, 357 (a), 359 (b), 359 (f), (2) to (16), 367, 369, 390 (a), 392 (e), 392 (f) (1), 394 (e), 408 (a), 413 and 433.
  2. The rates of duty on the goods covered by the following proposed tariff items have been amended after having been reported on by the Tariff Board:- 3 (b), 3 (c), 9, 10 (b), 11 (b), 24, 27, 53 (b), 54 (2), 58 (c), 73, 78 (o), 85, 105 (a), (1) (b) and (c), 105 (aa) (2), 105(d) (2), 105(f) (1),(2),(4) and (5), 105 (j), 107, 109, 110, 113 (b), 114, 115, 118 (b), 120 (aa), 120 (c) (1), 122 (2), 123(a), 136, (a), (b), (c) (1), (d) and (e) (1) 138, 143, 145, 152 (c), 153 (b) and (d) 154 (d) and (e), 155, 159 (a), 161 (b) (1), 164(b), 169d), 176(c), (d), (f) and (h), 177 (a) (2), 178e), 179 (b), (c), (d) (1) and (2) , 179(b), 179(c), 179(d) (1), (2) and (4) 179 (f), 180 (a), 180 (e), 180 (h), 180 (l) to (n), 182, 197 (a), 203 (a), 204 (b), 206 (a) and (b), 208 (b), 208 (n), 213, 215, 219 (c), 220 (b), 229 (h) (1), 230, 242 (b) (1), 244 (b), 262 (c), (d) and (e), 273, 275, (d), 281 (a) (2), 281 (f), 281 (m), 291, 292, 293, 294 (a) and (b), 295, 290, 302 (b), 306, 318 (a) (2), 318 (a) (4) (a), 319 (a) (1) to (3), 320 (c) (2) (6), 324 (a), 330, 357(b), 359 (d), 365 (a), (b) and (c), 375 (c), 376

    1. and (b), 392 (a), 392 (c), 394 (c), 397 (f), 424 (b), and 432.
  3. The following tariff items in the 1921-28 tariff, as proposed to be amended by the 1930 Proposals, are at present under reference to the Tariff Board: -

Item.

3 (a). 3 (d). 3 (e). 3 (g).

35 Cheese colour.

44 (b) (1) Cocoa Mass Paste or Slab, unsweetened. 44 (b) (2). 44 (b). 51 (b) Frozen Fresh Fish. 53 (a). 53 (d). 54 (1) (g).

58 (e) Oatmeal. 61 (b) Calves Foot Jelly.

75 (b) Milk Powder. 76 Mustard in mixed form, including French mustard.

91 (b) Canary Seed. 94 (b) “Bon Ami,” &c. 96 (a) Unground Dry Ginger. 98 (b). 104 (b) Beeswax. 105 Piece Goods in the grey or undyed state. 105 (a) (1) (a) Vanishing Cloth. 105 (d) (1). 105 (g) Hair cloth for use in the manufacture of apparel. 105 (h). 106 (a) Buttons of Erinoid, Celluloid, Galalith, or any casein material. 106 (b) Buckles, Clasps and Slides of Erinoid, Celluloid, Galalith, or any casein material. 106 (b) Hood and Radiator Lacing and Snubber Webbing. 106 (b) Hat Linings. 106 (b) Badges, Emblems, or Tassels, of metal, or other material. 106 (d) Uniform Buttons of metal other than Trouser Buttons. 113 (a). 114 (a).

119(b). 120 (b). 121 (a) Verandah Blinds, Shade Blinds, Window Blinds (attached or unattached to rollers).

122 (1).

129 (b) Bookbinders’ cloth.

134 Bags and Cornsacks. 136(e) (1). 137 (a) Aluminium Tubes, Bars, Rods and Sections. 137 (b). 139 (b) Brass, Muntz and Yellow Metal Rods, Bars and extruded sections. 139 (c) Brass (and other non-ferrous alloy) Wire and Tubes. 140 (b) Copper Sheets, Circles, Segments, Rods, and Bars (hard and soft, tinned plain). 140 (c) Copper wire, pipes and tubes. 141 Lead Pipe and Sheet Lead. 146 Polished Stainless Steel. 146 Rolled Gold Plate. 148 Gold Leaf. 151 Copper-clad Steel Tubes. 152 (a) Water and Gas Piping. 159 (a) Rolled Gold Wire. 161 (b). 161 (c). 164 (b) Churns, other than hand churns. 168 (b) (1). 168 (b) (2). 172 Household Clothes-wringers. 173 (a) Coin-operated Weighing Machines. 173 (a) Platform Weighing Machines. 177 (a) (2). 178 (c). 178 (d). 179 (a). 179 (d) (5). 179 (g). 180 (a). 180 (b) (1). 180 (c). 180 (f) Leclanche Cells. 180 (f) Electric Storage Batteries, and 180 (g) Parts. 180 (i) to (n). 181 (a) (1) Vulcanized India-rubber Cables and Vulcanized Flexible Wire. 181 (b). 181 (c)Generator and Starter Motor Brushes. 187 (c) Roofing Nails.

197 (b) Devices for sharpening lawnmowers, hedge clippers, shears, scissors,&c. 206 (c). 208 (a). 208 (c).

219 (a) (b) and (c).

229 (c) (1). 229 (c) (2). 229 (h) (2). 231 (d) Water paints and Distempers, in powder form. 231 (e) Redlead, Litharge and Sub-oxide of Lead. 231 (f). 231 (g) (1). 231 (h). 232 (a). 232 (b). 234 (b). 237 (a). 237 (b). 230 Firebricks. 240 (b) Sheets composed of Cement and Asbestos or of similar materials. 241 (b). 242 (a) (2). 242 (e) (1) Stained Glass Windows. 243 (a) Glass for stained glass windows 249. 250 (b). 251 (a) Ebonite Screw Bottle Stoppers. 251 (a) Crown Seals. 251 (c). 255 (a). 255 (b).

264 Vinegar. 269 (c) (1 ) Cresylic Acid. 269 (c) Formaldehyde and preparations thereof. 269 (d) Nicotine Spraying . preparations. 278 (a) (2). 279 (b). 281(b) Sulphate of Magnesia (Epsom Salts). 281 (b) Hyposulphite of Soda. 281 (d) Soldering Preparations. 281 (g) Sulphite of Soda. 281 (g) Nitrate of Silver. 281 (l) Sodium Potassium Tartrate. 281 (l) Sodium Alumino Silicates (Natural or Synthetic). 281 (n).

285 (a) Milton and similar preparations. 285 (b). 289 (a). 290 (b). 290 (c). 298 (b).

301 (d). 303 (a). 303 (b). 303 (c).

310 (a) Fishing Appliances. 311 (a) White Gold in Ingots, Wire or Sheets, Platinized Gold. 311 (b).

319 (a) (5) and (6). 325 (a).

  1. Masticated Rubber, Rubber Thread, Reclaimed Rubber and Apparel Elastic. 332 (a). 332 (b). 332 (c). 333 (a) Bicycle Tyres. 333 (b) Solid Rubber Tyres. 334 (g) (1). 334 (g) (3). 334 (l). 334 (m). 334 (q). 334 (v). 338 (a). 340 (a). 340 (b). 340 (c).

352 (a) (4). 357 (a) Perambulators and Go-carts mtd bodies therefor. 358 (a). 359 (b). 359 (f) (5) to (16).

374 (b) Cotton Packings, Asbestos Cord and Greasy Packings of Jute and Hemp; Asbestos Pipe and Boiler Covering. 375 (b) Articles partly or wholly of Canvas, Cotton Duck, Calico, Hemp, Flax and Linen or substitutes thereof: - viz.: Golf Bags, Holdalls, Game Bags,. Carryalls, Haversacks, Kit Bags and the like. 376 (b) Brush and Toilet Cases. 376 (c) Spoon, Fork, Cnrver Set and similar cases. 376 (f). 380 (a) (1) Mops. 384 (a) (4) Coloured Lantern Slides. 384 (a) (5). 390 (a). 392 (n) Silk Yarns. 392 (e) and (f). 392 (o) Artificial Silk Yams. 394 (a). 394 (b). 394 (d).

397(b). 397 (e) Amorees.

410 (a) Black and White Pictures, Etchings and Engravings.

418(c) (1) Celluloid Set Squares and Protractors. 410 (b) (1). 424 (d).

425(b).

Unspecified -

Palmyra Fibres, dyed and undyed.

Felspar.

Road-making materials, including Bitumen and Bitumastic Emulsion.

Chalk.

Gut Core and Tennis Gut.

Wool Waste.

Fusible Enamel.

Kapok and Castor Oil Beans.

page 5596

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until to-morrow at 10 a.m.

page 5596

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance of 1930 - No. 12 - Housing

page 5596

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION BILL

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motionby Mr. Beasley) road a first time.

page 5596

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Bill returned from the Senate with a message, intimating that it insisted upon its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

page 5596

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE AGENDA

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Yarra · ALP

(3.6]. - by leave - For the information of honorable members, I desire to make a statement regarding the business to be transacted at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. The British Government has been in consultation with the dominion governments respecting the preparation of an agenda for the conference, with the result that a considerable number of matters has been listed for discussion, and the inclusion of others is under consideration. Whilst the agenda is noi yet complete, it has reached a stage which enables me to make a progress statement to the House. It has been agreed that the subjects for discussion should be grouped under the following three main heads : -

  1. Inter-Imperial Relations.
  2. Foreign Policy and Defence.
  3. Economic.

When dealing with inter-Imperial relations, the conference will consider particular questions arising out of recommendations qf the recent conference on the operation of dominions legislation. That body was constituted in pursuance of a resolution passed at the Imperial Conference of 1926, and consisted of a committee of experts representative of Great Britain and the dominions. The Commonwealth Government was represented by Sir Harrison Moore, and his report has already been made available’ for the information of honorable members, whilst the report of the conference itself is at present before the House. The report of the conference specially mentions certain matters as requiring further examination; for example, nationality, including the status of married women,, and other questions arising out of the report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and these questions will accordingly be further examined at the forthcoming Imperial Conference.

As regards foreign policy and defence, the agenda will include questions relating to the development of a general peace policy, including the reduction and limitation of armaments. Various aspects of defence will bc considered, and also any special questions connected with foreign policy which may require examination.

On the economic side of the conference, a large number of subjects has been suggested for discussion. This part of the work of the conference is of special importance to the’- dominions, because of the need for developing their external trade, a i.i d- for fostering closer trade relations between the various members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The general question of the trade of the Empire, including capital investment, the effect of tariff changes, and the extent and effect of inter-imperial tariff preferences, and also of other factors such as cartels, &c, will form the subject of a general review and discussion. In the desire to explore all possible means of assisting the marketing of Australian commodities, we have- asked the British Government to include in the agenda the question of _ the bulk purchase of dominion products and . price stabilization. Consideration will be. given to the question qf the. development of inter- imperial trade by means of tradecommissioner services, exhibitions, and general publicity.

The whole question of oversea settlement is to be considered, and the past and future work of the Imperial Economic Committee, the Empire Marketing Board, and the Imperial Institute will be discussed. Questions relating to cooperation in matters of agricultural research, forestry, and minerals have been included in the agenda.

Under the head of “ Transport and Communications “ there will be included, a review of the work of the Imperial Shipping Committee and the Oversea Mechanical Transport Council, a survey of the adequacy of existing steamship services, and the development of civil aviation, cables, radio, broadcasting, postal and news services. Consideration will also bc given to the recommendations contained in the report of the conference on the operation of dominions’ legislation in regard to questions relating to merchant shipping.

It is’ proposed, concurrently with the Imperial Conference, to hold a subconference to deal with questions relating to industrial standardization, and to consider the report of a sub-conference of representatives of government departments administering research. Dr. Rivett, chief executive officer of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, will be in London at the time, and will represent the Commonwealth at this sub-conference. It is proposed to ask the sub-conference to consider also the subject of wool research. This is a matter of very great importance to Australia, and presents scope for much useful work in regard to both the productive and the manufacturing processes.

Honorable members will observe that the proposed agenda covers a very wide range of subjects, and that those subjects are, for the most part, of vital concern to all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

We are hopeful that the deliberations of the conference will lead to a better understanding of our mutual problems, and provide a valuable contribution to their solution.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

..by leave - The House will have heard wit interest the recital of the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Conference. To use the words of the right honorable the Prime Minister, many of the subjects mentioned are matters of vital concern to all the dominions constituting the British Commonwealth of Nations. I rise for the purpose of pointing out that this Parliament has had no opportunity of discussing any of these subjects with the exception of the first group, which refer to inter-imperial relations, and, in that case, only a limited opportunity has been afforded. I further draw attention to the fact that in the statement which the right honorable gentleman has read, no reference whatever is made to the policy which the Government proposes to adopt in respect of any of these matters. We have simply heard a statement of the subjects about to be considered, accompanied by the remark that the subjects are of vital importance. While, on some of the proposals, it is desirable that the Government should reserve to itself a free hand until it has heard all that may be said for or against them, with respect to certain mattery mentioned in the statement it would be proper to have an announcement of the policy of the Government, as distinct from the mere reading, of the agenda paper, and an opportunity should be given to the House to discuss them. I recognize that it would be improper for me to take advantage of the leave that the House has courteously afforded me to make a statement by entering into a discussion of the matters mentioned, and I, therefore, content myself with these few observations.

page 5598

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL

Motion (by Mr- Parker Moloney) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924.

page 5598

CANNED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL

Motion (by Mr. Parker Moloney) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Canned Fruits Export Control Act 1926.

Bill brought up by Mr. Parker Moloney, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The 1926 act provided for the establishment of a Canned Fruits Export Control Board to organize the overseas marketing of apricots, peaches, and pears. The board now consists of three members, one appointed by the Governor-General as a representative of the Commonwealth Government, another elected to represent the co-operative and State-controlled canneries, and the third to represent proprietary and other privately-owned canneries. The present basis of voting power at elections held under the act is the pro,duction of canned fruits during the 1925-26 canning season ; but it is the considered opinion of the Control Board that, as there have been considerable fluctuations in the quantity of canned fruits produced by individual canneries since last season, it is desirable that the basis of voting power should be the production during the season immediately preceding the election. That is the principal amendment. The bill also proposes to increase the membership of the board in order to give direct representation to State-controlled canneries which at present are grouped for representation purposes with co-operative canneries.

Mr Maxwell:

– Are these proposals recommended by the board?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The whole bill is based on recommendations by the ‘board. .During the last two seasons the Leeton cannery in New South Wales exported 242,163 dozen 30-oz. tins, as compared with 232,726 dozen exported by all the proprietary and privatelyowned canneries. The latter are already represented on the board, although their total export is less than that of the one government cannery which is unrepresented. The increase in the membership of the board from three to four will necessitate slight amendments in section 10 relating to meetings of the board. At full meetings when four members are present it will be necessary for the chairman to have a casting vote. At present the funds of the board may be utilized only for publicity purposes; but clause 5 empowers the hoard to divert some of this money to research and experimental work for the advancement of the industry.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I offer no opposition to the bill, particularly as it was introduced at the request of the Canned Fruits Export Control Board. The industry is divided into three sections - the proprietary canneries, all of which are in or about Melbourne; the co-operative canneries, in the Goulburn Valley, including one of the largest in the British Empire; and the State-owned cannery at Leeton, New South Wales. The policy of the Bruce-Page Government was to keep the personnel of these control boards down to the minimum consistent with effectiveness. Almost invariably certain interests whose production is bigger than that of others claim representation in proportion to their output. The board at present consists of one representative off the co-operative and government-owned canneries, one of the proprietary canneries, and a representative of the Commonwealth Government, who is chairman. The Leeton cannery is considered of sufficient importance to be entitled to separate representation. This will raise the membership of the board from three to four; but the addition will not make the body unwieldy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 5599

WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL

Motion (by Mr. PARKER Moloney) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929.

Bill brought up by Mr. Parker Moloney and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is based upon the recommendation of the board controlling the overseas marketing of wine. The board consists of eight members, of whom five have been elected to represent the privately-owned and proprietary wineries and distilleries; two to represent the co-operative wineries and distilleries; and one represents the Commonwealth Government. In accordance with the recommendation of the board, the bill provides for the constitution Of an executive committee, to consist of the chairman and three members, to be elected annually by the board. The establishment of such a committee would enable the board to effect a considerable saving of expense, as it would then be able to reduce .the number of full board meetings. From time to time matters arise which demand prompt attention, yet do not warrant the expense of a full meeting, and with a view to handling such matters expeditiously and economically the board desires the establishment of an executive committee. The remaining clauses are similar to those in the Dried Fruits and Canned Fruits Export Control Bills, one empowering the board to utilize some of its funds for research and experimental purposes.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– This bill makes a desirable amendment0 to the Wine Overseas Marketing Act. In a continent as large as Australia, it is difficult to call a meeting of a body which is representative of all parts of Australia. It is an expensive matter for the board to call frequent meetings of such a representative body, and I believe that, at many of the meetings, the business could be carried out just as effectively, and perhaps more expeditiously, by a small executive, which has the confidence of the whole board. I support the bill.

Mr MARKS:
Wentworth

.- I wish to raise a matter which may apply to the Wine Export Bounty. Recently one of the newspapers published a cable to the effect that the sellers of our canned fruits in England were finding it impossible to make sales, because of the rigid conditions laid down by the Canned Fruits Export Control Board. I mention that, because the Prime Minister is leaving for England shortly, and I think that this matter is serious enough to warrant a full inquiry by him.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- The bill appears to have been drawn up on business-like lines, and, I think that the House will readily agree to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 5600

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL

Bill brought up by Mr. PARKER Moloney, and read a first time.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

by leave - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Dried Fruits Export Control Act was passed in 1924, to give the dried fruits industry the necessary statutory powers to organize the overseas marketing of currants, sultanas .and lexias on a satisfactory basis. Under that act, a board known as the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Control Board was established, which at present consists of a Commonwealth Government representative, two members with commercial experience, appointed by the GovernorGeneral, three representatives elected by “the growers in the combined States of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, and one representative elected by the growers of Western Australia. The number of growers in each State isVictoria, 2,314; South Australia, 2,124; New South Wales, 536; and Western Australia, 400. The average production of dried vine fruits in those States during the past three years was - Victoria, 39,000 tons; South Australia, 14,700 tons; New South Wales, 3,000 tons, and Western Australia, 1,900 tons. The high average production in Victoria, as compared pro rata with the. figures for the other States, is explained by reason of the fact that the majority of Victorian growers is engaged solely in the production of dried vine fruits, whereas in South Australia a large proportion of the yield is utilized for wine-making, and in New South Wales and Western Australia many of the growers produce citrus and other fruits in addition to dried fruits. The present, system under which the three representatives are elected to represent the growers of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales gives a New South Wales nominee only a very remote chance of being elected to the board, in view of the small number of growers in that State as compared with the number in Victoria and South Australia. This is borne out by the result of previous elections; the New South Wales candidates in each instance being defeated by Victorian and South Australian candidates. It is proposed in clause 2 of the bill now before the House to provide for separate representation on the board for these three States; New South Wales and South Australia to elect one representative each and Victoria two representatives. This will increase the growers’ representatives on the board by one. The reason for giving Victoria two representatives is that the average production of dried fruits in that State is. greater than the aggregate production of the remaining States. Clause 3 of the bill has been framed to give the board wider powers in its application of moneys derived from a levy imposed on dried fruits exported. Under section 21 of the act, as- it now stands, the board is empowered to use its funds for the general administrative expenses of the board, and for display and publicity purposes. The additional powers asked for would enable the board to expend moneys for experimental and other purposes with the object of improving the quality of Australian dried fruits and promoting their sale. The several amendments to this act, as proposed in the bill, are concurred in by the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Control Board, and they are designed to provide such further powers as are necessary for the efficient organization of this important industry.

Mr Gabb:

– Did South Australia previously have only one representative on the board?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes ; the South Australian representation will remain unaltered. New South Wales is to be given a representative, and that will entail an additional member of the board. New South Wales has been asking for representation for some considerable time, and the board has made a recommendation to that effect.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I support the bill. The position is that at present three representatives have to be elected for the States of Victoria-. New South Wales and South Australia as a group, and up to now South Australia has had one representative and Victoria two representatives. New South Wales has been unrepresented on the board. It is difficult to justify that position, particularly when Western Australia, which has a smaller production of dried fruits than has New South Wales, is given representation. Under this bill, Victoria, the largest producer of dried fruits, will have two representatives, and each of the other States, South Australia, New South Wales and Western Australia, will have one representative. Those representatives are in addition to the Government and the commercial representatives.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I wish to place on record the fact that, although the new arrangement under the bill seems to be equitable, I have not had time to consult those interested in the industry in South Australia about it. I shall, therefore, neither oppose nor support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 3.48 to 5 p.m.

page 5601

FLAX AND LINSEED BOUNTIES BILL

In committee: (Consideration of Senate’s amendment).

Clause 18 -

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, prescribing all matters which by this act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for carrying out or giving effect to this act, and in particular for proscribing penalties not exceeding Fifty pounds for any breach of the regulations.

Senate’s amendment. - At end of clause add “ and the proportion in which bounty shall be payable to claimants who have complied with the prescribed conditions, in cases where there is not sufficient money available to pay the full bounty in respect of all the claims”.

Mr FORDE:
Assistant Minister · Capricornia · ALP

. - I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This is a non-contentious amendment, which was made to the bill on the motion of the Leader of the Government in another place. The object of it is to enable the Government, in the event of the value of the production making necessary the payment of more than £20,000 in bounties, to pay to those who produce the excess quantity, a proportionate share of the bounty. A similar provision appears in other bounty measures.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported ; report adopted.

page 5601

LONDON CONFERENCE ON NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Approval of Treaty

Debate resumed from the 30th July (vide page 4943) on motion by Mr.

Fenton -

That this House approves the Treaty between His Majesty the King and the President of the United States of America, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Italy and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, for the limitation and reduction of naval armaments, signed at London on 22nd April, 1930.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- The introduction of this motion reminds us that the world has really changed since the war, in spite of statements that are often made to the contrary. Before the war the parliaments of the nations regularly considered their defence estimates, and dealt, in the ordinary course, with their naval requirements, fixing the amount of money to be spent thereon in reference to the need of their country for protection against possible attack. It is still necessary for parliaments to accept and discharge that responsibility, but since the war they have also been called upon to consider such treaties as that now before us, which are designed to bring about, and in fact, do effect, a limitation of armaments. We of the British race have long been accustomed to, and still do, regard the British Navy as the sure protection of our Empire. We in Australia are separated from Great Britain by a vast expanse of sea. In one aspect this is a separation, although in another it is an essential bond of union. But it makes the maintenance of the British Navy a matter of primary importance to us. The people of all parts of the Empire, in fact, will view with apprehension the taking of any steps which may threaten the security upon which the continued existence of the Empire depends. Before the war the British Empire maintained a two-power standard of naval strength. In 1914 the

British Navy was the strongest in the world, and, in 1918, at the end of the war, it was still by far the world’s strongest navy. But the position has greatly changed since that date. In the first place the Treaty of Versailles provided for the actual disarmament of former enemy powers, and contained an undertaking that the allied powers would also enter upon a programme of reduction of sea, land, and air armaments. The provisions of the treaty in relation to ex-enemy powers have been fulfilled, and it is now incumbent upon us, as a matter of good faith, to carry out our obligations to reduce armaments.

In the second place, the position of the British Empire has changed in other respects since the war. We are no longer able to assert, in the old sense, that “ Britannia rules the waves.” While all parts of the Empire are heavily burdened with debt, the United States of America has been able, by sheer wealth and freedom from debt, to develop very strong naval power, and can outbuild the British Empire. In that country there is a strong jingo element, which is making insistent demands for a big navy, and, in fact, naval predominance.

In 1921 a conference was held at Washington, at which it was agreed that a position of parity should be maintained between the British Empire and the United States of America in relation to battleships and air-craft cruisers, and that the ratio between the British Empire, the United States of America, and Japan should be 5 - 5 - 3. Arrangements were also made at that conference for the retention of certain ships by other naval powers. It Avas agreed, further, that the maximum tonnage and gun limits of battleships should be 35,000 tons and a 16-in. calibre respectively. Air-craft carriers were not to exceed 27,000 tons in the future. But no agreement was reached with respect to the limitation of the number of cruisers, destroyers and battleships, although it was agreed that cruisers should not exceed 10,000 tons weight. One result of that conference has been the building of 10,000-ton cruisers, known as the Washington or Treaty cruisers, of a surprising degree of offensive power.

Since that conference many efforts have been made to bring about a further reduction of armaments. There has been considerable argument between those who favour limitation by category on the one hand, that is limitation according to specified classes of vessels, and global limitation on the other, that is limitation to a specified tonnage reckoned in a particular manner. These differences of opinion have hitherto prevented any new disarmament agreements being reached. But in the meantime, the Locarno Treaty was made, in 1926, and the Kellogg Pact accepted in 1928. Under the Pact, practically all the nations of the world, and certainly all the nations which possess any naval power, have agreed to renounce war as an instrument of policy. It is the view of the present British Government that full effect should be given to the Kellogg Treaty, and that it should be regarded as a real element of political security. In the interesting report which the Minister for Customs (Mr. Penton) has placed before the House of the proceedings of the London conference, for which honorable members are indebted to him, he has set out clearly the view of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in this connexion. He referred to the contention as to the number of cruisers necessary to safeguard our long and vulnerable .trade routes, and otherwise to maintain the security of the Empire, and said that whereas in 1927 at Geneva the British naval authorities had contended that 70 cruisers was the minimum sufficient to attain this purpose, at the recent conference the figure of 50 was fixed by the naval advisers of the British Government, and accepted by the Government as being sufficient. There has been very much criticism in many quarters of this reduction and a considerable degree of uneasiness and apprehension has been caused. In order to allay this feeling of apprehension, and to reply to the criticism, the British Prime Minister made this statement -

After taking into account the measure of security afforded by the signature of the Pact of Paris for the renunciation of war by most of the nations of the world, including all’ naval powers, the Government felt justified1 in looking to a period in which armed conflicts need not be expected.

I sincerely hope that the right honorable gentlemans expectations will be justified by events, but it appears to me - although F am anxious to bring about a reduction of armaments, realizing, as I do, that the existence of large and powerful armaments leads to competition in naval, military, and air forces, and produces suspicion which may end in war - that the British Government is over-optimistic. If the position were really as the British Prime Minister has put it, it would be unnecessary for us to provide any defence forces whatever; but I am afraid that the right honorable gentleman has allowed his optimism to run away with his eloquence. At any rate, it ha3 been demonstrated that the British Government has been unable to act as though its expectations can be accepted as a faithful prophecy of the future. While ourEmpire has no aggressive designs upon any nation in the world, it is unfortunately not yet in a position which will permit it to - discard the making of reasonable provision for defence purposes. The proposals of the treaty must be regarded, therefore, not only in relation to the desirability of disarmament, but also with a strict and stern regard to the defensive necessities of the country. The first responsibility of any government, of whatever political complexion, is to provide, according to the requirements and circumstances of the time for the security of its people.

The reference made to the Kellogg Pact by the British Prime Minister is, as I have said, couched in very optimistic terms. It must be remembered, however, that the Kellogg Pact itself recognizes and admits the right of nations to adopt measures for self-defence. I recognize that, though the nations have undertaken that they will renounce war as an instrument of policy, there is at least a possibility of a breach of that undertaking, and, accordingly, the defence of a country must be still provided for. Further, it is well known that ideas of what constitute selfdefence differ, and the line of difference is the line of war. During the last great war, I suppose every nation among the truly belligerent nations regarded itself as defending its essential interests. However a war may begin, whatever its first cause may be, as it develops it becomes an issue of self-defence. Accordingly, we cannot afford to regard war as ruled out as a possibility of the future. At the same time, the Kellogg Fact does represent the repulsion against war felt by all those who remember anything of the last war. Viewed in that way, the Kellogg Pact has a real significance, because it typifies the psychology of the people of the world to-day. However, we must not over-rate the power of agreements such as this, because they cannot prevent conflagrations upon issues which a nation considers affect its essential interests.

The treaty which has been laid before us for approval will, the First Lord of the Admiralty declared, have the effect of bringing about a great reduction of expenditure on armaments in the future. The reductions are set out by him as follows : -

Those are the British figures, and the First Lord of the Admiralty calculates that the saving to Great Britain which can be effected as the result of the naval treaty will, between now and 1936. amount to over £50,000,000. That’ estimate has been prepared on the assumption that the powers would have built up to the limit permitted by the Washington treaty. As a matter of fact, they have not exercised that right; but in the United States of America there has been a very strong movement to compel the Government to build a big navy. The achievements of the conference must be measured, not only in relation to the actual scrapping of ships, but also in reference to the limits imposed by it in the future. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking in Washington, said -

We are not going to build against America, and anything America does in the way of expanding her fleet will meet with no response from Britain, but if America’s building has the effect of compelling other nations to build, then, indirectly, we are compelled to take an interest in America’s scheme of building.

That indicates the difficulty encountered in drawing up any scheme of naval limitation. Although the relations between a group of countries may be quite friendly, and an agreement for a balance of naval power may be arrived at, that balance may be upset by the action of a power external to the agreement.

This agreement is to the effect that certain vessels are to be scrapped, and that the powers will not exercise their right to lay down thu replacement ships of 35,000 tons to which they are entitled under the Washington Treaty. A further limitation is imposed in reference to air craft: carriers. The three oceanic naval powers - Groat Britain, the United States of America and Japan - have entered into a complete agreement for the limitation of capital ships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines. The figures within those respective classes have been fixed, and an arrangement made for a limited transfer between the classes. The divergent views between Great Britain and the United States of America on the cruiser question have been reconciled by permitting to the United States of America a greater proportion of the larger cruisers, and by allowing to the British Empire a greater number of the smaller cruisers. This has resulted in the elimination of one of the difficulties which prevented the success of the Geneva Conference.

The position as it affects Australia cannot be distinguished from the general position as it affects the British Empire, although Australia’s direct interests are mainly in the Pacific. The Minister bas stated that it was agreed that the Naval Forces of the Empire should be regarded as one unit. While he was speaking, interjections were made which suggested that some honorable members considered that Australia ought to have been dealt with separately, and that some arrangement ought to have been made specifically defining the vessels which Australia could legitimately provide. I agree entirely with the policy of the Government in considering Australia, for naval purposes, as part of the British Empire, and in considering our fleet, for all purposes of actual use, as part of the Naval Forces of the Empire. As we already know, it is possible for us to maintain our own Naval Forces, to keep them under our own control, and yet to make them effective. to the. maximum degree,. by working in co-operation with the’ other portions of the Empire.. Moreover’, if it is suggested that Australia should be dealt with separately from the British Empire, the question of separate consideration of naval power in the Pacific will arise. We are glad to know that we are on entirely friendly terms with all the powers in the Pacific, with the naval power of Japan, and the great democracy of the United States of America, and I sincerely hope that we shall long continue to be friendly. If Australia had been left free from the agreement, Japan and the United States of America would also have claimed to be free, except insofar as a specific agreement could have been arrived at with regard to naval power in the Pacific. The result would probably have been that no agreement would have been reached at all. War vessels are essentially mobile and transferable, and the Government, therefore, adopted the right course in regarding the Australian Navy as part of the Empire Navy. I should like to see an agreement arrived at for more than the limitation of armaments in the Pacific. I should like to see disarmament in tlie Pacific. Those whohave studied this subject, arc aware of the grave difficulties of exercising naval power on a large scale in the Pacific. Some very interesting work has been done in the .investigation of this subject by II. C. Bywater. It has been shown that, fortunately, naval forces in the Pacific are so far away from one another, that if they were to set out to meet and fight they would have nearly exhausted their steaming power before they came to grips. The tremendous distances which separate the countries bordering the Pacific are such that it would be extremely difficult to operate hostile naval forces at points where they would be effective. Therefore, I hope that some day it will be possible to obtain an even greater measure of disarmament in the Pacific than we have atttained to-day. For the present this must be regarded as a dream, because it is impossible to exclude war vessels from the Pacific, even though the Pacific naval powers come to a complete agreement on the matter! The existence of the Panama Canal, making it possible, particularly for the United States, to transfer ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vice versa, renders it impracticable to treat Pacific problems a3 distinct from world naval policy.

The Minister said that no mention had been made at the conference of the Singapore Naval Base, and added that this subject did not come within the purview of the conference. I hope, however, that he took the opportunity of explaining that the existence of the Singapore Base constitutes a threat to no nation; that it is purely defensive in character, and that it is being built for the purpose of making it possible to maintain some effective naval power in this quarter of the world. Without a properly equipped base, naval power is ineffective, and Singapore is designed only to provide an essential base for the ships of the Empire operating in these waters.

The Minister, in the course of his speech, said that the domestic question of the distribution, among the various dominions of the Empire, of the total tonnage allowed to the Empire under the treaty, and the consequent allotment of responsibility for maintenance and replacement remains to be determined. He went on to say that it was agreed that these matters could be more appropriately discussed at an Imperial gathering, aud that they would be brought under notice by the British Government at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. I shall be glad if the Minister, when he replies, will give some indication of the policy of the present Commonwealth Government with respect to naval defence. Until the present time, all we know is that vessels have been paid off, and that personnel has been discharged, on financial grounds. Apparently, however, there is to be a discussion at the Imperial Conference on the distribution of the naval strength of the Empire, and also on the allotment of responsibility for maintenance and replacement of vessels, and I add that the construction of vessels is necessarily involved. I think that the House would appreciate a statement from the Government that it recognizes that, notwithstanding the improvements that have been reached by the various pacific agreements to which I have referred, the maintenance of effective naval defence in Australia is necessary.

This treaty has been criticized in all countries. Figures have been published to show that it contemplates very great increases of naval power. Although those whose minds, .go back to the days when the Royal Navy was indubitably predominant upon all the seas of the world, may view with regret any limitation of naval power, I think that they are wrong. We have to recognize the changing conditions in the modern world. Apart altogether from the fact that it is no loDger possible to maintain the old naval predominance, I think that, in view of the present mind and temper of the world, it would be unwise to do it, even if we were able to accomplish it. We rightly believe that the British Navy has never been used save as an instrument to enforce right and maintain justice; but it must be remembered that other powers have an equal right to their own views, and the existence of tremendous naval power in one hand is a temptation and incitement to other nations. Therefore, if we could maintain a general naval predominance, 1 doubt whether it would be wise to attempt to do so. But we must recognize the solemn obligation which wo undertook under the treaty of peace to reduce and limit armaments. For that reason I welcome this agreement, because, although it permits the building of new vessels up to a maximum, still a maximum has been prescribed, and the British Empire is entitled to parity, upon a basis with which our naval authorities are satisfied, with the United States of America. There are fixed maximum figures in all classes of naval vessels for the three great oceanic powers - the British Empire, the United States of America, and the Empire of Japan.

There are those who say that we should not set our name to any agreement for limitation. What is the. alternative? That is what we have to consider, when we are charged with the duty of shaping our course of action on this matter. The alternative is unlimited and unrestrained naval competition. Apart altogether from the fact that neither Australia, nor the Empire as a whole, is in a financial position to contemplate such a programme, it would be against the interests of the world if any naval power were to be left free in that matter. But there is a safeguarding clause in the treaty which is of the greatest importance. It may be said that the acceptance of these limits confines us so straightly and narrowly that we shall be unable, even if -an emergency should arise, adequately to provide for our defence ; but Article 21 . provides -

If the “ requirements of the national security “ of any of the parties are “ in the opinion of that “party materially affected by new construction” by any power other than those which have signed this section of the treaty, the power affected shall notify the two other powers “ as to the increase to be made in its own tonnage . . . specifying particularly the proposed increases and the reasons therefor.” It shall then be “entitled to make such increase,” and the two other powers shall be “ entitled to make a proportionate increase.”

It has been truly said that the naval powers of France and Italy are not bound in the same manner as the other three powers under this treaty. That is so; but, unfortunate as it is that it was impossible to arrive at an agreement covering those powers, there is an answer to the criticism that they are left free tobuild in such manner as to prejudice the interests of the three powers which have agreed to a limitation. This safeguarding clause provides in effect that if, in the judgment of any one of the three powers bound by the limitation agreement, the requirements of the national security of any one of the parties are affected by the naval construction by another power, then the power so affected, after due notification, is at liberty to make such increase as it deems necessary. That is a necessary precaution in the absence of universal agreement. It may be said that this provides a loophole in the treaty which makes it useless, but, I do not think that is the case.

Mr Maxwell:

– Is it necessary under the treaty to obtain the permission of the other two powers?

Mr LATHAM:

– No. I do not think that that is a weakness in the treaty which destroys its effect. The whole world is aware of this clause, and if there should be extravagant and competitive building by powers other than these three powers, everybody will recognize exactly what that would inevitably involve. It would mean a reintroduction of general naval competitive building throughout the world, and accordingly, any power outside of the three oceanic powers bound by the main treaty of limitation would hesitate long, and think carefully, before incurring a responsibility of that character. Therefore, it appears to me that the safeguarding clause is both necessary and wise, and that the clause itself answers the criticism directed against it. The importance of arriving at an agreement is, as I have already said, to be gathered by the alternative of no agreement, and the world is not prepared to-day to go on under a system of unlimited competition in naval construction.

This agreement is a step towards the carrying out of obligations to which Australia set her name in 1919 under the Peace Treaty, and for that reason I welcome it. I would be glad to see a general advance in the direction of the further limitation of armaments. The world needs it; it is worn and wearied by the late war. Almost financially exhausted in many quarters as it is by the effects of the late war, it cannot afford to spend on the same scale as formerly upon naval armaments. I have stated that we have to take the responsibility of striking a balance between the requirements of national security and defence on the one hand, and the tremendous human interests which are represented by the reduction of armaments on the other. At the present time I consider that the welfare and interests of mankind would be ill-served by cornplete disarmament anywhere. Complete disarmament would furnish a temptation, particularly in the case of a rich country, which itself might lead to disastrous war. Accordingly, this problem has to be considered as a practical one. No one nation is able to get everything that it desires, but each will best consult its own interests in regarding those interests in conjunction with, and as necessarily and intimately affected by, what other nations do, and by the policies of, other nations. Therefore, let it be our part to join in this general movement, which represents the will and conscience of mankind, while recognizing our responsibility to our own people.

I welcome this treaty, not regarding it as perfect, but as a practical contribution which the necessities of the case demand, and as an instalment of advance along the path upon which the feet of all the nations are set to-day. There are many difficulties in carrying through any design for the further reduction of armaments. I think, however, that it ought to come. It is the part of statesmanship to arrive at a just balance between world interests and national security, recognizing that world interests, after all, demand also national security. We do a disservice to the world by rendering ourselves defenceless, but we do a service to ourselves and the world by entering into an agreement with other friendly nations on a basis that will help to maintain our friendship, instead of running the risk of converting amity into enmity.

Mr MARKS:
Wentworth

.- We have had an excellent speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham). It was a sound exposition of naval affairs, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I, for my part, approach this important subject from rather a different angle from that from which the honorable gentleman chose to view it. I have frequently been asked what the treaty means to the Empire, and to the various nations whom it concerns. Before giving an answer to that question I desire to pay a well-earned tribute to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Fenton) who was Australia’s representative at the Naval Conference in London. While the conference was sitting we were informed, through the medium of the press, of the part he was taking in that important gathering ; but we were unable to know whether his remarks were faithfully reported or not. As the days went on we all feared that the conference might prove abortive, as previous conferences on naval disarmament have done. But, as I interjected the other day in this chamber, our Minister certainly gingered things up. Before we can understand what took place at the conference we must glance at antecedent history. Honorable members are aware that, apart from the experience that I gained in a command in the British Navy throughout the war, I have made an intensive study of naval matters all my life, and for the last 30 years’ have visited most of the principal maritime powers at intervals of about three years. This afternoon we had the pleasure of extending a welcome on the floor of the House to a distinguished diplomat, representing our great and friendly neighbour, Japan. I visited that country in 1923, and had the distinction of being received by the then Prime Minister, also by Prince Tokingawa, by Mr. Kawai of the House of Peers, by Mr. Nagai, Minister of Migration, and Admiral Takarabe, Minister for Marine. From them, as well as from heads of departments and the people generally, I received every courtesy and kindness. By Admiral Takarabe I was taken to visit the great naval base at Yokosuka. I regarded that as a distinct compliment, because it was understood that foreign visitors, even Britishers, were not altogether welcome there. I was shown over the new battle cruiser Matsu, and the first thing that caught my eye in the admiral’s cabin was a portrait of Admiral Horatio Nelson. The Japanese Navy has been built up in reverence of the Nelson tradition, and from time to time British admirals and airmen have been sent to Japan to help in the training and development of the navy and air force. I saw also the Hosho the new airplane carrier. From Japan I went on to America and met in conference President Coolidge and the then Secretary for the Navy, Mr. Wilbur.’ Afterwards in London I met that great statesman Ramsay MacDonald and the Secretary of the Admiralty, and with them discussed the whole subject of naval armaments.

It may be truly said that for over 150 years the peace and security of our Empire, and even the growth of other nations, were dependent upon the two-power standard of the British Navy. Under that mighty protection the British dominions grew from infancy to manhood. Other nations, too, were able to pursue their peaceful avocations and gradually build up their strength, because they felt secure in the protection of the British Navy, which has always been the champion of equity and justice. Great Britain has never gone out of its way to cripple or humble another power. During the continuance of the two-power standard, world-wide developments took place. America marched on to its great destiny and wealth in the confident knowledge that even the Monroe Doctrine was secure while the British Navy was supreme.

Refraining from participation in European affairs, it concentrated on building up its national strength and resources. S« it. was with other nations. The British Navy was indeed the world’s policeman. During the Great War it ensured the transport of over 1,000,000 men from overseas to the battlefronts, and convoyed across the Atlantic ocean fleets bearing men, food and munitions. The American troops could never have been conveyed to Europe but for the vigilance, efficiency and strength of the British Navy. Sea power gave us unlimited use of the seas, and victory could not have been ours without it, although it might not have been achieved with sea power alone. Such was the position up to 1918. Lessons of the past may be the facts of to-morrow.

After the treaty of peace was signed, Britain, partly on account of financial pressure, voluntarily scrapped over 1,600,000 tons of naval shipping. That was the end of the two-power standard. No longer could we sing with the confidence of old, “ Brittania Rules the Waves.” Few of our people realize that, for the first time in the last 150 years, Britain does not rule the waves. The end of the war left the United States of America an immeasurably stronger naval power, because, during the war, Britain, being short of destroyers, had asked America to concentrate on them. I well remember when with Admiral Sims of the United States Navy, Lord Jellicoe practically on his knees appealing for more destroyers. He pointed out the destruction caused by the submarines amongst, the mercantile shipping, and added, Wo have not even enough destroyers to protect the Grand Fleet. Destroyers we must have. If you do not send them we are gone.” So at the Armistice America had 309 destroyers to Britain’s 140, and had, in addition, planned the construction of sixteen new capital ships. Japan also had undertaken a similar programme of construction. Thus it was evident that the principal naval powers of the world were reconditioning their navies ai.d measuring them against each other. A fresh race of armaments had started, and apparently it would be limited only by the financial capacity of each of the competing powers.

The following particulars show the difference in tonnage that had taken place between August, 1914, and December, 1929: - In respect of battleships, the strength of Great Britain had declined by 644,185 tons, and that of the United States of America by 3,846 tons, whilst that of Japan had increased by 40,840 tons. In respect of cruisers, the strength of all three had declined; Great Britain by 443,63& tons, the United States of America by 166,243 tons, and Japan by 2,510 tons. Comparative statistics in respect to aircraft carriers are not available; but the position in 1929 was - Great Britain, 115,350 tons; the United States of America, 76,286 tons; Japan, 61,270 tons. In respect of destroyers, the strength of Great Britain had increased by only 12,832 tons, as compared with America’s increase of 272,056 tons, and Japan’s 90,061 tons. The huge increase in the tonnage of American destroyers was remarkable. In respect of submarines, all three showed increases, as follows: - Great Britain, 19,152 tons; the United States of America, 72,659 tons; and Japan, 70,295 tons. These expansions justified the conviction and fear that the nations were vieing with each other in a race for naval supremacy. The Naval Committee of the French Senate admitted adequate naval strength for Britain. In taking 1 unit for Italy, the other figures were - Japan. 1.6; France, 3; the United States of America, 4.2; Britain, 10.

Four conferences in regard to naval disarmament have taken place. There was the 1921 conference in Washington, the League of Nations Preparatory Commission in 3927, the Coolidge Conference, the abortive Anglo-French naval discussion in 192S, and the recently-concluded conference in London. Taken all in all, the Washington conference was not an astounding success. It originated from a motion moved in the United States of America Senate by Senator Borah, who was not then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the debate caused such a sensation throughout America that President Coolidge felt that he had no alternative but to convene a disarmament conference. If was recognized that the great naval powers were literally galloping in the race of competitive armament, and no one could foretell how it would finish. Apart from the valuable agreement that was reached for a ten years’ holiday in regard to the construction of capital ships, and the 10,000-ton limitation of cruisers, the conference had little influence upon the construction of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. The subsequent conferences prior to that of 1930 achieved practically nothing. After the Labour party assumed office in the British Parliament, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald made overtures for a discussion with President Hoover on the subject of naval disarmament. Subsequently, he visited America, and he and President Hoover conferred at a small up-country cabin. The London Naval Conference was the outcome of this happening. Unfortunately, the understanding between America and Great Britain caused some suspicion in France and Italy, and to a lesser extent in Japan, although the last-named was, as always, more trusting. Italy and France suspected an AngloAmerican entente or understanding in regard to naval supremacy, and the advantage of the understanding reached by Mr, MacDonald and President Hoover was minimized by the suspicion thus engendered, causing Italy and France to hold aloof. Because of that a five-power agreement could not be brought about. But the conference itself disabused the minds of Italy and France by making it clear that there was no secret understanding between America and Great Britain in respect of naval supremacy. In considering whether the conference has had a prejudicial effect upon Great Britain and the dominions, we must keep in our minds as maxims these four statements of vital importance. Admiral Mahan, the great admiral and naval historian of The United States of America, stated, first, that Great Britain’s dependence upon naval strength is vital and cannot by-her be neglected ; secondly, that in the last analysis every great war is won by the power that controls the sea. Count Bismarck stated, first, that the friendly nation of to-day is the enemy of to-morrow; and, secondly, that, .statesmen in the last resort rely upon the navy for the execution of their policy. “We have to look at the treaty itself in detail to ascertain what has been effected in respect of “the various classes of warships. In regard to capital ships, the total tonnage for Great Britain is 472,350 tons; the United States of America, 453,400; and Japan, 266,070 tons; representing in vessels - Great Britain, 15 ; the United States of America, 15 ; and Japan, 9. The treaty provides for no further new construction of capital ships until December, 1936. It i3 hoped to have another conference in 1935 to limit naval armaments once more, and that is only right. In the meantime, Great Britain has to scrap five battleships - the Tiger, and four of the Iron Duke class. The United States of America has to scrap three battleships - the Arkansas, the Florida, and the Utah. Japan has to scrap the Higei. Italy and France, who would not sign the five-power treaty, may, at any time, build replacement tonnage up to ‘70,000 tons each. They are entitled to that tonnage of capital ships under the Washington Treaty.

The position in respect of cruisers makes an interesting story, because, within the last few months, and even since the armistice, Admirals Jellicoe and Beatty and others have said that Great Britain must have 75 cruisers; otherwise England could be starved within one week. That is perfectly true; the war proved that. We must have cruisers to protect our coastline, and to protect the thousands of miles of sea routes between the Motherland and her dominions. Australia must have its cruisers for the protection of its great coastline, and for convoying, as during the war, ships carrying our wheat, wool, and other products 13,000 odd miles from here to the London docks. It was proved during the war that without cruiser protection it was not safe for merchant vessels to leave these shores. Previously, 7f> cruisers was the minimum number allotted to Great Britain, but it has now been reduced to 50. The conference, in fixing the cruiser tonnage, divided it into two sections - “A” class cruisers and “B” class cruisers. “A” class cruisers carry 8-inch guns, like the H.M.A.S. Australia, and H.M.A.S. Canberra. . The “B” class cruisers carry 6.1-inch guns and under, and are smaller vessels. The conference has allotted to Great Britain, which includes the dominions, in class “ A “. a tonnage of 146,800 tons; to the United States of America, 180,000 tons, and to Japan, 108,400 tons. In actual vessels Great Britain will have fifteen, the United States of America, eighteen, and Japan, twelve. Great Britain now has to cancel orders for three new 10,000-ton cruisers in order to come within its tonnage allotment. The United States of America, so far as I can ascertain by an intensive search, has only two 10,000-ton cruisers, and it may build sixteen more to make up its quota of eighteen, under the treaty. But it may not build more than fifteen vessels of this type before 1935, so that, although we talk of limitations under this treaty, the United States of America may build at once fifteen 10,000-ton cruisers, at a cost of about £3,000,000 each to maintain its quota under the treaty. That is, she may spend £45,000,000 on cruisers. Japan has, apparently, eight big cruisers - four of the Furutaka class. At the conference, that nation submitted two schedules ; one for a higher ratio and the other for a lower ratio. Japan obtained at the conference almost exactly what it asked for under the second schedule, but still it is a little dissatisfied with the result of the conference. With respect to the “B” class cruisers, the tonnage allotted to Great Britain is 192,200 tons; to the United States of America, 143,500 tons, and to Japan 100,450 tons; representing 35 vessels to Great Britain, ten to the United States of America, and seventeen to Japan. Great Britain may build for replacement purposes, 91,000 tons, but it must not exceed a total of 192,200 tons. Mr. Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons a few days ago, said that it would be necessary for Great Britain to build at least four new cruisers every year to provide for a replacement of 91,000 tons. Japan must scrap five old vessels to come within the prescribed tonnage. The tonnage allotted to Japan was 100,450 tons, which is only 7,250 tons under what she asked for in the second schedule submitted to the conference. The total tonnages for all cruisers are Britain, 339,000; United States of America, 323,500; Japan, 208,850. With respect to destroyers, the conference allotted Great Britain and the United States of America each 150,000 tons, and

Japan 105,000 tons, representing 134 vessels to Great Britain, 309 to the United States of America, and 106 to Japan. That means a reduction to Great Britain of about 7,585 tons on the 1929 programme. The United States of America must scrap 100 destroyers to come within the allotment of tonnage. That will mean a reduction of 175,155 tons on the 1929 programme. Japan must reduce its tonnage by about 5,395 tons. It is strange that in that case, also, Japan obtained from the conference exactly what it asked for under its second schedule. It has, therefore, really nothing to complain about.

Sitting suspended from 6.11 to 8 p.m.

Mr MARKS:

– Under the treaty the tonnage of submarines will be 52,700 tons for each of three signatory nations. This means a reduction of 7,234 tons on the British tonnage of 1929; 28,000 tons on the American tonnage of 1929; and 13,368 tons on the Japanese tonnage of . 1929, which is 27,300 less than she insisted upon. This reduction has caused a great deal of comment in naval circles in Japan.

I come now to aircraft carriers. The figures for the three nations are: Britain, 135,000 tons; America, 135,000 tons; Japan, 81,000 tons. This represents an increase on the 1929 tonnage of 9,650 tons in the case of Great Britain, 58,714 tons in the case of the United States of America, and 19,730 tons in the case of Japan. To summarize the position, the agreement reached at the Conference will give to each power the following tonnage by categories: -

But it should be noted that in regard to cruisers Great Britain and the United States of America, instead of accepting these figures, each reproduce the same types of cruisers as are built by the other. The actual results of the conference will depend upon what is done by Italy and

France, which are not parties to the treaty. The treaty contains what is called the “safeguarding clause,” upon the insertion of which Great Britain insisted. If the provisions of that clause are ever brought into operation - I trust that they never will be - the treaty will be wrecked. Under this clause any one, or all, of the three powers may increase its tonnage if it considers that its national security is being endangered by new naval construction by any power not a party to the treaty. All that will be necessary in the event of such a situation arising will be for one of the signatory nations to notify the others that it considers its safety is being endangered, and it can then proceed with a shipbuilding programme. In other words, if Italy and/or France suddenly embarks upon a big naval construction programme, any one of the parties to the London Naval Treaty may do likewise. As I have said, I hope that such a time may never come, but the insertion of this provision was wise. It has placed the signatory nations in a position to be able to meet any naval pranks that other nations may try to play.

I have gone to some trouble to ascertain the considered opinions’ of leading authorities in Great Britain, the United States of America, and Japan on this treaty, and have found them most illuminating. Not one of the nations appears to be quite satisfied. Great Britain is naturally very sore .at heart because she has lost her two-power standard, which she maintained for over 150 years, and which enabled her dominions to grow into nationhood, and America even to maintain the Monroe doctrine. No longer can we sing with glee that “Britannia rules the waves.” Under the London Naval Treaty, Great Britain is placed in a position only of equality in respect of America; she no longer has predominance. That may be good or it may be bad, but it is a fact.

Earl Beatty and Lord Jellicoe are dissatisfied with the position. They point out that whereas the Navy required some 75 cruisers, it will now possess only 50. Statistics compiled in the light of the experience of the war show that it would be possible to starve Great Britain within a week, and 50 cruisers, in the opinion of these great authorities, might be insufficient to prevent a calamity like that from occurring. America has, of course, always been keen to build up a big navy. During 1915-16 the British Navy insisted on stopping American ships which were carrying cargoes of foodstuffs intended for Germany, and that action almost precipitated war between the two countries. From that time the United States of America set out to build a navy as strong as the British Navy, if not stronger. Yet American comment on the London Naval Treaty contains a note of disappointment, although there. is, at the same time, a certain amount of satisfaction expressed. Japan desired a 70 per cent, margin of auxiliary forces, but in the second schedule she submitted to the London Naval Conference she reduced the margin to 60 per cent., and practically obtained it.

I shall quote representative comments from each of the three countries whose representatives signed the treaty. Mr. H. Wickham Stead, former editor of the London Times, published an article on the 30th April which contained the following comments : -

The people of Great Britain regard the London Naval Treaty with relief rather than with satisfaction. The reasons for British relief at the conclusion of the Naval Treaty are : -

That the London conference succeeded where the Geneva conference of 1B27 failed.

That the Treaty precludes naval rivalry between the United States of America, Great Britain, and Japan for six years, and tends to discountenance any actual building toward the French and Italian maximum programmes.

That the Treaty allays international fears of Anglo-Saxon domination.

That it preserves the Anglo-French agreement upon the methods of limiting navies, thus clearing a stubborn obstacle from the path of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission at Geneva.

That it encourages hope for a further reduction of navies in the future.

That substantial saving has been effected by scrapping old battleships, and by refraining from replacing them until 1936, when it is hoped that the naval experts may possibly be persuaded that battleships are white elephants, whose usefulness is wholly out of proportion to their cost.

Earl Beatty and Lord Jellicoe also discussed this subject in the House of Lords on the Sth May, and their remarks were reported in the press in the following words : -

Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Jellicoe, thought that in view of what was being done in the navies of other countries, the reduction now proposed went beyond the limit’s of safety. The naval conference held since the war had resulted in reductions in the British Navy, but in no other navies. Instead, they had actually increased them. A very great deal of destruction of British merchant vessels in the early days of the war was done by only two German cruisers, the Emden and the Karlsruhe. If 114 British .cruisers were unable to prevent two cruisers from doing that damage, how could Britain expect 50 cruisers to prevent damage to her trade and food supplies, and secure her sca communications?

It will he seen, therefore, that while the British naval experts express dissatisfaction, the ex-editor of the London Times is more relieved than satisfied with the result of the conference. Mr. Winston Churchill has said that the treaty “ will require four new cruisers every year to replace old tonnage.”

As representing the opinion of the United States of America, I quote the following comments by Mr. David Jayne Hill, American Ambassador to Germany from 1908 to 1911, which were published in Current History for June last: -

The spectacle of the naval situation as seen from Paris and Rome was not conducive to co-operation. Aside from their own rivalries, and overriding them, they saw an AngloAmerican domination of the world through a naval alliance of Great Britain and the United States of America.

If agreement is to be obtained, it is not good diplomacy for any nation to question the judgment of any other nation regarding its own needs or its sincerity in presenting them. The main point is to know what its position is regarding its irreducible minimum. A capable American delegation after three months of earnest endeavour has with industry, patience, and affability discovered what this minimum is with regard to all the powers concerned, and the Treaty just signed states the best results obtainable. The question is at present not whether the United States of America has attained what it was seeking, for it is evident it has not.

The Treaty of London, it is frankly admitted, is not an absolutely binding engagement. To safeguard the double standard ambition of Great Britain, the allotment of construction is made contingent upon the action of the non-signatories.

This gentleman makes it quite clear that the good effect of the Treaty is dependent upon whether or not Italy and/or France extend their naval programmes.

The Japanese comment which I shall quote, was also made in Current History for June. The authority is Mr. K. K. Kawakami, Washington correspondent of the Osaka Mainichi, and the Tokio Nichi Nichi. These two newspapers, I may say, correspond with the Sydney Morning Herald in importance. Their observations on public matters carry considerable weight in Japan. Their correspondent’s observations were as follow : -

From the Japanese point-of view the London conference was neither a success nor a failure, but something between the two. The Treaty obtained is one of which none of the signatories can be proud. And yet when one considers the difficulties and complexities which beset the conference one may well be thankful for what has been accomplished. Japan contended that she should be allowed to maintain 70 per cent, of the biggest navy in the Pacific in auxiliary craft. There is reason to believe that Mr. Wakatsuki, head of the Japanese delegation, in approving the Reid-Matsudaira understanding, had not consulted his expert advisers - a course which was deeply resented by the naval authorities and created a furore in certain circles in Tokio, the consequence of which we are yet to see. From the purely naval standpoint the London agreement is far from satisfactory. . . . The Treaty gives Japan 60 per cent, in 8-in. gun cruisers, whereas she considers 70 per cent, her irreducible minimum in this category. In submarines she is given equal tonnage (52,700) with America and Britain, whereas she thinks between 70,000 and 80,000 tons to bc her minimum requirement, irrespective of what America may build.

The French comment is by J. DocteurVice-Admiral of the French navy. It is as follows : -

France has not forgotten the Washington Conference. There we were humiliated by the lack of respect due a great nation, which played a prime part in the war and suffered the heaviest losses. The ‘fact that Italy, after waiting with us for a month, obtained the same ratio for ships of the line, gave her the idea that she should have parity with France on all points in the future.

Unable to retain her naval supremacy, Great Britain preferred for the moment to share it with the United States of America.

France runs a greater danger than the powers who accuse her of not having confidence in principles and of demanding guarantees. It is to be feared that special or national interests arc not sacrificed to international morality. France does not ask to be protected, but she could not consent to reduce her armaments under pressure from powers which do not wish to give her any guarantee of security.

To bc sure, the United States is officially indifferent to the opinion of Europe, yet it is Americans who have signed the most impor- tant plans for the re-organization of Europe after the war. A nation as great as this, which longs only for peace and the welfare of the world,’ cannot confine itself in selfish isolation, and wish to maintain it only by force.

It is evident that there is rather an antagonistic tone running through the French comment. The Italian comment was written by Carlo Schanzer, member of the Italian Senate, and former Foreign Minister. It is in these words -

It is certain that the London Naval Conference has not achieved the ends for which it was convoked, namely, an agreement ‘between the five chief naval powers of the world on the problem of disarmament as a whole and a reduction of their fleets.

As far as the three-power treaty is concerned, Italy welcomes it with sympathy.

The freedom left to France and Italy in their naval construction programme imparts a precarious character to the three-power treaty, since this freedom cannot but have repercussions on the naval armaments of the United States, of Japan, and especially of Great Britain, so much so as these powers have been obliged to safeguard themselves by means of a special clause in the treaty, which permits them to increase their naval construction programmes if those of the continental European powers exceed certain limits.

Italy, in any case, we repeat, welcomes the three-power treaty with sympathy, chiefly owing to its political importance. This treaty, in fact, means that the tremendous danger of a. conflict between the two great AngloSaxon nations, which had separated at Geneva in 1927 without being able to reach an understanding, has been definitely avoided, and that peace in the Pacific is assured. It will result in the saving of enormous wealth, which would have been swallowed up by a continuance of the race of armaments between the oceanic powers, and it means that these countries- can look forward with certainty to a period of peaceful development and economic progress, much to the benefit of the economic relations of the whole world.

What is the cause of failure to bring about a five-power agreement?

The answer is quite clear, not only or principally, as some would lead us to believe, on the account of the insistence of Italy on the principle of naval parity with France, but also - indeed, chiefly - because of France’s demand for a crushing naval superiority over Italy.

Italy’s demand for naval parity with the strongest continental European power is not, as has been stated, only a question of national prestige and pride, but is for our country a matter of life or death.

The London conference is over, but the problem of disarmament remains. In reality, the conference has not ended; it has only been suspended or postponed.

That is quite true, because the two powers - Italy and France - are endeavouring to get together now. Un. fortunately, the head of the Italian nation, Signor Mussolini, frequently gives vent to outbursts which stagger the world. The treaty was signed on the 22nj April, 1930, but in the next month - that is, on the 19th May - Signor Mussolini made a statement which was flashed to the press throughout the whole world. This statement is extremely important, because, if anything happens outside this treaty, it will happen between France and Italy, and the nations may be dragged back to old conditions of rivalry. Signor Mussolini’s speech is reported as follows : -

Signor Mussolini was wildly cheered while addressing a Fascist gathering at Florence. His speech was a remarkable one. “ Italy’s friendship is precious, but her enmity is hard,” he said. “ There- is great ignorance about us. People abroad think we are a minor people, but we are a nation numbering 40,000,000. They think we are governed by tyranny, but it is the Italian people who govern “ I am certain that in order not to remain prisoners of the sea the Italian people are capable of great sacrifices. More important than my speech to-day are the big guns and machine-guns which I shall see in to-morrow’s parade. “ The new naval programme will be carried out exactly as it was laid down in 1929, and new ships will be afloat because the Fascist will is a will of iron. “ There are people who think they can isolate Italy, and who would not be adverse from starting war against the Italian people, even through the territory of a third power. We will await them at the crossing. (Wild cheers. ) “ Fascist Italy henceforth will be a unit so organized as to be unassailable and without mortal danger. Though words are beautiful things, rifles, machine-guns, ships, aeroplanes, and big guns are still more beautiful. (Cheers.) “ Right is a vain word unless it is accompanied by might.”

I now ask the attention of honorable members while I read a short speech of General Smuts, of South Africa, which he made in January of 1930, before the Empire Parliamentary Association, in Westminster Hall. It is instructive to compare that speech with Signor Mussolini’s outburst, which I have just quoted. General Smuts, formerly Premier, and now Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, said -

To my mind there is no doubt that the world will remain a dangerous world. We are on the move; forces have been set going by the Great War and since, which are incalculable and almost uncontrollable. We see developments in the last ten or fifteen years in Russia, in China, in India, and practically *1! over the world, forces that are almost beyond human wisdom to measure or control; and therefore, whatever machinery of peace we are building up, the world will remain, is my opinion, for a generation or more to come, a dangerous world.

For an Empire like ours it is essential to follow lines of safety, and to my mind collaboration with the United States is probably the safest and best, the soundest and most statesmanlike policy that we can pursue.

This declaration was made in January, and the conference which followed in February practically carried out what he advocated. Recent events have also justified his statement that the world is a dangerous world. We have since seen what is happening in India and China; but still there is no doubt that the conference came to the right decision in limiting as it has the growth of naval armaments so long as adequate defence is retained by each of the Powers.

I agree with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) this afternoon, when he referred to the Royal Australian Navy. I have watched recent events closely, and I realize that the Government’s policy of reduced naval expenditure has been dictated by shortage of money. I have also read, though I do not agree with, the remarks of our Chief of Staff, in which he conveys a hint that, as we have not the money to run our Navy properly, we had better, perhaps, hand it over to Britain. We have to thank the Labour party for bringing the Navy into being, and for establishing the Royal Naval College at Jervis Bay, which, I regret, has now been closed. I candidly admit, however, that, had I been a Minister myself, I could not have done otherwise. The saving of £40,000 a year is justified in the present circumstances, when we remember that the trainees, as the result of their transfer to Flinders Naval Base, will be assisted by the presence of thousands of bluejackets, and a large number of petty officers. They will have every comfort training there. What they will lose, however as the result of the transfer, is the prestige and tradition of service associated with Jervis Bay. I remember that, when lunching on one occasion with

Rear-Admiral Sir George Hope, President of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, he expressed his pleasure that the first . two places at the college in the British Navy had again been taken by graduates of the naval college at Jervis Bay. That is a tradition of real value. That is gone how, because we have, not the money to keep up the college. I ask the Government, however, to be careful that .it does not push economy too far. We have had, as the saying is in the Service, to beach a. large number of officers and men - officers trained with the taxpayers’ money at a cost of £5,000 each. Sixty or 70 such officers, and about 800 men have been retrenched. What they are going to do I do not know, because a naval officer, trained as he is for special and technical work, is hardly fit for anything else. However, there is no money to pay more men. Again I say, let us not go too far. Admiral Evans has told us that the two ships, the Australia and the Canberra are, as regards training, 100 per cent, efficient. When the Canberra joins the British fleet she may be able to teach them something. Do not let us reduce that standard of efficiency. I shall not grumble about reduced expenditure if efficiency is maintained. So far as I can ascertain, the efficiency of our fleet has not yet been impaired, but the personnel is dispirited and dejected. The other day I tried to induce the Prime Minister to go down to Jervis Bay to see the ships off to Queensland. He was willing to do so, but at the time he had to attend conferences and hear deputations, and was unable to comply. The Labour party created our navy; let the Labour Government give it some encouragement. Let some of the Ministers go down and inspect the ships. Let them give the officers and men a pat on the back, as it were. They seem so isolated at present. Nobody seems to care a rap for them.

The London Naval Conference was a success to a certain extent, but it failed in three things. No five-power limitation was effected; only a three-power limitation. The projected abolition of submarines was not accomplished; they were only regulated. It was laid down that submarines are not in future to sink ships without first seeing that the passengers, crew, the ship’s papers, &c, are put in the boats. The proposed outlawing of capital ships was not agreed to, but important restrictions were made. The Minister has mentioned some of the gains which have resulted from the conference. In money alone the conference has saved Britain about £15,000,000 on cruisers, destroyers and submarines, while the total saving is estimated at about £60,000,000. A saving of some £40,000,000 could be effected by the United States of America, but is has the right to build new cruisers.

I agree with the Minister that the outstanding result of the conference was the cementing of a friendship between the United States of America and Great Britain. I have paid seven visits to that great republic in the last fourteen or fifteen years, and I have been impressed by the fact that on the New York side there is a strong anti-British and pro-Australian feeling. On the western side of the continent, the feeling is pro- Australian and partly pro-British. In the eastern States the people have always entertained fear as to Britain’s naval intentions, but this conference has brought about an improved political feeling. If the United States of America and Great Britain stand shoulder, to. shoulder, what has the English-speaking race to fear? Those two great countries have a common language, their customs are identical, and their tastes in literature and art are the same. “ I congratulate the Minister on the work which he accomplished at the conference. In all the circumstances, but mainly on account of the cordialrelations established with the United States of America, and with Japan still a friendly power, this Parliament should ratify the Treaty.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- We all subscribe to the ideal of worldwide naval and military disarmament and the general outlawry of war; but this policy needs much more than lip service, if it is to be effective. Any attempt to bring it suddenly into opera- tion by unduly weakening one nation’s strength before others instead of reducing the chance of war, might easily precipitate it. Disarmament must be a gradual process. There must be a sowing and growth to obtain the fruit of goodwill. The present .generation seems to have rather missed a grand chance to outlaw war, immediately after the last great conflagration. President Wilson had a unique opportunity, after the signing of the Armistice, to raise a standard that might have established the necessary conditions for the complete outlawry of international strife. But, unfortunately, since that time war seems to have been made more probable than ever, because the factors that tend to make for war have been accentuated. A potent cause of war is making a fetish of the rights of national self-determination, or displaying national vanity, which expresses itself in big military and naval forces.

A potent cause of war in the past has been the high protective tariff walls that have been raised between various countries. An essential preliminary of world-wide disarmament must surely be universal freedom of trade. An opportunity was missed at the conclusion of the late war to realize that ideal. There must be also a universal recognition of the right of all powers to carry their commerce over the ocean unhindered by other nations. * There was a’ tendency during the making of the Peace Treaty for the nations to aggrandize ‘themselves by trying to extend their territories to the greatest possible extent, either by direct acquisitions of their lands, or indirectly by means of mandates, A perusal of the world’s history shows that tariff regulations and trade opportunities, and particularly trade restrictions, have had more to do with past wars than any other factors.

We also observe that since the war many of the nations have steadily increased their naval and military strength. Of the three nations which have subscribed to the treaty under consideration, only the British Empire has really tried to conform to the basic conditions that will lead ultimately to disarmament. She has deliberately reduced her armaments.

The following figures indicate the relative naval strength of Britain, Japan, and the United States of America: -

Naval strength is of greater importance to the British Empire than to either the United States of America or Japan. Since the opening of the Panama Canal America has greatly improved its naval position to meet its additional responsibilities; but even if there were a sea blockade, its population of 120,000,000 could live in a world of its own. That could not be said of Great Britain and Australia, which are separated by thousands of miles of ocean. Although Japan is an island nation, her imperial possessions are fairly close to her shores. Despite the fact that all the seas of the world must be policed by the British Navy, and Britain’s sea-borne trade is still the largest in the world, she has shown herself willing to lead in disarmament by making a practical contribution in that direction.

As this treaty helps to the solution of the problem of disarmament I am prepared to support it, but it seems to be not so satisfactory from the point of view, particularly of Australia, as a five-power treaty would have been. Australia occupies an isolated position thousands of miles from the main base of the British fleet. She has a small population, and holds a huge territory, which is situated close to countries densely populated by people whose racial characteristics and standards of living are very different from our own. Our immigration policy is restrictive, and we have erected a very high tariff wall, which must tend to arouse hostility in certain quarters. When a country remains poorly defended, there is always a temptation to other stronger countries to engage in a war of aggression. An unoccupied territory invites attack rather than reduces the danger of war.

Let us examine the three-power pact that has been entered into by Great Britain, America, and Japan, providing for a definite limitation of armaments by each of those nations as to its benefits, if any, to Australia. In Great Britain the limitation that will be made as a result of the treaty has been received with mixed feelings. There is considerable public, as well as expert, opinion that too much has been given away, and that Great Britain is actually accepting a position of naval inferiority for the first time in centuries. No doubt this matter was carefully considered by the experts at the recent conference, but I remind the House that in the absence of a European arrangement which includes Italy and France, the position of Australia, and indeed of the whole British Commonwealth of Nations, is uncertain and unsatisfactory. Australia must send its produce to Britain, and obtain some of its munitions of war from her. The quickest route is via the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, hut if the Italian and French fleets are more powerful than the British, they will be able in time of war to interrupt Australia’s communications with the heart of the Empire. Therefore, any understanding to which those two nations are not parties can be accepted by us only with a certain amount of misgiving, especially, as, during recent years, Italians have shown a definite tendency to regard the Mediterranean as an Italian sea. Mussolini has said on several occasion that the future of Italy must be on the sea, and undoubtedly the position of Italy in Europe is similar to that of Japan in Asia. With only a limited area, it has a large and rapidly growing population, and when it looks abroad for other territories for settlement and development it finds itself hedged in on all sides by other nations.

Mr Fenton:

– Mussolini’s policy is to encourage the Italians to remain in Italy.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– He would prefer Italians to settle in Italian territories if new possessions could be obtained. I read in the Times Weekly Edition of the 12th June, a criticism .of Warren S. Thompson’s book, Danger Spots in World Population. Dr. Thompson is the head of an American foundation for the study of problems of population, and his book is an important contribution to the literature on this very controversial subject. I quote from the critique -

The hook lays stress on the capacity of Britain to do “ the gracious thing,” and the responsibility that will rest upon her if she is obstinate. Dr. Thompson is alive to the dangers of Imperialist sentiment, but thinks that Britain must accept the logic of facts. The days of her economic supremacy are, in his view, definitely over, and her own problem -the consequence of permanent unemployment - is peculiarly difficult, because her people are now too specialized to make good colonists. Her troubles would make it hard for her to resist diplomatic pressure, and in this connexion Dr. Thompson laid stress on the position of Italy in Europe, which is comparable to that of Japan in Asia. Italian needs would be met by the cession of Syria and Iraq, but Dr. Thompson, holding that powers in similar circumstances will draw together, foreshadows an Italo-Japanese coalition, to which Russia might also be a party. Faced by such a threat, Britain would use her fleet to maintain her Mediterranean communication, and would give ground in the Pacific. For the rest, Dr. Thompson pleads for full publicity as to the economic needs of nations, and for international conferences to decide how they may be met.

That book shows the trend of modern thought on this matter, and in facing the problem of Australia’s future security it is necessary to take even the remote possibilities into consideration. If war should break out, Australia might find itself completely isolated from other parts of the Empire. While the Minister for Trade and Customs was speaking, I asked by interjection whether the completion of the Singapore Base had been discussed at the Naval Conference. This is a matter of grave importance to Australia. Apparently the work has been hung up, although the construction of. the base was part of a compact entered into about 1924 between the dominions of Australia and New Zealand and the British Government.

Mr Fenton:

– Surely the right honorable member did not expect the Singapore Naval Base to be discussed at a Naval Disarmament Conference ? It will he dealt with at the Imperial Conference.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– A conference of the British Commonwealth of Nations should precede a conference with other powers regarding disarmament, because it is essential that the Empire should have regard to its own safety. Apparently the completion of the Singapore

Base has been postponed. The Sydney Morning Herald of the 24th June said -

The Washington Conference of 1921-22 resulted in the termination of the AngloJapanese alliance - the means of protection for over 20 years of any threat against Australia, of, for example, a Russian Pacific fleet from Vladivostock. When British statesmen say that war With the United States is unthinkable, they mean (incidentally) that American Pacific power ib so overwhelming that British naval strength in the Pacific could not withstand it in war, let alone attempt to attack it. To that extent, at any rate, such a war is, except as an act of felo-de-se, unthinkable.

The time has come for a very frank discussion between all parts of the Empire as to what our future shall be. No nation can be said to be completely independent which must rely to any substantial extent on extraneous aid in war time. If it is not in a position to defend itself, it may be drawn into the orbit of the protecting nation’s policy, and even into war, against its own inclinations. We should at the earliest possible date ascertain what naval strength the resources of the Empire can maintain, and then we shall have a better idea of what our future will be.

Mr Curtin:

– Having ascertained that, would the right honorable gentleman maintain the naval strength of the Empire at its maximum?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Knowing exactly its naval resources, the Empire would be better able to bargain with other nations, and even to exert pressure on them to reduce their armaments to a minimum. The British Empire is in danger of developing an inferiority complex, largely because of the tremendous propaganda carried on by America regarding its immense resources. Despite its wonderful development during recent years as a result of the skilful utilization of its resources, the United States of America is not nearly so large and rich an economic unit as the British Empire. Therefore, instead of the British Empire submitting to pressure by America, it should be able to influence America and other nations if it really organized and co-ordinated its material and military and naval resources. That might be wiser than consenting to a continuous reduction of armaments with an increase of the American and Japanese fleets in comparison with what they were fourteen or fifteen years ago. For the sake of its future prosperity the British Con -non wealth of Nations must assert itself. Britain is still in a position to lead the world, as it has done during the last 150 years in respect of naval design and strength, and that needs demonstration publicly as well as in camera. Counter propaganda may help us, not merely in respect of our military and naval preparations, but also in our industrial development. Since the League of Nations was brought into existence, the United Kingdom has become more and more entangled in European affairs. It is a signatory of the Locarno Treaty, and to some extent a guarantor of the maintenance of the status quo in Europe. The United States of America on the other hand is not committed to the extent of one dollar, man, or ship, by the Kellogg Pact. As Great, Britain is committed in regard to European affairs, we should not be satisfied with a three-power Naval Treaty, which does not bind other European countries, but should strive for a wider agreement which will make clear the position of the Empire in relation, not only to America, and Japan, but also to Europe. Unless we reach some such agreement, I foresee the possibility that at some future date, we may, as in 1914, be dragged into war willy-nilly, simply because the military circumstances of the time will leave us no alternative. At the forthcoming Imperial Conference a special session should be held with a view to arranging for a complete inventory of the resources of the Empire as a whole, and evolving a scheme for the most effective utilization of them. I welcome the threepower treaty, but I regret very much that it was to some extent an anti-climax. We hoped for something better, and I trust that the Prime Minister will represent to the British Government that the people of Australia, whilst thankful for a certain measure of relief in regard to naval armaments, will not be satisfied until a wider, more comprehensive, and generally more satisfactory treaty has been arranged.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Curtin) adjourned.

page 5618

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

In committee: (Consideration of Senate’s amendments).

Motion (by Mr. BEASLEY) proposed -

That the committee insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted upon by the Senate.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- I wish to know whether that is the only statement which the Assistant Minister proposes to make. If the committee merely insists upon disagreeing with the amendments proposed by the Senate, that will lead , to an impossible position. We are all aware that in another place it has been suggested that a conference between the two chambers should be held on this subject. We, in Opposition, are prepared to meet at any conference that may be proposed. Because of the late stage of the session, it may be difficult to arrive at a compromise upon the questions in dispute, but I hope that the Assistant Minister will give some explanation why . .it is not proposed to explore the possibilities of arriving at an agreement at this stage.

Mr BEASLEY:
Assistant Minister · West Sydney · ALP

– It was necessary, to conform with . the procedure of the House, to adopt the course that has been taken, and that is to move that the amendments be disagreed with. .But it is intended to follow that by moving a motion to the effect that a conference be held of members of both Houses, of. Parliament, and managers appointed .from this chamber.. “ .

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.V1 am aware that certain amendments with which it is now proposed to disagree have, in fact, been accepted, by the representative of the Government in another place. I presume, therefore, that the Government does not propose, by formally moving to disagree with all the amendments, to retreat from the position reached in another place.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Appointment of Managers.

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) proposed -

  1. That a conference be requested with the Senate on the amendments insisted upon by the Senate in the “Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904- 1928’,” and that the Senate be informed that in the event of a conference being agreed to this House will be represented at such a conference by five managers.
  2. That the managers for the House of Representatives be the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. McTiernanJ, the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Chifley), the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham), the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), and the mover.
Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- On behalf of the Opposition, Iwelcome the action of the Government in deciding to hold a conference on the amendments moved in another place on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I also welcome the proposal of the Government that the Opposition in this House, as represented by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) and myself, should attend the conference. I agree that it is desirable that the representatives at this conference shall be selected from each party in both Houses. It is provided, however, under Standing O rder 383, that during any conference the business of the House shall be suspended. We are approaching the end of the session, and I suppose that most honorable members have made their arrangements on the basis- that the session will terminate to-morrow. There is accordingly only a limited time available in which to hold a conference, and it would be wise to suspend that Standing Order so that the business of the House can be proceeded with, notwithstanding the absence of those engaged at the conference. In addition, Standing Order 390 provides -

It shall be the endeavour of the managers for the House to obain either a withdrawal, by the managers of the Senate, of the point in dispute between the houses, or a settlement of the same by way of modification or further amendment.

I should not be prepared, as I am sure that the right honorable member for Cowper would not be prepared, to act upon a conference under the terms of that Standing Order, because, in that event, it would be our duty to endeavour to obtain a withdrawal by the managers of the Senate of the amendments which they have proposed. We are not prepared to enter a conference under that mandate and direction. I hope, therefore, that the Assistant Minister will move that the Standing Orders that I have referred to be suspended. If that is done, I shall be prepared to enter the conference, and to endeavour to arrive by conciliatory methods at a settlement of the questions in dispute.

Mr BEASLEY:
Assistant Minister · West Sydney · ALP

– The Government had already decided to follow the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition; but it is adopting the correct procedure. The Government realizes that it would be impracticable for the managers appointed from either side of either House to act in accordance with the Standing Order 390. If both Standing Orders referred to by the Leader of the Opposition are suspended, I think that that will meet the position, and I am hopeful that a settlement will be arrived at by the conference.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion . (by Mr. Beasley) proposed -

That Standing Orders Nos. 383 and 390 be suspended for the purposes of the proposed conference.

Mr Fenton:

– I hope that what we are doing will not be taken as a precedent

Mr Latham:

– I quite agree that it is an exceptional case.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 5619

LONDON CONFERENCE ON NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Approval of Treaty

Debate resumed.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- The importance of the treaty signed by the London Naval Conference this year emphasizes the desirability of this Parliament considering, not only the text of the treaty itself, but also its effect. For more than a century the powers of Europe have endeavoured to compose their differences, and with the more recent expansion of the world, resulting in the development of the United States of America, Japan and Australia, the problems of Europe have become the problems of civilization. The important and binding decisions of countries in respect of war, and the removal of difficulties which might lead to war, have been the result mostly of conferences held outside the ambit of the League of Nations. This most recent treaty is an instance in point. Yet, curiously enough, the countries that are signatories to this treaty, with, the exception of the United States of America, are member states of the League, and as such have accepted the Covenant which imposes upon them, as a duty, the obligation to search out ways and means whereby armaments may be limited, and possible sources of conflict destroyed. In this post-war period the more frequent and the more important the consultations that the powers hold in the open light of day, the sooner will the world arrive at a basis upon which it is possible to preserve peace. Indeed, from one standpoint the supreme work of the League of Nations has been to bring before public scrutiny the contractual relations of the great powers. One of the important points in the late President “Wilson’s famous statement was that there should be public recognition, in effect, of the significance of diplomatic agreements. We have the late Viscount Morley’s memorandum, stating the reasons which led to his resignation from the British Cabinet in August, 1914. What brought about his resignation was the disclosure by Sir Edward Grey to the British Cabinet of the obligations that Great Britain had entered into with Prance. These obligations were of greater moment in compelling the British Cabinet to accept the. policy of non-neutrality than anything that Germany did in respect of Belgium. Indeed, in the memorandum it most definitely asserted that the situation in Belgium was not the real cause of Great Britain’s participation in the world war. mention that as evidence of the tremendous significance that attaches to making the public cognizant of the obligations that are entered into in these matters. It is true that individually the general public may not have a wide knowledge of these important subjects; but it is of supreme importance, for the maintenance of world peace, that public opinion should be educated in respect of the national obligations entered into by the leaders of the people. It may be said, of course, that this treaty is not satisfactory because it is not of universal application, and its application to Great Britain is inequitable, having regard to the manner in which her territories are distributed throughout the world. But apart from that, it is satisfactory that the treaty, even though agreed to behind closed doors, is well understood by the contracting countries. I suppose that every ministerial representative who attended this conference was obliged, before he left his native shores, to make a public statement, of the desires of his government. Moreover the press kept us supplied with a fairly workman-like progress report of the proceedings of the conference. As a matter of fact, we knew what the decisions of the conference involved, long before our own representative returned to Australia.

It is true that the conference has brought about a limitation of armaments, but, I think it will be agreed that the limitation of armaments, as such, does not do much towards the maintenance of world peace, or add to the security of the nations by minimizing the possibilities of war. The limitation of armaments - naval armaments in particular - has become imperatively necessary to the great powers, because of the economic exhaustion from which they are suffering as the result of the war. Australia, for instance, cannot possibly maintain that degree of naval efficiency, which we regard as necessary to ensure our security. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), said a few minutes ago that we should ascertain the requirements of the British Empire for effective defence, the policing of our trade routes, and the safeguarding of the interests of the various far-flung territories of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Having done that, we should ascertain how much we can afford to spend in that direction, and proceed to spend it. That is all very well, but w» cannot afford to spend much money in that connexion at present.

It is paradoxical that the construction of naval armaments has become the chief source of employment to whole communities in certain parts of the world. If armaments were not constructed, many people would be out of employment. The economic pressure which results from the use of the resources of the country in this way becomes very powerful in periods of depression, when there is a considerable amount of unemploy ment. T have no doubt whatever that if

Australia had sufficient resources at her command means would be devised to augment our naval strength, and so relieve the distress of certain classes of our people. That statement is also true of other nations. The will to peace seems to slacken in the presence of circumstances which appear to make necessary the employment of people on the development of warlike equipment. One can say truthfully, in passing, that whatever may be the desire for world peace of the great mass of the workers, in districts in which there are dockyards and arsenals a considerable amount of misgiving is always created when public expenditure on armaments is reduced. Instead of regarding the limitation of armaments as a guarantee of peace, therefore, I. regard it merely as further evidence of the financial difficulties of the great majority of countries in the world. These countries are unable, by force of circumstances, to compete in a race for armaments, and, therefore, they declare a sort of armistice, the basis of which is, in most cases, the maintenance of their relative positions for a given time; possibly, until they think that they will have more money to spend in this way. The giving of effect to the Article in the Covenant of the League of Nations which provides that the manufacture of armaments shall cease to be a source of profit to private enterprise in any country, would do more to promote the interests of world peace than the making of agreements to limit the construction of armaments. The traffic and gains of joint stock companies, or private enterprise of any description, from the production of war equipment for the purpose of profit are most menacing to the peace of the world. The signatories to the Covenant of the League realized, at Versailles, that so long as preparations for war remained a possible means of gain to substantial monetary interests in a community, there was a danger of exciting the minds of the people by fears as to the inadequacy of existing defence equipment. They, therefore, decided to discourage private enterprise from engaging in these activities. I regard the decisions of such assemblies as those held at Locarno, Washington, Paris and

London, as so many admissions that the nations concerned desire, because of lack of money, to call a temporary halt in the manufacture of armaments. Far more effective work would be done in the interests of world peace if the members of the League of Nations would bend their energies in the direction of persuading the united States of America and Russia to become members of it, and to accept the obligations which are imposed by the Covenant. I have said in this House on other occasions that, in my opinion, the consideration given to the annual reports of our delegations to the assemblies of the League of Nations has been altogether too perfunctory, and I reiterate that statement. It appears to me that the countries which participate in international conferences, apart from the League, must inevitably form group alliances, and if influential powers do this to any great extent, we shall, without doubt, revert, to the pre-war practice of dividing civilization into two camps, and it is immaterial whether one camp is powerful and the other comparatively weak. The very fact that there are two parties of this kind, with different ambitions, in itself, breeds suspicion. In a sense, therefore, the holding of such conferences, which are not universal, has a tendency to remind the people of possible danger, and the very object for which the conferences are held may be defeated.

Mr BERNARD Corser:

– The United States of America took the lead in regard to the Kellogg Pact.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is so; but she does not exhibit anything like an international concept. As a matter of fact, she brought the League of Nations into grave danger of destruction. We shall never do anything very effective to ensure that the causes of war will be lessened and, ultimately, removed, until we make a determined and earnest effort to bring the United States of America into line with the 50 odd countries which are already members of the League of Nations. Such an effort should be made, and have behind it the moral support of the whole community. I do not desire to embark upon a discussion of the reasons which led the late President Wilson to formulate the charter of the

League, and the United States of America to decline to sign the Covenant, for this would involve an examination of the domestic politics of the United States of America at that time. Yet, the fact that that country has hitherto refused to join the League has had an unfortunate effect upon the cause of world peace. We should do our utmost to invoke the support of the United States of America for this world institution. The pacts and treaties which have been formulated periodically at conferences at Geneva, Washington, London and Paris, are, after all, ephemeral in their effect, because they impose no obligations on . the countries which do not participate in them, whereas the meetings of the Assembly qf the League of Nations have an important effect, because more than 50 countries are under contractual obligation to be represented at them. Insofar as statesmanship and international wisdom can do anything to avert war, it can do it most effectively, in my opinion, through the instrumentality of the League of Nations. The treaty with which we are now concerned represents a distinct forward step. While I do not regard it as an arrangement which should lull the people into a sense, of “false security, the fact remains that five great powers - Great Britain, the United States of America, France, Italy, and Japan- have agreed definitely to limit naval armaments on a basis of parity. When we remember that this agreement has followed upon the acceptance earlier by the same countries of a definite obligation not to resort to war against one, another, we realize that here is the expression of a terrific force for peace if only the peoples of the rapedtive countries will exhibit a will to peace.

There are certain considerations which make the best of intentions in this regard difficult of fulfilment. However eager countries may be to compose differences with other countries, and to exhaust every avenue as an alternative to war, there are occasions upon which consideration of the material well-being of a people, and the preservation of its economic independence, may override its desire for peace. That observation is applicable to what took place in Europe during the period from 1900 to 1914. The struggle for the road to -Bagdad, and the conflict between steel and gold, as typified in the contest for commercial supremacy among the older countries’ in the new markets, led, step by step, to the alinement of the European countries in two great hostile camps. Then there is the rivalry of nations for possession of the sources of power, particularly oil. That commodity is in universal demand to-day. The enormous development in the use of the internal combustion engine has placed it in the power of those countries which control the world’s oil supplies to exploit the other nations of the world. This power excites Opposition, hostility and a sense of injustice among nations which do not possess oil supplies, and, leads them to follow policies at first provocative, and ending in a breach of friendly relations. It. is an interesting reflection that one of the most important functions of the League of Nations has been to supervise the government of certain areas which have been declared, in a sense, international territory, the administra-, tion of which has been handed over to particular countries on behalf of the League. . Professor Scott Neering makes the observation that perhaps the greatest possible contribution to peace would be, not so much the limitation of armaments as an international agreement to establish what he calls, the universalization of control .of the great oil-hearing areas, wherever they may be located. One must concede at once that the countries now in possession of those areas would be loath to give them, up. At the present time there is intense commercial rivalry for the right to exploit such areas. Without mentioning names, it may be said- that if a particular continent, rich in oil deposits, ever becomes a potential danger to the peace of the world, it will not be because of anything its people may do, but entirely because of what it possesses. It supplies a commodity universally required, and the desire for its possession by those les? fortunately situated must result in making its affairs of supreme international importance.

A succession of group pacts such as the London agreement of this year is not so valuable a contribution to the well-being and security of Australia as would be the inclusion in the League of Nations of all the representative countries of the world. Having regard to the tremendous economic power of the United States of America, no League of Nations can be regarded as effective which does not include that nation as a contractual member. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Page) remarked upon the effects of tariff and immigration policies, and quoted the restrictions which the United States of America had placed upon immigration. This policy, he said, involved possibilities of disagreement, and, therefore, imposed on Australia the necessity of maintaining what he described as effective defences. I believe that the peace of the world would be best secured, not by dividing the earth up into a number of “Kilkenny” States, but by preserving, as far as possible, existing great seats of power. I would rather have in the world half a dozen great empires, with their tremendous economic resources, than 50 or 60 different nations each endeavouring to assert its national independence. The future belongs to the great powers able to mobilize great resources. The fact that such powers would inevitably include peoples who would feel resentment at their inclusion, and who would claim the right of self-determination - in my opinion, a most unfortunate phrase - is to be regretted; but only in that way, I believe, can world peace be obtained. For that reason I disagreed, with the proposals frequently advanced during the war that the German Empire should be dismembered. While it was natural, perhaps, to make such proposals in view of what had happened, in the long run it would not have been a good thing, and for the same reason I would object to any proposal for the dismemberment of the British Empire. My objection would be based, not on any sense of racial pride, though, of course, that would necessarily be a factor, but on my sincere belief that, if the peace of the world is to be preserved, there must be ultimately half a dozen great world powers whose business it will be to preserve it.

I trust that Australia will always recognize that its defence policy should bc considered as part of the defence policy of the British Empire. I can’ see no possibility of Australia being able, within measureable time, to secure itself, out of its own resources, against danger of attack. We have a coastline which, if extended in a straight line, would stretch from Melbourne to Plymouth, and it is absurd to suggest that we, with our population of 6,000,000, can provide adequate naval defence for our continent. While 1 support any move for the restriction of costly armaments, and for the reduction of great armies and navies, and while I believe that conferences having that for their purpose should be regarded as valuable contributions to the peace of the world, I do not believe that the world’s greatest danger lies in big armies or powerful navies. What we have most to fear is the development of the methods of carrying on chemical warfare, and of means of transportation which will enable that method of warfare to be carried far and wide, throughout the world. Those things represent menace to the civil populations of the future compared with which the terrors of all previous wars pale into insignificance. Up to the present the risks of war have, for the most part, been confined to the actual combatants. Only those who have enrolled as soldiers or sailors have been really brought within the zone of conflict. In the future, however, the population - men, women and children - of . cities, no matter how far from the spot where war breaks out, will be in as great danger as the soldiers who are wearing the uniforms of their countries. The devastation will be shocking. The mind positively reels in an attempt to picture the ghastly consequences of another great war. Therefore, anything which this Government or this Commonwealth, or the Empire can do to avert the possibility of such a tragedy, should not be neglected. We owe it to posterity, not only to guard them from the menace of such a conflict, but more than that, to be careful so to shape our policy as not to leave them a legacy of entangling alliances or international problems which might constitute sources of future disagreement. We should treat every contact with other nations as an opportunity of cementing friendship, and explaining away misunderstanding. Tariff and immigration policies are not, in themselves, occasions of international difference.. I know of no great war which has arisen out of such matters. In most countries there is a growing recognition and appreciation of our motives for insisting upon the preservation of our White Australia policy. The more frequently our point of view is stated at international conferences, the better we shall be understood.

I wish to compliment the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Penton) upon the able manner in which he represented Australia at the London Naval Conference, and to express my appreciation of the speeches which have been delivered here on this subject by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) and the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page).

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah

, - I regret that a matter of such far-reaching importance as naval disarmament is being discussed at this late stage of the session, because the subject of defence is one in which every citizen of the Commonwealth should take an intelligent interest. I join with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) in the view that Australia’s defence is indissolubly bound up with that of the British Empire. For a considerable period we shall not be able to evolve a complete system of defence for Australia, and, therefore, we are dependent on an imperial scheme, a fair share of the cost of which we should be prepared to contribute. At the presenttime Australia is spending more on defence than any other British dominion. I have always said that an imperial scheme should be laid down, each integral part of the Empire contributing a share towards its maintenance. That great imperialist, Disraeli, laid down that principle, ‘and conservative leaders in Great Britain have supported and amplified it from time to time. I venture, with great diffidence, to express the opinion that while under the treaty which we are now asked to ratify, Italy and France have carefully looked after the interests of their respective countries, the defence of the British Empire has not been as completely safeguarded as it should have been. It may be that we in Australia, situated 12,000 miles from the heart of the Empire, are not able to view this matter from the angle from which Great

Britain considers it; but it seems to me that too much importance has been attached to the attitude of the United States of America in regard to the defence of Britain and the Empire. After all, America has few overseas possessions, and it is a comparatively simple matter for that country to provide for its defence. In this connexion the following extract from an article in the March issue of The Contemporary Review, entitled, “The Ultimate Politics of the Conference” by Mr. Norman Angell. M.P., is apropos -

When the Anglo-American negotiations began last summer, the editor of one of tb, largest and most popular daily newspapers in America said to the present writer:

The ultimate appeal in this matter will bc to “ boob opinion “’ in the United States - to Mr. Babbitt, and the drug-storekeeper in Main-street. They will feel, not necessarily that they have to prepare to fight John Bull, but that our ships and our navy should be just as big as his, by gum! Believe me, they will accept nothing less, Mr. Babbitt, and thu drug-storekeeper. They will consider tiles* negotiations a great success, and will be satisfied if, as the result of them, we are able ‘to splash across the front page, not “parity”, because Mr. Babbitt is not sure that he knows the meaning of the word, but - “ equality “ of the American with the British navy. Gopher Prairie will then be happy, and we shall understand each other. And Senator Sorghum knows exactly what the drug-storekeeper feels, and will play up to this desire for equality. And why not? Aren’t we as big as John Bull? That’s how we feel about it.

That, after all, is the attitude of America. It learns with great satisfaction that it is not called upon to spend the amount that it suggested should be devoted to the building up of a navy that would beat the world. While that country joined the League of Nations, which was a result of American participation in the late war, put forward the Kellogg Pact for the outlawry of war, and induced all the leading nations to subscribe to it, a proposal was brought forward in its Congress for the greatest naval programme, so far as expenditure is concerned, that the world has seen. One doubts the bona fides of America in matters of this kind, and the British Empire should ‘not be guided by that country’s policy. We should provide what is regarded as necessary for the defence of the Empire, and let the other nations do as they please.

Britain and the Empire have little to gain from too rigid a consideration of the views of other nations in naval affairs, beyond the usual international treaty alliances. When there is trouble, the brunt of it, both the fighting and the cost, is borne by this Empire. So long as it maintains its solidarity, and amply provides for its own defence, it can be independent of other nations. Although, in recent years,” Britain has led the way towards disarmament, her example has not been sufficiently followed by other nations. I cannot, help feeling that the defence of the Empire is not sufficiently safeguarded by this treaty. Like the United States of America, Japan, too, has merely to defend one country. She is without neighbours that are likely to cause her trouble; but Britain cannot afford to ignore France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Russia. I do not take exception to the attitude adopted by France and Italy at the conference. They set out to provide for their own defence; but I would feel more confident than I do if Great Britain had adopted a more definite attitude regarding the defence of the Empire. Australia should tax itself to a sufficient extent to enable it to contribute its share towards > the cost of providing an adequate system of Empire defence. We shall be told that as a result of this treaty the British Empire will save about £50,000,000 before 1936. At the Washington Conference, Great Britain, the United States of America, and Japan agreed that before 1936, 26 capital ships, each of 35,000 tons, armed with 16-inch guns, should be built at a cost of £7,000,000 each. That represented a total cost of £182,000,000. Actually the only capital ship that is likely to be built before 1936 is the La France to replace one of a similar name and offset the new pocket battleship built by Germany. Therefore, although Mr. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Fenton), may tell us that the British Empire will save £50,000,000 by 1936, the fact is that, even had the London Conference not been held, that money would probably not have been expended, because it is exceedingly unlikely that any new capital ship would have been laid down. Because of the impression made on public opinion by the holocaust of 1914-18 there is no likelihood of a world war in which the British Empire will be engaged taking place within the next ten years, at any rate. Therein lies our safety. It is true that the treaty may be renounced at any time by any of the signatories. Whilst I am generally in agreement with the result of the conference, I incline to the view that, in the event of an outbreak of war, Great Britain and its dominions, under this treaty, would be inadequately protected.

Mr FENTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I am grateful to honorable members for the manner in which they have received the treaty. “I concur generally in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham), the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Page), the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Marks), and even the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill), and particularly with the last-named’s statement, that, so far as the human mind can judge, there is no likelihood of another world war within the next ten years. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) said that sometimes the effect of nations meeting and formulating treaties for the reduction of armaments was the creation of groups which, because of mutual jealousy and suspicion, become a menace to world peace. I am glad to say that the recent conference in London was in constant contact with the League of Nations. An experienced observer representing the League attended most of the meetings, and was conversant with all the proceedings. One of its final decisions was that a complete copy of the treaty should be sent to the secretariat of the League, with a covering note from the chairman, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, inviting perusal and criticism of the treaty by the League’s experts, and expressing the hope that at the forthcoming Assembly it would be considered with a view to the adherence of France and Italy.

Whilst it is true that the United States of America and Russia are not members of the League of Nations, both, as well as 53 other nations, are signatories- of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The purposes of the pact are stated in exquisitely simple language, and I draw the attention of the House to the two following passages.

Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war, should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty;

The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be. which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

To those sentiments all the chief nations of the world including Great Britain, the United States of America, Germany, France, Russia, Austria, and Japan have subscribed.

I am glad to know that this Parliament, following the lead of the British House of Commons, the Canadian Parliament, and the Senate of the United States of America, will agree to the treaty unanimously. I was particularly glad to read that it was carried in the Senate of the United States of America by 57 votes to 8. I believe that vote expresses the feelings of the American people, and that all the nations that signed the treaty will, ultimately, ratify it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 5626

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION BILL

Second Reading

Mr BEASLEY:
Assistant Minister · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The need for up-to-date legislation governing the payment of compensation to Commonwealth employees for injuries received in the course of their duties, has been long recognized. During the currency of the two previous parliaments amending bills were introduced, but because of the termination of the sessions and the holding of elections it was not possible for either to be carried to completion. The present act was brought into operation as far back as 1912. Since then different States have legislated on this subject, and the Commonwealth act is now out of date. Conditions affecting industry have so changed since 1912 that both the present Government and its predecessor thought it desirable to repeal the existing act entirely rather than attempt to amend it. This bill now provides for comprehensive and up-to-date legislation, and follows generally the lines of the bills introduced on previous occasions. The Commonwealth employees are not entitled to participate in the compensation benefits conferred by State statutes and, therefore, Commonwealth legislation on the subject is essential

Clause 3 provides for the repeal of the act of 1912, but safeguards the employees’ rights for which eligibility was acquired under that statute. Clause 4 contains a new definition of “employees” and indicates the classes of workers who will be entitled to the benefits of this legislation. Honorable members will notice that members of the naval, military and air forces, do not come within the definition and will, therefore, not be subject to the provisions of the bill. The impracticability of including the members of the fighting forces, who may, at times, he required to proceed on active service, will be appreciated by honorable members. The administration of the act will be a responsibility of a commissioner for employees’ compensation, and the bill provides that the permanent head of the Treasury shall ex officio be such an authority. That is in accordance with the present practice.

The bill will effect a departure from existing legislation, under which questions of compensation are decided by agreement, arbitration or by the court. This practice frequently involves delay in the settlement of claims, and it is thought that by vesting powers of administration in a Commissioner it will be possible to effect in the interests of employees a general speeding up of all relevant matters. It will be observed, however, by reference to clause 20, that any person who may be affected by any determination or action of the Commissioner may avail himself of a right of appeal upon application to a county court. This provision is considered most desirable, and provides a satisfactory safeguard to employees against a decision by a Commissioner which the employee may consider not warranted by the facts of his particular case. Clauses 6, 7, and 8 are mainly machinery provisions defining the powers of the Commissioner, and his general responsibilities, and are not of a contentious character. Clause 9 deals with the rights of employees for compensation for personal injuries suffered. The first schedule sets out the scale and conditions of compensation which may be paid in respect of injuries received. It will be noted, however, by a perusal of sub-clause 1 b, that compensation will not be payable to an employee if it is proved that the relative injury is attributable to his serious and wilful misconduct. unless the injury result’s in death, or serious and permanent disablement. The clause further provides that where an employee dies as a result of injuries, and leaves no dependants, compensation shall not be payable except in regard to medical attendance, and to cover funeral expenses. Apart from actual injuries received in the course of duties- performed, the bill covers the case of employees who may be affected by, or whose deaths may result from, occupational diseases. These particular complaints,, in respect of which compensation would be payable, are set out in the second schedule. It is, of course, necessary to provide safeguards in the interests of the Commonwealth where the particular diseases may not have been contracted during the currency of the employee’s service with the Commonwealth, and provision to this effect has accordingly been made. As indicated previously, when dealing with clause 9, the Commonwealth is assuming liability, not only for compensation the purpose of which is to grant a definite monetary recompense for injury which may- have been received, but also for medical expenses to cover the cost ‘ of essential and proper treatment of the employee concerned.

Clause 11 provides that the Commonwealth shall bear the cost of medical, surgical, or hospital treatment in relation to an injury, up to a maximum of £100 in any one case. That provision is most desirable, and I am sure that it meets with the general commendation of. the House. In discussing the provisions of clauses 9 and 10, I have dealt with the manner of treatment of employees who may suffer certain injuries, or in other cases, through their employment, may be effected by occupational diseases. In both these circumstances there may be, of course, complete recovery; but, on the other hand, the physical injury may involve an employee in a permanent disability by the loss of a limb, or by the affection of his senses of sight or hearing, or in his powers of movement, or, in exceptional cases, by impairment of mentality. These particular cases are specially dealt with in clause 12 and the third schedule. Compensation has been provided on a scale ranging from the maximum payable under the act to a minimum of £75 in respect of the loss of a joint or a toe. Where, however, an employee would be covered by the provisions of clause 12 and the third schedule, there shall be deducted from the amount determined for payment under such schedule any amount which may have been received by the employee under . the . first schedule in respect of any period of -his’ total incapacity arising from injury. The need for this restriction will be obvious to honorable members. Clause 13 prescribes the maximum amount of compensation which may be paid to . any employee. . Such sum is set .down at £750, which, however, is exclusive of such medical benefits as may be awarded to. him for treatment df his injury, These benefits, as already pointed out, are provided in clause 11. The1 standing- of civil employees of the Defence Department, required special consideration ‘by virtue of the fact that provision for ‘ payment of compensation had already, to an extent, been applied by regulations under the Defence Act 1903-27 and the Naval Defence Act 1910-18. To ensure regularity, clause 14 makes provision for the repeal of any relevant regulations which may at present be in operation under the acts that I have mentioned. The usual safeguards have, however, been provided, so that the rights of any employees shall not be affected, in circumstances which ordinarily would have been appropriately dealt with in such regulations prior to the passage of this legislation. Similar action has been taken in regard to the operation generally of the 1912 act. Officers who come., under the Public Service Act are also covered, to an extent, by a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator. Certain benefits have been awarded by the Arbitrator in respect of personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. In this connexion the bill provides that at the option of the employee he may elect to take compensation or benefits either under the operative determination or under this act. Honorable members may regard this provision as being a departure from the uniformity which has been stressed as being so desirable. The Government considers, however, that no action should be taken which would affect the rights and privileges of employees obtained by arbitration, and, while it may be said that this Parliament is paramount on questions of this description, if the Government can show good cause why a determination of the Arbitrator should not continue in operation, the proper course is to establish that fact before the Arbitrator with the object of having the determination varied or, if necessary, repealed. This clause does not prevent the Public Service authorities from proceeding in that direction if circumstances warrant such a course.

Dr Earle Page:

– The arbitrator has given a determination on this particular matter, and, in his judgment, he stated that he did so because of the inadequacy of the act. The act is now being altered to make it adequate. I, therefore, suggest that the Government should ask the Arbitrator to vary his award so that the question of compensation may be dealt with separately. If that were done, much of my objection to clause 15 would be removed.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Clause 16 defines the time within which proceedings may be taken for compensation under the act. Its object and meaning are clear, and it does not appear to me to require any elaboration. While the bill has been framed primarily to deal with the cases of employees whose injuries would establish a liability upon the Commonwealth, it has also been considered necessary to deal with the cases where the attendant circumstances may create a legal liability in relation to a third party. Clause 17 has been framed to deal with such cases. It is proposed that while an employee may, in addition to making a claim against the Commonwealth, also take proceedings against a third party to recover damages, he shall not be entitled to both compensation and damages. It is also provided that where the employee has actually received compensation under the act, the Commonwealth shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person liable to pay the damages, and machinery has been set up for the recovery of such indemnity.

Clauses 18 and 19 deal with the appointment of medical referees and the medical examination of employees who may be injured. The provisions are plain and non-contentious.

Earlier in my speech I referred to the right of appeal which may he exercised by employees against any determination or action of the Commissioner. This right of appeal is to a county court, and is provided for in clause 20 of the bill.

Clause 22 is the only other one that requires mention. It is proposed that the measure shall apply to employees of prescribed authorities of the Commonwealth, such as the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Shipping Board. But unless special action is taken to the contrary, the liabilities for compensation, &c., must be borne by the authorities concerned. In the event of the act being applied to Commonwealth Bank officials, the liabilities will be borne by the bank authorities. Honorable members will agree that this is desirable.

I commend the measure to honorable members in the belief that it is comprehensive and up to date, and deals as generously as possible with employees of the Commonwealth who may he unfortunate enough, in the course of their duties, to suffer personal injuries or, in other circumstances, may be affected by occupational diseases.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) adjourned.

page 5628

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

In Committee: (Consideration of Senate’s amendments).

On motion by Mr. Scullin, amendments to clauses 5, 8, 11, 14, and 25 were agreed to.

Clause 12 -

Section twenty-five of the principal act is amended -

by inserting, after-paragraph (e). the following paragraph: - ” (ea) any periodical subscription by a person in respect of his member- ship of an association (whether corporate or unincorporate ) unless - (i)that subscription is expressly allowable as a deduction under any of the provisions of this act;

ii ) the carrying on of a business, or the exercise of a vocation or calling, from which assessable income is derived by him is conditional upon such membership; or

the association carries out, on behalf of its members, during the year in which the assessable income of the person was derived, any activity of such a nature that, if carried out by that person on his own behalf, its expense would be an allowable deduction to that person under this act:

Provided that in a case to which this subparagraph applies the person shall be entitled to a deduction of only so much of his subscription as bears to the whole of the subscription the same proportion as the losses or outgoings so incurred by the association in carrying out that activity bear to the total losses and outgoings (not being in the nature of losses and outgoings of capital) of the association for that year; “ ;

Section proposed to be amended -

A deduction shall not in any ease be made in respect of any of the following matters : -

Senate’samendment. - Leave out paragraph a.

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Yarra · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be disagreed to.

This clause provides that the deduction of certain subscriptions shall not be allowed. Honorable members will recollect that this subject was debated at some length when the bill was under consideration previously in this chamber. The Government cannot accept this amendment, because to do so would greatly reduce the total field of taxable income, and thereby reduce the amount of revenue estimated to be derived from income taxation this year.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.-I appreciate the reason given by the Treasurer (Mr. Scullin) for refusing to accept this amendment. The High Court held, in a recent case, that such subscriptions were deductible from income for taxation purposes. I deplore the practice of over-ruling decisions of the High Court by introducing amendments of existing legislation in this way.

Motion agreed to.

Senate’s Amendment. - After clause 10 insert the following new clause: - “ 19a. After section fifty-one a. of the principal act the following section is inserted: - 51b. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act a taxpayer who is dissatisfied with any opinion, decision or determination of the Commissioner under this act (whether in the exercise of s discretion conferred upon the Commissioner or otherwise) and who is dissatisfied with the assessment made pursuant to or involving such opinion, decision or determination shall, after the assessment has been made, have the same right of objection and appeal in respect of such opinion, decision or determination and assessment as is provided in sections fifty, fifty-one and fifty-one a of this act.’”

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I move -

That the amendment be amended as follows: - “ (a) by inserting after the word under’ the words ‘section twenty-one a, paragraph(n) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section twentythree, or sub-section (2) of section twenty-nine of; and

by omitting the words ‘the assessment’ (first occurring) and inserting in their stead the words ‘ any assessment ‘ “.

This amendment was inserted by another place in order to make possible a review by the court of certain decisions given by the Commissioner; but it has made all the decisions of the Commonwealth subject to review. My amendment will limit the review of the court on the appeal to the court to matters which arise under the sections mentioned.

Mr Scullin:

– I am willing to accept the honorable member’s amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Scullin, Mr. Fenton, and Mr. Blakeley be appointed a committee to draw up a reason for disagreeing to the Senate’s amendment to clause 12.

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Yarra · ALP

– The reason drawn up by the committee for disagreeing to the Senate’s amendment is as follows: -

This ‘amendment will greatly reduce the total field of taxable income, thereby reducing the estimated revenue from income tax which has been included in the budget estimates for the current financial year.

Reason adopted.

page 5630

INCOME TAX BILL 1930

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That a tax be imposed on income at the following rates, namely: -

Rate of Taxupon Income Derived, from Personal Exertion.

For so much of the whole taxable income as does not exceed £7,600,the average rate oftax per pound sterling shall be threepence and three eight-hundredths of one penny where the taxable income is One pound sterling, and shall increaseuniformly with each increase of One pound sterling of the taxable income by three eight-hundredths of one penny.

The average rate of tax per pound sterling for so much of the taxable income as does not exceed £7,600 may be calculated from the following formula: -

For everypound sterling of taxable income in excess of £7,600, the rate of tax shall be sixty pence.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions, where a person would, apart from this provision, be liable to pay income tax of an amount less than Ten shillings, the tax payable by that person shall he Ten shillings.

For every pound sterling of the taxable income in respect of which a trustee is liable to be separately assessed and to pay tax, the rate of tax shall be the rate which would’ be payable under subdivision A, B or C, as the case requires, if one individual were liable to be separately assessed and to pay tax on that taxable income.

In addition to the tax payable under the preceding provisions, there shall be payable -

In addition to any tax (including additional tax) payable under the preceding provisions, there shall be payable, in the case of incomes in respect of which the tax is calculated under subdivisions A, B, C or E -

In addition. to any tax (including additional tax and super-tax) payable under the preceding provisions, there shall be payable, where the total taxable income (not being income in respect of which the tax is calculated under subdivision F) is not less than five hundred and one pounds-

For every pound sterling of the taxable income of an individually owned private company, the rate of tax shall be determined as follows : -

For every pound sterling of the taxable income of a severally owned private company, the rate of tax shall be determined as follows: -

Individually Owned Partnerships Other Than Trusts Which are Partnerships.

For every pound sterling of the taxable income of an individually owned partnership, the rate of tax shall be determined as follows: -

Trusts Which are Individually Owned.

For every pound sterling of the taxable income of a trust which is an individually owned partnership, the rate of tax shall be determined as follows: -

For every pound sterling of the taxable income of a severally owned partnership, the rate of tax shall be determined as follows: -

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended and report adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Scullin and Mr. Fenton do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. Scullin, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 5632

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER No. 70

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That Standing Order No. 70 be suspended for the remainder of this sitting in order to allow further new business to be taken after 1 1 p.m.

page 5632

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1930

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee: (Consideration of Deputy Governor-General’s message).

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum for invalid and old-age pensions.

Resolution reported; Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Scullin and Mr. Fenton do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. Scullin, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 5632

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1930

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee: (Consideration of Deputy Governor-General’s message).

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant andapply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum for war pensions.

Resolution reported; Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Scullin and Mr. Fenton do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. Scullin, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 5633

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL

Message recommending appropriation repprted.

In committee: (Consideration of Deputy Governor-General’s message).

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Grafton to South Brisbane Railway Act 1924-29.

Resolution reported; Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Scullin and Mr. Fenton do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. Scullin, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Yarra · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to appropriate a further sum of £100,000 with which to complete the construction of the Grafton to South Brisbane railway. The completed cost of the undertaking is now estimated at £4,450,000. An act was passed towards the end of 1929 authorizing the appropriation of £350,000 for this work, which brought the cost of the railway up to £4,350,000. The expenditure has exceeded the estimate through a number of causes, one of them being phenomenal rain, which resulted in damage to the earthworks. This line is part of the uniform railway gauge system, and its construction has occupied about eighteen months longer than was anticipated. It is expected that the line will be opened about the 1st October next.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 5633

LOAN BILL

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee: (Consideration of Governor-General’s message).

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation oi moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the raising and expending of certain sums of money.

Resolution reported; Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Scullin and Mr. Fenton do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. Scullin, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Yarra · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The amount the raising of which is authorized by this measure is that announced in the budget proposals. The sum estimated to be required is £4,127,000. The net loan expenditure was £8,231,000 in 1928-29, and £5,291,000 in 1929-30; and the estimated expenditure for 1930-31 is. £4,127,000. The proposed expenditure for 1930-31 is £1,164,000 less than in 1929-30, and £4,104,000 less than in 1928-29. The details of the three years’ comparison will be found in the budget papers at pages 46 to 49. The schedule of items is based on details contained in the loan estimates, but all these proposals are being closely reviewed, and substantial savings are anticipated. I cannot give the details now, but we anticipate making certain cuts in the Postal Department, in connexion with war service home? and in the Federal Capital Territory.

Mr Hawker:

– Are the Canberra baths under review?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes; the whole expenditure of the Federal Capital Territory is being reviewed. It is expected that a saving will be made in connexion with the Commonwealth railways appropriation of £104,000. The States are being asked to reduce their demands with respect to advances for purchases of wire and wire-netting. In defence works, and sundry other works, savings are anticipated. The estimated expenditure shown in the loan estimates is £4,127,000. from which must be deducted £100,000 for the Grafton to South Brisbane railway, leaving £4,027,000. To the latter sum we must add the savings shown in the Estimates of £14,000; repayments £165,000; and redemptions of old South Australian loans, taken over in respect of the Northern Territory, £750,000, bringing the total to £4,956,100. It is necessary to appropriate the gross amounts. Although the estimated expenditure is £4,127,000, from which we propose to make substantial reductions as we review the Estimates, the total appropriation is £4,956,100, the difference being largely due to the redemption of old South Australian loans. Clause 2 of the bill gives authority to the Treasurer to borrow £5,200,000. This covers the total of the items in the schedule, namely £4,956,100, and the estimated flotation expenses and discount in issue price, for which £243,900 has been allowed.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that it is proposed to review the loan expenditure. This bill is brought down to cover the loan expenditure referred to in the budget and in the loan estimates; but the Prime Minister has said that the .Government will review, in particular, the loan expenditure in the Post Office, in connexion with war service homes and in the Federal Capital Territory. He has called attention to the fact that this is a proposal to spend substantially less loan money than was spent here last year, and much less than in the year before. The Government, of which I was a member, determined last year that loan expenditure must be substantially reduced, not because it is desirable to reduce expenditure as such, but because it was impossible to continue expenditure on anything like the same basis as that adopted in the past. This is a time when we must live within our own resources to the greatest possible extent. The bill provides for the borrowing, on behalf of the Commonwealth of £5,200,000. I presume that that money is to be borrowed with;n Australia. Existing facts of which we are all well aware make it most unlikely that we could raise money abroad on reasonable terms. The diminution of loan expenditure results in de creased employment; but if money is not subscribed to Commonwealth loans, it will be available for other purposes, and will be used in other ways that will provide employment. It is a mistake to suppose that a diminution in loan expenditure necessarily means, pro tanto, a decrease in employment.

Among the amounts for which provision is made in the loan estimates is one for the construction of a survey boat for the development of fisheries. For many years it has been recognized that there is scope for further development of our fisheries. When one is invited to invest in a gold-mining enterprise, or in a “ talkie “ film, one is asked to believe that there are plenty of good fish in the sea, and that belief applies in the case of fisheries; but I have some doubt whether this proposal is now brought down for the purpose of investigating the possibilities of the water surrounding Australia, with a view to establishing fisheries, or whether it is not rather designed to provide work at the Cockatoo Island dockyard. I am willing in every way to make work available there upon a proper basis; but I do not think that we have heard anything in this House yet as to the desirability of, much less the necessity for, constructing what is called a survey ship, in connexion with the development of fisheries. Though this may be a very good proposal, how many honorable members know anything about it? All I have seen concerning it is a statement in the press by a Minister. This House has certainly never made a decision on the matter, and this is an occasion on which we have an opportunity of doing so. I suggest that information should be given to us regarding the possibilities of the development of fisheries, and the contribution that a survey boat is expected to make to that development. As a fisherman, I am well aware of the speculative nature of the industry. My fishing, in which I engage regularly every year, has been on a highly unfinancial basis, and I do not regard myself able, notwithstanding my extensive experience, to advise upon the commercial possibilities of fisheries. We want to know what the proposed survey boat is intended to survey, whether it will be a trawler or a research vessel, and what the cost of its maintenance will be. The sum of £50,000 is a good round figure for a boat of this kind. I know that fishing is’ highly speculative when pursued by private enterprise, and it may be equally risky when undertaken by the Commonwealth authorities. Therefore, I suggest that information be supplied regarding this matter.

Another item to which T call attention is the proposed . expenditure of £500,000 for building war service homes. I think that these homes are about the finest investment ever made with Commonwealth money. The administration of the department in recent years has been markedly successful, and the building of these homes upon special terms for returned soldiers is one of the most desirable activities in which the Commonwealth could engage; but, at the present time, there is no crying necessity for new homes. As I said on another occasion in this chamber, there are, unfortunately, thousands of houses empty, and desirable as it may be for particular -individuals to obtain the advantageous “terms offered under the war service homes scheme, we ought to consider carefully the- wisdom of spending so much as £500,000 at the present juncture.

The proposed expenditure of £2,500,000 of loan money by the Postmaster-General should also be reconsidered. ‘ There are many postal works which we should be very glad to see carried out; but we have to recognize that we must cut our coat according to our cloth. Abstention from spending loan money does not necessarily mean that employment will be diminished ; it implies that instead of the money being spent in government ventures, it will be used in private enterprise. We must learn to live upon a moderate scale, and be. thrifty in the provision of postal facilities as in relation to a number of other matters. In our private lives we save money by taking care in small things. We have to do this, and every section of the community must do -it, especially in times like the present. I should like to buy a new motor car, but I am still using an old one which I have had. re-painted. In public as in private finance we must recognize the necessity of living strictly within our incomes. Many of us would like to buy better houses and furniture, and bigger blocks of land. These possessions would be very pleasing, and if we set our minds upon them we shall be disappointed if we do not get them. We must, however, realize the folly of running into debt in order to acquire what are relative luxuries. We must resolve to be content with humbler things. It would be very nice to have up-to-date concrete or bituminoussurfaced roads throughout the Commonwealth, but I am afraid that for some years we shall have to content ourselves with roads of a lower grade. Similarly in -regard to postal facilities, we cannot go ahead in a lean year as fast as in bountiful years. . Our expenditure in prosperous times ‘ is naturally and properly higher than when the national income is reduced. I do not seek to disguise the fact that the Government is proposing a substantial reduction in loan expenditure as compared with last year, and a very large reduction in comparison with the previous year. This is inevitable ; but I suggest that we must cut still further if we are to live within our means.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I congratulate the Government on having found it possible to make a further cut in the the loan programme for this year. In my speech on the budget I urged that, if possible, this should be done, because I did not believe that the amount of money required in the current year, namely, £25,000,000, could be raised in Australia at the present time. We have to remember that, in addition, a considerable increase in taxation has to be met, and the funds available to meet these demands are limited. When I was Treasurer I found that the maximum amount of new money that could be raised in a prosperous, year in Australia was £13,000,000, and I shall be much surprised if the Treasurer is able to raise locally this year more than from £15,000,000 to £17,000,000. The danger of trying to raise too much money by offering a high rate of interest is that it tends automatically to diminish the deposits in the savings and trading banks. When these institutions find their deposits depleted, they are obliged to curtail advances to private enterprises,, and that promotes unemployment. If all the money to be found for Commonwealth and States is to be raised in Australia, we shall have to curtail loan expenditure more than has been already done. This is the last opportunity which the Prime Minister will have before his departure for London to take the House into his confidence in regard to the general position of Australian finance and the loan market. It is due to the House that he should on this occasion make the fullest possible statement of the financial prospects of both Commonwealth and States.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Francis) adjourned.

page 5636

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Conference.

Message received from the Senate intimating that it had agreed to a conferonce with five members of the House of Representatives on this bill, and had appointed Senators Daly, Barnes, Sir George Pearce, McLachlan, and E. B. Johnston to represent it at such conference; also that it had appointed the Senate committee-room as the place, and the hour of 12.30 a.m. Friday, 8th August, as the time for the holding of the conference.

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) agreed to.

That the time and place appointed by the Senate for the conference be agreed to.

page 5636

LOAN BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I am pleased to notice that the loan authorization for this year will be reduced to £5,200,000. This is a reduction on last year’s Estimates of over £2,500,000. I presume that if this amount is voted the Government will carry out the works mentioned in the schedule. Under the Postmaster-General’s Department is a lump sum of £2,500,000 for various works, including the erection of buildings. Amongst them are new buildings at Ipswich. For years I have been urging the Deputy-Director pf Posts and Telegraphs in Queensland, and the PostmasterGeneral here in Canberra to estab lish a new automatic telephone exchange at that town. Am I to infer from the schedule that my long-sustained efforts are about to be rewarded with success? The existing manual exchange in Ipswich has long outlived its usefulness, and I am daily in receipt of complaints regarding its unsatisfactory operation. Ipswich is only a short distance from Brisbane, where an up-to-date automatic telephone exchange is in operation. A new device has been installed which is designed to give quick communication between Ipswich and Brisbane, and to meet the increase in business many new lines have had to be provided. This has operated very satisfactorily. With a more efficient telephone exchange at Ipswich there should be an increase in the number of subscribers. Will the Prime Minister inform me what part : of the £2,500,000 provided for the Postmaster-General’s Department will be allocated to the Ipswich automatic telephone exchange, and whether the work will be undertaken this year.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– I stress the need for re-considering the item of £50,000 for the construction of a survey boat in connexion with the development of the fisheries industry.

Mr Scullin:

– That amount will not be expended. The project will have to he referred to the Public Works Committee before the Government can act.

Mr PROWSE:

– I am glad of that assurance. I. shall go home happier if the Prime Minister will assure me that, in view of the financial straits of Australia, the Government will save £60,000 on the construction of a vessel for lighthouse purposes. It is vulgar for this country to be borrowing money from people abroad with a lower standard of living than our own in order to construct a ship locally for an amount which would purchase two abroad. Having regard to the existing financial circumstances, I urge the Government to take this opportunity to effect a sure saving of £60,000, without depriving itself of the new vessel.

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– The schedule includes in the Department of Works an item of £20,000 for “Commonwealth offices, Brisbane, including demolition and re-erection elsewhere of miniature rifle range already on site.” For three successive years this item has appeared on the Loan Estimates.

Mr Scullin:

– I am afraid the honorable member will see it again.

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– Recently the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay) alluded to the fact that three times the Public Works Committee recommended the construction of these buildings. I understood that the last Government had definitely arranged with the Commonwealth Bank to proceed with the work, and that the bank would assist. I do not urge the Prime Minister to proceed with the erection of these buildings at the present time, but “hope springs eternal in the human breast “, and as the item appears in the schedule, I desire to know whether that indicates a real intention on the part of the Government. Even the removal of the miniature rifle range would inspire the people of Brisbane with some confidence that eventually the Commonwealth offices will be erected.

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

.- Most honorable members realize the truth of what the Prime Minister has said regarding the seriousness of the financial position. In those circumstances, the appearance of certain items in the schedule is surprising. The right honorable gentleman has stated that the Government does not propose to proceed with’ the construction of a survey boat for the development of the fisheries industry at a cost of £30,000. When I asked a question some weeks ago’ I did not receive a definite reply, and the inclusion of the item in the schedule suggests that the Government intends to proceed with the work.

Mr Scullin:

– I stated that the Government does not intend to proceed with it; indeed, it has not yet been referred to the Public Works Committee.

Mr MACKAY:

– What then is the object of including the item in the schedule? In regard to the construction of a vessel for the lighthouse service at a cost of £120,000, a majority of the House has decided that that work shall be proceeded with. Having regard to the financial position and the very definite’ report of the Public Works Committee, I regret that the Government is persisting in this project. An amount of £500,000 is1 provided for the erection of war service’ homes. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that there is a surplus of houses at the present time. I commend the War Service Homes Commission for the excellent value it has given to the soldiers. I have always said that war service homes are a much better investment for the returned soldiers than are many of the worker’s homes erected under the various State schemes. When the War Service Homes Commission was established there was a shortage of houses, and building materials were dear. That: position has now been remedied, and it is time to consider whether it is not advisable to reduce the activities of the commission. I urge the Prime Minister to make a close investigation of these items so that no unnecessary expenditure may be incurred.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I should like to have from the Prime Minister a more definite assurance about the construction of swimming baths at Canberra.

Mr Lacey:

– The work is practically finished.

Mr HAWKER:

– At least it should be postponed while the country is financially embarrassed. There are not many inland towns, even in the district which the honorable member represents, in which are swimming facilities equal to those at Canberra without the provision of baths. Last summer I frequently had the pleasure of swimming in the Molonglo, and I understand that there are swimming facilities elsewhere in the Territory. The expenditure of public money on the construction of swimming bath3 at Canberra is at this time of financial stress a frivolous waste of money, and must have a bad moral effect on the community as a whole. I urge the Prime Minister not to incur this expenditure, at any rate, this year.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I urge the Minister for Trade and Customs : to equip all lighthouses on the Australian coast with wireless facilities. I have mentioned this subject on two or three occasions in this House, and it is high time that we brought the lighthouse service up to date. Because of the excessive isolation of the people who garrison the lighthouses, their wives and families iri cases of sickness are exposed to grave danger. I know that there is a difficulty in regard to wireless transmission. Many of the lighthouse-keepers have installed their own receiving sets, and are able to listen to the ordinary radio news. If the Minister desires advice in that direction, he should ascertain what the Australian Inland Mission is doing in Queensland. That body has issued to many inland stations simple transmitting sets, which are made at small cost by the employees .of1 the mission, and by the use of a few simple signals in Morse code assistance can be obtained- at any time. In addition these stations have installed radio sets, and can listen-in to the ordinary news. If all lighthouses were equipped with receiving and transmitting sets the occupants would be brought closer to civilization, and assistance could be readily obtained in case of sickness. Recently two aviators who made a forced landing near the Cape Don lighthouse, which is on the mainland, were missing for a week because of the lack of wireless facilities. I urge the Minister to confer with the mission authorities with a view to instal. ling transmission sets at small cost in our various lighthouses.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

– To the present I have been denied the right to’ reply to certain statements made, by the Postmaster-General respecting my criticism of the letting of contracts to overseas companies involving expenditure amounting to £71,670. When I previously mentioned this matter in this House I was actuated solely by the desire to serve the workers of this country who, had those contracts been let to Australian tenderers, would have secured employment. It will be remembered that the Postmaster-General referred specifically to one of two Australian tenderers. The United Distributors’ tenders for this work was £65,216 as against £71,670 quoted by the Standard Telephone & Cables Limited. It was claimed by the Postmaster-General that the United ‘ Distributors were unable to carry out that contract, although it had installed two of the principal B-class broadcasting stations in Australia - the 2KY station of the Sydney Trades Hall and the 2GB station which belongs to the Sydney Theosophical Society. These two’ stations are recognized by experts to be as efficient as any others in- the world. I am concerned not so much with the position of the United Distributors as I. am with that of Amalgamated Wireless Limited, whose quotation was some £50,000 more than that of the successful tenderer. What I regret is that in the statement of the Postmaster-General no mention was’ made of the ‘ actual, facts accounting for that difference. I have ascertained :that the successful tenderers were permitted, in consultation with the department, to modify the original tender as advertised. No such opportunity was given to Amalgamated Wireless Limited,’ to alter its original tender so that this work could be effectively tendered for by Australian firms and carried out in Australia. In my criticism of the Postmaster-General, L am supported by both workers’ and employers’ organizations. Following the emphatic protest of the Amalgamated Engineering Union against the policy of the Postmaster-General’s Department in placing contracts with foreign firms for wireless and telegraph apparatus, which could readily be manufactured in Australia, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the Metal Trades Group of the Labour Council of New South Wales: -

The Metal Trades Unions are of the opinion that the continuance of the Bruce Government’s policy of placing the vast majority of its contracts for Postal Department supplies with foreign firms, to the detriment of local industries, should not be tolerated by any Labour Government, particularly at a time when large masses of skilled and unskilled workers are workless and destitute, and also when the economic depression demands a drastic restriction of imports and a courageous support of local industry.

So that I could prepare a reply to the Postmaster-General, I naturally asked that the tenders of the successful tenderer, and the accompanying documents, should be made available for inspection at the Sydney General Post Office, in order that the unsuccessful. tenderers and I could examine them. Much to my regret, the Postmaster-General refused that request, on the ground that it would not be in the interests of the public to make the documents available.

Mr Francis:

– Hear, hear !

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– The PostmasterGeneral will doubtless be pleased to know that his action meets with the approval of at least one honorable member of the Opposition. In my opinion, it is treachery to the interests of the public not to make the documents available. In the absence of the information that I asked for, it has been impossible for me to make a complete reply to the PostmasterGeneral. When his refusal to make the documents available to me became known, the Radio and Telephone Manufacturers Association, which is a section of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, immediately took action, and in a document issued by that’ body it is stated that the Chamber of Manufactures is most incensed with the’ Postmaster-General’s Department in connexion with the letting of an important contract to a company whose headquarters is in a foreign country, for the equipment of five relay broadcasting stations which could have been manufactured in Australia.

It is now still further concerned by the refusal of the Postmaster-General. (Mr. Lyons) to allow the unsuccessful Australian tenderers to examine the details of the contract with a view to enabling them to quote for similar material in the future on an equal basis. In this connexion, it carried the following motion on the 28th July:-

The Radio and Telephone Manufacturers Association, which is. a section of the Chamber of Manufacturesof New South Wales, learns that the Postmaster-General, baring accepted the tender of a company which has. its headquarters in a foreign, country for five relay broadcasting stations, refuses to divulge to Australian manufacturers whose offers were rejected, details of the equipment which the department has ordered from overseas.

The association views this action with astonishment and dismay, and sincethe Government has. announced its intention of calling for fresh tenders before awarding further contracts, the association feels that its members are entitled to know exactly what the Government is obtaining from its oversea competitors, so that they will be in a better position to tender in future.

The association reminds the PostmasterGeneral that, when a newmachine is imported into Australia for manufacturing purposes it is the practice of the Commonwealth Government to give facilities to all bona fide manufacturers to study the new appliance with a view to arranging for its manufacture in Australia.

When a member of this association desires to import a piece of new apparatus or machinery at a concession rate of duty, he must furnish the department with complete illustrations and details, and sign the following form of assurance : -

In many respects the specifications for these five broadcasting stations left tenderers latitude to tender as they thought best. The result is that where one may have recommended equipment of a certain standard of value, another may have suggested much better but more expensive equipment. There is no definite information available to me in this regard, as Amalgamated Wireless Limited, one of the unsuccessful tenderers, appears to he unwilling to enter into public controversy upon this subject. But it is common knowledge in radio circles that tenderers left to their own devices are. likely to make widely differing recommendations for carrying out the same work. If the Postmaster-General advertised for a motor car to do a certain -run, one tenderer might quote for a Morris, anotherfor an Austin, another fora Sunbeam, and another for a Rolls Royce. Each car would doubtless do the job, though some would prove more effective than others, and, of course, the price would vary in accordance with the quality . of the article quoted. In this instance, I am informed that Amalgamated Wireless Limited, when submitting its original quotation, asked the department to open negotiations with a view to an alternative price being submitted, based upon any modification which the department might deem advisable ; but, as the Ministers statement implied, no reply or overture of any kind was made to this proposal. On the contrary, the department opened negotiations with the American firm, and considerable discussion and correspondence ensued before the contract was finally made - not on the original tender, but on an amended tender. It seems fairly clear that the department approached the subject with a predilection for the foreign tenderer, and neither the lower nor the higher Australian quotation received any consideration. It is stated in radio circles that the successful tenderer proposes to supply masts 120 feet high for these relay broadcasting stations. These masts may be effective, but Amalgamated Wireless Limited quoted on the basis of 200-ft. masts. It is well known that the erection of wireless masts 120 feet high is a simple matter. A few men, a few guy ropes, a “ heave-ho one-two-three alltogether “ and up she goes. Rut the erection of a 200-ft. mast is an engineering feat which doubles or trebles the expense of this part of the business, quite aside from the fact that a 200-ft. mast costs about three times the price of a 1 20-f t. mast. This may seem a small matter; but it is cited to show that if the department had been really sincere in its desire to give the Australian company a chance to secure this contract it would certainly have mentioned such matters as the mast, and secured a modification of the tender in these respects - assuming, of course, that it was satisfied that a mast 120 feet high would do the job. In the old days very high masts were used, but shorter masts have been found to be effective for the shorter waves. It is necessary to know whether the foreign tenderers for these broadcasting stations were given exclusive information by the department of the wave length proposed to be used, which enabled them to fix the height of their mast much lower than was considered necessary by the Australian company, which had no such secret inside information.

The reasons that actuate me in asking, now that the contract has been definitely let, that details shall be made available as to the precise nature of the equipment to be supplied will be obvious. This information has been refused, and the Minister has stated that the reason why he will not allow the unsuccessful tenderers to know what is being supplied by the American contractor is that to give such information would be a breach of faith. This is grotesque. The Minister has been led astray by his imported adviser. Tenders were called for the supply of a particular apparatus, and the specifications were drawn in a way which favoured a particular foreign company. In some re,spects the specifications were left open, giving the tenderers a certain measure of discretion to make offers in accordance with their own judgment. Negotiations were opened with the foreigner before the tender was let, but the suggestion of the Australian tenderer to discuss the Australian offer in detail was ignored. ,Now, on behalf of the radio manufacturers of Australia, it is asked that the precise details of the accepted offer be made available. This is a fair an,d necessary demand, and I ask that the Prime Minister direct that it he granted.

The Radio and Telephone Manufacturers Association strongly dissents from the view of the Postmaster-General that secrecy is necessary in respect of these tenders. This secret policy was initiated at the time the secretary of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department was appointed, and has been maintained by him. It constitutes a violation of the spirit and intention of Commonwealth law, and places Australian industries and workers at a great disadvantage, as it prevents local tenderers from ascertaining the details of the successful tender, and provides no means of checking the bona fides of officers who have at their disposal the placing of millions of pounds worth of postal contracts. I, therefore, ask that the Postmaster-General bring the methods of his department into line with the common practice of other public bodies, and adopt an open policy in regard to details of tenders.

Something was said to-day, while questions without notice were being asked, about the cost of preparing a reply to certain questions upon notice which I asked recently. I submit that the fact that the replies disclosed that contracts to the value of more than £5,392,000 have been placed overseas since the present secretary of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has been in office entirely justified the asking of my questions. I was not informed that a great deal of expense and trouble would be involved in furnishing me with the information I desired, but the very fact that so much investigation and work was necessary to make this information available, shows that the methods of the department demand investigation, and thoroughly justifies the attitude I have adopted in regard to the secretary of the Postmaster-General’s Department since I have had the honour of being a member of this House. I would not criticize any permanent public official in a mean spirit. I was a permanent officer of the Public Service of New South Wales for 40 years, including the four years which I spent on military service with the Australian Imperial Force. I have attacked the policy adopted by the Secretary of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department because, in my opinion, it is inimical to the best interests of Australia. I contend that if the Secretary of the Postal Department were a competent administrator all data would have been properly recorded. The information that I desired on this occasion should not have taken two months to prepare. It should have been readily available. That it was not so available is a further grave reflection on the administration of the Postal Department. I mention these facts in justification of my attitude of protest.

In conclusion, I urge the Prime Minister to take steps to prevent the placing of orders for these five radio stations abroad and to direct that the contract documents under review be made available for inspection as demanded by me. I trust that the instructions of the Postmaster-General in this regard will be reversed, and that his department will adopt a more wholeheartedly Australian outlook.

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Yarra · ALP

– The amount of £50,000 which appears on the schedule for the construction of a survey boat for the development of the fisheries industry, was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham). It might be desirable to proceed with this work if the money were available; but the whole position will have to be thoroughly investigated. Our loan position, speaking generally, requires the very closest attention. It is not the desire of the Government to prevent necessary works from being put in hand ; but we must take every possible step to ensure that undue strain shall not be placed upon our resources. There is no prospect of our proceeding with the construction of this vessel at present. In any case, the matter would have to be referred to the Public Works Committee for investigation and report.

The honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. D. Cameron) referred to the amount of £20,000 provided for the construction of Commonwealth offices in Brisbane. Although this amount has been on the loan estimates for several years, there is very little prospect of anything being spent at present. Since these estimates were prepared the outlook has considerably changed. We must have regard to the amount of money that can be raised in Australia - and there is no suggestion that we should go aboard - and use what we can get to the very best advantage on absolutely essential works.

The amount of £500,000 which has been provided for expenditure on war service homes is half the amount provided last year for this purpose. Of this sum, about £300,000 has already been ear-marked. I agree with honorable members who have said that the expenditure of more money on war service homes would be difficult to justify while there are so many war services homes empty.

The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) referred to the necessity for a new telephone exchange at Ipswich. An amount of £100 is being provided this year towards the total amount of £8,500 which will ultimately be required.

Mr Francis:

– I suppose that that may be taken as an indication that the work will he proceeded with when money is available?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes ; with the qualification that the department is making a thorough investigation into the whole subject of automatic telephone exchanges - rural, suburban, and city. It is questionable whether we should continue to construct these exchanges, to replace manual exchanges, seeing that they involve the use of so much imported material, and displace many manual workers.

Mr Francis:

– They are very profitable.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That may be so; but in our present circumstances we have to consider whether we should not spend such loan money as we can get on works which will provide more employment for our people.

I am not sure of the exact position in regard to the Canberra baths. The excavating and some of the concrete work has been done. I may be able to let honorable members know in the morning whether the contract for the tiling has been let. If so, the work will have to proceed; otherwise the Government will consider whether the expenditure proposed in this regard can be reduced.

The provision of wireless equipment for lighthouses is necessary, but the Government will have to consider whether it can incur the expenditure at present. The cost would doubtless be small, but many small items make a large aggregate sum, and I repeat that we must cut down expenditure in every possible direction.

I shall look into the matter mentioned by the honorable member for Martin. I do not know whether these contracts have been actually signed. If so, the work will have to be proceeded with; if not, the Government will consider whether so much money should be spent on imported material at present.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Friday, 8 August 1930

page 5642

ADJOURNMENT

Select Committee on Tobacco Growing.

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– I wish to reply to the remarks of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) in reference to the report’ of the select committee on the tobacco industry. The honorable member went out of his way to cast a most serious reflection on the work done by the members of that committee. His remarks have received widespread publicity throughout Australia, and, as chairman of the committee, I feel it to be my duty to place the true position before the public. The honorable member for Henty, with his characteristic exuberance and disregard for facts, and his flair for smart journalistic phrases, stated that this report was not worth the paper it was written on, and added, with his usual recklessness, that the investigation must have cost between £2,000 and £3,000. His actual words were -

The approximate cost of the printing and publishing of the report was£413, but I suppose a moderate estimate of the cost of this precious inquiry would be between £2,000 and £3,000.

For the information of honorable members I shall state just what the investigation did cost. The cost of the investigation itself was £738 7s. 2d., while the cost of printing and publishing in connexion with the issue of the report was £413, making a total of £1,151 7s. 2d. Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his enthusiasm on behalf of the interests of a great tobacco monopoly which he has so ably championed on several occasions in this House, made the stupid statement that the cost of the investigation was between £2,000 and £3,000. The effect of his remarks was to convey the impression that this Parliament had been guilty of grave extravagance in authorizing an inquiry, the report in connexion with which was not worth the paper it was written on..

As a matter of fact, this investigation has been one of the cheapest jobs of the kind ever done. The honorable member was grossly unfair to the five members of the committee who devoted six months of their time, mostly during parliamentary recesses, to the. business of the country. For this they received no reward other than the ordinary allowance for travelling expenses,in order to ensure that the inquiry would not involve undue expense, the committee decided to shorten its proceedings by at least six months, and to make the report available by the date mentioned in the resolution. I feel sure that honorable members who have read the report will admit that it a very comprehensive one, and that its preparation must have involved a great deal of work. I have never’ before been associated with a more conscientious group of men than those who formed this committee. They went to infinite trouble to investigate the subject from every angle. The remarks of the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition constitute a gratuitous insult to the members of the committee, and he misused his position in this House to make a gesture on behalf of one of the biggest commercial monopolies in Australia. The honorable member, for Hentyis addicted to making astonishing statements which will not bear the test of criticism. All through his speech on the report ofthe committee he seems to have gone out of his way to throw mud on the members of. the select committee. He said that the committee, after six months’ work, merely came to the conclusion that he, in. his Solomonlike wisdom, had come to twelve months ago. A year ago, when the honorable member was Minister for Customs, he spoke on the. motion moved by myself that a select committee to investigate the tobacco industry should be appointed. Those honorable members who were present on that occasion will remember how definite he was in his assertion that my arguments in favour of the appointment of a committee were unsound, and that there was no case at all for the appointment of the committee. On Monday last he expressed himself as satisfied that what he had said on the previous occasion was justified. The material upon which he based his remarks last year were furnished to him by the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company. He had no opportunity of stating his case from his own knowledge of the industry. He said that it had taken the committee six months to find out what he knew twelvemonths ago, but it is significant that on that occasion when the motion for appointment of this Select Committee was considered, Sir Robert Best, the legal adviser of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, was within the precincts of the House. It is evident that the honorable member for Henty is well disposed towards this tobacco monopoly, and the fact that he has exhibited this so clearly, largely discounts the value of his criticism regarding the work of the select committee. At the end of his speech, which was most disjointed, and, in my opinion, indicated clearly that he had not read the report of the committee; he indicated his desireto bestowhis blessing upon this monopoly. He said -

In many other directions theselect committee appears to have found no foundation for the charges against the British-Australasian Tobacco Company. I am sorry to have to say that this report is one ofthe most valueless documents ever presented to this Parliament as a result of an extensive and expensive investigation.

Any man who makes such a statement, in view ofwhat has been disclosed by the report of the select committee, clearly indicates that his intention is to buttress the interests of the monopoly. It is evident that he is determinedto place a halo on the brows of those directing the company, and he has used hia position in this House for the purpose. I do not know how many honorable members have read the report of the committee, but those who have done so will dispute the correctness of the remarks of the honorable member for Henty.

The honorable member for Henty derided the work of the committee, and stated that it led nowhere. In answer to that charge, I point outthat the Queensland Government has just announced that it has made 30 tobacco farms available in the Mareeba district, thus indicating its belief that there is a great future before the industry. Further, 1,000 acres of the best tobaccogrowing land in Victoria has been made available for tobacco farms in the Pomonal district. Severalnew tobacco companies have recently been formed in Australia, and all these activities are, to a large extent, the result of the work of the select committee on the tobacco industry. I feel sure that it was we who created the interest which led to this stimulation of the industry. Evidently the honorable member did not make himself acquainted with the facts, yet he’ had the audacity to stand up in this House and say that the work of the committee is valueless. The following paragraphs were published in a recent issue of the newspaper, The Land: -

The reason that Australian tobacco smokers are more Virginian in their tastes than Australian is that they have been brought up on the Virginian flavour.

There has been a hopeful demand of late for Australian tobacco, and the manufacturers have been caught napping. As the result of the present campaign for using homegrown leaf, the demand for Australian tobacco has increased so rapidly since January that the manufacturers are unable to meet it. Consumers like the Australian flavour (so we learnfrom various sources) after taking a week or two to become used to it; butthey cannot got supplies. Nevertheless,smokers should keep on asking for the Australian brand, even if it takes six to twelve months before sufficient supplies are available. If smokers weaken in their demand because supplies are short, then foreign growers will achieve a victory won for them by Australian smokers. But if Australians persist iri their demand for Australian leaf, the Australian manufacturer will meet it.

The select committee has outlined in its report a scheme which will enable Australians to smoke Australian-grown tobacco.We have discovered that it is easy to grow good tobacco here, tobacco which is already being used in pipes, cigars and cigarettes, and is equal- to that grown in America after 300 years of experimentation. The honorable member should have made himself acquainted with the facts before he ridiculed the work of the committee, and tried to make out that the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company, which has had a monopoly of the tobacco trade in Australia for the last 30 years, is a public benefactor. I do not propose to attack the company, but it, like all other monopolies, has used its position to make profits out of the public. For many years the prices of its commodity have been steadily increasing, and its shareholders have grown wealthy on the money provided by the Australian public. The select committee has endeavoured to point out a way in which the present unsatisfactory position may be improved. It has shown not only how the producers may obtain a better return from their industry, but also how the smokers of this country can obtain a satisfactory product grown in their own country, at a price considerably less than that which they have had’ to pay hitherto.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 August 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1930/19300807_reps_12_126/>.