House of Representatives
30 November 1932

13th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon.G. H. Mackay) toot thechair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3121

QUESTION

SALES TAXATION

Soda Water - Bitumen

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that soda water fountains are exempt from sales taxation and soda water is not, will the PrimeMinister see whether this anomaly can be rectified?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– I shall look into the matter, but I cannot give the honorable member much hope that the exemption will bo granted.

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As bitumen used by government departments for roadmaking purposes is exempt from sales tax, will the Prime Minister consider whether a similar exemption can bemade in respect of bitumen used by local governing bodies? The remission of such taxation would make more money available for the provision of work.

Mr LYONS:

– I shall look into the matter.

page 3121

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY LESSEES

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– In view of the fact that the world’s depression knowsno geographical boundaries, and that the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments are endeavouring to assist all primary producers, will the Minister instruct the Administrator of the Northern Territory to defer action in repossessing the Crown lands at present held by pastoralists who, owing to the collapse in the cattle market,are unable to meet their rent obligations? Seeing that such action is contemplated to-day, will the Minister direct the Administrator to accept the promise made by pastoralists that they will endeavour to pay their arrears after their next sale of cattle?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall bring the hon orable member’s question under the notice of the Minister for the Interior.

page 3121

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report No. 3 brought up by Mr. E. F.

Harrison, read by the Clerk, and, by leave, agreed to.

page 3121

QUESTION

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Assistant Minister for Customs yet in a position to make a statement to the House regarding his recent conference with the tobacco manufacturers? If not, will he do so before the House adjourns this week? The matter is urgent, because the planting of next season’s crop is now being commenced, and growers are uncertain as to the outlook.

Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs · BASS, TASMANIA · UAP

– I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter to-morrow, or the following day.

page 3121

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF NAURU COMMISSION

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister administering the affairs of Nauru and Ocean Island inform me whether a claim made two years ago by the British representative on the Phosphate Commission for fees for chartering vessels to bring phosphatic rock from Africa and Florida has been settled, and if so, how much was paid ?

Mr MARR:
Minister for Health · PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– A settlement has been reached, and I shall furnish the honor able member with details of the amount paid.

page 3121

QUESTION

PRICE OF BUTTER

Mr WATSON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Commerce whether it is a fact that the price of butter has fallen to the lowest level of price for 30 years in London since the decision of the Export Control Board to withhold their exportable surplus?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– It is a fact that the London price of butter is extremely low. This is not the consequence but the cause of the action taken by the Export Control Board torestrict exports from Australia.

The Board, which is composed of members elected by the dairying industry, has restricted exports in the hope that this action will bring about an appreciation of the price of butter in London.

page 3122

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF MILITARY CLOTHING

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Many persons who are practically without clothing have asked me recently to request the Government to make available to them before the Christmas season any naval and military stores that arc available. I ask the Prime Minister whether anything can be done in this regard, for the distress of some of these people is acute

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall inquire whether anysurplus clothing is available, and whether it is desirable that it should he distributed.

page 3122

QUESTION

GUIDES TO PENSIONS AND SALES TAX LEGISLATION

Mr HOLMAN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

-Will the Prime Minister inform me whether there is a simple guide to our pensions legislation available for the use of pensioners and others interested in the subject? If so, will he have the amendments made by our recent legislation incorporated in the guide? I should also like to know whether he will discuss with the Attorney-General the practicability of reprinting our pensions acts in a consolidated form?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall discuss with the Attorney-General the practicability of publishing a consolidation of the acts. Action is on foot at present for the publication of a guide to our sales tax law so that clear and reliable information may he available to the general taxpayers, and I shall inquire whether something similar can be done for the information of pensioners and others.

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– According to the report of the Commissioner of Taxation a start was made in August, 1930, with the preparation of a simple guideto our sales tax law. Will the Prime Minister inform mo when that guide will be available to honorable members and others interested?

Mr LYONS:

– I understand that it will be issued very shortly.

page 3122

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Position at Canberra and Darwin.

Mr NELSON:

– In view of the success of the threatened march of the unemployed of Canberra on Parliament House, as reported in the Canberra Times this morning, I ask if the Government will prevent a similar march of the Darwin unemployed on Parliament House by stating what Christmas relief it intends to give to the unemployed of the Northern Territory ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall bring the honorable member’s question under the notice of the Minister for the Interior.

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that even if provision is made, as reported in the press this morning, for providing work for about 550 unemployed persons in Canberra over the Christmas period, 100 will still be left without work, will the Government make provision to provide some relief for all the unemployed hero?

Mr LYONS:
WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP; UAP from 1931

– The Government is doing everything possible to provide for the unemployed of Canberra, but it cannot be expected that the whole of the unemployed will be provided for here any more than that they will be provided for in the other capital cities of the Commonwealth. If the Government could provide for all the unemployed everywhere it would be very happy to do so. But I assure the honorable member that everything possible will be done with the funds at our disposal to provide some relief before Christmas for the unemployed.

page 3122

QUESTION

DEFAMATORY PRESS STATEMENTS

Mr DEIN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether in view of the two recent verdicts against the Labor Daily for libel, and the admission by counsel for that newspaper in a third ease, which was settled out of Court, that the statements complained of were known to be untrue and libellous-

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is not in order to give information when asking a question.

Mr DEIN:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether the proprietors of journals which publish libels cannot be brought within the provisions of the Crimes Act in order that the honour of our citizens may be protected ?

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

– The law of defamation is entirely the concern of the States. There would be considerable difficulty in drafting Commonwealth legislation to deal with the subject, though perhaps some aspects of it could be covered. It appears, however, that in the instances mentioned by the honorable member, the law of the State has provided a remedy which will be satisfactory to most honorable members of this House.

page 3123

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY COMMITTEE

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I lay on the table of the House the report of the proceedings of the informal Bankruptcy Committee, constituted of members of this House, together with supplementary reports, and move -

That the report be printed.

This report results from an innovation in the procedure of this House. Honorable members will recall that, when the amending Bankruptcy Bill was before the House earlier in the year, it was passed on an undertaking being given by the Assistant Treasurer that a committee would be set up, representing all parties and sections in the House, for the purpose of considering the amendments. The committee was appointed in August, and consisted of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom), who waschairman, the honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Baker), the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Holman), the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Hunter), the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price), and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr.Rosevear). The committee held sixteen or seventeen meetings altogether, but its members received no pay or remuneration of any kind for their work. They have done useful and valuable work, and have presented a report which, I am sure, will be of value to honorable members. It is only proper that I should express, on behalf of the Government, its appreciation of the assistance rendered by these honorable members, not only to the Government, but also to Parliament as a whole. The committee was particularly fortunate in having the benefit of the services of the honorable member for Darling Downs, who was so closely associated with the introduction of the original Bankruptcy Act. It is being arranged that the report shall be printed, and I shall endeavour to have it circulated, together with copies of the amending bill, so that honorable members may consider them before legislation is introduced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3123

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Lyons), agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until to-morrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 3123

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Munitions Supply Board - Report, from 1st July, 1929, to 30th June, . 1.931, together with report of Commonwealth. Government Clothing Factory for year ended 30th June. 1931.

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinance of 1932 -

No.6 - Export of Bananas.

Papua Act - Ordinances of 1932 -

No.6 - Arms, Liquor and Opium Prohibition.

No. 7 - Native Taxes.

Superannuation Act - Tenth Annual Report of the Superannuation Board, 1931-32.

page 3123

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT SUPREME COURT BILL

Motion (by Mr. Latham), agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an Act to establish a Supreme Court of the Territory for the Seat of Government, and for other purposes.

page 3123

NEW BILLS

Pursuant to resolutions of leave, the following bills were brought up and read a first time: -

Beaches. Fishing Grounds, and Sea Routes Protection Bill.

Colonial Light Dues Collection Bill.

Public Service Bill (No. 2) 1932.

Wheat Bounty (Claims) Bill.

page 3123

COLONIAL LIGHT DUES (RATES) BILL

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motion (by Mr. Stewart) agreed to -

That colonial light dues at the rate of 1d. per ton of her register tonnage shall be imposed, with respect to each voyage of a ship, British or foreign, which is at any port, harbour or place in Australia, and which, in the course of any voyage to or from Australia, has passed and derived benefit from any of the following lighthouses or from the following buoy, namely: - -

Lighthouses. - Gun Cay, Abaco, Cay Sal, Great Isaac, Cay Lobos, Elbow Cay, Great Stirrup Cay, Castle Island, Inagua, BirdRock, Watling Island.

Buoy. - Matanilla Shoal.

Sombrero Island.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

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

page 3124

COLONIAL LIGHT DUES APPROPRIATION BILL

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Mr. Stewart) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to colonial light dues.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

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

page 3124

FINANCIAL RELIEF BILL 1932

In Committee: Consideration resumed from 29th November (vide page 3028).

Clause 5 :

Section66 of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1930, is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) all words from and including the words “that a taxpayer” to and including the words “ seriously impaired “ and inserting in their stead the, following paragraphs : -

that, owing to low prices in respect of primary products the income derived from the land the subject of land tax has been so reduced that the taxpayer is unable to pay the whole of the tax out of his income derived in the financial year for which the land tax is assessed, and that the financial position of the taxpayer is such that the exaction of the full amount of land tax would entail serious hardship,”,

Section proposed to he amended - 66 (1.)Inany case where it. is shown to the satisfaction of a board consisting of the Commissioner, the Secretary to the Treasury and the Comptroller-General of Customs that a taxpayer liable to pay land tax has become bankrupt or insolvent, or has suffered such a. loss that the exaction of the full amount of too will entail serious hardship, or that by reason of drought or adverse seasons or other adverse conditions, the returns from any land owned by him upon which he carries on agricultural or pastoral pursuits have been seriously impaired, the board may release such taxpayer wholly or in part from his liability for landtax. . . .

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

. - Immediately before progress was reported last night the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) asked me a question with respect to the effect of section 66 of the Land Tax Assessment Act - what is generally known as the “ hardship “ section. It is provided inthe act, as in the bill, that relief may be given in cases where, by reason of drought or adverse seasons or other adverse conditions, the returns from any land owned by the taxpayer upon which he carries on agricultural or pastoral pursuits havebeen seriously impaired, and the honorable member asked whether the fact that the person affected had a large income from other sources would be taken into account. I have made inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining how the board exercises the discretion conferred upon it by this section, and while it is difficult to obtain an authoritative statement without actually inquiring from the members of the board themselves, I am informed that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the members of the board do take into account the general financial position of the person concerned. So that if a man has, let us say, a number of stations upon which he had lost because of drought, but has large and prosperous city manufacturing businesses from which he receives large profits:, the board will not release him from the land tax. In other words, at the present time - and I think that this is in accordance with the intention of the legislation - the landed interests of a taxpayer are not regarded in complete separation from all his other interests, and if he is able to pay the tax from other resources, then he will not obtain relief under the existing section or under the clause contained in the bill. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) also asked a question with respect to the effect of the “ hardship “ section in relation to city interests. That section applies in cases in which the taxpayer has become bankrupt or insolvent. As a matter of fact those words are not construed in their technical sense, and the board does not wait until the estate of a taxpayer has been sequestrated .before considering an application for relief under this section. If a taxpayer is seriously embarrassed financially so that he is unable to pay his debts in the ordinary course, then he is eligible for consideration under this section. Therefore, if an individual taxpayer - whether in the city or the country - has suffered such a loss that the exaction of the full amount of the tax would entail serious hardship, the board may relieve him of a part or of the whole of the liability. I suppose that every taxpayer who makes an application thinks that it should succeed when, for example, he has had a bad year. But the matter is not, and should not be, considered upon the basis of a single year,’ and I suggest that if a person, although he has had serious or disastrous losses in one year, is able to pay the tax without any financial or other strain, there is/ no reason why he should not pay it, even although a particular enterprise happens to have been unsuccessful. It must -be remembered that in relation to this section generally the power is discretionary. The relief is not automatic. I observe that there is a proposal of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) to substitute the word “ shall “ for the word “ may “ in order to provide that where these facts are established the board shall give relief. It will be for the committee to determine, at a later stage, whether it will accept that amendment. But even if the amendment is accepted the effect of the provision will remain as it is, because the section will provide that the board “ shall “ - not “ may “ - “ release the taxpayer wholly or in part from his liability to pay the tax.” There must be discretion to release wholly or in part, and very little is added to the real effect of the section by substituting the word “ shall “ for the word “ may “, because even when the facts were established, if the board thought that it was not a case for relief, the effect, of the word “ shall ‘” would bring about a release in part which would not amount to very much.

Mr Maxwell:

– Therefore, the extent of the relief would be according to the degree of hardship.

Mr LATHAM:

– Exactly, and according to the board’s judgment of what was fair in the circumstances, bearing in mind that prima facie a taxpayer has to pay because he falls within the law, and that he must establish some exception “which makes it proper for him not to pay while other people do, That, I presume, would be the general attitude of any board in approaching the matter. The point that I am making is that there must be a discretionary power, when it is a matter of giving relief from the general ordinary liability to pay taxation imposed by Parliament. Although Parliament may profess in terms to make the clause automatic, compulsory or mandatory, it is really not practicable to do that under any amendment, inasmuch as the extent of relief must inevitably depend upon the view taken by the authority, whatever it may be, which has the decision of the question.

Mr Scullin:

– Reverting to the question of the honorable member for Fawkner, how does the Attorney-General interpret the phrase “ any land “? Must it not apply to a separate block on which there is loss?

Mr LATHAM:

– The section as it is at presen t, and as it is reproduced in this clause, uses the words “by reason of drought or adverse seasons or other adverse conditions the returns from any land owned by the taxpayer uponwhich he carries on agricultural or pastoral pursuits have been seriously impaired “. First, that provision is limited to land upon which agricultural or pastoral pursuits are carried on, and any land owned by the taxpayer falls into his land tax assessment, and all of his land is aggregated. I do not appreciate any particular difficulty in the interpretation of the clause.

Mr Scullin:

– I think that the phrase “ any land “ separates a block on which a loss has been made from other holdings.

Mr LATHAM:

– I am afraid that I do not appreciate that difficulty. If the returns from land owned by a man upon which he has carried out agricultural or pastoral pursuits have been seriously impaired by reason of drought and other things, he is permitted to make application for release. If a man has a small block of land upon Avhich he is conducting agricultural operations - a small farm - and he experiences such a complete drought that his returns from that farm have been seriously impaired, but if he is making a lot of money from other sources, he would not obtain relief. It is not just that he should, if he is able to pay his tax from other resources.

Mr Nelson:

– Does that apply to the territories?

Mr LATHAM:

– I believe that the Land Tax Assessment Tax does, but only to a small extent, because leasehold lands are excluded. Much of the land devoted to the production of wool throughout Australia is leasehold land, and I think that that is really the reasonwhy many stations have been able to carry on.

Mr Maxwell:

– Is not this tax intended to be a tax on land which should be able to pay it, and if the land cannot pay it, relief will be given?

Mr LATHAM:

– That raises an interesting question. I have always understood that the true doctrine of the land tax was that it ought to be paid, in many cases, out of the capital value of the land.

There isno doubt that the real intention of this act in relation to large properties which it was thought should besubdivided, was to impose a heavy tax upon capital values for the purpose of making it unprofitable to hold such lands. Of course that is a matter of principle upon which honorable members hold differing opinions. I do not think that it can be agreed thatab initio the intention of this act was to make the tax payable only in cases where the income from the land would pay the tax. I have always understood that in many cases the intention of theact was exactly the opposite; that is, it was intended to make it impossible for a person to hold large areas of land by making it unprofitable to do so.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– The statement made by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham), who is legal adviser to the Government, indicates how imperative it, is that the wording of proposed new section 66 should make the intention of Parliament perfectly clear to the board. Had I any idea last night that the Attorney-General and the Government construed this proposed new section in the way indicated by the honorable gentleman, I most certainly should have insisted on a division on the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker). The facts in connexion with the exclusion of drought-stricken areas of land are absolutely contrary to the statement just made by the Attorney-General.

Mr Latham:

-Will the honorable gentleman explain exactly what that means?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– As was pointed out by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) by way of interjection, originally it was clearly the intention of past governments that land tax should be purely a land tax, and should not be concerned with profits from professional and other sources, which are dealt with under the income tax provisions. It must be remembered that our federal land tax is not the single tax on a flat rate, with no exemption, that was advocated by Henry George and his followers, a tax capable of providing the whole of the revenue of a country. This is a graduated tax providing an exemption of £5,000 for the specific purpose of subdividing estates. If we had a land tax of Henry George’s type there would be no need fdr this amending legislation. It is impossible for the majority of landowners to pay federal land tax, because of the £5,000 exemption. I shall move an amendment to paragraph c to clear the issue as between land tax and income tax, and make it plain that land which has been subjected to drought, or the prices of the products from which have been adversely affected by the world depression, shall be eliminated from the aggregation of the holdings of a taxpayer of land tax. Because of conditions over which he has no control, a person might have property incapable of paying its way for several years. At the same time he might be earning £2,000 or £3,000 a year as a professional man. That income is subject to income tax. “Why should it be taken into account in assessing his land tax? It was never intended that while such a person should be subjected to heavy penallies another man interested solely in land pursuits with a holding alongside that of the former should obtain complete exemption because of the adverse conditions to which his holdings had been subjected. If the Attorney-General’s suggestions are followed, this tax will become an income tax, not a land tax. To show exactly what was the original intention of Parliament in regard to the present law, I shall read a portion of my remarks as Treasurer, when the Land Tax Assessment Act was being amended in 1927. Replying to the Len der of the Opposition .who, as one of the framers of the act, took up a viewentirely different from that supported by myself and the Government of the day. who regarded land tax as something designed to bring in revenue and not as an instrument for penalizing primary producers, I said -

The object of the amending clause is, when estimating land tax, to deal separately with each portion of land hold by a land-owner and used for the purpose of primary production. If it is found that one. property, by reason of droughts or other adverse climatic conditions fiver which the owner has no control, is not productive, that property is taken out of account by the Relief Board. It was understood by many that that was the correct interpretation of the section of the principal act, which refers to the subject, but the Hardship Board l m 1 d that if a mim has a city property and a pastoral property, and he makes profits from the city property and loses on the other because of adverse climatic conditions, his position could not necessarily be regarded as one of hardship under the provisions of the act. The Government feels that, in the case of country lands, the land tax is really paid out of the income derived. In those cases where no income is derived, as the result of conditions over which the land-owner has nocontrol, it is considered that there should be-. relief from tax for that year on that parcel of land. It is felt that the present amendment deals with the matter on an equitable basis.

The present view of the AttorneyGeneral, who drafted the 1927 legislation, is diametrically opposed to that intention.

Mr Latham:

– The right honorable gentleman should not misunderstand me. I said that I had made certain inquiries to ascertain the practice of the board. They revealed that the board does consider the general position of a taxpayer. I cannot guarantee that that is so. The board makes up its own mind on the subject.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The Leader of the Opposition raised the issue with the Attorney-General whether the substitution of the word “ any “ would qualify the position.

Mr Latham:

– That would make the land-owner eligible to relief, but the board would still exercise its discretion.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The intention of Parliament was to regard this tax purely as a land tax; that, if no income was derived from a piece of land, that would affect the graduated rate paid on the whole. The Attorney-General said that an amendment is to be moved to alter may “ to “ shall “. In the discussion in 1927 it was felt that there was an element of doubt in this connexion. The act then read -

The board may release such taxpayer wholly or in part from his liability for land tax or for land tax in respect of any particular land the returns from which have been so impaired, and the Commissioner shall make such alterations in the amount of tax payable, and shall make such refund of tax already paid as necessary to give effect to the decision of the board.

To make certain that the principle of regarding each parcel of land separately that Parliament had in mind would be given effect, the word “ may “ was altered to “shall”. It was felt that that safe- guarded the position. If it does not, and the Government is unwilling to amend the act to achieve that purpose, I shall request that the bill be recommitted so that honorable members may have an opportunity of voting on the issue raised by the honorable member for Wakefield. In the mean time I move -

That all the words after “ assessed “, paragraph c, bc omitted.

That will bring the proposed new section into conformity with the original intention of Parliament.. Paragraph b contains the words -

That, by reason of drought or adverse seasons or other adverse conditions, the returns from any land owned by tho taxpayer upon which ha carries on agricultural or” pastoral pursuits have been seriously impaired.

A provision, paragraph c, is to be inserted which reads -

That, owing to low prices in respect of primary products the income derived from the land, the subject of land tax has been so reduced that the taxpayer is unable to pay the whole of the tax out of his income derived in the financial year for which the land tax is assessed. . . .

It seems to me that the paragraph should end there; that the general position of the taxpayer should not be taken into account.

One has only to read the report of the Wool Committee to realize how impossible it is at the present time for growers to make any profit out of that great exporting industry. Our wheat-farmers, too, are in a deplorable condition; yet they are subject to land tax. It is quite obvious that until world prices rise, or costs come down, our primary producers will not have any income. Yet, in the meantime, their land tax commitments will be accumulating, because they are unable to meet them, and their equity will be disappearing.

Mr Holman:

– Does the honorable gentleman think that a public declaration that the land has no value is judicious?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It is’ not a matter of the land having no value, but of it having no earning capacity.

Mr Holman:

– It means that; for capital value depends on earning’ value.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– My point is that general income should not he taken into account for land tax purposes. At present a certain area may be a liability on which the owner is spending money and getting no return, and it may not be an an asset at all. I hope that, if the Government does not accept my amendment, it will allow the bill to be recommitted, so that we may vote upon the matter raised by the honorable member for Wakefield.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The interpretation that the honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) places on the existing section is the same as that which I place upon it, although I do not agree with what was done. The AttorneyGeneral has explained to the committee the practice of the board. If the board does not treat each block of land as a separate entity, it does not do what Parliament intended should be done. I opposed what was done in 1927, and still do so. I know of no valid argument to support what has been done, and what the honorable member for Cowper desires should be continued. I shall quote a few words which I delivered in 1927, to make clear what was done by Parliament. I said -

Mr Scullin:

– If a man has ten pastoral properties, nine of which are highly successful from a financial point of view, and one that is being worked at a loss through adverse climatic conditions, the Hardship Board will be compelled, by this clause, to regard that one property as a separate entity.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Yes. That property which provides no revenue is exempt in effect.

Mr Scullin:

– Are not periodic droughts considered when assessing properties for land tax purposes?

That is the crux of the argument. That man has ten pastoral properties spread over Australia’. He might experience a drought on one property, but his land as a whole might give him a satisfactory return. His is not a case of hardship. If he pays land tax on the whole of his property he does not pay it as an income tax.

Mr Maxwell:

– Would the honorable member restrict the investigation to his income from landed property?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Undoubtedly. I certainly would not claim that income from professional sources should be considered. The Hardships Board should consider the income yielded by the land that is the subject of taxation. The purpose of the “ hardships “ section is to prevent the exaction of land tax from an owner in a year when the land does not return an income sufficient to enable the owner to pay the tax.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– That applies to country lands only.

Mr SCULLIN:

– There are special provisions relating to climatic conditions affecting country lands, but city property is not entirely excluded from this relief. Parliament, in 1927, accepting the interpretation of the Treasurer of the day (Dr. Earle Page), inserted a provision which enabled the Hardships Board to regard each block of land as a separate entity. That is wrong, but I agree that a man’s income from other sources than land should not be taken into account by the board when considering his ability to pay land tax. The periodical droughts that affect certain parts of Australia are taken into account when land is valued .for taxation purposes, and if a low valuation is placed on the property because it is subject to drought, and the owner is exempted from land tax after a drought has occurred, he gets a double concession, which must throw a greater burden on the general taxpayer. That would not be just. The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has stated that the board has taken into consideration income other than that received from land. Probably, upon further investigation, the honorable gentleman will find that it has considered the owner’s returns from other lands besides those in respect of which he is applying for relief. Strictly speaking, that does not carry out what Parliament intended in 1927, but, in my opinion, it is what should be dor16. If the Government will submit an amendment to clear up the anomaly explained by the AttorneyGeneral I shall support it.

In regard to the amendment proposed by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page),, the only real alteration proposed by the clause is an extension of the basis upon which relief may be claimed. The losses suffered by an owner as a result of the reduction in the prices of primary products may be considered by the board as a ground for relief. I agree with that. The amendment which the right honorable member for Cowper has proposed will not achieve what he desires ; but, apart from that, any amendment proposing that each block of land owned by a man shall be considered separately when assessing the loss the owner has sustained by the drop in the prices of his products would be entirely wrong. The drop in prices is general and applies to all lands.

Mr Thorby:

– Not necessarily; land produces different commodities.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The prices of all primary products have declined. A man may have two paddocks within a mile of each other, one used for the production of wheat and wool, and the other for, say, onions. He returns them as separate entities, and although he is getting £25 a ton for his onions, claims that because lie is suffering a loss in respect of wool and wheat, he is suffering hardship and i* entitled to relief.

Dr Earle Page:

– The clause refers not only to income from land, but to all income.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Paragraph c provides that where it is shown to the satisfaction of the ‘board that, owing to low prices in respect of primary products, the income from the land has been so reduced that the taxpayer is unable to pay the whole of the tax out of his income derived in the financial year for which the tax is assessed, he may be granted relief.

Mr Latham:

– That refers to the whole of his income.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The whole of hia income affected by the drop in the price of his products. Then the clause continues - and that the financial position of the tax* payer is such that the exaction of the full amount of land tax would entail serious hardship.

Mr Paterson:

– Surely that means his general financial position, which involves income from sources other than land.

Mr Latham:

– That is definitely intended. If a man is able to pay without hardship, he should pay.

Mr SCULLIN:

– A distinction must be drawn between relief on account of hardship due to the fall in the prices of commodities and hardship due to the fact that owing to climatic conditions the land has not yielded a sufficient return to pay the tax. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) is asking too much. After all, this committee must accept some responsibility. It is easy to be generous, and if the right honorable gentleman’s amendment be carried, I can imagine that every land-owner in the Commonwealth will claim relief because of the drop in the prices of primary products. The largest amounts of land tax are paid on pastoral properties, and undoubtedly tremendous losses have been suffered as a result of the decline in “the price of wool.

Mr Prowse:

– Did not the Leader of “the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) say that a “man’s professional or business income should not :be taken into account in connexion with his losses on land?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes, hut I ani confining that to the’ original intention of section 66 that no tax should be paid in respect of land that did not produce the tax because of climatic or other special conditions. I ask honorable members of the Country party to consider all the implications of the amendment; it will not stop at relief of the primary producer. The city land-owners will be able to claim that they have suffered losses through the reduction of rents ; and is not their general financial position to be considered? It is a true saying that hard cases make bad laws. I am opposed to allowing owners to claim that each block of land held by them shall be regarded as a separate entity. The adoption of that principle would encourage men to subdivide their large pastoral properties into several blocks, some of which would be shown as returning no income, although others had been profitable.

Dr Earle Page:

– That would apply only in the case of very hig stations.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I know of dairying properties, one portion of which has summer conditions, while simultaneously another portion is enjoying spring conditions. In Australia the climatic variations within a radius of 20 or 30 miles are remarkable. In parts of the western districts of Victoria, dairymen can get a complete change of pasture by shifting their cows less than twenty miles. The two properties are not connected, “but they belong to the same owner, and are part of the one dairying business. Similar conditions are found in parts of New South “Wales. It would be wrong to allow a man to separate bis holdings and get relief in respect of one portion, although he was doing well on the other.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

. - The discussion appears to be resolving itself into a contest between those who believe in the land tax and those who do not. The latter are saying, in effect, that the tax should be paid only when the land that is the subject of it is producing sufficient income to pay the tax, and an endeavour is being made to amend the hardship provision to that end. That may be a perfectly legitimate aim. Land tax has always been a controversial subject, and it may be proper that no land tax should be paid unless the land in respect of which it is paid has produced the tax. That, however, is not the intention of the statute. I remind honorable members in general terms of the provisions of the act. Section 10 provides for a land tax on unimproved values. Under section 20 assessments of tax are made in respect of triennial periods, and section 66 provides for relief to be given in cases of hardship. The basis of the tax is the capital value of the land, and in theory the tax is not concerned with income except, insofar as relief may be given on account of hardship. There are those who object to the whole of this legislation on the ground that it, is quite unjust that, though a man who has £100,000 of personal property producing income pays income tax on the income from it, a man who has £100,000 worth of land producing income has to pay on the income from the land and also on the unimproved value of the land. But, whether it is just or unjust, it is the law. At the moment we are not considering the repeal of our land tax legislation indirectly by the amendment of the hardships clause; we are simply considering the desirability of extending the hardship clause to allow a new ground upon which relief - may be granted. Paragraph a of section 66 provides that relief may be granted to a taxpayer liable to pay land tax who has become bankrupt or insolvent, or whose position by reason of droughts, or adverse seasons, or other adverse conditions, has been seriously impaired by the reduction in the returns from any land owned by him on which he carries on agricultural Or pastoral pursuits. The words “ adverse seasons or other adverse conditions “ have been interpreted to mean conditions arising from physical effects on, for example, crops and wool. An attempt is being made in paragraph c to deal with another set of facts. It may be that the returns from the land are good. The crop may be excellent, and the wool clip wonderful, but the price low. The products from the land may be abundant, and the quality excellent, but the returns from the sale of them very poor. Paragraph c, therefore, deals specifically with low prices.While we keep our land tax legislation on our statute-book, we need to be very careful in making any extension of relief on this ground. Almost all industries arc suffering from low prices at present. From a revenuepoint of view, it is impossible for the Government at present to surrender all land tax. I make that statement, apart altogether from any question of general political policy that may be involved. Paragraph c reads -

  1. That, owing to low prices in respect of primary products the income derived from the land the subject of land tax has been so reduced that the taxpayer is unable to pay the whole of the tax out of his income derived in the financial year for which the land tax is assessed, and that the financial position of the taxpayer is such that the exaction of the full amount of land tax would entail serious hardship.

It will be apparent, therefore, that in determining the matter under this paragraph all the land owned by a taxpayer is aggregated. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) has proposed that all the words after “ is assessed “ shall be left out. The result of that would be that consideration would first be given to whether there had been a reduction in the returns from all the land that the taxpayer possessed, and then to whether the reduction had. been so severe that the taxpayer was not only unable to pay the whole of his tax out of the income from the land, but was also unable to pay it out of his income from all sources. It appeared to me that the right honorable member was presuming that all the income of a man should not be taken into account. I wish to make it clear that even if his amendment were agreed to, the whole of a man’s income, whether derived from professional sources or otherwise, would have to be taken into account. The Government has deemed it wise to attach the condition - and that the financial positionof the taxpayer is such that the exaction of the full amount of land tax would entail serious hardship.

That brings before us in specific form the principle embodied in this paragraph, to which some honorable members are objecting, that even if the returns from the land have been most seriously reduced, and even though a taxpayer is unable to pay his taxation out of the whole of his income from all sources in a given year, yet if his financial position is such that he is able to pay it without serious hardship he shall be called upon to pay it. I suggest that that is a sound principle. Take the case of a pastoralist, who also has a substantial interest in dairying properties, hotels and theatres, but was unlucky in one year and lost £10,000 on the whole of his properties. A few of our citizens are in that unfortunate position. But if the same individual had £100,000 in government bonds in the bank and had a large income from overseas, he could pay his taxation without financial hardship at all. Although he had lost on all his enterprises in Australia, should he not pay his taxation? This provision says that he should do so. The man who can pay without serious hardship should pay. Therefore, it is proposed that consideration shall be given not only to the whole of his income from all sources in a specific year, but also to his general financial position. If honorable members think that that principle is wrong, they can vote against the clause ; but if they still want to grant relief to any man who has lost money on account of the low price of products from his land, they will need to make a much more far-reaching amendment than that proposed by the right honorable member for Cowper. I again remind honorable members that rightly or wrongly land taxation is not taxation on income derived from land, but a tax on the capital value of land, subject to the provision of a hardship section.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– Paragraphs a andb of this clause set out the legal position as it is at present. Paragraph c seeks to make an addition to the existing law. I, therefore, listened with great interest to the views of the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) in explanation of it. But I challenge the accuracy of one statement of the honorable gentleman. He said that we must remember that this is land taxation, and that a man who has failed to obtain income from the land he possesses, and who, under some circumstances, might, under this hardship clause, be relieved from payment of a portion of his land tax in view of the fact that the land had not provided him with any income, would be required to pay such taxation if he enjoyed an income from some other source, say ‘from city interests or a professional calling, which was large enough to enable him to pay without hardship. The Attorney-General emphasized that the tax was a land tax, and that a man must pay it because he is a landholder. He also said that land tax was not to be confused with income tax, that it was payable because of the possession of land, and that to argue that land tax should not have to be paid merely because the land so taxed returned little or no income, was to confuse it with income tax. I submit that an exactly opposite interpretation could be put on this clause. A man possessed only of land is called upon to pay land tax on it, but is exempted from paying it because there is no income from it in a particular year and gets off scot-free; but a man who owns a similar piece of land, gets no income from it, but has an income from some other source, is required to pay land tax because he has other income. That converts the land tax into an income tax. With all due deference to the AttorneyGeneral, a man in such circumstances l is required to pay the land taxation not J merely because he possesses the land, but ; because he has income from other sources. He is therefore required to pay taxation, not simply because he owns land, but actually because he has income from other sources. Surely this makes the taxation income taxation.

Mr Latham:

– The land tax is measured by the value of the land, and not by anything else, and a man’s capacity to pay this taxation depends upon his general financial position.

Mr PATERSON:

– The necessity of paying the taxation in these circumstances depends upon the possession of income.

Mr Latham:

– He can sell the land; that is the theory upon which the legislation is based.

Mr PATERSON:

– In my opinion it could be argued just as effectively that this is income taxation as that it is land taxation. The Attorney-General has referred to the words - the whole of the tax out of his income derived in the financial year for which the land tax is assessed, and has said that the inclusion of those words would undo what the right honorable member for Cowper is seeking to do by the striking out of all the words in the clause after “ assessed “ ; but a small amendment could avoid that happening. If the words “ the whole of the tax out of his income derived “ were altered to read “the whole of the tax out of the income so derived “, the position would would be met.

Amendment - by leave - temporarily withdrawn.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I move -

That the words “ his income “, paragraph (c), be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ the income so “.

This amendment, if accepted, would give effect to the intention of the honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) when he moved his amendment.

Mr Latham:

– The honorable member must recognize that his amendment does not effect merely a verbal improvement, but constitutes an alteration of an essential principle.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I support the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), although it goes considerably further than I should have asked the committee to go. I support it mainly because it does something to define what ia intended by that “sob-stuff” phrase, “ serious hardship “. The phrase means one thing when the Minister is at the table piloting a bill through, but it means another when that legislation is being administered by departmental officers. In the second case, the phrase covers only those who are absolutely down and out. We remember that when we were considering legislation dealing with cuts in pensions, we were told about the wicked old ladies who used to ride in Bolls Boyce motor cars belonging to their relatives to collect their pensions. In the present instance the Minister has taken as an example the hypothetical case of a man whose business may be losing money, but who has £100,000 worth of bonds lodged in the bank. It should be possible to exclude cases of that kind, but they are the exception. In the great majority of borderline cases the land-owner ‘ may have only a small amount of money in reserve, which he needs to save his stock in time of drought, either by shifting them into other areas, by hiring agistment, or by buying feed. If that money were used to pay the land tax, there might be no hardship on the man in a monetary sense, but it would probably mean that a considerable number of his stock would die. In another case a grazier may bc somewhat in debt, though not seriously so. He has still a considerable equity in his property, and he could pay the tax by borrowing money and endangering his solvency. As a matter of fact, it is in this way that most of the land tax has been paid during the last two or three years of drought and low prices. It, is because men have had to go into debt to pay their taxes, and because of the cost involved in saving Australia’s greatest asset, her live-stock, that the pastoral industry has got into such difficulties. The Minister stated that the Hardships Board was composed of officials who were impartial and unbiased, and were capable of assessing what were serious hardships. I maintain that these men have been set an impossible task. There ought to be some definition of the word “ hardship “, and, failing a better one, I endorse that advanced by the honorable member for Cowper in his amendment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I commend the attitude of the Attorney-General on this issue. “We are all anxious, I believe, to do a reasonable thing by those in need, and I am not forgetting the underlying principle of the capacity to pay in relation to taxation. However, I should sometimes like to hear the leaders of the Country party make a plea on behalf of some other sections of the community, instead of all the time trying to grab everything for themselves.

Of course, I understand that some members of the Country party represent the largest and most powerful interests, while others do not. 1 know men whose positions are now under discussion, who have large pastoral or agricultural interests, but who are also interested in shipping companies, in the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, and other industrial concerns. It would be wrong for the Government not to take cognizance of the other interests of taxpayers when considering whether or not they are capable of paying land tax. If we are to be so generous in regard to land taxation, we ought to extend our generosity to other deserving sections of the community. The honorable member for Gippsland has worded his amendment in -a very astute way. The verbal alterations which he proposes are slight, but are sufficient to change the whole meaning of the clause. His ‘purpose is to keep the grazing interests of taxpayers entirely separate from their commercial or other interests. He does not want the Commissioner of Taxation to take into consideration the holdings of taxpayers, for instance, in Electrolytic Zinc, or the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, or in shipping companies. There is no reason or justice in the honorable member’s proposal. I know a dozen men with large pastoral interests, who have half a dozen other interests as well. It is not right that a man, because one of his many undertakings somewhere between Victoria and the Gulf of Carpentaria is being temporarily worked at a loss, should be released from the payment of land tax in respect of that property when his other interests show large profits. We cannot afford to be so generous in granting relief. At any rate, we are not entitled to single out one section of the community for such treatment. In a little while, we shall be called upon to discuss a bill, the purpose of which is to give some relief to the purchasers of war service homes. It is a small thing compared with the measure we are now discussing, but many of these purchasers are in the greatest difficulties because, while they are still called upon to pay a fixed amount under the terms of their contracts, their incomes have been greatly reduced. No one suggests, however, that their interest payments should be entirely remitted to them. We should consider all these matters from a national, not from a sectional, point of view. It is essential, of course, that the pastoral and agricultural industries should be kept operating. That is necessary, not only in the interests of the taxpayers, but of the community as a whole. I am not forgetting that, but I cannot go so far as the honorable member for Gippsland has gone. The Attorney-General, on this occasion, put a case which, from a national and democratic point of view, was as good as anything he has done in his life.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The object of the Commonwealth land tax was to encourage the use of land by discouraging people from holding large areas which they did not put to proper use. The amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland, if accepted, would involve abandoning a policy which forms the justification for the land tax. It would mean that, whenever land was not producing at a profit, it would be free from the incidence of Commonwealth land tax. That would completely nullify the whole provision. Rightly or wrongly, we have adopted the policy of trying to break up large estates by the imposition of a graduated tax, and the question of whether this policy is right or wrong does not arise under this bill. The only question before the committee is where relief should be granted, and it has been accepted that relief should be granted only in cases of hardship. Now, we have to determine what are cases of hardship. Take the case of a wealthy man who has speculated in land, using his money for the advantage of the public, but who, unfortunately, has had a succession of failures involving continual losses. His private fortune, however, may be intact, so that he has plenty of money with which to pay his land tax. Is it a hardship to call onhim to pay the tax? Surely it is not. For those reasons I propose to support the clause as introduced by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham).

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

.- I should not have spoken on this measure had it not been for the diversity of opinions in respect of this clause. The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has, at present, exceedingly socialistic ideas, a.nd, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) is not nearly so socialistic in his ideas, I thought that it was really time that I should put matters right. The Leader of the Opposition opposed the idea of segregating a piece of land for the purpose of remitting the tax upon it, and he considered that relief should be given on the basis of the aggregation of land. He also said - and I disagree with him - that the Hardships Board in considering applications for remissions of taxation should take into account other resources of the owner of the land in question. He referred really to two professions - legal and medical.

Mr Scullin:

– I said that only in regard to paragraph b, and not in regard toparagraph c. I made a distinction between the two paragraphs.

Mr PROWSE:

– I hope that the right honorable member will not alter bis Hansard proofs to-morrow, because I agree with most of what he has said. The Attorney-General stated that this is a land tax. In Australia, land tax is a capital tax, and was introduced for the purpose, as the Attorney-General has already stated, of breaking up large estates. The intention of this measure is to help the men on the land who have suffered hardship, because of the fall in the prices of their products and the decline in land values. The Attorney-General has now introduced the question of financial considerations. I submit that financial considerations should not be taken into account by the Government when, by so doing, it will inflict a palpable injustice upon a section of our citizens. We should encourage city interests to make investments in grazing and pastoral lands. There are many honorable members in this chamber who have made land investments, and, in consequence, have burned their fingers. It is a good thing for this country that men are still prepared to invest in land, and to assist in developing our pastoral and agricultural areas. If city persons invest in country lands, they should not be treated differently from other land-holders just because they have financial reserves in the cities. . Those reserves should not be taken into account when the holder is applying for relief from land taxation because of his losses in respect of his land investments. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) the other day pointed out that investments in Commonwealth bonds have seriously affected investments in land in this country. The Government is now proposing another method of retarding the investment of money in country areas. A hardship would be imposed upon professional and business men in the cities who had invested in agricultural and pastoral lands, if they were, for land taxation purposes, placed on a. footing different from that of other land-holders. Why should they receive differential treatment? In that respect, I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition and, to some extent, with roy own leader. I believe that a person’s rural land holdings should be aggregated for land taxation purposes; but, in considering any claim made by him for relief from that class of taxation, tbe Hardships Board should not take into account his city interests. I am sorry that the Attorney-General has developed socialistic tendencies. I think that the honorable member for Gippsland would have simplified his amendment had he added after the word “ derived “ the word “ therefrom “. I hope that the amendment will be carried with the assistance of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) and his colleagues.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Grey

– I regret that I cannot support the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), because we have to consider, not the principle of the land tax, as such, but the position of the Government and the object of this clause, which is to give relief where relief is really necessary. I was much struck with the moderate view of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), in regard to the lines on which the board should assess the amount of tax that should be payable by a land-holder. I think that he was exceedingly moderate when he stated that the board should not be entitled to take into consideration, when an application for relief is before it, sources of income other than the land on which the tax was assessed.

Mr Scullin:

– My remarks to that effect applied specifically to paragraph b.

Mr McBRIDE:

– This Government is giving relief on an equitable basis to various taxpayers in this country. I shall not support the amendment, because, if carried, it will have the effect of reducing the revenue which the Government expects to receive from the land tax. In a time of financial stress like -the present, when grave difficulties are conf ronting not only the individual, but also the Government, those taxpayers who are in a position to meet their land tax out of other resources should do so, but the tax should be met, not out of capital, but out of income. The people who can afford to pay their taxes should not at this time ask for a remission of any particular tax.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- In discussing the clause and the amendment moved by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), honorable members have forgotten that other matters besides the need for giving relief to land-owner3, should occupy our attention. I suggest to the supporters of the Government that their present argument is inconsistent with their previous argument, respecting the need for equality of sacrifice. In this case the remission of taxation is being made at the expense of another section of the community.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in referring to the debate on a previous measure.

Mr WARD:

– It seems unfortunate that the Standing Orders are so framed as to prevent honorable members from discussing matters which, I consider, are relevant to the bill. Paragraph b reads - . . that, by reason of drought or adverse seasons or other adverse conditions, thu returns from any land owned by the taxpayer upon which he carries on agricultural or pastoral pursuits have been seriously impaired.

If a farmer is suffering real hardship because of a bad season, no one would object to some form of relief being given to him, provided that his general financial position is taken into account. If a man happens to be out of employment, and cannot obtain work, he is given relief by way of rations. Before a man receives relief, he is asked to undergo a means test, and if, during his period of employment, he accumulated a saving, he is denied relief. If it is right to apply such a test in this case, the same condition should apply in respect of the granting of relief under this bill. The general financial position of the taxpayers should be taken into account. The investment by a professional man or business man in the city in pastoral and agricultural land is just as much a speculation as is the investment of the wage-earner on a racecourse. Both are gambles, and I, therefore, suggest that honorable members might view this clause from that angle. If it is right to admit claims for exemption from laud tax for losses sustained in land speculation, it is equally logical to admit claims for exemption from the payment of income tax for betting losses sustained by wage-earners on a racecourse. The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Holman), by interjection last night, inferred that there was a doubt whether it was a wise policy to give a measure of relief or to protect an industry that has become unprofitable, or is unable to sell its products in the markets of the world.

Mr Holman:

– My interjection was not in that form exactly, although I admit that there was some similarity between it and the statement of the honorable member.

Mr WARD:

– Honorable members, particularly of the Country party, contend that, if a secondary industry cannot compete on reasonable terms with the products of other countries, it should not have the artificial protection provided by a high tariff wall. Why should that not also apply to primary industries? I ask honorable members to submit a sound argument why, if our wheat industry is not on a profitable basis because of the fall in world prices, it should be given protection. Even if growers are producing more bushels of wheat to the acre than previously, due to the extremely low prices prevailing, the growing of wheat, is still unprofitable. It is of no use continuing to hope for an immediate restoration of world prices. It is evident that there can be no early improvement in connexion with wheat. If we grant further taxation relief to wheat-growers, we shall still further restrict the area of land taxation and the avenues from which the Commonwealth can obtain revenue. Having regard to the general position of the taxpayers and their capacity to pay, I believe that the clause as it is worded meets the sitUatiOn and I shall vote against the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I support the attitude of the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham). I cannot follow the argument of the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) when he suggests that, by supporting the Attorney-General, we are supporting a socialistic enterprise. The honorable member would be far happier in a socialistic state, for his ideal seems to be to strive after conditions which would enable a person to produce everything without paying any taxes.

It is necessary to have regard to the fundamental basis of land tax. It is a tax on the unimproved value, not of isolated pieces of land, but of all the land that a man possesses, whether in the city or country. In assessing that tax it is necessary to consider the possibility of hardship being inflicted on the person concerned, and, if necessary, how relief can best be granted. The honorable. member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) suggests that we should eliminate income from the consideration of land tax. How can that be done if we are to apply the provisions of paragraph a? A man might have a city property, a large factory, situated, say, at Footscray; the land itself produces no revenue, but, with the rest of his assets, is of use to him in enabling him to earn his income. His income is liable to income tax for what he earns; but it is also liable to land tax for what he possesses. He has to pay tax on his land and also income tax. He may have suffered hardship. The question of hardship cannot be determined without having regard to his income. The question must be asked, “ Is he bankrupt, insolvent, or has he suffered loss to such an extent that the payment of the full amount of his assessment would mean hardship ? “ That necessitates consideration being given to that person’s income. Paragraph b reads -

That, by reason of drought or adverse seasons or other adverse conditions, the returns from any land owned by the taxpayer upon which he carries on agricultural or pastoral pursuits have been seriously impaired.

There you look to the individual piece of land - not to the aggregation of land.

If it can bc established that there is a basis for relief in connexion with that individual land, relief must be given.

Mr Maxwell:

– No matter what may be the person’s income from other sources ?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Apparently ; but the grant of relief is discretionary. It was the opinion of Parliament that he should get relief in such circumstances. Paragraph c reads -

That, owing to low prices in respect of primary products, the income derived from the land the subject of land tax has been so reduced that the taxpayer is unable to pay the whole of thu tax out of his income derived in thu financial year for which the land tax is assessed, and that the financial position of the taxpayer is such that thu exaction of the full amount of laud tax would entail serious hardship.

That is intended to deal with a general and not a particular happening like a drought or adverse seasons, therefore before relief is given you must pay regard to the person’s income. Because of drought or low prices, the income from the land has been so reduced that he is unable to pay the whole of the income tax out of the income derived from the land. Regard is had then to his financial position. If a hardship would be inflicted were the person subjected to the exaction of the full land tax, relief is given. The position is dealt with logically and fairly. The mere fact that a man has an income from other sources should not afford a reason why he should not pay land tax. Relief is granted in specified cases, but if, while suffering hardship in one respect, a person still enjoys income from another source sufficient to pay tax, why should he be exempt? Honorable members cannot have it both ways. I believe that the new provisions introduced by the Government will be welcomed by persons in country districts as they give an extension of relief. It would be highly undesirable to create the opinion that a certain body of taxpayers is to be differently treated from every other section of the community. I think that the Government has done everything possible to meet the position, therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. SCULLIN (Yarra) “12.40].- The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) set out to obtain my support for the amendment moved by the right honor able member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page). I have already made my position quite clear. If honorable members read paragraphs a, b, and c they will appreciate that there is a marked difference between the intention of Parliament as expressed in the last two paragraphs. In the first place, it must be realized that everything is left to the discretion of the board, lt does not follow, because there has been a drought, that the owner of the affected land should bc released from land tax, for he might have enjoyed several favorable seasons previously.

The point that I emphasize is that financial hardship is not laid down in paragraph b when considering an application for relief because of drought. I contend that there is a just claim for relief from land tax if the board, after exercising its discretion, is satisfied that because of drought or other adverse climatic conditions the land has not returned a sufficient revenue to justify the payment of land tax.

Mr Maxwell:

– Even though no general hardship might be suffered by the person concerned?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Even on that basis, but only in respect of paragraph b. I am discussing the intention of Parliament since the inception of land tax. We are now trying to provide for an artificial case, a position which is financial and not physical ; due to general world depression. We have to take into consideration the financial ability of the -taxpayer as well as the financial ability of the nation.

Mr PATERSON:

– It is merely a drought in prices.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I see a marked difference between the two positions. We have a right to take into consideration the financial position of the taxpayer when he lodges a claim for relief because of the low prices obtaining for the commodity that he produces. I agree entirely with the Attorney-General that this is not an income tax, but a tax on the unimproved capital value of the land. Section 66 provides exemption from the operation of that tax in cases of hardships. If a man has an income from business or professional activities, entirely dissociated from his land venture, and his land has suffered adversely from drought, he has a just claim for relief from land tax.

But, I do not agree that he should get relief because of drought on one block if he has enjoyed good season in connexion with other blocks, or that he should get relief from tax because of drought for one specific year when he has enjoyed a number of good years. That is entirely at the discretion of the board. The Government is going much further than the original intention of Parliament, and creating a special set of circumstances because of the prevailing world low prices. We must be careful that we do not open the doors and allow a number of wealthy people who are doing well to advance a plea of hardship because they are not receiving 4s. or 5s. a bushel for their wheat or 2s. or 3s. a lb. for their wool. If it were not for the present abnormal conditions, this Parliament would not accept paragraph c, which is a departure from the original intention dealing with hardship. We have no right to extend its operation to those who can afford to pay land tax. Paragraph a was in the principal act. When dealing with a claim for relief due to drought, the board has to be satisfied that the imposition of land tax will entail financial hardship generally, and not merely in connexion with the droughtstricken holdings. I think that that is just.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- Both the Leader and the Deputy Leader of theCountry party would be well advised to withdraw their amendments. In the previous clause, the committee agreed to reduce land taxation by onethird, and, in the opinion of many honorable members, we have already dipped too deeply into the public purse. We are now asked to sanction a further encroachment on the revenue at a time when we can ill afford to do so. I am surprised that members of the Country party should submit a proposal which will benefit principally the rich men in the cities. If we do not tax those who are able to pay, the Commonwealth will have little revenue at all. The taxpayer is protected against injustice by the provision for investigation and relief in casesof hardship. It is undeniable that many who are engaged in rural production are losing money; but, if the proposals submitted by the Country party were applied to all taxation, the national exchequer would soon be in a bad way. I am content to rely on the Hardships Board to deal justly by all those who are inneed of relief. Many manufacturers, bankers, wool-brokers, and others who have invested in rural properties may not be making profits in respect of them, but they have done very well with their other investments. Therefore, I cannot agree to their exemption from the payment of just dues. If men, though losing on their country properties, are prospering in respect of other investments, they are in a very fortunate position, and they have no need of the leniency which this committee is asked to extend to them. Many city men, because of the money at their disposal, have, in the development of country properties, set a splendid example to life-long farmers and pastoralists, and have done much to increase rural production.

Mr Paterson:

– Why discourage them by this taxation ?

Mr FENTON:

– They will not be discouraged ; they are not likely to be scared by a few extra pounds of taxation. As a class these men do not wish to evade their responsibilities to the nation. They are, in fact, the only class from whom we can expect to obtain land taxation. Those persons who are relying entirely on primary production can make little or no contribution to the revenue; we must recognize their needs, but we cannot afford to extend our generosity to others who are well able to pay taxation.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Paterson’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr McBRIDE:
Grey

.- I move -

That after the word “ hardship “ paragraph (c), the following words be inserted: - “or would prevent the taxpayer incurring the expense necessary for the efficient maintenance and working of the land “.

If the amendment is agreed to, it will be a direction to the Hardships Board that, when determining an application for relief, it shall take into consideration the probable effect of the payment of the tax on the efficient maintenance and working of theproperty. Because of the low prices prevailing, land-holders have been forced materially to curtail their expenditure, and many have economized to such an extent that the usual measures for the eradication of pests and noxious weeds have been neglected. This will undoubtedly react on the land-owner, and on the country generally. If the productivity of the land is seriously impaired through false economy, every pne will suffer. This was recognized by the Wool Inquiry Committee, which stated on page 27 of its report that -

The tax is absorbing money that is needed for the maintenance of fences and other improvements, for protection against pests and deterioration, and for drought reserves. This has been so for the last three years.

Anything that interferes with the productivity of the land is undoubtedly false economy. I ask the Government to take a long range view of this subject, and not restrict its vision to the immediate effect of the provision. . If it does so, I am sure that it will give the amendment sympathetic consideration.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I suppose every honorable member will sympathize with the object of this amendment. The necessity of maintaining rural property of all kinds in an efficient condition is apparent everywhere, and it is also painfully evident in many cases that properties are not being so maintained. But honorable members must consider the farreaching effects that an amendment of this kind would have. The mover. of the amendment has suggested that relief from this taxation should be given to taxpayers if, by reason of its imposition on them, they are prevented from incurring “ the expense necessary for the efficient maintenance and working of the land “. Such a provision would probably make it unnecessary for any of them to pay any taxation, for all taxation prevents them to an extent from incurring “ the expense necessary for the efficient maintenance and working of the land “. If a man has to pay £100 or £1,000 in taxation he has so much less money to spend upon maintenance and improvements. All the taxation which he pays must be subtracted from the fund which otherwise would be available for this purpose. A provision of this kind could apply to cases in which there was no hardship. Either we are to read “prevent” as “prevent in some measure or degree”, in which case it would apply to almost every taxpayer, or we must read it as “ absolutely prevent in which case, the effect is not very clear.

Mr Paterson:

– It is qualified by the word “ necessary “.

Mr LATHAM:

– Then let us look at the word “necessary”. Except in the case of a few “ star “ farms owned by certain gentlemen whom we are proud to have as members of this House, there is no limit to the amount of money that could be spent to improve land and make it more productive. How is one to draw a distinction between improvements and expenditure “necessary for the efficient maintenance and working of the land”. If we enter this field we shall find ourselves in difficulty. Suppose a grazier added to permanent improvements, looking after fences and erecting new fences. It could be said that these are necessary for the really “efficient maintenance and working of the land “. Every practical farmer knows that there is an abundance of work he could do on his farm to make it more productive - if he had the money to spend. Even if relief from taxation were granted under a provision of this kind, we should have no guarantee that the money so saved to the taxpayer would be spent in the “ efficient maintenance and working of the land”. Keen farmers would spend it in that way, but farmers not so keen would regard it as money saved from taxation, and, therefore, available for expenditure in any way they pleased. If this provision were included in the clause it would be hardly possible to exclude any cases from consideration. I, therefore, ask the committee to consider the amendment very carefully before adopting it.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I support the amendment. In passing, I intimate to honorable members that as the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) has been defeated, I do not now propose to move the amendment which I forecast. Honorable members who have said that they would like to assist country people as distinct from city people now have an opportunity to prove their bona fides. A great deal has been said in this debate in opposition to the general reduction of land taxation because it was alleged that it would almost wholly benefit city land owners. This amendment, however, will, if agreed to, confer benefit exclusively upon country land-holders. Some honorable members have said that they would remit all land taxation from country land-owners if they could do so. If those honorable gentlemen will support this amendment they will take a step in that direction. The words of the amendment could be defined without great difficulty by the Hardship Board. It is absurd to suggest that a man would spend money on im provements simply to avoid land taxation. The amount of money necessary for improvements would be very much more than that necessary for land taxation. Every one knows that estates of any size demand continuous attention. Obviously in the last two or three years, a great part of our exports have been obtained only by what amounts to the export of capital from the farms.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I support the amendment. I have a vivid recollection that, when the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) was sitting in opposition, he frequently referred to the necessity for efficiency in industry. He said that he would eliminate all inefficient industries, and would assist every move that would bring into industry such a degree of efficiency as would enable even our secondary industries profitably to export their products. Every one must admit that there is a great need that our farming and pastoral properties shall be maintained at their fullest possible productivity. The Hardship Board would certainly have sufficient gumption to say whether the expenditure of certain sums of money were necessary or unnecessary for the efficient maintenance of properties. Undoubtedly heavy taxation has retarded the development of many pastoral properties. It has been said that land taxation is a double tax on our great primary producing industries. Honorable members who hold that view can afford primary producers some relief by supporting this amendment. We all know that in good seasons the depredations of rabbits become a grave menace to our productivity. Expenditure which will prevent rabbits taking possession of properties is absolutely necessary. I hope the committee will realize that this is a desirable amendment.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I ask the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) to reconsider the advice that he has given to the committee in respect to this amendment. In my opinion, relief which is given on the basis of this amendment will be much more effective than relief given in certain other directions that have been suggested. The Attorney-General analysed, to his own satisfaction, the meaning of the term “ efficient maintenance and working of the land “. He said the term was so wide and vague that its presence in the act would give rise to serious administrative difficulties. I remind him that it is not a bit more wide or vague than the term “ serious hardship “. He said that practically any expenditure could be said to be necessary, in some one’s opinion, to the efficient working of a property. In the same way, the payment of any tax may be said to be a hardship, except, perhaps, to an extraordinarily public-spirited man. At the present time, the board is left to determine what is “ serious hardship “, and it would presumably exercise the same discretion in determining what constituted an impediment to the proper working of the land as it does now in determining what is serious hardship. If we proceed on the basis that taxation should be remitted to enable industry to keep going and maintain employment, wc shall do much more .good than if we merely afford relief in cases of actual hardship. The Government seems to be drifting into a policy which favours the distribution of doles. Its proposal for helping the wheat industry is to pay a dole to necessitous growers. The Government cannot help the country unless it encourages efficiency. At present, it is encouraging the continuance in production of those who, in some cases, may be in difficulties because of inefficiency. The Hardship Board has got the matter down to a pretty fine point at present, and I do not think that there will be any danger, even if this amendment be accepted, of the interests of the Treasury suffering to an undue extent if the board is given an instruction that it shall not insist on the payment of the full amount of taxation if thereby it will prevent the proper maintenance of the property concerned.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– I shall support the amendment. It seems to me that the difficulties raised by the Attorney-General (Mr., Latham) have been considerably magnified. The onus would be on the taxpayer to satisfy the Hardship Board that the money which, in the ordinary course of events, would go to pay the tax was absolutely necessary to maintain the property in proper order. Unless he could do that, the board would refuse to grant him the whole or partial relief from taxation he was seeking.

Mr McBRIDE:
Grey

.- I ask the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) to reconsider the advice he has given the committee. Although the wording of the amendment may be capable of improvement, it is not intended that land-owners should be given relief to enable them further to develop their properties.

Mr Latham:

– I know that the honorable member does not intend that.

Mr McBRIDE:

– The purpose is to allow land-owners to maintain existing improvements. The financial institutions which have lent money on land already realize that, owing to the hard times, ordinary maintenance work has, in many instances, been neglected, and where there is a likelihood of the owner remaining solvent they have, of their own accord, advanced money to enable the properties to be kept in a state of efficiency. There are other cases, however, in which the holder is not entitled to any further financial support, and the financial institutions have reluctantly refused to grant accommodation. It is to such cases that this amendment is meant to apply. After this expression of opinions by Parliament, the Hardship Board would know how to interpret the section, and no difficulties will arise.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.-I have no doubt that the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) was actuated by the best motives in moving this amendment, nor do I doubt that the Hardship Board would take into consideration that which was actually essential to the carrying on of the property. The committee, however, must regard the actual wording of the amendment. As it is worded, there is not the slightest doubt, in my opinion, that, if accepted, it .would, in effect, repeal the land tax altogether. If the act, as it is proposed to be amended, were stricly administered, the department would not collect any land tax at all, because every £1 of tax collected could be truly said to prevent, to that extent, the expenditure of money necessary for the maintenance of property in a state of efficiency.

Mr Hawker:

– Would the right honorable member support the amendment if the word “ essential “ were used ?

Mr SCULLIN:

– No, because, I suppose, it would be held that what was essential was also necessary. There is not a property in Australia that is so efficiently worked that one could not argue that it could be more efficiently worked. The amendment contains the words “ or would prevent the taxpayer, incurring necessary expense for the efficient maintenance and working of such land “. If the board takes that as an instruction, the department could not collect any land tax from any land-holder no matter how good the season, nor how much money he had.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Most of the primary producers who are really suffering hardship do not pay federal land tax at all. Already there has been a very substantial reduction of the tax, and we should consider this amendment in relation to the whole bill. Most of the land-holders pay only State land tax, and it is they who need relief, not, for the most part, those who are in a position to pay federal tax. I cannot agree to the extension of further relief as is proposed in this amendment.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– I do not think that the honorable member’s amendment would afford any relief to those whom we may describe as the real primary producers, because most of them are already exempt from Commonwealth land tax. In the grazing districts the small holders are already working their land to its full capacity. In Queensland, for instance, a small grazing block would be one of 10,000 acres, and the holder has really to overstock in order to make a living. If the carrying capacity of the land is a sheep to three acres, he would need 15,000 acres to run 5,000 sheep, and the rental of that’ land would not be sufficient to bring him within the scope of the Commonwealth Land Tax Act. If the amendment were accepted, its effect would be to grant further relief, not to those in the country, but to the wealthy holders of city lands. The Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle. Page) said that here was an opportunity of helping the real primary pro ducers, but I remind honorable members that, in Queensland at any rate, the big pastoralists who would obtain the benefit of this provision are working their properties with black labour, that is, with aboriginals. They are not working the land efficiently, and most of the prosecutions for illegal branding are against the large land-owners. They do not brand every year, because they are not prepared to pay efficient labour. The increase is allowed to run with the mothers until it can be safely taken away ; thus the labour of weaning is avoided. Such land-owners will say that they could work their holdings more efficiently if they were not called upon to pay land tax. Who is to judge when a property is being worked efficiently? If efficient working involves the repair of fences, the land-holder is already granted relief under the hardship clause in respect to such expenditure.

Dr Earle Page:

– Not for the purpose of Commonwealth land tax; that is a first charge on the land.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The unimproved value of the land must he £5,000 or over before it is subject to the Commonwealth land tax. A land-owner who has £3,000 worth of improvements on his property, that is, a property valued at £8,000, pays a little more than £1 in land taxation. This is another sham fight instituted by the Country party, which, at all times, has said that it is trying to obtain some relief for the farmers.If the members of that party wished to get some real relief for the farmers they would fight, not for a saving of £1 in land taxation, but for the better marketing of the primary products of this country. A sound system of marketing would give more relief to the primary producers than they are likely to get under this legislation. Only a small percentage of farmers pays land taxation. If the amendment is carried it will provide additional relief for those who, all their lives, have been battening on and farming the farmers. I oppose the amendment.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I have heard the further appeal of the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride), but I am afraid that it still leaves the position where it was. The amendment is far-reaching, and so wide that it would be dangerous to accept it. It must be realized that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine questions of exemption from tax upon the basis of an answer to the question, “ Can this money be spent better in maintaining a property than by paying it to the Government?” That question might be raised in all sorts of taxation, and I am afraid that we have to recognize and accept the fact that there are limits to the alleviation of taxation. All reasonable cases of hardship are covered by the bill. The reduction of the land tax by one-third is, I suggest, a greater concession than anybody interested ever expected to receive at the present time, and in return for it they should not criticize, but should say “ Thank you “ to a benevolent Parliament and Government. The bill provides, not only for the remission of a substantial amount of money over all, but also for a real extension of the existing hardship provision. In these circumstances it is difficult to justify the further extension proposed under the amendment.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

– I might mention in passing that I missed the last division because the bells did not ring in the Country party room. While I agree with the Attorney-General that the people on the land should be pleased indeed about the concessions that they are obtaining, still I am prepared to support the amendment because, so far as possible, I want every effort made to produce wealth in this country. I hope that the time is not far distant when the Commonwealth will retire from the field of land taxation and leave it to the States, because they have to provide, every facility for the development of land, in the shape of railways, bridges, and roads. The primary producers are suffering considerably under the tariff policy of this country. Recently a cultivator was imported into this country, and because there was attached to it a package containing 2s. 3d. worth of tools, a duty of £4 had to be paid on the package alone. Had the Government exercised more discretion, and made tariff reductions all round, considerable benefit would have been conferred upon the community generally. We should do everything within our power to induce people to spend money in the development of rural areas, and, as the amendment is a step in that direction, I propose to support it.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– The amendment of the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride), if carried, will confer further benefits upon holders of land valued at £5,000 and over, and in considering the many concessions that have been made, we must not forget that a large number of rural people pay no federal land tax because their areas are valued at less than £5,000.

Mr Gibson:

– The honorable member is speaking of Queensland leaseholders who are exempt from land taxation.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– I am speaking of a number of taxpayers in Australia who have received no concessions at all. A reduction of income has been forced upon many people who are, at the moment, not in a position to stand it ; yet many of the wealthy people of the Commonwealth are receiving considerable relief. I do not propose to vote for any further concessions to the land tax payers. We should transfer our attention from the wheat and wool-growers to the smaller primary producers. There are many people engaged in other primary industries who are in greater need of assistance than are the wheat and wool-growers. We should spread any relief that is given over the whole of the primary producers of Australia. As the object of the amendment is to grant further concessions to the land tax payers, I do not propose to vote for it.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- I am prepared to support any proposal which aims at giving a better deal to the farmers of this country. I am somewhat surprised at the audacity of the so-called Country party. The section that it represents is receiving a very fair deal under this bill, and it should be well satisfied.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I am quite satisfied.

Mr McGRATH:

– The honorable member is an exception, and I agree entirely, with what he has said. Not one word has this so-called Country party said about the potato-growers, the dairymen, the lucerne-growers, and the hay and barleygrowers. It asks for no relief for them. This amendment will make the position worse for those primary producers, because this remission of taxation to a wealthy section of the community will be made at the expense of the legitimate producers of this country. I am dissatisfied with the dole system, which has been tried, and has not solved our unemployment problem. I voted for the bill in the hope that the relief from taxation which it provides for the land-owners will lead to a partial solution of the unemployment problem; but I am not prepared to vote for any further concessions to them. Any further concessions made should be for the benefit of the men toiling on the lands of this country.

Mr Prowse:

– Most of them are exempt from the land tax.

Mr McGRATH:

– For the last two or three years the potato-growers in my electorate have been growing potatoes at a loss.

Mr Fenton:

– And they know how to f arm.

Mr McGRATH:

– They are efficient farmers, yet they have not been able to make ends meet for the last two years. I. intend to vote against the amendment.

Mr Scullin:

– Did the honorable member support the clause that provided for a reduction of taxation by 331/3 per cent?

Mr McGRATH:

– Yes.

Mr Scullin:

– Yet the other night the honorable member said that he would not vote for it.

Mr.McGRATH.- I voted for the bill because I considered that a remission of taxation might assist in partially solving the unemployment problem. I hope that the Government will not alter its decision to oppose the amendment.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- I move -

That the following new paragraph be added to the clause - (aa) by omitting from sub-section 1 the word “ may “, first occurring, and inserting in lieu thereof the word “shall”.

That part of section 66 of the Land Tax Assessment Act will then read - . . the board shall release such taxpayer wholly or in part from his liability for land tax . . .

It is a simple, but none the less important, amendment, and it is essentially reasonable. It deals only with cases of hardship that will be cited before the board. Section 66 specifies that a taxpayer may approach the board when his income has suffered by reason of drought, adverse seasons, or other conditions that impair his income, such as the low price of primary products, and so on. Although it is possible for the taxpayer to go before the Hardship Board and definitely prove his case, yet, as the section now reads, the board may or may not release such taxpayer “wholly or in part from his liability for land tax “. It should be conceded that if a person definitely proves hardship, in conformity with the conditions specified in paragraphs a, b, and c, the board should release him from at least a portion of his land tax. The pur pose of my amendment is to make that obligatory, as it was intended it should be when the hardship clause was amended and extended in 1927. I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- The object of the amendment is to make it obligatory upon the board to release a taxpayer from some part or all of his liability when he proves that the hardship from which he has suffered falls within the definition provided by the section. I suggest that we should not agree to make it compulsory to provide relief in all such circumstances. A man who is engaged in pastoral and other enterprises might have had a bad time owing to adverse conditions. But he might also have expensive tastes, and follow the “ sport of kings “, in connexion with which he had lost a lot of money. I am not at all sure that he would not bc able to fulfil the requirements of the section and prove hardship, but it does not follow that the circumstances would warrant his receiving relief from taxation. The insertion of the word “ shall “ in lieu of the word “ may “ would produce no effect as to the way in which the board should provide relief. If the board believed that the case was one that did not warrant any real relief being granted, although the requirements of the section had been fulfilled, it could grant release from land tax to the extent of 2s. 6d., or some other nominal amount. The word “ shall “ could not by any human ingenuity be construced to compel the tribunal to apply the hardship section in cases where it believed that relief was not justified, having regard to the revenue-producing interests of the public. I suggest that the amendment would not achieve any substantial object, and I ask the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) whether he is not prepared to attach some weight to the consideration that, in some cases, relief is - not warranted although the requirements of the section are satisfied.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- In the first part of his remarks, the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) put forward a fairly plausible suggestion which might appeal to anybody who had not read the section carefully. The honorable gentleman said the insertion of the word “shall” would make the granting of relief obligatory, if the requirements of the section were satisfied, even in. the case of men unsuccessfully pursuing such adjuncts to agricultural pursuits as horse-racing. I do not think that the description “ by reason of drought or adverse seasons “ could be stretched to cover the backing of slow horses and expenditure on certain other fast things. The second suggestion advanced by thehonorable gentleman supplied an answer to the first, that is that the board still has absolute discretion to determine the amount of tax that it will remit, and could, where the position of the taxpayer was partly attributable to extravagant living, grant relief something similar to the farthing damages assessed in some libel cases. Therefore, in view of all the circumstances, I submit that the Government should not hesitate to accept the amendment. The attitude of the board has varied a great deal. In periods of prosperity, particularly when the board was composed of public servants who had had experience of private business or primary production, there was no complaint of its general attitude. At other times, although the integrity of the board has never been questioned, there has been a feeling that the members leaned towards the policy of the Treasurer. If the Treasurer was one who, metaphorically, would skin a flea, the board was particularly rapacious. That was instinctive, because of the Public Service training of its members. The direction contained in the amendment, that when the board is satisfied regarding the facts it shall grant relief, would not endanger the revenue; but it would be a direction from Parliament that, regardless of the attitude of the Treasurer, or the mental habits of the members of the board, the act should be administered in such a way as to enable producers to carry on. Last night the Prime Minister admitted that complaints had been made of the operations of the board, but he undertook that the administration would be more sympathetic in future. That clearly showed that the act should include some permanent direction from Parliament regarding the attitude which the board is expected consistently to maintain. The amendment is not vital; if carried it will not affect the efficient working of. the act, and, therefore, the Government might well accept it.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- 1 again ask the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) to accept this most reasonable amendment. He has suggested that a taxpayer who has been engaged in horse-racing and other gambling pursuits, and had thereby got into difficulties, could approach the board for relief from land taxation. The wording of the clause, however, makes that impossible. He has to show that through drought or adverse seasons “ his returns from the land” are insufficient, or because of thelow prices of primary products “the income derived from the land “ was not sufficient to enable him to pay the tax. Horse-racing or other gambling pursuits would not come into consideration in relation to “ returns from the land “ or “ income derived from the land “ in the conduct of agricultural or pastoral pursuits. The board has full power to take into consideration the financial position of the taxpayer, and if it comes to the conclusion that some relief is justified, the remission of the tax in whole or in part should be obligatory. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) has mentioned the belief in some quarters that the board is at times influenced by the needs of the Treasury, and if the Treasurer should be hardpressed for money it is feasible that even in cases of proved hardship the board might refuse relief.

Mr Scullin:

– Has the honorable member any ground for making that statement?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– There have been cases of hardship in which relief has not been granted. The essence of the clause is that where hardship has been proved- in respect of operations connected with the land, relief shall be given. Section 6 at present merely provides that it may be given.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- In reply to the interjections of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), I assure the committee that I did not suggest that the Treasurer ever endeavoured directly or indirectly to influence the board ; but there has been an impression that at times the general Treasury policy has found a subconscious reflection in the attitude of the board towards cases with which it was -dealing. I do not suggest that any treasurer has ever even attempted to apply pressure to the board. I believe, however, that men who have been trained as Treasury officials and tax gatherers cannot avoid an unconscious sympathy with the policy of the Treasurer. That was the reason why I proposed that the board should include one non-official member.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- I did not intend to suggest that an adverse racing season would fall within the meaning of paragraphs b and c. But a land-owner’s returns may have been seriously impaired by reason of drought or other climatic conditions. He might, however, have been well able to pay the land tax if he had not concerned himself in certain expensive amusements. In those circumstances, who is to lose - the Treasurer or the land-owner? Surely the land-owner should pay. The amendment submitted by the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) is illusory. It does not mean anything, and it is supported on that ground; or because, although it means nothing, people may think that it means something. My reply is that I do not believe in including in legislation amendments that mean nothing, because some people will think that they mean something; especially do I disapprove when that something embraces a principle to which I am opposed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Exemptions - Sales Tax Assessment Act No. 1).

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I. move -

That the item “ Brattice cloth for use in the mining industry “ be inserted.

This material is extensively used in the coal-mining industry for ventilation purposes. It conducts air currents along the drives and stopes, and draws off inflammable gases, which otherwise might accumulate at the coal face and explode, causing serious loss of life. The material is subject, not only to the 6 per cent, sales tax, but also to the primage duty of 10 per cent. I am informed by Mr.

  1. MacDonald, of the Northern Collieries Proprietary, and Mr. Teece, the General Secretary of the Coal-miners Federation, chat the sales tax paid on brattice cloth amounts to £1,250 per annum in the northern district only, excluding the district beyond Maitland. In the southern district, because of the comparatively low seam of coal, this material is used for ventilation purposes even more extensively than on the northern field, and considerable quantities are used in the western collieries also. Those districts are all in New South Wales, but there are coal-mining districts in other parts of Australia in which brattice cloth is used. Coal-mining is a primary industry which has been languishing for a considerable time. The mine-owners complain that this is largely because of the taxation imposed on the industry by the Commonwealth and State Governments by means of charges at loading ports, railway freights, and otherwise. Certain other people have not hesitated to say that the industry is languishing because of thu disagreements that have occurred from time to time between the mine-owners and their employees. I remember that on one occasion, the Attorney-General said that the industry had cut its own throat, indicating that he had no sympathy for the industry. I do not admit this, but even if it is so, we should not allow the industry to bleed to death. The disagreements between the employers and employees in the coal-mining industry are in the past, and they should not hinder us from granting relief in the present. I do not imagine that coal-mining will ever reach its former important place in the industrial life of this community, for other moans have been devised of providing power for industry; but there is a large place for coal-mining still to fill in Australia. Seeing that many primary industries in this country have been granted relief from sales taxation in respect of the machinery and equipment they require, it is only just that similar relief should be granted to the coalmining industry. I do not know whether so much consideration has been given to the farming community because of the political punch of the representatives of the Country party in this Parliament; but, in any case, I appeal to the Prime Minister, who listened sympathetically when I asked some time ago for the exemption of certain mining machinery and explosives from sales taxation, to listen just as sympathetically to my request on this occasion.
Mr RILEY:
Cook

.- I support the request of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) for the exemption of brattice cloth from sales taxation. It is pleasing that the previous representations of the honorable member for similar consideration in respect of mining explosives and machinery were successful. On many occasions the honorable member has battled in this House for this industry. In view of the preferential treatment of the farming community of Australia by this Government, we are entitled to ask for similar treatment for the secondary industries. Probably relief has been granted to the farming and grazing interests because of the numerical strength and persistence of the Country party; but, in any case, our secondary industries should be relieved of some of the sales taxation and primage duties which is at present an unnecessary burden upon them. I have in mind one important industry in my electorate which was required to obtain from overseas certain plant and equipment of a kind not manufactured in Australia. When this came to hand, the company had to pay both primage duty and sales tax on it. It is necessary to grant relief in this respect to secondary industries as well as to primary industries. We get somewhat weary of the continual appeals of members of the Country party for concessions of one kind and another to primary industries. I do not object to the granting of necessary relief in this direction, * but I ask for the same consideration to secondary industries. The large amount spent in sales tax and primage duty on the equipment to which I have just referred, must be added to the capital cost of establishing that industry, and this means that interest and depreciation on that amount will have to be provided. Recently a list of exemptions from sales taxation was issued by the Prime Minister’s Department. I notice in it that such items as chaffcutters and horse gears, chaffcutter knives, cheese pressers, churns, corn shelters, and cotton gins are now exempt. The secondary industry of which I have just spoken is engaged in the preparation of raw cotton for manufacturing processes, and if the exemption of cotton gins can be justified so can the exemption of the equipment used by this enterprise. Engines for use in farming or agricultural pursuits, fire rakes and ploughs, waggons, drays and spring drays for use in farming or pastoral purposes are now on the exempt list. For this reason, I think it fair that consideration should he given to the granting of some relief from transport costs to our secondary industries. I have listened patiently to the oftrepeated requests for relief for the farming community, and it is now time that requests should be made for relief for other sections of the community. Books, magazines and periodicals are now exempt from both sales tax and primage duties, and I have no objection to that, although many books and magazines are of a trashy character. The exemption of jam, fruit pulp, and canned or bottled fruits and vegetables, and pickles, sauces’ and vinegar is now being granted. If the Government can see its way clear to extend the list in this way, I sincerely hope that it will still further extend it to provide relief for certain deserving secondary industries.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- We should all be pleased if sales taxation could be entirely remitted and abolished; but it was intimated recently that no additional exemptions could be granted. For this reason, many honorable members who had intended to ask for exemptions which were just as meritorous as that just made by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), did not do so. If special consideration is granted to the request that is now before the committee, it is likely that many additional requests will be made, and we may have to embark upon a long debate. A good case could be presented for the exemption of very many articles which, so far, have not been mentioned in this House.

Mr McNICOLL:
Werriwa

.- I support the amendment of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). Although, unlike the honorable member, I am not a practical miner, I am assured thatthe use of brattice cloth is very necessary in the coal-mining industry. If the Government could see its way clear to grant this request, it would be greatly appreciated. Naturally, we are grateful for the relief that is being given to certain primary industries, but I remind the Government that coal-mining; is also a primary industry. The exemption of brattice cloth would not mean very much to the Government from the revenue stand-point, but it would mean, a great deal to the coal-mining industry. Anthracite is now being mined at Thirroul, on the south coast of New South Wales, and brattice cloth is used in those operations. It has been frequently argued in this chamber that sales taxation is an iniquitous, an undesirable, and a clumsy form of taxation, and we hope that the day is not far distant when it may be entirely unnecessary to impose it. But in the meantime, I trust that the Government will take every care to see that the infliction of it is not made more harmful to industry than is absolutely necessary.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- While I compliment the Government upon having increased the list of goods exempt from sales taxation, I protest against the manner in which this legislation is being administered at present. This is a most disastrous example of delegated authority which is resulting in the infliction of severe hardships on the unfortunate taxpayers. We all remember when this tragi-comedy in nine acts was first presented by the former Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin).He did not understand the entertainment. We know that the scenario was written by a mysterious Mr. Jones from Canada. The Prime Minister of the day was only the juvenile lead.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must deal with the clause.

Mr WHITE:

– This clause is closely associated with those provisions of the sales tax act to which I am referring. I agree largely with the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Riley) that, although from time to time remissions of taxation have been made to the primary producers, little has been done to assist traders, although the sales tax act in particular is a constant source of annoyance and embarrassment, both to the traders and to the consuming public. This act has been patched and rewritten, and is still just as unworkable as when it was first passed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The clause deals with specific exemptions under the act, and the honorable member must do the same.

Mr WHITE:

– The act covers all the items mentioned in Part IV. of the bill. It is stated that “ the selling of goods by wholesale includes the selling of goods to a person who buys the goods for the purpose of reselling.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must deal with the items mentioned in the list of exemptions.

Mr WHITE:

– I must bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but every item I have mentioned is covered by the clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The clause deals with the exemption of certain articles, not with the administration of the act.

Mr WHITE:

– Many other exemptions should have been made. Although this was an emergency measure, for the purpose of raising revenue, it was not intended that it should operate inequitably. To-day we were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) that a certain booklet would be ready soon. We know that the preparation of this booklet was begun in 1930; but we are still waiting for it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is deliberately evading my ruling.

Mr WHITE:

– The Government may be complimented on exempting certain articles from sales tax, namely, books, which might very well have been exempted by the last Government. There should be a general overhaul of the whole act, so that it might be made to operate more equitably and smoothly than it does now.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- I appeal to the Government to include in the list of exemptions the commodity known as brattice cloth, which is used in connexion with the ventilation of mines. This system of ventilation has to be installed under the provisions of the Mining Act. Explosives are used in the mines, and these produce smoke and vitiate the air, and the use of brattice cloth is necessary to clear the atmosphere. I can remember when no such method of ventilation was employed, and I appreciate the value of the fan system. I believe that brattice cloth was inadvertently omitted from the list of exemptions when explosives were included. We have granted a considerable measure of relief to the primary producers, and we were glad to do so. Therefore, we might extend the relief to this section of the primary producers, also. Personally, I believe that the sales tax is one of the most pernicious forms, of taxation ever invented; but, if we cannot at this stage abolish it, we can at least refrain from collecting it on this most necessary article of mining equipment.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I support the amendment. I realize, as does the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), that the list of exemptions is at present necessarily limited. The coal-mining industry is, in all essentials, a primary industry, to the same extent as are the wool and wheat industries, and is probably as important to the community. The Government has accepted the principle that all requisites for carrying on primary industries should be exempt from sales tax. We have heard a good deal about the losses incurred in other primary industries, so that it is well to hear in mind that, in the mining industry, there is, perhaps, more unemployment, destitution, and misery than in any other industry in the Commonwealth. It is on its knees to-day, and the Government should extend a helping hand to it. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to grant, if at all possible, the exemption from sales tax of brattice cloth.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– This concession would be of particular assistance to the Victorian Government, which is doing its best to keep the Wonthaggi coal-mine working. At present the miners at Wonthaggi are able to get only two or three days’ work a week. The purchase of this commodity is one of the items in the cost of production, and anything we can do to keep costs down will help the State Govern- ment to employ more men. The Victorian Government urged me to do what I could to have the sales tax on explosives removed. Explosives may be regarded as tools of trade, and this other commodity, though not so large an item as explosives, is yet one of considerable importance. I have no doubt that it would have been included in the list at the same time that the tax was removed from explosives, had we thought of mentioning it at the time. Anything we can do to lift the burden of costs off the mining industry, particularly as they affect Wonthaggi, is worth while.

Mr GABB:
Angas

– I regret that the Government has not seen fit to include in the list of exemptions those articles regarding which representations were made by the Dried Fruit Growers Association, namely, hessian, olive oil, carbonate of potash, caustic soda, dip tins, and agricultural drain pipes. I do not propose to move that these articles be exempted, because a request to that effect was made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) some days ago, and was refused. I am bringing the matter forward now in the hope that, when the next, amendment to the Sales Tax Act is brought down, they may be included in the list of exemptions. Not since 1925-26 has the dried fruits industry made any urgent appeal to this Parliament for assistance. At that time it was in serious difficulties, but conditions improved, later. I recognize that, having opposed reductions in taxation in regard to other matters, I lay myself open to a charge of inconsistency in advocating the remission of sales tax on these articles. If that charge is made against me, I must bear it.

Recently I was reported in Hansard as having asked for the remission of sales tax on the products of the dried fruits industry. I do not know who was at fault, Hansard or myself, but I am aware that the products of this industry have been exempt from sales tax practically from the beginning. They are articles of food, and therefore exempt. I asked for exemption, not for the products of the industry, but for the goods used in processing. I desire to make the distinction clear, because if the report of which I speak were allowed to go uncorrected, it would make it appear that I had little knowledge of the industry, or, worse still, that I lacked interest in it. In regard to the other request that I have just made, I can only say that I have cast my bread upon the waters, and I hope that it will return after not too many days.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- I ask that some assistance be given by way of sales tax remission to master tailors. I do not expect that my request will be successful, because the Government has intimated that it will not enlarge the list, but I feel obliged to place it before the Government. Should a further list of exemptions ever be brought down, I trust that some relief will be given to these tradesmen. Many tailors in country and provincial towns with a turn-over of £50 a week are paying sales tax to the extent of £2 a week. They have to compete with ready-made clothes manufactured in city factories, and the effect of the tax is to drive the master tailors out of business in such towns as Ballarat, Bendigo, Castlemaine, and Geelong, into the cities, or, at any rate, to compel them to have the clothes made up in city factories. The Government will recognize that it is better, in the interests of everybody, that tailoring should be done under pleasant conditions in country towns, rather than in crowded city factories. The present act is doing serious injury to the tailoring trade, and some relief should be afforded.

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

.- I commend the Government on having brought down this list of exemptions, and express the hope that, at no distant date, it will be possible to repeal the sales tax altogether. In the meantime, I have to request that there be added to the list of exemptions aerated waters and non-alcoholic drinks. I understand that beer i3 already exempt from the payment of sales tax, and the manufacturers of aerated drinks feel that they are under a serious disability in being called upon to pay the tax. I understand that those connected with the industry have already written to the Prime Minister on this subject. I hope that the Government will give early consideration to their proposal to exempt aerated waters from the operation of the sales tax. This tax generally works harshly in respect of business generally, and I am sure that every honorable mem- bcr realizes the necessity at the earliest moment for removing it from our taxation legislation.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- I wish again to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to an anomaly that exists in connexion with the administration of the Sales Tax Act. I urge the Government to eliminate that portion of the act which provides that the taxpayer shall furnish fidelity bonds to the Department of Taxation. No other taxation legislation makes such an unnecessary demand upon the taxpayers. The elimination of this provision would not cost the Government one penny, but at the same time it would give financial relief to many taxpayers, and save them from unnecessary annoyance.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- I join with the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Dennis) in urging the Government to place aerated waters on the list of exemptions from the Sales Tax Act. The Government has already exempted soda fountains from the operation of the act, and there is no reasonwhy soda and other aerated waters should not also be exempt.

Mr.LYONS (Wilmot - Prime Minister and Treasurer) [4.18]. - The Government would, indeed, be pleased if it could accede to the requests of honorable members for further exemptions from the sales tax, but there is a limit beyond which we cannot go if we are to meet our financial obligations. I have nothing to say against the suggestions of honorable members. I, myself, could add dozens of items to the list of exemptions, if the state of the finances permitted me to do so. The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) has suggested that brattice cloth, which is used in the coal-mining industry, should be exempt from the sales tax, but I would draw his attention to the fact that insulin and liver extract, the use of which has benefited the health of many of our people and in some instances has saved life, are not on the list of exemptions. The Government hopes that at an early date it will be able to make further exemptions, and when that time arrives those items which have first claim for exemption will be included in the list.

The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) has asked that the requisites of master tailors be exempt from sales tax. The honorable member previously brought that matter under the notice of the Government, and amendments were made to the act in the hope that some relief would be given. If the position is not now entirely satisfactory, the Government will give further consideration to the honorable member’s request. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Riley) has made a suggestion which appeals to me, but at the moment we cannot add to the list of exemptions. However, I promise him that the matter to which he has referred will be thoroughly investigated. In adding to the list of exemptions we have conferred substantial benefits upon the primary industries, and we should not overlook the fact that the secondary industries also require assistance, particularly in respect of machinery that cannot be manufactured in Australia, and, therefore, has to be imported. The honorable member’s request will, therefore, receive the consideration of the Government.

The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) has previously suggested that the guarantees that must be provided by the taxpayers should be dispensed with. Those guarantees were provided to safeguard the Treasury from loss of revenue, and the department does not at present feel inclined to depart from that practice.

Reverting to the request of the honorable member for Hunter that brattice cloth should be exempt from the sales tax, let me inform him that the exemption of explosives which has benefited the coal-mining industry to a considerable extent has meant a loss to the Treasury of £30,000. If brattice cloth were exempt from taxation a further loss of £5,000. would, be involved. In those circumstances, I ask the honorable member not to press his amendment. I promise him that his request will be considered by the Government when further exemptions are being made.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) does not intend to accept my amendment. It is peculiar that every request of repre- sentatives of rural industries for exemptions from sales tax has been granted by the Government, yet it has paid no consideration at all to the coal-mining industry, which is of national importance. That industry has during the past two years lost the export trade that it at one time enjoyed, but it is now making every effort to regain it. Brattice cloth is used for ventilation purposes in the mines. It is an essential item, because the health and well-being of the miners depend upon it.

Mr Lyons:

– If I granted the request of the honorable member, I should have to grant the requests of other honorable members.

Mr JAMES:

– Although this industry has benefited from the inclusion of explosives in the list of exemptions, it has not received the assistance that has been given to primary industries. Other countries assist their coal-mining industries. In South Africa a bounty is paid on the export of coal even in respect of bunker coal supplied to vessels trading between that country and Australia. Surely the Assistant Minister (Mr. Francis) and other honorable members who represent coal-mining electorates, recognize the importance of this industry to Australia. Although this concession, if granted, would involve a considerable loss of revenue to the Government, that would be offset by the additional employment provided in the mining industry, and the recovery of a portion of the overseas trade which we previously enjoyed. I admit that our export trade has suffered to some extent because of the increasing use of oil and other fuels, but if the industry is assisted in the way that I have suggested, there is no reason why that trade should not be considerably increased. The Government has stated that it intends to assist primary industries in every possible way by releasing them from taxation. Here is an opportunity for it to give effect to its promise. In 1927 there were 24,049 persons employed in the coal industry in New South Wales alone. To-day, unfortunately, not half that number is employed regularly, there being approximately 7,000 coal-miners and others dependent on the industry idle in the northern districts of. New South Wales. Yet the Government declines to concede the relief that I am seeking. I cannot withdraw my amendment, and I urge the Prime Minister to avoid the delay of putting it to the votes, by agreement to it, and thereby providing this great primary industry with the relief to which it is entitled.

Question - That the item proposed to be inserted (Mr. James’ amendment) be so inserted - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 32

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I move -

That the following item be inserted - “Explosives for use in the mining industry ; “

As well as altering the present verbiage, this amendment alters the effect of the existing law. Exemption from sales tax is now granted only on explosives which are purchased direct from a registered manufacturer or wholesaler by those engaged in mining, and when the explosive is used for mining purposes. Although that would apply to coal-miners generally it would not apply to miners in the Bendigo, Ballarat and other similar gold-mining industries where individuals, engaged in mining purchase their explosives from local retailers who cannot quote their certificates. This amendment will make the exemption comprehensive.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Lyons) agreed to -

That the words “treacle and golden syrup;” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Treacle, molasses, golden syrup and other syrups produced by sugar refineries;”

Mr. LYONS (Wilmot- Prime Minister and Treasurer [4.40]. - I move -

That the following new paragraph be inserted: - “(h) by inserting at the end of thu item commencing with the words ‘ Water pipes’, the words: - ‘,and parts thereof, not being parts of a kind that are ordinarily used for any purpose other than as parts of such goods.’ “

This is simply an extension of the present exemption. When the last amending bill was before honorable members the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) asked that certain parts of windmills should be exempted from sales tax. The Government promised to give the matter consideration and, if possible, to include those items in the list of exemptions when the bill was before the Senate. Unfortunately, the matter was overlooked. This is merely carrying out the undertaking then given.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 14 consequentially amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3153

WAR SERVICE HOMES AGREEMENT BILL

Debate resumed from the 29th November(vide page 2994), on motion by Mr. Francis -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr RILEY:
Cook

.- This is merely a formal bill to give effect to recommendation No. 7 of the committee appointed to inquire into war service homes. That recommendation is -

Consideration to be given to the question of making arrangements to extend to persons granted assistance under the War Service Homes Act, but who are under the control of State institutions, the same concessions as those vouchsafed to purchasers and borrowers under the direct control of the War Service Homes Commissioner.

I understand the refusal of the State Savings Bank of Victoria to extend to the soldiers who had purchased war service homes through it, the concessions that have been granted by the War Service Homes Commission to its clients. The bank cannot afford to differentiate in its treatment between war service homes occupants and other clients who are purchasing homes through it under various housing schemes. The agreement which the bill ratifies appears to be equitable, and to conserve the interests of the Commonwealth. The Minister has assured us that besides enabling uniform concessions to be made to war service homes occupants throughout the Commonwealth it will mean a saving to the Commonwealth Government of approximately £10,000 a year, and this is very desirable at the present time.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I sympathize with the purpose of the bill, which is to extend to certain war service homes occupants in Victoria, the same concessions as are enjoyed by such occupants in other States. The original purpose of the arrangements made with State institutions for the erection of homes for the soldiers was to keep as small as practicable the services to be maintained by the Commonwealth, and I would like an assurance from the Assistant Minister (Mr. Francis) that the passage of the bill will n©t lead to any considerable extension of the staff and organization of the Wear Service Homes Commission in Victoria. What is the position in regard to South Australia?

Mr Francis:

– The State Savings Bank of South Australia has extended to ….. service homes occupants the concessions made by the commission, and negotiations for an adjustment of the agreement are proceeding.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I ,ask the Minister also to inform the House of the general financial position of the war service homes schemes. Are the arrears of repayments increasing, or are the soldiers meeting their obligations?

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I understand that this bill is necessary to carry out a recommendation by the committee appointed by the Government that the concessions already enjoyed by war service homes occupants in the States shall be extended to soldiers who are purchasing war service homes through the State Savings Bank of Victoria. But the organizations representing returned soldiers have adversely critized the findings of that committee. Although the concessions now enjoyed in other States are being granted to war service homes occupants in Victoria, the soldiers generally may feel that those concessions are not adequate. While supporting this bill to meet the extraordinary situation that has arisen in one State, I, and my colleagues, reserve the right to discuss, when the War Service Homes Bill is before the House, the adequacy or otherwise of the relief measures recommended by the committee of inquiry.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- Frequent complaint was made in this House that the occupants of war service homes in Victoria were being evicted by the State Savings Bank. Unfortunately, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Marr) had no authority to control those proceedings. This bill will bring the war service homes occupants in Victoria under the control of the commission, and will enable the concessions given to soldiers purchasing homes to apply uniformly throughout the Commonwealth. This is not the occasion to deal with the general treatment and disabilities of war service homes occupants, but a general amending measure should be introduced by the Government early next year. Because of my close association with returned soldier organizations in Victoria, I know that the bill now before the House is urgently required, and I shall support it.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- Every honorable member should support this bill, the object of which is to secure a degree of uniformity at present missing from the administration of our war service homes legislation. During the regime of the Scullin Government I took this matter up, and urged that an agreement should be made between the Commonwealth Government and the Commissioners of the State Savings Bank of Victoria, with the object of simplifying and unifying the conditions of returned soldiers in respect of their war service homes. I compliment the Government on having negotiated this agreement.

Mr FRANCIS:
Assistant Minister · Moreton · UAP

– The Government appreciates the action of honorable members in facilitating the passage of this bill. There is no danger of a large organization being built up, as feared by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page). It is estimated that the passage of this bill will result in the saving of £10,000 a year in war service homes administrative costs. Subject to the approval of Mr. Speaker, the Government will have no objection to honorable member? making any remarks they desired to make on this bill during the debate on the War Service Homes Bill that is awaiting consideration. The returned soldier organizations of Victoria have asked the Government to take the action which it is now taking. I shall make a statement on the subject of arrears when the War Service Homes Bill is under consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This act shall commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation.

Mr FRANCIS:
AssistantMinister · Moreton · UAP

– I ask honorable members to agree to the deletion of this clause. The facility with which the bill has been passed may make possible a more satisfactory arrangement. The Government is now engaged in telephone negotiations with the Commissioners of the Savings Bank of Victoria on this subject.

Clause negatived.

Remainder of the bill agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report adopted and bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3155

FINANCIAL BELIEF BILL 1932

In committee (Consideration resumed from page 3153).

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause18- (2.) This section shall be deemed to have commenced on the twelfth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I ask anassurance from the Government that there will be no retrospective implication of this provision which will cause undue hardship on pensioners.

Mr Lyons:

– There is nothing in this clause which will have the effect feared by the right honorable member.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- It is well known that a large number of pensioners have surrendered their pensions since the 12th October, but all who have done so have been told that they must refund the amount of pension received by them between the 12th October and the date on which they were asked to sign cards stating that they would not mortgage their property, or else allow the amount of such pension to be made a first charge on the property. I personally know of pensioners who have been asked to refund as much as 35s., and some may have been requested to refund more than that. I have received a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions of Victoria, intimating that pensioners who have declined to sign cards stating that they would not mortgage their property and have surrendered their pension must pay the amount of pension received by them since the 12th October.

Mr Watkins:

– Those are the pensioners who have refused to mortgage their property.

Mr McGRATH:

– That is so; but it should be realized that many of the people who have refused to mortgage their homes, and so have relinquished the pension, will be applying for a pension at a later date. One woman at Sebastopol, in Ballarat, has told me that she has been requested to refund 35s. Surely the Government does not intend to insist upon the refunding of paltry amounts of this kind, in view of the fact that great hardship is being inflicted upon many pensioners, and that the surrender of the pension will substantially reduce expenditure. If relief could be given in this direction real sympathy would beshown with the pensioners affected.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I drew the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to this point about a fortnight ago, and suggested that the Government should fix a minimum period during which pensions may be voluntarily surrendered without any obligation to refund the amounts that may have been paid between the 12th October and the date of surrender of the pension. If something of that kind is not done, severe hardships will be inflicted upon many pensioners. It must be remembered that the alteration of our pension legislation which we now have under consideration was made suddenly, and pensioners had no time in which to consider their position. In my opinion this was harsh treatment. More than 2,000 pensionershave surrendered their pensions since the 12th October, and if they are obliged to refund the money received since then they will be put in very grave difficulties. I do not think that the Government should push them to this extremity. Many of these old people have lived in their homes for 40 or 50 years, and possess nothing except their homes. They have not a penny of income apart from the pension. In many cases they have surrendered their pensions through intimidation. Although intimidation might not have been intended that has been the effect of the Government’s action. These old people have determined to live on the dole, or on what help they can obtain from friends or relatives, rather han give up their homes, which they regard as something sacred. It is bad enough for them to have to give up their pensions; they do that in order to keep their homes free from mortgage or garnishee by the Government, but they never anticipated, when they made that voluntary sacrifice, which will last as long as they live, or as long as the Government wishes, that the 35s. they drew in pension for the fortnight following the 12th October would be demanded from them by the department. These people have no income except the home they live in, and that does not represent an actual money income.

Pensioners have no margin on which to work. On each pension day, they meet the bills they have incurred, and at the same ,time, incur the next fortnight’s liability. Now the Government, after they have given up their pensions, which means the saving of thousands of pounds to the exchequer, is demanding the return of the money they drew while they were making up their minds. That isnot reasonable, and I do not think that any honorable member of this House, no matter what his politics, ever intended that the provision should be pushed so far. I have prepared an amendment, but I hope that it will not be necessary for me to move it.

Mr Lyons:

– There will be no need for the honorable member to do that.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I am pleased to have that assurance. < It was inevitable that a certain time should elapse between the receipt of notices by pensioners, and their arrival at a decision regarding their future course of action. I have advised those pensioners who came to me for advice not to pay. In one case that I know of: the pensioner has been told that he will be harassed until he does pay. I am not blaming the officers of the pensons department; they are merely carrying out the law, but I ask the Government not to go so far as the law now permits.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The remarks of the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) certainly disclose a position which ought not to be allowed to exist. The Government believes that it will be able to deal with the matter by administration in order to remedy a hardship which would undoubtedly be caused if repayment of these’ amounts were required. At first glance, it would appear that all that is necessary is to abstain from making the claims for a refund, and to give a direction that no such claims be made. If, however, it is found, after consideration, that legislation is necessary to prevent what I agree would be an injustice, or, at least, a hardship verging upon an injustice, an amendment will be introduced in another place to confer full powers on the administration to bring about the desired result.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I desire to bring under the notice of the Government certain cases in which pensioners are still drawing the full amount of 17 s. 6d. a week. Under the amended law, no person with any income whatever is entitled to draw the full amount. An invalid pensioner whom I know has two children, in respect of whom she draws a child welfare allowance of 7s. 6d. or 8s. a week from the State. She is still drawing her 17s. 6d. a week pension because, up to the time she i spoke to me, the pensions department had no knowledge that she was drawing the child welfare allowance. She sought my advice as to whether she should make the facts known to the department, and I advised her to do so, because the law required that she should. The result will be that her pension will now be reduced by 2s. 6d. a week; but, over and above that, she will probably be required to refund the extra half-crown a week which she has drawn since the 12th October. I do not think that the Government will maintain that child welfare money should be treated as income. I inquired of the Deputy Commissioner on this point by telephone, and he said that there was no doubt that the money must be regarded as income, and he had no alternative but to treat it as such.I donot think that the State regards the few shillings it pays as child welfare allowance in such cases as income derived by the person to whom the money is paid, and the Commonwealth Government should not so regard it.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- An oldage pensioner called at my house this week and informed me that she was providing a home for three children who had become a charge on the State. I inquired from the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions whether the money she received for boarding these children should bo regarded as income, and I was informed that it would be, and that her pension would have to be reduced by 2s. 6d. a week. I asked him how much income she would be assessed for, but he was unable to inform me. I do not think that it was ever intended that the 8s. 6d. a week which kindly disposed pensioners might receive in return for providing a home for these children should be regarded as income for the purpose of assessing their pensions. Persons who take such children have to look after them, feed them, and clothe them. Periodical inspections are made by State officers, and, if the children are not being treated properly, they are taken away. No one will claim, I think, that it is possible to make a profit out of looking after a child for8s. 6d. a week. I went so far as to tell the old lady not to inform the pensions department that she was looking after the children, stating that, if the department learned the facts, I should endeavour to obtain justice for her on the floor of the House.

I come now to the question of refunding pensions already received, and in this connexion I have before me a communication from the Secretary of the Blind Association, Adelaide, addressed to Mr. Campbell, Secretary of the Blind Association in Sydney. It is as follows : -

On last pensionday (6th instant) all pensioners received a form and a card. to be filled in and returned within 30 days. The form required more detailed account of property and relatives than has been the case heretofore. The card requires an undertaking not to transfer or mortgage any property of which the pensioner is now, or may become the owner, so we decided at our last union meeting (on the 14th) to wire you suggesting that the Federal Council take action to secure an extension of time for the return of the forms which at present closes on the 10th December, so as to enable the Federal Council Executive to wait on the Treasurer by deputation to request the payment of the pension to the blind as a right, as we consider the abolition of these restrictions is really the only satisfactory condition to deal with the pension for the blind (as is the case with the blinded soldiers’ pension ) .

It is evident that, between the 12th October and the 10th December, considerable sums will be drawn in pensions by a large number of persons, and I suggest, that the date of the commencement of the act should be fixed at the 10th December. Some pensioners in New South Wales have already received notices requiring them to furnish an answer within 30 days, but in other instances the notices have probably not been served. It should not be necessary for pensioners to come to members of Parliament asking them to interpret the act for them. The position should be clearly stated in the act itself.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- Honorable members should understand that this clause is a negation of the principle which should underlie the payment of pensions. It is denying to thrifty people the right to receive aid from the State. I do not say that all those now drawing a full pension, because they have no other resources, are in that position because they always lived up to their incomes, but the fact remains that those who never troubled to save a penny can now draw the maximum pension, while those who stinted themselves to put something by are drawing reduced pensions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Honor abl e members should, as far as possible, confine their remarks to the clause under discussion. The original act is not now before the committee.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane), and the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), asked whether it was right that allowances received by pensioners from the State in respect to children, whether their own, or those boarded out by the State, should be regarded as income. In the first place, I desire to inform honorable members that that point does not arise under this bill. The first point is whether this payment is income of the pensioner? Suppose that a person were receiving 40s. a week i. respect of four children, would that ..ti income or i.ot? That question arises under the act as it has existed for many years, and I understand that the view of the department has throughout been that it is income. This is the first time that I have ever heard of the difficulty mentioned by the honorable member, and it would depend u pon the circumstances of each case whether the payment can be properly described as income or not. I shall see that the matter is investigated. The definition, of “ income “, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, has, I think, been substantially the same since 1908, when the act was passed, although the section in question has been amended from time to time. The definition, reads - “ Income “ means any moneys, valuable consideration, or profits earned, derived, or received by any person for his own use or benefit by any means from any source what”ir.

The question which arises is whether these payments are really moneys received by any person for his own use or benefit.

Mr Beasley:

– They are not.

Mr LATHAM:

– If they are moneys which are entirely at the disposal of the person who receives them, then they are income, but if they are received under such terms that they must be devoted to the maintenance of children, then they arc not income.

Mr Nairn:

– “Would the profit from the payment be an income?

Mr LATHAM:

– That is another point to be considered, but I do not think that there would be much profit from a payment of 10s. a week for the maintenance of a child. There is another point. If income is received then it has the effect of reducing the pension possibly to 15s. a week. In some cases, owing to a misunderstanding of this or some other aspect of the matter, the payments have been drawn at the full amount and, as the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has said, demands are now being made for the refund of the 2s. 6d. overpaid. It is impossible to make any general statement as to what should be done in such cases, because, while there are some perfectly bona fide cases in which no one would contend that the Commonwealth or anybody else should take action to re cover a few shillings overpaid, there will be other cases in which people are taking unjust and unfair advantage of what they think are loopholes in the law. Each case will be examined on its merits, and where there has been a bona fide error without any intention of obtaining a benefit which the person concerned knew that he was not entitled to, instructions will be given which will prevent any injustice from being done.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The point at issue is not that an error ha? been made, but that the investigations are not complete. In the meantime these people are drawing l’7s. 6d. a week, not because of a mistake on their part or even on the part of the department, but because until the investigation is complete it cannot be ascertained whether they are to suffer a reduction of pension. I think that the assurance of the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) might be given, at this stage that the department will follow the principle that was followed in respect of the granting of a pension, which is that the pension dates from the day the claimant actually proves his claim. That often necessitates the payment of back money. But if through a mistake of the claimant there is a delay, no back payment is made. Obviously in this case the pensioner could not be held responsible for the delay in re-assessing the pension. It must be a departmental delay, and no reduction made should be prior to the date of the department’s own determination. That is only reasonable. Hardship would be inflicted on people drawing an extra 2s. 6d. a week if they were asked to refund perhaps twelve half-crowns in a lump sum. If the repayments were spread over a number of months, the pension of 15s. would then be reduced. It is not the fault of the pensioners that they are collecting 17s. 6d. a week, and I think that the Government should make the definite assurance that where the delay has been due to the department not being able to assess the pension, no reduction should be made until the date of the notification of the reduction.

Reference has also been made to money paid to pensioners by the Children’s Welfare Department. There is another definition of “ income,” which the

A ttorney-General will remember, with respect to ascertaining whether the pension should be 17s. 6d. or 15s. a week. It differs from the general definition in the act. The purpose of the definition of “income” already in the act was to ascertain whether the pensioners could draw a full pension if they received an income of 12s. 6d. per week, and that definition differs from the definition as applied to the section which determines whether the pension shall be 17s. 6d. or 15s. a week. Honorable members must realize that the basic invalid and old-age pension is now 15s. a week. But in addition, there is an allowance of up to 2s. 6d. if the pensioner is entirely dependent upon the pension. Then there is a sliding scale to allow something over the 15s. if pensioners have no more than 2s. 6d. a week income. But in ascertaining that 2s. 6d., the definition of “income” is not the same as the definition determining whether the pensioners can draw the full pension of 15s. plus12s. 6d. income.

Mr Latham:

– That bears relation only to the relatives.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That is so. This is an important variation that must be kept in mind.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has said, I confess, appeals to me as being eminently fair, and were it not that I do not feel myself sufficiently familiar with the details of the administration, I should feel inclined to assent to his suggestion. I shall have inquiries made to ascertain whether the same principle could not be applied in relation to the date of diminution of pension as has been applied in relation to the amount of the pension.

I omitted to deal with one point mentioned by the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) in respect of the notice of 30 days given to pensioners. If it were found necessary to extend that period, it could be extended by regulation. The period is fixed by regulation and not by the act.

Mr Lane:

– On Saturday last, I received from the Prime Minister a telegram to the effect that the period could not be extended in respect of the blind.

Mr LATHAM:

– The section which dea ls with the matter is section 18 of the Financial Emergency Act 1932, which states that every pensioner, and every claimant shall, within such time as is prescribed, furnish to the Commissioner the prescribed particulars relating to the real property, and so on. I understand that that is the section to which the honorable member is referring. The time is prescribed, and if found necessary it can be extended by regulation. It must be remembered the whenever Parliament fixes a time for a specified purpose, there are always some people who will not bother their heads about it. Under this provision, 30 days is allowed for furnishing returns to the department. Prima facie, it should be possible to do that within the period stated. But if we fixed 60 or 600 days, there would still be some people who would not furnish returns until the last day. The honorable member will find that a pe riod of 30 days is ample.It will be possible, if the necessity should arise, to extend the time, but personally I think that there will be no difficulty experienced, because if the returnis not made in time, the pension can be cancelled, and the pensioner is not likely to place himself in the position of losing his pension.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19- (1.) Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended -

Section proposed to be amended - (1.) The amount of a pension shall in each case be at such rate as . . . the Commissioner . . . deems reasonable and sufficient . . .

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- The officers of the pensions department endeavour to administer the act as sympathetically as possible. But we have to realize that the act definitely states that the income of a pensioner from any source, if he is to receive a full pension, must not be over 2s. 6d. a week. Therefore, few people will receive the full pension of 17s. 6d. a week. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) has stated that money received for the maintenance of children who are boarded out to a pensioner is not income. The principal act lays it down that the incomes of a wife and a husband are to be considered jointly for pension purposes. I also have in mind the case of persons who have for years been drawing an allowance from the miners’ accident relief fund, perhaps to the extent of 10s. a week. That will be deemed to be income, and, when their cases are reviewed, their pensions will be reduced. Others are receiving 5s. a week lodge benefits, drawing the minimum amount to which they are entitled, so that they may retain their funeral allowance privileges. That 5s. will be taken into consideration when their cases are reviewed.

During the week-end I was in touch with a number of pensioners. One said that he would prefer the lodge and his colleagues to have the benefit, and proposed relinquishing the 5s. He asked what would be the result. I told him that I did not think he could do that, as the act provides that no property shall be transferred without the consent of the Commissioner; that he would have to continue to draw his lodge allowance. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) mentioned the case of persons drawing child welfare allowances. I know instances where mothers draw that allowance in addition to an invalid pension. I suppose that is the experience of many other honorable members.

It is most improper, and a great hardship, that these old folks should be forced to surrender their pensions to escape the alternative of their homes being taken over by the Government. In many cases those homes were built from the pension money received by mothers on account of sons who wore killed at the war. The Government must realize that the owners attach great sentimental attachment to such homes, and will in no circumstances relinquish them.

When we considered previous amendments to the act, we were assured that the department would administer these matters sympathetically. That should not be left to the discretion of the departmental officers; it should be mandatory. This act is administered by a department under the control of the Treasurer, not of the Attorney-General, who has given these guarantees. The Treasurer should be here to give similar guarantees. I do not say that the right honorable gentleman will not honour the promises made by the Attorney-General; but I know the trouble and confusion that will arise from the administration of this act, which is the most iniquitous within my knowledge. I have urged pensioners not to forfeit their pensions, because I believe that, as a result of the great revulsion of feeling that this legislation has brought about throughout Australia, this Government will not remain in power much longer. I have never known an act of Parliament to arouse such indignation, even among the churches. I receive protests daily from representative bodies, including municipal councils. Some say that there is an organized attempt to make political capital out of this legislation. God knows, nobody wants to make political capital out of the sufferings of the old folk.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may discuss the amendment, but not the principal act.

Mr JAMES:

– The reply that has been given by the Attorney-General is unsatisfactory. It cannot be claimed that the act has been administered sympathetically when persons have been forced to sign Form 43, under which they hand over their freedom, for they are then unable to dispose of their property or even mortgage it without the consent in writing of the Commissioner or his deputy. The press broadcast the false statement that 1988 or more dishonest pensioners had surrendered their pensions because they feared an investigation, and that it represented a saving of £80,000 per annum to the Government. It has been proved that they took that action not because they were dishonest, but because they bitterly resented the action of the Government, and refused to part with the homes that were built for them by their children or, bequeathed to them by their parents. The intrinsic value of those homes to the owners cannot be measured in terms of cash, and these old folk will not part with them.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I appeal again to the Prime Minister to give these pensioners more time to make up their minds. Because of the politically inspired propaganda that has been broadcast, these people really do not know where they stand. I know of an individual who travelled about Balmain yes- terday telling the invalid and old-age pensioners a lot of trash. Some honorable members have said that they will not climb to power “ on the backs of the pensioners “. We know that every day certain politicians are organizing meetings and pumping all sorts of false propaganda into the invalid and old-age pensioners.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must deal with the clause.

Mr LANE:

– The pensioners are bew ildered, and do not know whether to sign the cards or not. They have been told that if they do so the Commonwealth will immediately take a mortgage over their property, which will no longer belong to the pensioners. I have tried to pacify many of the old people, pointing out that a pension is equivalent to a capital value of £1,000, whereas their homes are generally worth about £400 or £500.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! It would be more appropriate if honorable members discussed these matters when we are dealing with clause 20.

Mr LANE:

– I urge the Prime Minister to extend leniency to pensioners who have not yet handed in their forms. They have been laboring under a false impression, and, on reflection, will probably comply with the formalities. I suggest that the term should be extended to the 1st January. Some pensioners have been receiving 10s. or 13s. a week from other sources and, because of the false propaganda to which they have been subjected, they have made errors in connexion with their returns. That could all be rectified if the Government agreed to my suggestion.

Mr COLLINS:
Hume

.- I put before the Government the case of pensioners receiving, say, 8s. 6d. a week, whose allowance is reduced by 2s. 6d. a week pending an investigation being made by the authorities. If the investigations prove that a reduction is necessary, further cuts might be effected. On the contrary, if it is shown that they are entitled to a greater pension the amount will be increased. I contend that the investigation should be made first, otherwise pensioners are subjected to the hardship of losing this money while the department is proceeding with its inquiries. I know of cases of old-age pensioners being reduced in this way to a mere 6s. 3d. a week. I ask the Prime Minister to make a note of the matter, if possible, to give an assurance that in those cases where it is proved that a higher rate of pension should be paid, it should be made retrospective to the time when the reduction began. I also point out that those pensioners who are suffering from both invalidity and old-age are deserving of particular consideration.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) said that honorable members on this side of the committee are worried in regard to old-age pensions. I admit that I was worried when I read in the Ballarat Courier the cruel, lying statements made by individuals who are organizing a league of invalid and oldage pensioners. They should be heartily ashamed of themselves. By the lies they are spreading they are killing the old people. The pensioners are being told that £91 will be deducted from their insurance if their homes are burnt, and that sons, whether employed or unemployed, will be gaoled if they do not maintain their parents.

Mr James:

– Who says that?

Mr McGRATH:

– Those are included amongst the statements being circulated by one Kemp, who is organizing the invalid’ and old-age pensioners in my electorate into a league. The old people’ are being told that their property will be taken from them, and no consideration will be given to them.

Mr James:

– It will be taken from them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member for Hunter (Mr; James) not to interject.

Mr McGRATH:

– When the honorable member for Hunter and his colleagues have given as many years to the service of the pensioners as I have, they will have good reason to talk.

Mr James:

– The honorable member deserted them when he voted for a reduction of their pensions, and he should be ashamed to pose as their friend now.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I have frequently throughout this sitting asked the honorablemember to refrain from interjecting. He has spoken to the clause, but he is constantly interrupting. I warn the honorable member that if he interjects again I shall name him.

Mr James:

– The honorable member for Ballarat is shedding crocodile tears!

The CHAIRMAN:

– I name the honorable member for Hunter.

Mr Lyons:

Mr. Speaker has stated that when an honorable member has been named after having been frequently warned, the usual practice ofappealing to him to make amends to the Chair is not to be followed. The practice should be uniform in the House and in the committee, and, therefore, I regretfully move -

That the honorable member for Hunterbe suspended from the service of the committee.

Question put. The committee divided.

The tellers appointed for the “ Noes “ declining to act,

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

In the House:

Question put -

That the honorable member for Hunter be suspended from the service of the House.

The House divided.

The tellers appointed for the “ Noes “ declining to act,

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G H Mackay:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

The honorable member for Hunter than withdrew.

Sitting suspended from 6.12 to 8 p.m. In committee:

Mr McGRATH:

– Before this debate was interrupted, I was discussing the mentality of certain individuals who have been trying to form our old-age and invalid pensioners into leagues and unions. My impression of those people is that they are more concerned about the threepences of the pensioners than about thep ensioners. themselves. A good deal ofmis representation has been indulged in by these so-called organizers.

I have personally interviewed more than 800 invalid and old-age pensioners, and in practically every case they have left me quite satisfied. But we shall have many difficulties to overcome before this part of the bill is passed. Much injustice has been inflicted which was not intended, and every day brings to light some new aspect of the unsatisfactory working of our amended pensions legislation. I bring under the notice of the Government four specific classesof cases.

First, there is the class which includes miners who suffer from miners’ phthisis. and have been receiving a payment of 5s a week from the State Government to provide them with medicine to ease their suffering from this fell disease which overtook them while they were following their calling as miners. We know very well that many miners have to work in foul air and under bad conditions, and in consequence of this they have contracted miners phthisis. No State Government would dream of reducing the payment of 5s. a week which they are now receiving ; yet, through the operation of our amended pensionslegislation, these men are actually losing 2s. 6d. a week. Thepayment made tothem by the State Government is for medicine and not for food, and it should not be counted as income. I hope that the Government ‘will take steps to rectify this serious anomaly.

The second class to which I direct attention is t hat of deserted mothers who receive, through the Children’s Welfare Department of Victoria, a payment of 2s. 6d. for each child dependent upon them. This payment is not for the maintenance of the mother, but for the benefit of the children, and it was never intended that it should be regarded as the mother’s income and taken into calculation for pension purposes.

The third class to which I refer is that of the widows of deceased or incapacitated soldiers who are drawing a war pension of say, 5s. or 6s. a week. When the amount of this pension was determined an effort was made to assess the pecuniary value of the deceased or incapacitated son to the mother, not after, but prior to, his enlistment. It is unfair, therefore, that a pension granted under those conditions should be taken into account in the assessment of an invalid or old-age pension. Cases of this class certainly merit the favorable consideraton of the Government.

I now direct attention to another anomaly which should have been corrected long ago. It is not due to thu recent amendments of the pensions- law. We know of parents who, in some instances many years ago, gave one of their children a block of land. I have in mind the case of a man who, twelve years ago, gave his son u block of land that was then worth £15u. In the eyes of the pensions authorities. the value of that block of land never diminishes.

Mr Latham:

– If a pensioner has deprived himself of his property, the fact should be taken into account.

Mr McGRATH:

– In nearly every case such gifts have been in the nature of payment for services rendered. In one case of which I have personal knowledge a man gave his son a block of land’ with a house of a kind on it; but the land and building was valued at only £100. The son subsequently built a new house on the block, and this property is now being held against the pensioner at a valuation of £500. That, to my mind, is quite unfair. If money had been given it would have been spent long ago. I ask the Government to find a means of granting relief in cases of that kind.

I think I shall give the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) a shock when I come to deal with homes.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable member had better come over here!

Mr McGRATH:

– I shall not do that, for the happiest days of my life have been those which have passed since I left that side. Honorable members opposite may talk about sympathy for the invalid and old-age pensioners; but I challenge thom to visit Ballarat to find out what the Ballarat pensioners think on the subject. This Government is in the same position as the Government led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin). lt feels it necessary to do things which it would prefer not to do, just as the Loader of the Opposition had to do things while he was Prime Minister that he said he would neve: do. I sincerely hope that before this bill is passed some of the injustices to which I have referred vi!! be rectified.

Mr. ROSEVEAR (Dalley) [S.9J.- This clause deals with those pensioners with property whose pensions were re- assessed under the Financial Emergency Act of September last. The Government frankly confesses that the purpose of the pension provisions of this bill is to remove anomalies. But I remind honorable members that those anomalies were caused through the Government forcing its legislation through Parliament without proper consideration. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) has complained that many injustices have been inflicted on- people under the amended pensions legislation passed last September, but he did not tell us that he voted in favour of the infliction of those injustices.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorablemember may not reflect upon any vote given in the House.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– If the old-age pensioners are forming organizations fo” their self-protection, it is because the.) feel these injustices, and I think they are acting wisely, for they art entitled to do all they can for their own protection. We do nol. misrepresent the position when we say that, even when this bill is passed, many anomalies and injustices will remain unremedied, and new ones will be created. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has admitted that under the Financial Emergency Act certain pensions were reduced on the ground that pensioners owned property, though the property was unproductive. To some extent those reductions are being restored by this bill, but they are not all being restored. For instance, a pensioner who holds property valued at £60 - I refer to non-productive property apart altogether from his home - will receive £1 less in pension after this bill is passed than ho received before the September legislation was passed. If the value of such property is £70, his pension will be £2 less; if £80, it will be £3. less; if £90, £4 less; if £100, £5 less ; and if £110, £6 less. At that’ point any good effect that these amendments may have will vanish. These provisions do not by any means rectify all the anomalies. The Government cannot justify itself in any way for having interfered with the property of our invalid and old-age pensioners. It was claimed by the Government that sons and daughters who were well able to assist their pensioner parents, but would not do so, had no right to benefit by any property which their parents might leave after their death, and, on the strength of that argument, steps were taken to oblige such children to support their parents or surrender all right to their property. Unfortunately, even children who were willing to assist their parents, but were unable to do so, have been put in the same category. But this anomaly is not being rectified. Honorable members opposite who appeal for sympathetic administration of our pensions law must know that the Commissioner of Pensions, or the Deputy Commissioner in any State, must adhere to the letter of the law. It is, therefore, beside the point to talk about sympathetic administration. The anomalies that exist should be rectified by legislation. Our pensions officials cannot do other than give effect to the law as it stands. If there are anomalies, they should be removed now. If injustices are being perpetrated, the supporters of the Government should have the courage to protest and vote against them on the floor of the House. It is all very well for them to talk about the making of political capital out of the pensioners, but they should not allow their fear of being accused of making . political capital to keep them silent when injustices need to be remedied. They would be better employed in clearing up legal anomalies in this legislation than in hurling epithets across the chamber at those who are prepared to tell the pensioners and the public just what the effect of this measure will be.

In regard to the property qualification, the act provides penalties against pensioners if they fail to disclose all relevant particulars to the Commissioner. Now it is proposed to make pensioners who forfeit their pensions refund the money they have drawn between the 12th October and the date on which they forfeited their pensions. Everybody knows that child-welfare payments made by the State of New South

Wales, or any other State, are not for the support of pensioners, whether invalid or old-age, but for the support of the children. Inspectors have been appointed to see that the children are properly looked after, yet the Government, in assessing pensions, proposes to treat those payments as income to the pensioners, and thereby reduce their pensions.- If honorable members opposite are prepared to perpetrate such injustice, they must take the consequences.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- It appears from the remarks of honorable members supporting the Government that they have guilty consciences.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must address himself to the clause before the committee.

Mr WARD:

– If I might be permitted to digress to the same extent as have members who support the Government-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must not digress.

Mr WARD:

– So I understand. That is a privilege enjoyed only by Government supporters.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s remark is distinctly offensive to the Chair, and it was intended to be so. He must withdraw it, and apologize.

Mr WARD:

– I shall do so, because I know that every vote is required.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw his statement without comment, and apologize for having made it.

Mr WARD:

– I withdraw the statement, and express my regret for having made it.

Honorable members who sit behind the Government have, while supporting this measure, shown signs of being uneasy in their minds. They are not satisfied that the Government is doing what it said it intended to do when recent legislation dealing with old-age and invalid pensions was brought down. The present measure is alleged ‘to lighten, to some extent, the blow which has been directed at old-age and invalid pensioners, but it does not help very much. It restores to them much less than was taken away. Honorable members opposite have argued in this chamber within the last day or so that property, which is not producing income, should not be subject to taxation. If that be so, it is surely only logical that property belonging to old-age and invalid pensioners, that is not producing income, should not be taken into consideration when assessing their pensions. Honorable members have spoken a good deal about the sympathetic administration of this legislation, hut when we come to examine cases, it is evident that very little sympathy has been shown. In one instance of which I know, a man and his wife both had their pensions reduced. I made representations to the department, because I did not believe that they had received a fair deal. I asked why their pensions had been reduced, and the department stated that it was because of the property they held. The value of the property was assessed in the following manner : -

En order to show how sympathetically he was administering the act, this official even halved the exemption, and reduced it to £25.

Mr McGrath:

– That is the law.

Mr WARD:

– Then what is the honorable member complaining of? He helped to make the law. What are we to think of a department, which not only takes into account, when assessing pensions, nonincomeproducing property, but even takes into account a life insurance policy, which is not an asset, but rather a liability. I know an old lady who insured her life for £30 because, being of an independent nature, she desired to be able to pay for her own funeral rather than that it should be a charge upon her children. Now the department has chosen to regard the insurance policy as an asset, and not only this, but has asked the pensioner to sign away her rights, or rather those of her relatives, in the policy, so that, upon her death, the money will be used, not for the purpose she had intended, but to reimburse the department for her pension. She is no longer able to pay the premiums on the policy, and her daughter has to pay them for her. Nevertheless, the moment she dies the pensions department will claim the money paid in accordance with the terms of the policy.

Mr McGrath:

– That is not true.

Mr Makin:

– Is the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) in order in saying that the statement of an honorable member is untrue?

Mr McGrath:

– I withdraw the word “untrue” and say that the statement is entirely incorrect.

Mr WARD:

– You have protested that there is no desire to impose hardships on the pensioners, but I have pointed out to you what the law requires. We are dealing with the law now, and I propose to give you an opportunity-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must address the Chair.

Mr WARD:

– I have mentioned your name, Mr. Chairman, as often as that of any one else.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is being offensive. He has no right to address any one but the Chair.

Mr WARD:

– May I say to the honorable member for Ballarat that he protested against the action of the department in taking into consideration, when assessing pensions, the pensions money paid to relatives of deceased soldiers. He stated that this money was paid in respect to the loss of a son, and should not be treated as income in the ordinary way. The honorable member knows, however, that under the Financial Emergency Act of last year, which he supported, it was determined by regulation that, when a pensioner was in receipt from any source of an income of 30s. a week, he was to be considered to be adequately maintained. As a result, whether the income represented a pension drawn in respect of the death of a soldier son, or whether it was derived from any other source, the pension was decreased accordingly. I know a woman who lost, not one son, but four. Two died overseas, and the other two died of wounds aftertheir return.

Mr White:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that this has nothing to do with the old-age pensions act. The honorable member is discussing the Financial Emergency Act passed last session.

Mr Beasley:

– The honorable member for Ballarat devoted much time-

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honorable member is not in order in referring to a speech made by the honorable member for Ballarat.

Mr Beasley:

– The remarks to which objection has been taken, relate to the speech delivered by the honorable member for Ballarat. Is it not competent for me to draw attention to that fact?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is another matter. As for the point of order taken by the honorable member for Balaclava, it appeared to me that the honorable member for East Sydney was addressing himself to the main act, and I ask him again to confine his remarks to the clause before the committee.

Mr WARD:

– If I had been permitted to develop my argument, I could have shown bow my remarks were connected with the clause before the committee. The clause provides for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions, and the receipt of income from any source affects the amount of pension which an applicant is entitled to draw, I was pointing out that Government supporters, in assisting the Government by means of the guillotine to force the measure through Parliament, failed to give to it the consideration it merited.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is disgressing.

Mr WARD:

– In order to give honorable members who desire to assist pensioners - and I believe that there are many of them in the chamber - an opportunity of doing so, I give notice that, after the committee has dealt with clause 24, I shall move for the insertion of a new clause–

Mr McGrath:

– Is the honorable member permitted to discuss clause 24 when clause 19 is before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understood the honorable member to intimate that he would move an amendment at a later stage.

Mr WARD:

– I have been advised that it is necessary, to give notice of my intention to move this amendment, and that I should do so while we are discussing clause 19 .

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not necessary.

Mr WARD:

– It will affect clause 19.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member willbe in order in moving now any amendment relevant to the clause before the committee, and, at the proper time, he may move to insert a new clause.

Mr Beasley:

– I understand that the honorable member for East Sydney has received advice that it is necessary for him during the discussion on clause 19 to notify his intention to move to insert a new clause affecting clause 19.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no need to give notice of the proposed new clause. If it is in order, he can move it at the proper time. But it would be as well for the honorable member to circulate his amendment while clause 19 is under discussion, so that the Chair may ascertain the proper time for moving it.

Mr Makin:

– Is it not permissible for an honorable member to indicate an amendment which he intends to move later?

Mr Latham:

– During a secondreading speech an honorable member may indicate that he proposes to move an amendment in committee. Or he can draft his proposed amendment, and circulate it. He need not, however, give any notice of his amendment, but may move it when the clause to which it relates is under consideration. If the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney does not affect clause 19, this is not the time to discuss it.

Mr Scullin:

– The honorable member said that he proposed to move a new clause. The rules provide that a new clause can be moved only when the existing clauses of a bill have been dealt with, but as this is a composite bill he probably feels that he must move his amendment after clause 25, which is the last clause dealing with invalid and old-age pensions. Perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, might give him some guidance in the matter.

Mr Holman:

– We are in danger of obtaining a ruling from you, Mr. Chairman, which may lead to considerable inconvenience on other occasions. Apparently the amendment which the honorable member for East Sydney wishes to move could appropriately be moved to either of two clauses, and, for certain reasons, the honorable member wishes to move it on the later clause. The practice of Parliament has always permitted an honorable member to give an idea of the effect of any amendment which he wishes to move, and to explain why he intends to move it at a later stage.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair did not rule that the honorable member for East Sydney could not at this stage indicate’ his amendment. Clause 19 is now before the Chair, and any amendment irrelevant to that clause cannot strictly be discussed at this stage, but it has been the practice to allow an honorable member, during the debate on any clause, to indicate an amendment which he intends to move. A new clause could not be inserted at this stage. I understand that the honorable member for East Sydney has sought information already upon this question, and has been informed of the proper stage at which to move such an amendment. I have suggested that he should circulate it so that the Chair may examine it.

Mr WARD:

– I fail to understand the altitude of those honorable members who are trying to retard the progress of the committee. I have indicated that the new clause which I propose to move has reference to clause 19, and I am, therefore, quit% in order in reading it so as to give to honorable members some indication of its nature. It is as follows: - 19a. After section 25 of the principal act the following clause is inserted: - “ 25a. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, accumulated property shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining eligibility for pension or in assessing the amount of any pension, unless it is property from which income is derived.”

That new clause has a bearing on clause 19, which is at present under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- I do not wonder that there is a good deal, of misconception regarding the alterations to the act, particularly when we hear honorable members say that the Government is making provision for taking £30 in respect of life insurance from the relatives of a pensioner at his death. They should know perfectly well that there is an exemption of £50, and that provision for the division of such sum - £25 each in respect of a man and his wife - has been in the act for many years, and has operated during the regime of two Labour governments. I cannot allow the charge of unsympathetic administration which has been levelled at the pensions department to go unchallenged, because I know how sympathetically the Deputy Commissioners have treated oldage and invalid pensioners. Under the invalid section of the act a pensioner must be permanently and totally incapacitated and unable to earn ls. a week before he can obtain a pension. Yet for many years these pensioners have been allowed to earn 5s. a week.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must not pursue further that line of argument.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I wish to refer to that portion of the clause which limits the total amount of pension. Many pensioners, because of unforeseen circumstances, have been compelled to move from their own homes, and after a certain period have had the value of their home made a charge against their pension, and I submit that some more lenient method of dealing with their position should be adopted. Let me give a concrete instance of what has actually happened. An old couple who had managed, with the aid of their children, to obtain a home worth £600, were suddenly confronted with trouble. The wife had a stroke. The children lived some hundreds of miles away, and, comsequently, the old couple, in order to receive proper attention were forced to move to their children’s home. They could not sell their own home because of the fall in property consequent on the depression. It was rented for a time, but a satisfactory tenant could not be obtained. The value of the house is assessed by the department at £600, and, therefore, £300 has been a charge against the pension of each of these pensioners. As a result their pension has been reduced from 35s. to 9s. a fortnight because of the fact that they have been absent from their home for more than three months. Some special provision should be made to enable the department to deal leniently with such cases as this. This old couple are unable to carry the burden much longer. They expected to sell their home and buy another house near the home of their children; but they found that impossible in view of the acute decline in land values. There are many cases in which pensioners are compelled, temporarily, to live in their own homes because they can find no tenants or purchasers for them ; yet they have the value of the property debited against them. Now that pensions have been reduced, and other avenues of income curtailed, i;he Government should consider rectifying the anomaly, which has become more apparent than ever.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– When tho right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) said that he proposed to address himself to the clause, I was, naturally, interested. .!.’ therefore listened with the closest attention to what he said. I find that ‘tis observations relate to provisions that have been in the act since 190S. The suggested amendment has no relation to the matter raised by tho right honorable member. Its object is to correct an anomaly which arose through holding against a pensioner property which was non-productive of income, in relation to the differentiation between 1.5s. and J 17s 6d. a -week. The clause is directly devised for the benefit of pensioners; but Hie discussion has revolved around it at a. very remote distance.

The right honorable gentleman urged that provision should be made to meet the case of old-age pensioners who, through unfortunate circumstances, are compelled to leave their homes and live elsewhere. It would be quite impossible to devise any satisfactory general rule to cover the position. Our Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act is, wisely, liberal, in that it allows pensioners to live in a home irrespective of its value, without suffering any pension deduction. There arc very few other countries in the world which provide equally generous conditions. The right honorable member for Cowper lias not suggested any method whereby, with justice to the community, it would be possible to exclude from account the value of a home in which pensioners do not live. There are some limits to the capacity of the community to provide these services. It appears to mc that any proposal which, would carry out the desire3 of the right honorable gentleman would be very far-reaching in ite effects.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- No doubt the explanation that has been given by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has made matters very clear to the committee, so clear, in fact, that we now find ourselves in a denser fog than ever. We have had a good deal of discussion about the “generosity” of thi3 legislation. I agree with the Attorney-General up to a certain point. Our’ Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act was of a generous nature prior to its amendment in conformity with the provisions of the Financial Emergency Act. The latest, amendments of the pensions act compel pensioners to mortgage their houses to the Government for a return of 17s. 6d. a week. They could better mortgage their houses to money lenders, who would not exact from them the same amount for such a small return, although, unfortunately, the value of properties has fallen considerably. the miners’ phthisis allowance was referred to this afternoon. An appeal was made that the allowance given to men who, after giving of their best, are infected with this dreadful disease and cast on the industrial scrap heap should not be taken into consideration when assessing the amount of pension to be paid. The purpose of this allowance is to enable those concerned to obtain the special treatment that is necessary.

Most of our mining towns are remote from the great cities, and the cost of living there is high. At present there is no equality of sacrifice in this respect. When fixing awards, industrial courts always fix a parity for north, south, east and west, so that old-age pensioners at Boulia, Camooweal, and in the Northern Territory, should get more than those who are living next to Anthony Hordern’s in Sydney, or Myer’s in Melbourne. Whenever those remotely situated pensioners need medical attention they have to travel man;- miles, and to pay high fares to get it. State legislation when, making childhood allowances provides a payment of 10s. a week in the metropolitan areas and as much as 12s. 6d. in the far northern portions of Queensland. Our pensioners should be treated on a like basis. There is also the ease of those who come from the country, and go into homes for the aged in our cities. Finding themselves too cramped there they desire to get back to the wide open spaces, but, when they leave the institution, their pension is cancelled. It may bo six weeks before payment is resumed. Although the Commissioner or his deputy is prepared to give favorable consideration to these cases, the provisions of the act. are so stringent that thematter must take its course. The honorable member for Ballarat. (Mr. McGrath) stated that he knows of cases in which persons have applied for invalid pensions, have been granted the full pension, and have been allowed to earn 5s. a week, notwithstanding that they were supposed to be totally and permanently incapacitated.

Mr McGrath:

– I said that persons frequently get the full pension, and are allowed to earn an additional 4s. or 5s. a week.

Mr RIORDAN:

– -That suits my arrangements even better. It shows that there is inconsistency and. unfairness in the administration of the act, and that the Deputy Commissioner in Victoria goes beyond its provisions. That is not done in Queensland.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I called the honorable member for Ballarat to order for going beyond the scope of the clause. I ask the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) to restrict his remarks to the clause.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I have finished that portion of my remarks. I come now to mothers of deceased soldiers who, because of the. death of a son at the war, receive a pension of 10s. or 15s. a week. If they become entitled to an oldage pension, they are not given the maximum amount, as the other allowance is taken into consideration. A couple of years ago, the soldiers’ allowance was not reduced when they were paid an old-age pension, as it was then held that the soldiers’ pensions should not be interfered with.It appears that the department is squeezing out those who are really entitled to pensions. A pensioner is allowed to earn £26 a year in addition to his pension.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask honorable members to subdue their conversation, which makes it difficult for me and others to hear the remarks of the honorable member who is addressing the Chair.

Mr RIORDAN:

– You, sir, should see that some attention is paid to my remarks by the Ministers who sit at the table, who are at present whiling away the time in agreeable conversation without any consideration for the subject under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is distinctly out of order in addressing the Chair in. that manner. It is not for the Chair to instruct the Prime Minister or any other Minister to pay attentionto the remarks of an honorable member.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) referred to the reduction of a pension on account of income arising from the leasing of a pensioner’s home when he was ordered a change of climate because of ill-health. Other features of the administration are equally harsh. If a pensioner leaves . hia home and goes to reside with relatives, the pension is reduced because he is supposed to begetting free board. If his house is rented during his absence from it, the pension is cut out. These injustices exist to-day and they will be aggravated by the amendment which the Government has proposed. This clause limits the amount which the pensioner may earn before his pension is reduced. An income of 17s. 6d. a week is not princely.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the clause. The maximum of £45 10s. a year ‘ is provided for in the act.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The Deputy Commissioner in one State may be prepared to interpret the act literally, or to extend leniency which would be refused by the Deputy Commissipner in another State. The only guide for members and pensioners is the wording pf the act, and we should not have to depend on the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner. The honorable member for Ballarat has stated that the Government is, by this bill, giving back something to the pensioners. At the most it is giving back what the Government “ pinched “ from them a couple of months ago.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. The honorable member may not reflect on an act of Parliament; in any case his time has expired.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I move -

That the following paragraph be added to sub-clause 1 : - “(c) by adding the following further proviso to sub-section 1: -

Provided further that amounts received its war pensions, miners’ phthisis, and children’s welfare, be excluded from computation of invalid and old-age pensions.”

The principle of offsetting a war pension against the invalid and old-age pension was introduced by the Scullin Government as part of its financial emergency legislation. A questionnaire was also sent to certain dependants of pensioners, and where it was found that they were possessed of assets of any kind to the value of £200, or earnings amounting to 30s. a week the pension was cancelled. Honorable members did not anticipate that the law would operate in that way, and my amendment will enable restitution to be made. The allowance on account of miners phthisis has been well explained by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) and others as intended to enable the recipients to purchase medical requirements. An allowance for children’s welfare is not income that should affect an invalid and old-age pension. The three allowances are in the same category, and, as honorable members are sympathetic with these pensioners I hope they will agree to the amendment.

Mr Scullin:

– Section 24 of the principal act deals with income from property. The amendment cannot be moved on this clause.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– This amendment is desirable, but I cannot see that it is appropriate to this clause, which merely allows a pensioner to have an income of less than 2s. 6d a week. Section 35 of the Financial Emergency Act of 1932, added a proviso that where the Commissioner was satisfied that a claimant of a pension had, or would have, no income other than a pension, and was, or would be entirely dependent, on the invalid and old-age pension, he might be granted a pension not exceeding £45 10s. a year. There was, however, the further proviso that where the pensioner or claimant was eligible for a pension at the rate of £39 a year, and was in receipt of an income of less than 2s. 6d. a week, the amount of pension might be at such rate as the Commissioner deemed reasonable and sufficient, but should not exceed £45 10s. a year. The clause now before the committee proposes to delete those provisos and to substitute another proviso enacting that where the pensioner or claimant is eligible for a pension of not less than £33 a year, and is not in receipt of an income of 2s. 6d. a week, the Commissioner may increase the pension by not more than 2s. 6d. a week, but so that the pensioner’s income, together with pension, shall not exceed £45 10s. a year. I desire to move an amendment to increase the amount of private income that a pensioner may enjoy, but such an amendment would not be within the order of leave; therefore, I can only support or oppose the clause as drafted. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), would make the bill more generous, but would not nearly restore the income which previously pensioners were entitled to earn. The limitation of the earnings of a pensioner to 2s. 6d. a week is unjust, because persons employing pensioners would be quite content to pay them more. It is almost futile to discuss this clause, and I can only express my regret that the Government is not willing to allow a pensioner to earn more than 2s. 6d. a week without having his pension affected.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The case mentioned by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) is similar to many others of which honorable members have . knowledge, and the Attorney-General has not effectively answered the complaint that has been made. I have in mind another case which, if it cannot be dealt with by regulation or by an amendment of this bill, offers exceptional scope for the “sympathetic administration “ which we have been promised, and of which we have heard so much lately. The pensioner had left his property in order to go to the city for treatment for himself and his wife. A relative is. in occupation of it at the moment, but he pays no rent for it, so that the property gives no income to’ the pensioner. If cases of this kind cannot bc provided for by legislation or regulation, I ask the Government to do something to make it practicable for the Commissioner of Pensions to deal sympathetically with them. Following the recent amendment of the act many properties of this kind will revert to the Crown on the dealth of the pensioners. As this amendment embodies an entirely now provision, it is essential that we be given definite information on such matters, because every week-end we are besieged by pensioners and their friends who want advice. So far the Deputy Commissioners have been unable, in all cases, to help us, because their rulings have been inconclusive owing to frequent changes to meet special cases. We should, therefore, be able to get a definite ruling from the Commissioner at Canberra while this measure is under consideration. Take the case of an invalid pensioner suffering from tuberculosis whose property, without question, will revert to the Crown on his death. The pensioner may have a friend who is willing to give him a home for a week or two in order to help him to build up his strength a little, and he may leave his home and go to the B’ue Mountains or some other favorable climate in order to recuperate; but immediately ho leaves his property, his pension is cancelled, and he draws nothing for the period of his absence. The property cannot be let, and so cannot yield the pensioner any income at al1. In such circumstances, it. is deplorable that the pension should be canceled. When such cases are submitted to a Deputy Commissioner for consideration be says, “We must administer the law as we find it. If we pay a pension contrary to the law, the Auditor-General will require an explanation from us That is a very real obstacle to the Deputy Commissioners . giving what is called “ sympathetic consideration “ to the cases submitted to them. These officers must protect themselves, and so they must adhere’ rigidly to the letter of the law.

Let me revert to the case qf mothers who receive payments from the State

Welfare departments for the maintenance of their children. The Attorney-General stated on one occasion to-day, when this subject was raised in the absence of the Prime Minister, that there seemed to be no need to regard such payments as income, because the money was intended for the maintenance of the children and not of the pensioner. Bur what has the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the administration of this measure, to say on that point? If the amendment should prove to be our of order, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that payments of that kind will not be regarded as income? IF he does so, we shall be content to wait until an appropriate opportunity is provided for the amendment of the law.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Many aspects of the so-called anomalies in our pensions law have already been discussed, and I do not want to go over .ground that has already been covered, but I give my meed of praise to the pensions officials for the sympathetic manner in which they have considered the representations I have made to them from time to time. I have found that if it is possible for them to strain a point a little to meet a hard case, they will do so. 4

My main purpose in speaking at this moment is to ask the Government to consider whether some relief cannot be given to pensioners who suffer from miners phthisis. I represent a mining electorate, and see more than most honorable members of the unfortunate sufferers from this complaint. Some years ago, the Victorian Government decided to pay * pittance to these men to enable them to buy certain medicines and drugs which they could not purchase out of their invalid pensions, to enable them to have a little more comfort than would otherwise be possible to them. But we now find that such payments are regarded by our pensions authorities as income, and a deduction is made from their pension on this account. While I admit that “ hard cases make bad laws,” I ask the Government to give more sympathetic, consideration to this subject. The number of cases of this kind are few, and they are continually diminishing. Improved methods of mining are slowly checking this complaint. If the Government could help these men, whose days are numbered, it would be greatly appreciated, and their hard and painful lot would be made somewhat easier.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– The numerous requests made from every part of the chamber for relief from the hardships imposed on our invalid and old-age pensioners by the legislation recently passed by this Parliament show that honorable members generally are beginning to recognize that harsh and even brutal treatment has been meted out to some of the poor and afflicted people of this country. We are trying to rectify some of the anomalies created by the pensions legislation passed in conformity with the Premiers plan. It is of little use for us to expect these anomalies to be rectified by what is called “ sympathetic administration “ by our pension officials, for, after all, these officers, though sympathetic with the pensioners, must give effect to the law. If they do not do so, they will come into conflict with the Auditor-General. The main difficulty that I find myself in to-night is that I cannot vote against these provisions, because they in some small measure correct anomalies and ease conditions created by the Financial Emergency Act of last September. But to-night we have been plainly told, for the first time, that this is not emergency legislation, and must now be regarded as the permanent pensions policy of Australia. That, to me, is most unsatisfactory; but, in so far as this bill grants relief to our pensioners, I must support it. Even the Government is now realizing that some of the provisions of the pensions law that are in force are unjust, for when it was pointed out that it would inflict great hardship on persons who had surrendered their pension if they had to refund amounts paid to them between the 12th October and the date on which they surrendered their pension, the Government undertook not to press that provision. I am glad that that measure of relief has been granted. But there is need for relief in other directions. Many pensioners in every part of Australia have, at various times during the whole period in which our pensions law has been in operation, bought blocks of land, which have been valued at different amounts by municipalities and other authorities, but have never earned for the’ pensioners concerned a single penny. The ownership of such land is now being held against the pensioners. They cannot sell it, and if they attempt to dispossess themselves of it they are liable to be accused of seeking to. obtain an increase of pension by illegitimate means.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The remarks of the honorable member will be more appropriate on clause 23.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That being so, I shall content myself with saying that, while I must vote for these provisions, I protest against the statement that the Financial Emergency Act, as it affects pensions, is no longer to be regarded as an emergency measure. When this legislation was first introduced, it was regarded as part of the Premiers plan. It was called financial emergency legislation, and was intended to tide the country over a period when we were making desperate efforts to balance the budget. The argument used in support of it was that it was merely a temporary sacrifice, required of the pensioners as of all other sections of the community. Any one who examines this measure must realize that this is no longer temporary legislation, but. that it effects a permanent change in the fundamental principles of our social legislation. When the financial emergency legislation was first introduced, it was never intended that the homes of the pensioners should be in any way interfered with. Such a proposal would not be agreed to by 10 per cent, of the people if a referendum were taken. They would never agree that the homes of the pensioners should be mortgaged to the Government. Members of this Parliament are now beginning to realize what the Government is asking them to do, and efforts are being made to protect the interests of invalid and old-age pensioners, as well as of soldier pensioners. It is evident that the Government’s intention is permanently to depress the level of our social services.

Mr GANDER:
Reid

– I support the amendment of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), and if, at a later stage, some one moves a further- amendment which appears to me to be. justified, I shall support that also. The honorable member is willing that the department should not regard as income the allowance received in respect of one occupational disease, miners phthisis, but why does he not extend the provision to include pneumoconiosis, from which as many miners are suffering as from phthisis?

Mr McGrath:

– Those suffering from miners phthisis are receiving a special government grant; those suffering from other occupational complaints receive no such grant.

Mr GANDER:

– There are men in institutions such as the sanatorium at “Waterfall who are ‘ suffering from occupational diseases, and they should receive the full pension, of 5s. a week, instead of one of 3s. 9d., which it is proposed that they shall receive under this bill. I should like the honorable member for Balaclava to include all occupational diseases in his amendment.

Mr White:

– Wo cannot do that, because all those suffering from such complaints do not receive a State grant..

Mr GANDER:

– Will the honorable member agree to include those suffering f rom occupational diseases in respect of which a State grant is paid ?

Mr White:

– I could not agree to that without knowing what it would involve.

Mr GANDER:

– Perhaps some one will move an amendment later to cover all those suffering from occupational diseases, and if that is done, I shall give it my hearty support. We maintain that it is wrong that a pensioner should have to mortgage his home to the department in order to receive a pension. Ever since I can remember I have heard the boast that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but the Government proposes to take their homes from the old and infirm before it will grant them sustenance. Honorable members are now beginning to realize that there are anomalies in this legislation, and some of them, I believe, ure seriously desirous of removing them. Let us all get together and try to put these matters right. I understand that we are to remain sitting all night. I do not care if I sit all to-night and all to-morrow night if, by so doing, we can right some of the wrongs which this legislation has imposed, and bring some gleam of joy to the hearts of the old pioneers of this country.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– Several honorable members have asked whether the amounts paid from some fund to those suffering from miners phthisis should be treated as income, and thus affect pensions. I admit that the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) and others put up a good case on behalf of these men, and, if possible, their request will be granted. The honorable member for Ballarat said that the grant paid to men suffering from this complaint was to enable them to obtain medical necessaries, and that it was not intended to be used for maintenance. I do not think that that is so in all cases. I know that in Tasmania there is a miners’ fund intended for the relief of those suffering from this complaint. It was subscribed to by those working on the Zeehan field, and was subsidized by the Government. If the grant paid to the miners suffering from this complaint were excluded from income, it would be tantamount to granting a special privilege to them. Plenty of other invalid pensioners are compelled to obtain special medical supplies and attendance, but they receive no assistance beyond, their Commonwealth pension.

The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) said that money received as a welfare allowance in respect to children should not be treated as income. I do not know that it is so treated.

Mr Beasley:

– I was informed only on Monday by. the Commissioner for Pensions that it is.

Mr LYONS:

– If the money is paid for the maintenance of those children who are cared for by the pensioner, obviously it cannot be regarded as part of the pensioner’s income. It may be, of course, that the object of the pensioner in taking the children was to make something out of them.

Mr Beasley:

– In the case which I quoted to-day, the pensioner was receiving a welfare allowance in respect to her own children.

Mr LYONS:

– There must be some special reason before the department would include such allowance as part of the pensioner’s income. The honorable member asked for an assurance that the position would be met. I am prepared to give that assurance, because it was never intended that child welfare allowances should be treated as income. If there are. found to be any such cases, the Government will treat them in such a way in the course of administration that grievances will be removed.

The honorable member also stated that, when pensioners are compelled, because of sickness, to leave their homes, the department, for the period of their absence, regards the home as a source of income. I understand that, if the pensioner’s absence is only temporary, no account is taken of it. Up to 1912, the value of the home was charged against the pension as a matter of course, but the act was then amended because the home was regarded as having a sentimental value to the pensioner. The department considers that, once the pensioner has left the home, its sentimental value disappears, and it is, therefore, treated as ordinary property. Only, however, when the absence is of a permanent character is this done.

Dr Earle Page:

– At the present time, an absence of only three months is permitted without action being taken. Perhaps if that period were extended it’ would meet the position.

Mr Beasley:

– The case could be reviewed at the end of three months, and, if the absence were geuuine, the period could be extended.

Mr LYONS:

– In the case of a bona fide absence through illness, I am sure that a liberal interpretation of the act would be made by the department.

Mr McGrath:

– I know a woman who has had her pension reduced to 5s. 3d. a fortnight because illness compels her to be absent from her home.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has said that an assurance was given by the Attorney-General that the position of pensioners who are being asked to refund amounts that they received for a fortnight or so after the cancellation of their pensions would be met. If that assurance has been given, well and good, and I undertake to give effect to it. The honorable member for Barton (Mr.

Lane) suggested that the period of 30 days, during which returns were to be furnished to the department, should be extended. The attitude of the department is that, provided that the returns are received within a reasonable time, no penalty will be imposed.

Mr McGrath:

– But the penalty is the cancellation of the pension.

Mr LYONS:

– The department can meet the position once the return is received. The honorable member for Balaclava has referred to miners phthisis and child welfare payments. It is impossible to do what he suggests in respect of those suffering from miners phthisis unless we inflict hardships on others who are suffering just as much. While the Government is not prepared to accept his suggestion, it is willing to investigate the whole of the circumstances, to ascertain whether some remedy cannot be found and applied at a later stage. I therefore hope that the honorable member will not proceed with his amendment. Some honorable members have queried the statement of the Attorney-Genera 1 with respect to the sympathetic administration of the department. Of course, the officers of the department are compelled to carry out the law, but my experience as a private member was that every request on behalf of the pensioners that I placed before the department received its sympathetic consideration.

Mr Rosevear:

– The officers cannot go beyond the law.

Mr LYONS:

– In some instances, it is possible for the department to adopt a liberal attitude. The whole object of the section of the bill dealing with old-age and invalid pensions is to rectify anomalies, not only in the recent legislation, but also in the original legislation, and to liberalize the pension provisions. I ask honorable members to accept the assurance of the Government that its only desire is to give relief in necessitous cases, and to administer the act as sympathetically as possible.

Mr DEIN:
Lang

.- Several cases of undue hardship in respect of the pensioners in my electorate have been brought under my notice. In one case, an old lady of 64 years of age wished to visit Norfolk Island in order to see her daughter who is resident there, but she has been informed by the department that she cannot leave Australia, and still continue to draw her pension. From inquiries I have ascertained that this pensioner could visit Melbourne or even Perth, and still draw her pension. The act itself is definite on that point. I have again written to the department asking it to reconsider its decision. I believe that the Prime Minister, who has the utmost sympathy with the pensioners, would be quite willing to agree to this pensioner visiting her daughter at Norfolk Island, and still drawing her pension.

In another case, a pensioner sold his property, and after the payment of the mortgage, distributed £200 among the members of his family. That was done four years ago. As a result of that distribution he was, under the act of 1928, granted a small pension. I am informed by the Acting Commissioner that under the law as it stands, that pension cannot be increased because the amount that was distributed is, for pension purposes, still regarded as being in the possession of the pensioner. It is unfair that a pensioner should be penalized just because some years before he made a distribution of money which, had it not been distributed, would have soon been spent by the pensioner himself. This anomaly should be rectified, and I ask. the Prime Minister to give such cases favorable consideration. That pensioner, because of that anomaly in the act, has, under the Financial Emergency Act, suffered a further reduction of 2s. 6d. a week in his pension.

Mr COLLINS:
Hume

.- I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Ministor to various hardships inflicted upon pensioners which I contend should be immediately investigated. In my electorate there are two brothers who are cripples. I do not know whether they were cripples from birth or whether they were crippled by accident. For many years they were in receipt of an invalid pension, but it has now been taken from them despite petitions to the department from their neighbours and doctors’ certificates as to the inability of these men to earn a livelihood. Because of the loss of their pension, they have been compelled to seek entry to an invalid home. Doctors’ certificates to the effect that these men are unable to earn a living have been forwarded to the Commissioner, yet the department contends that the men concerned are not totally and permanently incapacitated for work of any description, and are therefore not entitled to assistance. I ask the Prime Minister to make an immediate investigation of this case.

I have received the following letter from another old-age pensioner: -

My sister and I are old-age pensioners. I get £1 158. each fortnight, but ray sister only gets £1 2s. 3d. per fortnight. I own a house on a quarter acre of land in town. When building the place my .sister borrowed £100 from a neighbouring woman, which has not since been paid back. I also got credit from the storekeeper for timber and iron, and 1 still owe the stores £50. There is no mortgage, as the people trusted us. I stated these facts when applying for a pension a little over a year ago. Would you please let me know does the creditors’ claim come before the Government’s claim, or is there any way in which the creditors’ interests in the estate can be conserved? If the Government’s claim comes first can I legally assign as a bankrupt? 1 am a good deal worried over the matter and would be very thankful for the information so that I would know how I stand, and so that we may do the fair and honorable thing by our creditors.

I have asked for a ruling on this case; it discovers a hardship which the Government should immediately investigate. A non-productive property should not.be a charge against a pension.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I remind the honorable member that that matter is dealt with specifically in a later clause.

Mr COLLINS:

– I protest against the infliction of these hardships which, in many instances, could be avoided. 1 know that the Government sympathizes with the pensioners. My sympathies are also with the Governnent in its endeavour to bring about the rehabilitation of Australia, but notwithstanding that, we must deal fairly with the pensioners.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- 1 am informed that my amendment would have to be moved as a new clause, to appear after section 4 of the principal act, but I think that all honorable members who have heard the reasonable explanation of the Prime Minister and his undertaking to remedy the anomaly in respect of children’s welfare payments - I presume by an amendment in another place, or through the administration - will agree that there is now really no necessity for my amendment. I am not such an authority as the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) and the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison) in respect of miners phthisis, but I can quite understand that if an allowance were made to persons suffering miners phthisis, concessions might also have to be made to persons suffering from other industrial diseases. There are other complications, because no State allowance is made for some diseases, whereas allowance is made for miners phthisis. I am not altogether satisfied with the assurance regarding adjustment in respect of war pensioners, but I hope that this will be considered with the maximum of sympathy.

Mr Rosevear:

– Is the honorable member retreating?

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member’s leader has said that he is perfectly satisfied with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.

Mr Beasley:

– I said that if the honorable member did not move his amendment I believed that the Prime Minister would give favorable consideration to his request.

Mr WHITE:

– I cannot move the amendment unless in the form of a new clause. The operation of the Financial Emergency Act has prevented the returned soldier or his dependent who may apply for an old-age pension from gaiuing any benefit from his war pension. The treatment of the widowed mothers of deceased soldiers is even more harsh. In common with other honorable members, I have had correspondence from various parts of Australia, from these women who, because they own £200, which would not return £12 a year, have lost a pension of 5s. or 10s. a week. That pension was the sole reminderand link with the past, in a monetary sense, of the sacrifice made by their sons. That is a harsh operation of the act which nobody foresaw. It can be adjusted by the Government providing that the pensioner’s income be £2 instead of 30s., and thathis assets be £500 instead of £200. As I cannot move this amendment, which under the. circumstances I ask leave to withdraw, I am prepared to leave it to the Prime Minister to give the matter the reasonable consideration which he promises.

Leave not granted.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I put forward the suggestion that has previously been advanced by many invalid and old-age pensioners, that a medical referee board should be appointed to give a final decision in all cases when doubt is entertained as to the permanent and total incapacity of an applicant for ah invalid pension. Since the termination of the war there has been an advisory board of distinguished consultants who meet in Melbourne and examine and report on the medical files of returned soldiers whose cases present difficulty. The appointment of such a board would prevent a. certain amount of imposition, and ensure that every bona fide case of permanent and total incapacity would receive a pension.

Mr Beasley:

– What kind of a board does the honorable gentleman suggest, and how would it, operate?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I suggest that the board should be composed of two or three leading consultants, a physician, a surgeon, and a specialist, dealing with various forms of deformity. Its function would be to examine carefully the medical reports that are sent in from the various medical officers throughout the Commonwealth in connexion with these cases. At present, because of hasty examination or perhaps ignorance on the part of those who examine these persons, some receive pensions when they should not, and others who should be paid pensions are denied them. The appointment of a board would ensure justice for both parties.

I also endorse the suggestion that a friend should be allowedto accompany the applicant when he goes to be interrogated. These old folk are not in the best condition to undergo a crossexamination and, frequently they inadvertently make admissions that are not quite accurate, which are held against them, and perhaps result in less than a full pension being granted. The Government might well consider the suggestion.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- I support the suggestions put forward by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page). Generally speaking, those who examine invalid and old-age pensioners are somewhat in the nature of inquisitors-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable gentleman has spoken twice to the clause. He must confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr McGRATH:

– I feel that I shall have to vote for the amendment moved by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). I do not think that the comparison made by the Prime Minister was a fair one, as I believe that miners phthisis stands in a separate category. Once a doctor certifies that a man is suffering from miners phthisis that person is granted an allowance of 5s. a week to cover the cost of medicine. No other disease is similarly recognized by a government. Miners phthisis is a dreadful scourge, the result of breathing dust when operating mining machines. The unfortunate person who contracts it pay3 dearly. I can conceive nothing more painful than seeing a sufferer from this disease. I cannot vote to have 2s. 6d. a week taken away from these persons. It was never the intention of this Parliament that their pensions should be reduced.

Regarding the examination of pensioners, I have been constrained to take to task the medical examiner at Ballarat, because of his discourtesy to applicants for pensions. I wish that some persons would learn that kindness costs nothing. These unfortunate old folk would welcome a kindly word. Even if the practioner is unable to certify that they are permanently and totally incapacitated, there is no reason why he should vilify other doctors because of their opinions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must deal with the amendment.

Mr McGRATH:

– I hope that the Government will favorably consider the amendment. It is scandalous that mothers receiving the childhood allowance should have their pensions reduced. That was never intended. The allowance is for the maintenance of the children, while the pension is for the maintenance of the mother. It is not fair treatment to reduce the pension. I know that our financial position is difficult, but these unfortunate pensioners have made their sacrifice to the limit.

Again, take the case of mothers of deceased soldiers. Their pension is based on what was the earning capacity of their son. Already their pensions have been reduced under the Financial Emergency Act. Unfortunately, this- party is getting the blame for the whole of the reduction, because it so happened that the Scullin Government had not sufficient time to put its intentions into operation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I again ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the clause.

Mr Gander:

– The honorable member voted for that reduction.

Mr McGRATH:

– There are many things that the young members of the Lang group have to learn. While I forgive the honorable member his insinuation, I cannot forgive the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) his remarks. As a matter of fact, I was in. the chair when the matter was debated and did not vote on the division. I hope that the Government will not reduce the pension of mothers of diseased, soldiers. It was never expected that they would suffer a second reduction. They are now about to suffer a third reduction. The amendment by the honorable member for Balaclava is fair, and I can see no reason why the Government should not accept it.

Dr. MALONEY (Melbourne [10.16].- Some of the provisions of this bill remind me that coming events cast their shadows before. Since the terrible reduction of pensions and. salaries this is the first measure to ameliorate slightly the lot of those who are ill or old or suffering war disabilities. I hope it will not be the last. The Housemight well appoint a non-party committee to inquire into many of the harsh provisions of the law relating to pensioners. As for those who administer the act, I wish that the Minister in charge of the department would take the advice that they would be willing to give. If a committee of officers with experience in all the States were appointed, they would within a few weeks draft reasonable proposals that would greatly improve the lot of the old-age, invalid and war pensioners. I shall certainly support the amendment. During the last fortnight, not less than 300 invalid and old-age pensioners visited my office in Melbourne, and 3,000 cases have been dealt with there within. a year. Whilst I approve of some of the provisions of the bill, others I regard as infamous. One pensions case may interest honorable members. I spent eleven miserable days in court endeavouring to prove that a soldier bad been unjustly treated. He won his case, and a war pension was granted to himself and his wife. He went to Brisbane, where the Defence department unwisely re-employed him for recruiting purposes. A girl was foolish enough to marry him, although he was incapable of exercising the physical rights of a husband. Later, she found in his pocket, a letter from his first wife. When she taxed him with it he thrashed her. She disappeared, and her whereabouts have never been disclosed. A few days later he, too, disappeared, and the Defence Department has never been able to trace him. A warrant for his arrest on” a charge of bigamy was issued. I think they both committed suicide.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must deal with the clause.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– That man’s wife has been robbed of her pension. That is only one of many injustices perpetrated by the administration. The act, the regulations, and the administration require the closest investigation. I shall vote for any proposal that will help the unfortunate pensioners. If the Government is wise it will restore the oldage pension to the former level of fi a week. If it fails to do so, God help its supporters when they face the electors.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
General · Warringah Postmaster · UAP

– Recent alterations of the pensions law involved the reduction of pensions, but this bill is liberalizing the law, and giving to the pensioners the utmost concessions that the country can afford. Every honorable member spends a great deal of time in trying to obtain pensions for his constituents, and nothing gives him greater pleasure than to succeed in this mission. Pension matters involve a great deal of work, but my experience has been that the officers generally take a reasonable view of the claims, and give to the pensioner the benefit of any doubt. There may be exceptions, as there are to every rule, but, generally speaking, the act is administered reasonably and sympathetically. That honorable members sympathize with the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) is evident, but I ask them to realize what its adoption would mean. If war pensions were not taken into account in computing eligibility for invalid and old-age pensions, many persons in receipt of an income of £4 a week, would be eligible to get an old-age or invalid pension. In one instance that came to the notice of the department, a person would receive £384 a year, including the oldage pension, if the amendment were agreed to. The Government has gone as fas as is justifiable in liberalizing the pensions scheme. The acceptance of the amendment would, merely by exempting war pensions, increase the cost of invalid and old-age pensions by £60,000 a year. I am sure that the honorable member .for Balaclava did not intend that. I sympathize with the efforts of the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) on behalf of those who are suffering from miners phthisis; but are such persons more deserving of special consideration than unfortunates who are suffering from diabetes or with pernicious anaemia, involving an expenditure of 10s. or £1 a week merely to keep alive? The Government having already made generous concessions cannot reasonably be expected to agree to this amendment.

Mr McGrath:

– Will the Government consider the request that these special classes of pensioners should not be required to suffer a reduction of 2s. 6d. a week ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) will review that matter.

Mr White:

– And the cases of widowed mothers of soldiers ?

Mr: ARCHDALE PARKHILL.They have incomes, and whether the country can afford to give special exemption to them is a matter that the committee might well leave to the consideration of the Government. I assure honorable members that the Government does not desire to be niggardly; it is prepared to be as liberal as the financial circumstances of the country will permit.

The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) has suggested the appointment of a special medical board. There is no need for such an appointment, because there are medical referees in -all centres, and experience has proved that they are fully competent.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– But their word is final.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– Not more so than would be the decision of an appeal board. Actually there is ‘ no finality, because if additional medical evidence in support of a pensioner’s claims can be adduced, the pensioner is always assured of a re-hearing and a fair deal. I do not think there is any real complaint that the medical examinations are not fair and reasonable. I recognize that many a pensioner when he appears for examination is in such a state of excitement that he cannot do justice to him. self. A request has ‘been made that a pensioner or claimant should be permitted to be accompanied by friends. When this matter was discussed oh the estimates, I stated that the department had no objection to >a friend accompanying a pensioner and stating his case for him. One honorable member replied that he knew of a friend of a pensioner who had been told to keep his mouth shut. I can conceive that that might happen. Much depends on how the friend puts the pensioner’s case. If the friend is truculent and aggressive, ‘naturally he may be checked ; but if he puts a case reasonably and fairly, the department is quite prepared to hear him. The provision in this clause that if certain property is valueless at the moment it wi’l not be taken into account, should be satisfactory to honorable members, and it. should allow compensation to be given to those who have suffered deductions because such property has previously been taken into consideration.

The honorable member for Balaclava has suggested that pensioners with money or assets to the value of £500 or under should not be obliged to suffer deductions, but it is hardly reasonable to say that a person in that position is indigent. When his money becomes exhausted the position is quite different. It is hardly reasonable to expect a Government to pay a penson to a person with money or property valued at £500. The Government, in granting the concessions provided in this measure, is acting fairly by our pensioners.

Mr Watkins:

– It is taking away the homes of many of them.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I disagree with the honorable member. Many husbands and wives who draw a pension are quite prepared to forgo any interest that they may have in a house if they can be assured of £1 15s. a week between them for the rest of their lives.

Mr WARD:
East’ Sydney

.- The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and thi; Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) would have honorable members believe that the reductions that were made to pensions two or three months ago are being restored; but the table supplied by the Prime Minister when he introduced this bill shows that this is not so, for even after these provisions become law and we leave out of account the pensioner’s home, those who have property valued at £60 will receive £1 ‘ess in pension than they received prior to the introduction of the September amendments.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– Qualifications’ and modifications have been made since that table was prepared.

Mr WARD:

– It is still the official table, and the only one upon which we may rely. Pensioners with property valued at £70, apart from their homes, will receive £2 less in pension than before the passing of the September legislation, those with £80 will receive £3 less, those with £90, £4 less, those with £100, £5 less, and those with £110, £6 less. So that this Government which has already made large gifts to its wealthy supporters, cannot justify itself by saying that it is restoring the cuts it has made in the oldage and invalid pensions. Having put its hand into the pockets of the pensioners, and taken out a substantial amount, it cannot excuse itself for having done so by handing back a small portion of what it then took. The Government has told us that the financial position of the country will not al’ow it to restore the former rate of pension. Our financial position will never allow it to do so while this’ Government continues to use its excess revenue to assist, by remissions of taxation, the wealthy sections of this community. The amendment of the honorable member for Balaclava does not go so far as wc would like it to go, but it will grant some relief, and for that reason honorable members of the party to which I have the honour te belong will support it. Those who encouraged the young men of this country to go to the war assured them that any benefits that came to them or to their dependants in case of their death would be regarded as sacrosanct.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is now digressing from the subject before the Chair.

Mr WARD:

– I am pointing out that war pensions were to be regarded as sacrosanct, whereas this Government is, in some instances, counting them as income for the purpose of justifying the reduction of old-age or invalid pensions. The Postmaster-General said that certain returned soldiers who were in receipt of a war pension of £4 10s. a week should not claim the invalid or old-age pension, but what of the dependants of deceased soldiers who are not receiving a pension of anything like that amount? Many of these people are being robbed of even the few shillings they are now receiving, although they are not receiving as many shillings as the pounds mentioned by the Postmaster-General. The returned soldier members of this Parliament should support this amendment. At any rate, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) has given them an opportunity to show the sincerity of their desire to stand loyally by their comrades who went to the war, and by those unfortunate workers injured in industry. I, and the members of my party,’ will support the amendment.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) has raised a point which is well worthy of consideration. Our pension law provides that persons must be incapacitated for work before they can claim an invalid pension, and the right honorable member has suggested that a medical board should be appointed to determine, among other things, the degree of incapacity which should entitle a person to an invalid pension. The medical board which deals with war persons has adopted the principle that if an applicant for a pension is 70 per cent, incapacitated, he shall be entitled to a full pension. We should have a medical board to fix some uniform basis of that kind in regard to claimants for invalid pensions. At present, the matter is dealt with by the officers of the department, although the officers are no doubt influenced- by the advice of Ministers. The pension law does not provide that a person must be totally incapacitated in order to draw an invalid pension, and the department has adopted a roughandready’ rule that a person is permanently incapacitated if he is not able to earn more than 6s. a week, and is therefore entitled to a full invalid pension. In my opinion, that arbitrary amount is far too low. If a person is permanently incapacitated, and is not able to earn 17s. 6d. a week, he should be entitled to the pension, but obviously 6s. a week is too low a figure to fix. If a medical board had to deal with this subject, I am sure that more general satisfaction would be given.

Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison

.- I endorse the sentiment that actuated tho honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) in moving his amendment, but the proposal has been sprung on us rather suddenly. I do not think that even the honorable member realizes all its implications. He has dived off the springboard, into water that was deeper than he thought it to be, and I know that he is not a good diver. It is easy to say, on a wave of emotion, that persons suffering from miners phthisis should receive special treatment. I fully appreciate the point of view of the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) and the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison), but Victoria is not the only State in which people suffering from miners phthisis are to be found, although it seems to be the only place where the disease is still known by that antiquated medical term.

Mr Forde:

– Oh no! The disease is known by that name in Queensland.

Mr HUTCHIN:

– Tho name given to it to-day by the medical profession all over the world is silicosis. In States, other than Victoria, miners complaints are sometimes called. silicosis, and, as the honorable mem’ber for Reid (Mr. Gander) has informed us, the term pneumoconiosis is also used for one kind of silicosis. Various schemes of compensation are in operation in the different States. In some instances, the compensation takes the form of a straight-out government grant of a small amount. There is a co-operative scheme in Tasmania under which payments for persons incapacitated through this complaint are considerably in excess of those made in Victoria. There is also a fund in Western Australia from which afflicted persons draw compensation- The fund is contributed to by the miners, and subsidized by the Government, as well as by the employers. Thus we have funds built up in various ways, providing various scales of payment, and in the several States various names are used to describe the miners complaints, though all these complaints are similar in character. If the committee proposes to amend the clause by making special provision for those suffering from phthisis, it must be prepared to extend its provisions to include all those suffering from occupational diseases of any kind. It will be seen, therefore, how this provision, once widened, must necessarily extend beyond the limit which the honorable member who moved the amendment had in mind. I have no idea what would be involved if the amendment were accepted, nor has the Government. Detailed information would have to be obtained from the several States, and calculations made on the basis of that information. Not only have we to keep these facts in mind, but we also must remember that in the various States workers’ compensation schemes of one kind or another are in operation. In South Australia, for instance, there is a lead smelter, in which the employees formerly ran the risk of contracting lead poisoning. The position has been very much improved in recent years; but thereare ex-employees of the works who may be drawing payment in compensation for permanent incapacity arising from plumbism, or lead poisoning. In some States workmen draw weekly payments, while in others they draw the interest from a sum of money placed on their behalf in the hands of the Public Trustee. If we accept the principle that we should grant more favorable treatment to those suffering from phthisis, we must be prepared to extend the provision to the whole range of industrial diseases. Probably honorable members, who would be prepared to accept the proposal outlined by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), may not be prepared to accept a proposal of such magnitude as I have shown would necessarily be involved. I am in sympathy with the sentiment behind the honorable member’s amendment, but I am not prepared to be rushed into taking action without knowing the full implications of it. We should be satisfied with the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) that the Government will consider the matter as a whole. We should not bustle the Government if we are anxious that justice shall be done all round. Therefore, though I am in accord with the general purpose of the amendment, I am not prepared to support it at this stage; rather do I urge honorable members to give the Government a chance to carry out the undertaking of the Prime Minister.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- While sympathy is very nice, no doubt, for the unfortunate miners suffering from phthisis, what they want is a higher pension, and this amendment presents honorable members with an opportunity of showing by their votes where they stand on this matter. I am out to get something more for pensioners suffering from phthisis. I represent the Mount Morgan district, where hundreds of men are suffering from this complaint, and many of them are in a low state of health. They have to purchase every week medicines prescribed for them, and some have to buy, in addition, brandy and other small luxuries which are expensive. Some are not able to eat ordinary food. Honorable members must understand that persons suffering from phthisis are frequently advised by their doctor to take brandy regularly. Their days are numbered, and I have been distressed to learn that the pensions department takes into consideration, when assessing their pensions, the small allowance they receive from the miners phthisis fund established in Queensland under the auspices of the State Insurance Department, and that their pensions have been reduced accordingly. The allowance from the fund varies from 5s. to 15s. a week. It used to be as much as£1 a week in some cases, but I have no doubt that in these times it has been cut down. The amendment of the honorable member for Balaclava also includes war pensions and child welfare allowances. In Queensland, child welfare allowances are described as State aid paid to widows in respect of their children. If the amendment were carried, we could rely on the Government, I think, to take some definite action to put it into effect, but the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government will take all these matters into consideration does not get us anywhere. The promised action might be taken this year or the year after, and probably, never. We have had an assurance from the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) that the Government has been as liberal as it is prepared to be: but this liberality includes the cutting of pensions in order to save £700,000, and, at the same time, remitting land taxations, imposed on the wealthy section, to a similar amount. I hope that the land tax will be reimposed, and the proceeds utilized to pay full pensions to those who. have had their pensions reduced.

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

.- I made an attempt some time ago to have justice done to one of my constituents, hut so far I have not been successful.. Therefore, I take this opportunity of raising the matter on the floor of the House. The following letter was forwarded by my constituent to Mr. J. Cain, M.L.A., who represents the district in the State Parliament : -

I am writing to ask if you would be gpod enough to interest yourself and to help me lodge my appeal against the rejection of my claim for the old-age pension. The facts are as follow: - I am now67 years of age, a widow. I applied for the pension last July twelve months, and, in due course, my application was rejected on the grounds that, under the act, an applicant could not have more than £400.

If the department think I have this amount of money, they are mistaken, for I have already declared on oath that I am without any means whatsoever. Late in 1929 I gave my son, who has been my sole support since hia father’s death twelve years ago, all I had left, about £380, to purchase a business in Ballan. I was living with him. Unfortunately, owing to the depression and the closing down of Pike and Company, Reservoir, the main support of the business, the business failed, and by June, 1931, I found all the money had gone, and I was left without any means. Since then I have been living with my married daughter, until last September, when, unfortunately, her husband has been out of employment for over twelve months, so now my position is desperate, as I have nothing.

I can assure you, sir that in lodging my claim I did sp not from choice, but of dire necessity. The fact that I am seven years over the age in applying for a pension shows that I would not have asked the department only I am forced to do so, as I am now unable to do anything. As God is my witness, I am utterly destitute. This is a true statement, Mr. Cain, so will you do your best for me for which I will be grateful.

The department sent the following reply to me: -

With reference to correspondence (copy attached) forwarded by the Honorable John Cain, M.L.A., regarding Mrs.- of Preston, I have to inform you that the circumstances of this case have been looked into on several occasions, and were fully reported to vou on the 11th February last.

On the 11th November, 1929, Mrs.received £415 net proceeds from the sale of her property in Preston. Most of these moneys were paid to her son, including £380 on the 21st November, 1929, also £20 and other amounts. The son appears to have lost most of the money in business, but he is a single man, and it is considered that the circumstances do not justify the disregarding of money transferred by claimant to her son.

It is regretted in the circumstances that the case cannot be reopened at present.

Mr. Cain was informed that, in accordance with the usual practice, he would be advised of the position through the federal member for the district.

The following is a further letter which I have received from this pension claimant : -

Since seeing you to ask for your assistance in gettingme the old-age pension, I have again applied and they have written to say I would hear as to their decision through our federal representative as to the position of my case. At present, Mr. Dennis, I am in a worse position than I was then. My soninlaw gave me to understand he was not in a position to keep me any longer, so I had to leave. A friend has taken me in for a few weeks while I see what can be done. I am now in a worse position than then as God is my witness. I am now homeless, and, worse still, penniless. I do not know what will become of me if they now refuse. I am67 years of age, and not able to earn anything, and at present I have no one to turn to. The boy who has been my support since his father’s death is in a bad way. He wrote to say he was rolling up his blankets to go on the road and see what he could do. So, Mr. Dennis, will you try and doyour best for me asI am destitute. It is hard on ‘ an old woman, hut I answered all their questions truthfully, and can do no more. Think of it. An old widow homeless at Christmas. Please do your best for me. 1 quite appreciate the position generally in respect of the disposal of property, but it does seem to me that this is a case of hardship requiring immediate investigation.

Mr Ward:

– There are hundreds of such cases.

Mr DENNIS:

– A man who is convicted of an offence becomes free so soon as he has served his sentence. Three years ago this indiscretion - if it can be so called - was committed by this woman, and the time has arrived when sympathetic consideration should be given to her case, because it has already been proved that the property was not disposed of with the intention of defrauding the department. The fact that this woman disposed of her property at a time when she was not a claimant for a pension, and that she has waited until she is 67 years of age to apply for a pension when she could have applied for it seven years ago, is an indication that she is a bona fide claimant.

Mr Watkins:

– That is only one case out of thousands’.

Mr DENNIS:

– It is the only case interesting me at the moment, and so long as I am a member of this Parliament 1 shall leave no stone unturned to ensure that justice is done to this woman.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

– I was surprised to hear the remarks of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde), because he was a member of a government which made no attempt to rectify these anomalies in “the act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member having spoken twice on the clause, must confine his remarks strictly to the amendment.

Mr McGRATH:

– When I spoke previously I had no idea that the amendment of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) was so embracing. I had no intention of supporting any proposal to treat soldier pensions as other than income. Allowances should be made in respect of miners phthisis and child welfare payments. Those payments should not be considered as income for the purpose of assessing pensions. I ask the Government to make a concession by not deducting the additional 2s. 6d. from persons who are suffering from miners phthisis, and persons who are caring for children. That concession would not be very costly, and would restore ‘ the pension in such cases to what it was two or three months ago.’

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) is evidently retreating from the position which he took up earlier in the night in respect of the amendment of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). He is now objecting to the proposal that soldiers’ pensions should be restored to what they were prior to 1931. The honorable member for Balaclava is asking, in addition, that payments in respect of miners’ phthisis or other industrial diseases, and child welfare payments, should not be regarded as income for the purpose of assessing pensions. Only this afternoon the honorable member for Ballarat was himself the instigator of the proposal in respect of allowances for miners phthisis, but now he seeks to abandon the proposal. In 1931, the Government then in power said that in the event of the financial position improving, the reductions in the social services would be restored. The revenues of this country have improved. That is evident because of the fact that legislation has been introduced into this chamber for the purpose of remitting taxation to a wealthy section of the community. The Government which was responsible for the introduction of the Premiers plan stated that before any remission of taxation was made, the reduction in pension payments would be restored. During the last election campaign, the honorable member for Ballarat was loudest in his claim that if he were returned to Parliament he and the party he supports would restore . to the pensioners what they had lost under the legislation which gave effect to the Premiers plan.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in discussing the attitude of honorable members at the last, election.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The general policy of all parties at that time was to restore pensions to the standard of 1931. I do not think any honorable member claims that a pension of£1 a week is excessive. It must not be forgotten that this community owes something to the old people of this country. The man who has land, the unimproved value of which is £5,000 and over, can well afford to wait fpr remissions of taxation until pensions have been restored to their former level. I hope that the honorable member for Balaclava will not withdraw his amendment.

Mr MARR:
Minister for Health · Parkes · UAP

– I would point out to honorable members that the pension of the widowed mother of a soldier is to-day the same as it was in 1931 after the introduction of the Financial Emergency Act. The procedure laid down by the Scullin Government was that a widowed mother of a soldier, other than one coming within the definition of the third schedule of the act had to be paid a pension sufficient to bring her income up to 30s. a week, and when the Pensions Department reduced pensions by half-a-crown, I, as Minister in charge of the Repatriation Department, issued instructions on behalf of the Government, that that department must provide the money necessary to maintain the income at 30s. a week. If any honorable member brings under my notice any case in which the income of a widowed mother of a soldier is less than 30s. a week, I undertake to have the anomaly rectified.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable member for Kennedy was dealing with the period before the Financial Emergency Act came into operation.

Mr MARR:

– When the Scullin Government introduced the Financial Emergency Act it was provided that the income of a widowed mother of a deceased soldier should not exceed 30s. a week. If she receives 10s. from another source the Repatriation Department supplies a further £1.

Mr Gabb:

– If she owns realizable assets up to £200 she receives no pension.

Mr MARR:

– This country cannot afford to pay pensions to everybody, irrespective of their income. If the oldage pension received by the widowed mother of a deceased soldier is cut down to 15s., she will receive 15s. from the Repatriation Department, making the total 30s. a week, as was the case in 1931.

The committee has been treated to an illuminating explanation from the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin) regarding miners phthisis. We all admit that if the revenues permitted, our social services would bc much more liberal. I remind the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) that although their Government was in power, for two years it did not make additional provision for these unfortunate persons. Yet now they talk about having a vote to determine the opinions of honorable members on the subject. The country is in just as deplorable a financial condition now as it was when the Scullin Government was in power. Honorable members opposite must agree that we cannot continue taxing industry without creating additional unemployment.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The Minister for Health (Mr. Marr) misrepresented the remarks of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), who did not refer to what was done under the Financial Emergency Act of 1931, but to the basis on which these pensions were paid prior to the introduction of that measure. The Minister knows that, under that legislation, regulations were introduced providing that if the income of a widow from any source reaches £3 a fortnight she is considered to be adequately maintained. The honorable gentleman did not point out thatmany widowed mothers of deceased soldiers have suffered as a result of the operation of those regulations. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White)has moved an amendment providing that certain relief shall be given to those suffering from miners phthisis, and to women receiving childhood allowances, and that re-adjustments shall be made in connexion with soldiers and invalid and old-age pensions. The vote on that amendment will test the sincerity of honorable members opposite. In an endeavour to escape the indictment of that division, those honorable members have declared that the finances of the country will not permit what the honorable member for Balaclava seeks to have done. The bill which we are now discussing provides relief to the extent of £700,000 to a wealthy section of the community. As the honorable member for Balaclava rightly said, a portion of that amount might well be used to relieve those suffering from miners phthisis. Those men worked in the bowels of the earth producing wealth for others, and they certainly have some claim on the wealth that they have produced. The purpose of the amendment is to give them a measure of relief. Whatever may be said as to the merits or demerits of the cause, for which our returned soldiers fought, it is obvious that those who had most to lose from an unsuccessful issue to the war were the big land-owners and other wealthy individuals, not the workers. So that it would be logical to withdraw the remission of land tax, and to devote the £700,000 which has been given as a Christmas box to the wealthy to meet the charges which will be placed on revenue if the amendment is carried.

Many honorable members have endeavoured to make us believe that if the amendment were carried every returned soldier would automatically come under the scope of the invalid and old-age pensions act. That is not true. The number affected would be small. The PostmasterGeneral said that the carrying of the amendment would involve an additional expenditure of £60,000 per annum. Even if that is so, the amount is negligible compared with the £700,000 that is being given to wealthy land-owners. If the Government is sincere in its desire to give some measure of relief to these unfortunate,persons it can easily find the necessary finance by withdrawing those remissions from its wealthy supporters.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin), clearly showed what would be the effect of the amendment, if carried. While he was not able to state exactly the amount that would be involved, he has made it evident that it would be substantial.

The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), recognizing the difficulty of the Government, desires at least that persons drawing a miners phthisis allowance should not have their pensions reduced below 17s. 6d.

Mr Forde:

– And he mentioned childhood allowance.

Mr LYONS:

– I have already given a guarantee that that payment will not be regarded as income when pensions claimed are being assessed. If I could be assured that the privilege would not be extended to sufferers from other diseases, I should be prepared to promise that there would not be any reduction of the 17s. 6d. pension paid to sufferers from miners phthisis. I am prepared to give the matter consideration in the little time at the disposal of the Government before the bill goes to the Senate. That is as far as I can go.

Mr Nelson:

– Will that assurance cover persons suffering from other industrial diseases?

Mr LYONS:

– As was pointed out by the honorable member for Denison, if the amendment were carried the benefits would apply to other than those suffering from miners phthisis. I am not prepared to accept the proposal until I know what its effect would be on the country’s finances.. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) has pointed out to the committee that one portion alone of the amendment, dealing with war pensions would involve an increased expenditure of £60,000. I submit that, as the amendment would involve additional expenditure if carried, it is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Prime Minister has raised an important point of order. While the debate proceeded I have investigated the subject. It is clear that if the amendment were carried and necessitated the provision of an additional £60,000, as the Treasurer assures us would be the case, there would be a substantial increa.se upon the charge to the Treasury. The Standing Orders definitely provide that no private member can move an amendment to increase expenditure. There have been a number of instances in which amendments have been ruled to be out of order because the effect if allowed would have been to increase the expenditure, one when the then honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. MacDonald) was Chairman of Committees, the bill before the committee being an amendment to the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. The chairman ruled that an amendment was out of order because it would increase the charge to the Treasury- The debate that ensued covers 30 pages of Hansard, but it resulted in the ruling of the Chairman of Committees being unheld. More recently the chairman of this committee has ruled out of order a similar amendment that did not so definitely increase the charge on the revenue.

Mr Beasley:

– I submit first, that the Chair having accepted the amendment and allowed it to be discussed, it is now the property of the committee, and cannot be withdrawn. Secondly, the Prime Minister 8,poke twice on the amendment and was followed by other ministers, yet none of them indicated earlier that the amendment would increase the charge upon the revenue. Thirdly, the bill covers several subjects. Whilst the amendment now before the committee may result in an increase of the appropriation, amendments to subsequent clauses may make corresponding decreases, so that there will be no net increase of the general appropriation. On these three grounds I consider that the committee is entitled to deal with the amendment.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– The Prime Minister’s general objection is based on a recognized principle that the control of expenditure is vested in the Crown. The Government, representing the Crown, is responsible for the administration of finance, and is supposed to know the resources and limitations of the exchequer ; therefore, the responsibility for initial expenditure must rest with the Government. A private member is not assumed to have the knowledge of the finances that is possessed by ministers, and it is not the practice for him to interfere with their responsibility. May, 10th edition, page 532, states-

Iiic constitutional principle which vests in the Crown the solo responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the Crown for the service of the State.

That is the principle upon which the Prime Minister’s objection is based. The only doubt I have is as to the difference between specific appropriation and a general appropriation for several purposes.

On that point May states -

This principle however, is apparently disre-gadded when the recommendation of the Crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in gen eral terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.

In the House of Commons a private member may propose an increase when the recommendation of the Crown is in general terms and is not specific. But apparently the chairman has satisfied himself by reference to precedents, that the practice of this Parliament is in all circumstances to disallow an amendment by a private member which would increase the charge upon the revenue.

Mr Blakeley:

– It is extraordinary that an amendment which had been solemnly, and, I hope, sincerely moved by the honorable member for Balaclava, accepted by the Chairman without reservation, twice stated from the Chair, and discussed for two and a half hours by four ministers and others, should now be discovered to be out of order. The fifth minister to speak to the amendment was the Prime Minister. Whether he had been crystal-gazing in his room or whether you, Mr. Chairman, before you gave your impromptu ruling fortified by precedents, had been given a certain hint I cannot say; but I protest against your conduct of the business of the committee. Honorable members look to you to protect their rights. If, having allowed the amendment to be discussed for two and -a half hours, you now rule it out of order, because it may embarass the Government, you are not protecting the committee as you should do.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is distinctly out of order.

Mr Blakeley:

– I have finished what I had to say.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has stated that the Chair accepted the amendment and allowed it to be discussed. All I did was to satisfy myself that the amendment was relevant to the clause, but I gave no indication that otherwise it was in order. In regard to the second’ objection of the honorable member, I remind him that a point of order may be taken at any time. Honorable members will recognize that in regard to a matter of parliamentary procedure and practice opinions may differ; even the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom), who has had long experience as Speaker of this House is still in doubt as to whether the amendment is in order. I had to inform my mind on the subject *by consulting the Standing Orders and previous decisions, and did so while the “ discussion proceeded. The honorable member for Darling Downs has rightly stated the general principle that the control of expenditure rests with the Crown, and the practice of the House has been not to permit an amendment by a private member which would increase the charge upon the people. There are several rulings on that point, two of which I have already mentioned. The Standing Orders are not as definite as they might be, but No. 171 reads -

No amendment for the imposition or for the increase of a t»x rate or duty shall lae Preposed by any non-Official member in any committee on any bill.

Mr Beasley:

– Where is the proof of the XHGTQ&.&Q ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is obvious that if the amendment were agreed to it would necessitate increased provision for invalid and old-age pensions. I, therefore, rule that the amendment is not in order.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I hope that the Prime Minister will honour his promise ito consider carefully the representations that the allowance to sufferers from miners phthisis should not be taken into account when computing claims for invalid and old-age pensions. I do not know how many honorable members have had personal association with sufferers from miners phthisis, but those who have will know .that it iB a terrible disease. I had a sorry experience of it for a number of years in connexion with the Mr Morgan Gold Mining Company. I have seen men taken from the mine to a sanatorium, brought back after some little time as cot cases, linger on. for a couple of years, and then die. The oil and flesh of the mutton birds affords relief to these sufferers, but it is expensive. A nian can very easily spend £3 a month in, say, the district of Ayr, in Queensland, in purchasing these necessary medicines. The Government should do all that it possibly can do to enable sufferers from miners phthisis to obtain relief, and I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will find it possible to restore the pension of these sufferers to the figure at which it stood before the cut was made last September. Referring to the remarks of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), I feel that I am not over-stating the position by saying that the Minister in charge of Repatriation has deliberately misconstrued the actions of the previous Government. I remember that when some of the honorable members now supporting the Government were sitting in Opposition, they protested against what the Scullin Government tried to do in this connexion. I make another appeal to the Prime Minister to give favorable consideration to all our fellow citizens who suffer from miners phthisis.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) for his assurance that the Government will reconsider the position of sufferers from miners phthisis, deserted wives who ,are drawing certain money from State welfare departments, and the widows of deceased soldiers who have suffered a reduction of their pensions. As the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin) has pointed out, sufferers from miners phthisis are » paid different amounts in different States. It should be possible, by administrative arrangement, to alleviate the sufferings of these people. Those who have seen the distress of these unfortunate people will readily agree that everything possible should be done to alleviate their tortures. These people are few in number, and their life will be short. They have served Australia well, and Australia should now care for them.

Mr GANDER:
Reid

– I ask for the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Lyons:

– That cannot be granted.

Mr GANDER:

– I appeal to the Government to give consideration, not only to those who suffer from miners phthisis, but also to those who suffer from other industrial diseases, and particularly to the people in government institutions in this country who are afflicted with tuberculosis. The Government should restore their pension to 5s. a week.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– When honorable members make appeals for special consideration for certain classes of sufferers, they naturally awaken the sympathy of other honorable members; but consideration should alsobe given to the amount of money that must be provided by taxation to pay our pensions bill. For the year ended the 30th June, 1930, during which pensions were paid at the rate of 20s. a week, our pensions expenditure amounted to £10,791,325. The agreement of the Commonwealth and State Governments, which is now known as the Premiers plan, provided for a reduction of all adjustable expenditure by 20 per cent. If that percentage of reduction had been applied to our expenditure on pensions, the payments would now be a little more than £8,000,000 per annum. But, in point of fact, the expenditure increased in the year ended the 30th June, 1931, to £11,710,953, and in the year ended the 30th June, 1932, when the maximum pension was 17s. 6d. a week, the expenditure amounted to £11,125,956, or about £500,000 more than in the financial year ended June, 1930. If a reduction of 20 per cent. had been made in thia expenditure in accordance with the general agreement which was the basis of the Premiers plan, the amount would be £2,000,000 less per annum now than it is.

Mr Beasley:

– But the AttorneyGeneral knows why the amount has increased?

Mr LATHAM:

– Of course, additional claims have been made on account of the general depression. But I am pointing out that the Premiers plan provided that all adjustable expenditure should be reduced by 20 per cent. Surely pensions expenditure is adjustable expenditure!

Mr Scullin:

– Can the AttorneyGeneral point to any undertaking that was made that pensions would be reduced by 20 per cent.?

Mr LATHAM:

– The undertaking was that made at the Premiers Conference.

Mr Scullin:

– That is not so. I was responsible for the agreement made on behalf of the Commonwealth Government when the Premiers plan was formulated, and I definitely declined to decrease pensions by 20 per cent.

Mr LATHAM:

– An agreement was made that adjustable expenditure would be reduced by 20 per cent., and obviously our pensions expenditure is adjustable expenditure.

Mr Scullin:

– There was no agreement to reduce pensions by 20 per cent. The Attorney-General knows that certain expenditure was reduced by 22½ per cent.

Mr LATHAM:

– It was agreed thatthe total expenditure on pensions would be reduced. Reductions were, in fact, made in pensions by the Scullin Government, so it must have regarded pensions expenditure as adjustable expenditure. My object in directing attention to this aspect of the subject is to remind honorable members who are asking for further pension concessions that pensions expenditure has not been reduced by 20 per cent., and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons’) has only been able to say that he will give consideration to the requests for certain restorations of pensions to those who suffer from occupational diseases. Obviously, if one occupational disease is given special consideration, all such diseases must be specially considered.

Mr Ward:

– That is right. Put them all in!

Mr LATHAM:

– The interjection of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) shows his irresponsibility. The Government has sympathy with every section of the community which is suffering hardship; but, if it makes all the concessions that have been asked for, the financial position of the country will soon be such that the whole pension scheme will become impossible. I therefore appeal to honorable members who desire concessions to be granted to have some regard to our general financial position.

Sitting suspended from 11.59 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 1 December 1932

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.If there is one thing that we should expect from the Attorney-General, it is accuracy regarding facts. Honorable members usually look to the AttorneyGeneral for precise and exact statements on the meaning of clauses, and for guidance regarding the meaning and interpretation of agreements and legislation. I regret to say that the honorable gentleman, during recent months, has earned a reputation for inaccuracy that is unenviable.

While the committee was supposed to be considering clause 19 of the bill, the Attorney-General made certain statements, and I wish to reply to them. The statements of the AttorneyGeneral were reckless in the extreme, and it is not the first time that he has been reckless in this way. The AttorneyGeneral has been guilty of misrepresenting the Government which I led in the last Parliament - most cold-blooded misrepresentation, and of a character calculated to do injury. The Attorney-General was endeavouring to justify the further cuts that have been made in pensions, and he said that, at the Premiers Conference, an agreement was reached to reduce all pensions by 20 per cent.

Mr Latham:

– I said all adjustable expenditure.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The AttorneyGeneral said pensions. I asked him where he got his authority for saying that an agreement had been reached to reduce pensions by 20 per cent., and he replied that it had been agreed at the Premiers Conference to do so. I disputed that, and said that I was at the conference, while the Attorney-General, with the exception of the few hours when he was present while interest rates were being discussed, did not attend the conference. I said that I was in a position to know what had taken place at the conference, while he was not, to which ho replied that the resolution carried at the conference provided for a 20 per cent. reduction in adjustable government expenditure, and surely pensions were adjustable government expenditure.

Mr Latham:

-Yes, I said that.

Mr SCULLIN:

– And yet the AttorneyGeneral now denies that he said that it was agreed to make a 20 per cent. cut in pensions. The facts are that the economists’ report presented to the Premiers Conference recommended an all-round cut of 20 per cent. in expenditure, including pensions. One of the things definitely laid down by myself as Prime Minister, and by the Treasurer, at that conference, was that we refused to reduce pensions by 20 per cent. We accepted the recommendation that adjustable expenditure should be reduced by 20 per cent., but we claimed the right to apply the reduction in our own way.

Mr Latham:

– I agree with that.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Now that the AttorneyGeneral has been confronted with the facts, he is forced to agree with me. We claimed at the conference that a reduction of 22½ per cent. should be made in interest rates payable on Commonwealth bonds, but that a reduction of 12½ per cent., or 2s. 6d. in the £, should be made in old-age pensions which, with adjustments in soldiers and invalid pensions, would make a total reduction in pensions of 13 per cent. Proof of that is to be found in the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer, in which it was shown that adjustments of pension rates would result in a reduction by 13 per cent. of the aggregate amount of pensions payable, including soldiers, old-age and invalid pensions. I should have walked out of the conference rather than agree to reduce pensions by the same amount as we reduced the interest rates on bonds, and nobody knows that better than the Attorney-General. Whatever criticism may be levelled against what we did during that dreadful emergency, at least we are entitled to have the facts stated accurately by the Attorney-General. I should regret to have the reputation for inaccuracy which the Attorney-General has earned for himself during the last two months.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin)-

Mr Fenton:

– I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether the committee is dealing with clause 19, or whether a general debate is in progress. I understand that the Attorney-General made a statement, to which the Leader of the Opposition has replied. If the discussion is to be continued, I presume that we shall all desire to get into the scrum, and if that happens we shall be here for a long time. Is it permissible to have a general discussion on the Premiers plan and kindred subjects while clause . 19 is before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The point of order raised by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) is a reasonable one. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) in his speech quoted certain figures, and made certain statements. When I asked him to deal with the clause before the committee, he said that he would connect his remarks with the clause. He did so, or, at any rate, attempted to do so. He made certain statements to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) wished to reply, and I have allowed some latitude in permitting the right honorable gentleman to make his reply. The discussion must not go further. We cannot have a discussion on the Premiers plan while this clause is before the committee. I admit that the Chair allowed more latitude than perhaps it should have done. The Attorney-General desired/to give certain information to the committee, but he must now, in anything further he has to say, confine his remarks to the clause with which we are dealing.

Mr LATHAM:

– I ask leave to make a personal explanation. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that I have been guilty of deliberate inaccuracy.

Mr Nelson:

– Is the Attorney-General in order in asking for leave to make a Statement, and then proceeding to make the statement without having obtained leave ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The AttorneyGeneral asked leave to make a personal explanation. The request was made of the Chair, not of the committee. The honorable member is entitled to make a personal explanation if hebelieves that he has been misrepresented.

Mr LATHAM:

– I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has accused me of deliberate inaccuracy. I assure him that I have no desire whatever to misrepresent any action that he took in what I have always conceded were very difficult circumstances. The only point I desired to make was that an agreement was entered into to reduce expenditure under the heading of pensions, and that that expenditure has, in fact, been increased. In order to make ray position clear, I shall quote a portion of the agreement reached at the Premiers Conference. I desire to establish the fact that the agreement for the reduction of adjustable expenditure included pensions. I recognize that it was left to the governments concerned to make that reduction equitably. The last Government did not purport to reduce old-age pensions expenditure in the same degree as other expenditure was reduced, and I did not mean to suggest that the Government ever agreed to make an even cut of 20 per cent. in all Government expenditure. If the words I used misrepresented the Leader of the Opposition in relation to that matter, I express my regret. I quote from the report of the conference proceedings as follow: -

The plan has been adopted by the conference as a whole, each part of which is accepted on the understanding that all the other parts are equally and simultaneously put into operation. It embraces the following measures: -

A reduction of 20 per cent. in all adjustable Government expenditure, as compared with the year ending 30th June, 1930, including all emoluments, wages, salaries, and pensions paid by the Government, whether fixed by statute or otherwise, such reduction to be equitably effected. . .

The same general principle is extended to all pensions provided out of Government funds - old-age and invalid pensions, war pensions, superannuation pensions, and the maternity allowance. Over the whole field of this expenditure, the out will amount to16 per cent.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20-

  1. Section 52d of the Principal Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following sub-section: - “ (6). Sub-sections (4) and (5) of this section shall not apply in any case in which the Commissioner -

    1. is satisfied that a person who accepted in contravention of subsection (4) of this section, a mortgage or transfer, did so through inadvertence on the part of the person who accepted the mortgage or transfer, or error on the part of the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner ; and
    2. subsequently gives his consent.

Section proposed to be amended - 52d. . . .

  1. Anyperson who accepts a mortgage or transfer of real property or of any estate or interest, therein from a pensioner without the prior consent inwriting of the Commissioner shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty, One hundred pounds.

  2. Any transfer or mortgage effected in contravention of this section or in breach of any undertaking given under this section shall bevoid and of no effect.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- Section 52d of the act, which clause 20 amends, provides that transfers of property can be made only with the consent of the Commissioner. The clause now before the committee is intended to deal with a diffi culty which has arisen in the following manner: It is provided in the original act that transfers of property, effected without the consent of the Commissioner shall be void. It has been pointed out that this provision might produce serious hardship if, through inadvertence, a transfer was accepted from a pensioner without the consent of the Commissioner having been obtained, or if information supplied by the Commissioner as to whether or not a person was a pensioner happened to be erroneous. If, in spite of a statement by the Commissioner that a person was not a pensioner, it turned out that he was, the transaction would be void. Accordingly, clause 20 provides that sub-sections 4 and 5, which render conveyances void, and penalizes them in certain circumstances, shall not apply to any case in which the Commissioner -

  1. is satisfied that a person who accepted, in contravention of subsection (4) of this section, a mortgage or transfer, did so through inadvertence on the part of the person who accepted the mortgage or transfer, or error on the part of the Commissioner ora Deputy Commissioner : and
  2. subsequently gives his consent.

I propose to move on that amendment a further amendment in order to facilitate dealings in property. If a person obtains information that an individual is not a pensioner, and enters into a dealing with him, it may takesome time for the dealing to be completed, and if the individual subsequently becomes a pensioner, then without any default or any conduct on the part of those concerned that could be condemned from any point of view, the transaction might be voided. Accordingly, I move -

That after paragraph b the following words be added, “or in any ease in which a per son acting on information supplied to him by the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner, that a person is not a pensioner, deals within twenty-one days with that person.”

The result will be that for the period of twenty-one days it will be possible to deal with certainty and security upon the basis that the person concerned is not a pensioner. It may be said that it might not be possible to complete a transaction within that time. But it would be easy in such circumstances for a person to make another application for informa tion and to obtain another twenty-one days. This amendment and a further amendment are designed to facilitate dealings, and to provide for certainty and security in dealings in land.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

– - Ministers seem to be obsessed with theidea that the King can do no wrong, because they apparently believe that it is impossible for a government to do wrong, and that it can put the public to gravetrouble without fear of consequences. The Government, when taking something in the nature of a lien over property, should have made arrangements with the State governments for the lodging of a caveat so as to prevent the public from being placed in the unfortunate position in which they are to-day. Take the position of an old-age pensioner at, say, Broome, Wyndham or Darwin. He may be desirous of selling his home for the purpose of moving elsewhere, and grave difficulties are likely to arise if there is no information available as to whether the Commonwealth Government has a lien over the property. I hope that the Attorney-General will devise some means to avoid the circumlocution that is involved in this clause. A person negotiating for a property should be able to go to the Titles Department to ascertain whether there is anything against the title. This legislation tends to dislocate the ordinary business arrangements, and I am surprised that the Attorney-General is prepared to accept it. I hope that the Government will endeavour to arrange with the various States for the registration of liens taken by the Commissioner of Pensions over the properties of pensioners. This legislation places too much power in the hands of government officials.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

– It has been stated that under this clause the Government is placing too much power in the hands of the Commissioner ; but I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government upon having placed a certain amount of discretionary power in the hands of the Commissioner in respect of the administering of the actIt has already been stated that once an act is passed and becomes law, the officers of the department are called upon to administer it rigidly, in accordance with the exact wording of that law. J certainly hope that the Government will confer discretionary power upon the Commissioner in dealing not only with securities and mortgage sections, but also with other sections, so that difficulties which arise and cannot be provided for by act of Parliament, can be sympathetically dealt with by the department, which I am satisfied can be trusted to deal honestly by the Government and the community generally.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– It would be interesting to know the extent of the confusion and inconvenience that has been caused to the Pensions office by this legislation, and to interested parties dealing with this class of business. I am informed that in Sydney over the week-end the Commissioner’s office was absolutely swamped with correspondence, requests, and inquiries from legal men and others. A gentleman who visited me, and who, apparently, is interested in this class of business in the city, told me that so much inconvenience had been caused that the actual expense involved would offset any benefit the Government was likely to obtain. It would be interesting to know exactly what the cost of this innovation will be to the department. The only effect will be that those who are supposed to receive benefits - the pensioners - will be denied them. In Sydney, because of the alteration in the law, it has been necessary to shift the offices of the Pensions Department to larger premises. The whole organization of the department has been dislocated. The extra cost of these alterations is not justified, and it is questionable whether they were worth a moment’s consideration. Our protests against any interference on the part of the Government with the property of pensioners are supported by many people associated with this class of business who, from time to time, have assisted pensioners financially and otherwise.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– There is no doubt that the introduction of this legislation has caused a certain amount of inconvenience and confusion. The honorable member for Swan (Mr.

Gregory) has suggested that claims by the Government in respect of the properties of pensioners should be registered. Unfortunately, that matter depends on State law. In previous legislation this Parliament provided for the registration of rights which were obtained under Commonwealth statute; but it was held by the High Court that such legislation was invalid. It is, therefore, impossible for us to provide by legislation that rights acquired under Commonwealth statute shall be registered under the State systems. If the States were prepared to amend their systems of registration it would be possible to introduce the system to which the honorable member has referred.

The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has spoken of the inconvenience arising from the many inquiries that are at present being made at the Pensions office. That is a real inconvenience, but it has been grossly exaggerated in some quarters. I admit, nevertheless, that the introduction of any- thing new like this doe3 lead to a disturbance of the accustomed methods of dealing. It must not be thought that this is entirely anomalous and unprecedented legislation. This legislation, it is true, imposes a charge which, incidentally, is realizable and enforceable only after death, and does not exist during the lifetime of a pensioner except as a possibility which becomes “actual after death, but which is very real in that sense. This legislation provides for a charge which takes precedence of certain other dealings. The States have introduced similar legislation of the same character, and similar disturbances and difficulties have arisen. The amount of the charge is unknown, and cannot be ascertained with certainty at a given time. I mention as examples of charges which are imposed by the State laws as having priority over ordinary mortgages and the like, municipal and water rates, irrigation rates, wire netting advances, and special advances to farmers by way of relief. I have already mentioned in this chamber a case with which I am familiar in which arrears of water rates ‘ amounted to £17,000, and were a charge which took priority over a first mortagage

All legislationwhich imposes statutory charges is inconvenient. It does not fit in with the registration system.For many years we have had a land tax act which imposes a charge upon the land held by a taxpayer. It would be possible to suggest terrifying results from a conveyancing point of view, because all the land held by a person is aggregated for the purpose of the tax, which is a charge on every piece ofhis land. Therefore, theoretically, the smallest block of land in a suburb may, because of having been aggregated with other land, be charged with taxation amounting to thousands of pounds. Of course, we know that that rarely happens. Exaggerated statements have been made in connexion with invalid and old-age pensions which are not unlike the example that I have given. However, it is becoming increasingly known that form 44 is provided to facilitate the obtaining of the necessary information.When a scheme such as this is introduced, there must necessarily be a certain amount of difficulty, but very soon this aspect of it will be regarded as of no more serious inconvenience than the usual inquiries as to municipal rates that are made before land is transferred.

I propose to deal with other and perhaps more important questions when we come to the next clause, which imposes a charge on the land held by a pensioner. The system that has been adopted is to impose a charge on the land after the death of the pensioner, and to provide for that charge having priority over certain other encumbrances and dealings. During the life of a pensioner the Commissioner’s consent is required to a dealing by the pensioner. I particularly mention one matter in connexion with this because the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) asked me to deal with the subject during the debate. There are cases in which there are current contracts of sale and payments are being made, or are to be made, or perhaps were completed before this legislation was thought of. It is clearly seen that it would be unjust to subject those dealings to a charge created at a later date by Commonwealth legislation. Instructions have been given to the Commissioner that in such cases he shall give his consent to the dealing, and, therefore, no difficulty will arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21-

Section fifty-two e of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1.) after the words “ real property of the pensioner “ the words “ and except encumbrances thereon in respect of which the Commissioner has consented in writing “.

Section proposed to be amended - 52e. - (1.) Upon the death of a pensioner and upon the death of a person who after the commencement of this section, ceased to be a pensioner, the amount of pension paid to the pensioner or person after the commencement of this section, and not repaid to the Commissioner under the foregoing provisions of this Part shall be a debt due to the Commonwealth in priority to all other debts and liabilities of the pensioner (except encumbrances existing prior to such commencement, upon real property of the pensioner) and shall be recoverable by the Commissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– This clause imposes a charge upon a pensioner’s property at death. The object might have been achieved by doing what was provided for in Victorian legislation, that is, requiring the pensioner, in effect, to transfer his property during life to the official authorities. It was thought more just, convenient, and proper to provide for the enforcement of the charge after the death of the individual. That charge comes after any encumbrance created before the introduction of this amending legislation. Therefore, mortgages and the like which existed previously are not affected. Section 52 provides that the Commissioner may consent to a dealing. It has been suggested in some quarters, wrongly and without foundation, that even if the Commissioner consented to an encumbrance or a transfer that dealing would beineffective. Obviously if the Commissioner consents to a transfer, the land becomes the property of someone else, and is no longer owned by the pensioner; therefore there is no charge on it. So that, from the legal point of view, the position is simple.

In order to avoid any possible misapprehension in regard to mortgages, it is provided by clause 21 that priority shall be given to encumbrances in respect of which the Commissioner has consented in writing. The effect of the clause is to make it plain that if the Commissioner consents to any encumbrance, and it is registered in the ordinary way, that encumbrance takes priority over the Commonwealth charge.

A word as to the conditions under which the Commissioner shall consent to such encumbrances. Cases have been mentioned in which it has been claimed that children are entitled to have their interest in the property of their parents protected. As I have already said, it is impossible to have it both ways; for the owner of the home to say “I want to have this home entirely in my own name; yet I want to be sure that my children shall have rights in it “. Under the law as it will stand if the clause is accepted, if the pensioner is prepared to protect real rights of children by transfer or mortgage, where the children really bought the home and would suffer hardship if their rights were taken away, the consent of the Commissioner may be given to the dealing and, when given, that dealing will take priority over the Commonwealth charge.

Mr Watkins:

– Then the pensioner would be charged with doing away with the property and lose his pension.

Mr LATHAM:

– When a pensioner has been granted a pension, and has disclosed his property, no question should arise. Supposing, however, that a pensioner has a home worth several hundred pounds together with other property, and, instead of maintaining and retaining his home, he prefers to sell it and turn it into money. Under the statute, as it has always existed, the effect of the sale of that property would be a reduction of his pension. That is not the effect of this recent legislation. Under this amendment it will be possible, in any proper case, to- protect the interests of those who have a genuine share in a property.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

– The explanation of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) has proved conclusively that this legislation will divide pensioners into two classes. Those who have enjoyed life, and have made no endeavour to provide a home for their old age, will automatically receive a pen sion on attaining the age of 65 years. But the thrifty person, who has striven to do without a pension and has accumulated a few pounds, with which he has built a home, possibly with the assistance of his children, is to be penalized. The Government is making the greatest mistake in thinking that these independent people who have been thrifty will make over their homes to the Government for the sake of a paltry pension. That pension is merely lent to them, for, upon their death, it is taken out of the property. All should be on the same level. Only the other day I had put to me the case of an old couple who had to leave their home, for health reasons. They let that home for a few shillings a week, and had to pay 12s. 6d. for the place they themselves rented. As a result their pension was reduced 2s. a week. I appeal to the Government to realize what it is doing, and, at least, put the thrifty people on the same level as those who have been care-free throughout life. I know of a pensioner who has his own home, and has made a splendid little garden for himself. He told the Registrar “If this is going to be the law, I shall accept a pension, but I will not pay any rates or put a spade in the ground. The house can go to wrack and ruin before the Government gets it.” This special attack on the thrifty section of the people is unjust. The new provisions will prove unworkable, and will recoil upon the heads of those who introduced them.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– A member of the Queensland Parliament has advised me that considerable anxiety has been expressed by trustees of friendly societies in regard to provision for the property of a pensioner to be attached as security for repayment of the amount of pension paid to him by the Commonwealth. The friendly societies throughout Australia i have many thousands of members, and have invested large amounts of trust funds. The official returns for Queensland alone show that they have invested in banks £153,000; in Commonwealth and State loans, £312,000; in mortgages. £1,091,878, and in property, £145,000. I have been unable to ascertain how many of their members are mortgagors to the trustees, and have received advances from the trustees. All mortgages existing prior to the passing of the Financial Emergency Act of 1932 are protected, but if after the 12th October last, trustees should advance money to a person for the erection of a small home, and he should subsequently become a pensioner, his liability to the Commonwealth would become a first charge on his property, and the security of the lender would be seriously impaired. Building societies which in country towns serve a similar purpose, may also be affected by this provision, which will have the effect of discouraging the advancing of money on mortgage to people withsmall incomes who desire to acquire their own homes. This legislation will have a restraining effect also upon private individuals who have money to advance on mortgage. An old-age pension may continue from five to ten years. In Queensland the average cost pf a workman’s cottage may be taken as from £350 to £450, and ten years’ accumulation of pension liability would absorb the whole security. The mortgagee who had advanced money on the property of a pensioner would have a worthless asset. The only way to obviate this trouble is to exempt all bona fide advances, whether by trustees or private individuals made prior to the mortgagor becoming a pensioner. Having regard to the offence which the new law is giving to the sentiments of the pensioners and their families, the complications it is causing in family relationships, the increased complexity and costs of administration it will entail, and the inevitable discouragement of people from acquiring their own homes, one is tempted to ask whether the small amount of money which the Commonwealth will collect from these homes ultimately, will make this change in the law worth while. Anything that can be done to enable trustees of friendly societies and building societies to continue advances to persons who desire to purchase homes, should be done, and I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this aspect of the Financial Emergency Act.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.I agree with the honorable member for Darling Downs that the amount which will be gained by the Government through taking a lien over the property of pen sioners will be trifling in comparison with the inconvenience and injustice that will bc caused. I hope that experience will convince the Government that the early repeal of this provisionwill be wise. A few days ago I asked a question of the Treasurer regarding the position of a widow, to whom her pensioner husband had bequeathed a small home. The act provides that if a woman is a pensioner, or if she is living permanently with her husband and is 55 years of age, the amount of the pension will not be recoverable until after her death. But what of a woman, a widow, who is not a pensioner and has not reached the age of 55 years? She might have married an invalid pensioner or a man many years her senior. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) stated that such cases are provided for. They may be covered by the discretionary power given to the Commissioner in clause 22, but whilst we cannot cover all relatives except by a general discretionary power, at least the widow or widower of a pensioner should he specified. I suggest that both widows and widowers should be mentioned in section 52h, without any qualification as to their being pensioners or having reached a certain age. Great hardship would be caused if a widow could not inherit the small home left to her without repaying all the pension that had been paid to her husband. In some circumstances discretionary power is advisable, but where particular cases can be specified, Parliament should accept the responsibility of providing for them instead of leaving everything to the discretion of those administering the act. I ask the AttorneyGeneral to consider this matter with a view to proposing an amendment when the bill reaches the Senate.

Mr.McGRATH. - The amendment would have to go farther than the right honorable member has suggested. I have before me the case of two sisters, one of them a pensioner, who are partners in a home.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That case could be covered by clauses 21 and 22. The Attorney-General explained in detail last week, the effect of clauses 21 and 22, but an assurance regarding what is in the mind of the Government and what may be expected from the Commissioner would be helpful to the committee.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I support the clause, but I shall propose a further proviso to protect people who advance money to land owners who are not then, but subsequently become, pensioners. By section 52a of the Financial Emergency Act of 1932, upon the death of a pensioner, all money he has received from the Crown by way of pension will become a debt payable to the Commonwealth in priority of all other debts and liabilities except encumbrances existing prior to the 12th October, 1932. Under clause 22 of the bill provision is made for the Commissioner to give his consent, in writing, to the incurring of an encumbrance, but that does not touch the case to which I shall refer.

I want to meet the position of a person dealing with an owner of land who, at the time is not a pensioner, but subsequently becomes a pensioner. A person who deals bona fide with such an individual whose land is free of encumbrances should not be liable to be ousted’ by the Crown merely because at some future time the land-owner becomes a pensioner. Take the case of a man 62 years of age who owns a piece of land free of encumbrances, and ‘ raises money on it by mortgage in the ordinary way. If such a man three years later accepts a pension, the land on which he has already raised money comes under the control of the Crown, and the Crown ousts the person who had lent money on the property several years previously. There is no justice in allowing that kind of thing to happen.

Mr Gabb:

– But would not the first transaction be regarded as a prior encumbrance?

Mr NAIRN:

– No; a prior encumbrance means an encumbrance which existed prior to the commencement of this legislation, the specific date being the 12th October, 1932. I am dealing with a future transaction. The situation is much the same if .a person buys a house on time-payment. Usually a certain amount of money is paid down in such circumstances, and the purchaser gives a mortgage for the balance of the purchase money. If the purchaser subsequently became a pensioner, the lender would be ousted from his priority by the Crown. As the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) has pointed out, many building societies, Starr Bowkett societies, and friendly societies, which deal for the most part with people owning small properties, will be seriously affected if this clause is passed in its present form. Most of the members of these societies acquire their property through their membership, and the societies are naturally alarmed at the liability of being ousted from priority by the Government. One such society ha3 intimated to me that if this provision becomes law it will have to consider the establishment of an insurance fund to protect itself from losses incurred in this way from time to time. The honorable member for Darling Downs also pointed out that no trustee will be able safely to lend money on small securities because of the possibility of the Crown ousting him from priority. Many private investors deal in small securities, and they will not feel like incurring the risk of doing business with any persons who are liable to become pensioners. Elderly people who are approaching the age at which they will be eligible for the pension will, in these circumstances, find it very difficult to raise any money on property. The Attorney-General in his speech on the second reading of this bill, referred to two cases in which investors could protect themselves. He mentioned rates; but rates are in an entirely different category. Persons lending money are able to make a search to discover whether rates on land have been paid, and they can make the non-payment of rates a breach of the conditions of the mortgage. The other instances referred to by the Attorney-General related to advances made on farms; but advances made on farms generally improve the security, and persons who have lent money on farms would realize that they would be protected. These cases are not at all analogous to those I have mentioned. There is no ground upon which the Crown may justly claim priority over persons who lend money on property which is free and the owners of which are not pensioners. For these reasons I move -

That after the word “writing” the following words be added: - “and (b) by adding at the end of subsection 1 the following proviso : - “ Provided that nothing herein shall prejudice the right of a bona fide encumbrancer for value under an encumbrance obtained from an owner of property who is not at the time a pensioner but who subsequently becomes a pensioner.”

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish to bring under the notice of the Attorney-General the specific case of two sisters who are living together in a home. One of these elderly ladies is in regular employment as a weaver, and the other is an invalid who has been drawing the invalid pension for a long while. The working sister has paid for the home in which the two of them live; but, as is often the case, the home is registered in the name of the two sisters. The pensioner sister has asked for my advice, because she intends to surrender her pension rather than endanger the home of her sister, and I have suggested that she deferher decision until this legislation has been passed. I should like the Attorney-General to inform me whether there is any way in which the pensioner sister can safeguard the rights of her working sister who has really bought and paid for the home, although it is registered in the names of both sisters. I assure the AttorneyGeneral that this is a bona fide case.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I support the amendment. I believe that the amount the department is likely to get through the adoption of this policy will not compensate it for the extra administrative charges which it will have to incur. I endeavoured’ to find out the number of mortgages registered throughout Australia over a given period. I discovered, in the report of the New South Wales Registrar for 1931, that 107,000 transfers of mortgages were registered in that State in 1926, which was a normal year. On a conservative estimate, 250,000 mortgages are registered every year throughout Australia. Those who consider the cost to the Pensions Office of making the necessary searches, issuing the necessary certificates, investigating particular cases, and conducting the extensive correspondence that will be necessary to deal with these matters, will be convinced that an enormous administrative expense will be incurred. When the extra legal expenses that will be necessary in establishing the position of various parties in a transaction are also taken into consideration, it will be apparent that there will be an increase of charges that will bear heavily upon the borrower. The” officers of certain building societies have pointed out to me that they will experience distinct difficulty in carrying On their business, for while they will be able to estimate in some rough and ready fashion the likelihood of certain elderly clients applying for a pension, they will not be able to make any such estimate in a case of invalid pensioners applying for a loan who appear to be in perfect health. As a matter of fact, certain building societies have definitely suspended their operations in regard to new business until the present position has been clarified. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) quoted as an illustration the case of a man 62 years of age, who borrowed money, and subsequently became a pensioner. In that case the provision would work unfairly against the interests of the mortgagee. The mortgagee had received a certificate saying that the man was not a pensioner, as he had’ not attained the necessary age to receive a pension, but, when the borrower, at a later age subsequently accepts a pension, the security of the mortgagee is affected. In the pasts, financial institutions have been asked to lend their money freely, in an endeavour to overcome the depression; but how can building societies lend the money of their shareholders on property when their security is at any time liable to be affected by the mortgagor becoming a pensioner. The tendency of this provision will be to restrict lending. Certain building societies, rather than lend out their money on property, are now simply paying off their shareholders as money comes in. Others are reducing their capital. I ask the Government to do something to remedy the position which has arisen.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– In accordance with Standing Order No. 237,I move-

That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

We have now been sitting for fifteen hours.

Question put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 27

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I desire to bring under the notice’ of the Government the case of a widow who was left with seven children, whose only asset when shewas widowed was an insurance policy of £70. Eventually the children grew up and, out of their earnings, were able to paya deposit on a home for the family. Later they contributed enough between them to pay off the indebtedness on the home. The testimony of the widow is that no woman could have a finer lot of children around her in her difficulties than these four sons and three daughters. Will the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), state whether, under the terms of the amending bill, this home will be secured to the family upon the death of the mother. I replied to the pensioner, when the case was put before me, that I thought the case was provided for, but I should like to have an assurance from the Attorney-General On that point.

I am very much inclined to agree with the statement of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) and others who have said that we are creating a great deal of unjustifiable trouble for ourselves by the provision that pensions shall be a charge on the homes of pensioners. I do not believe that, in the long run, the amount which will be recovered by the department under this provision will be worth the trouble and expense involved. I hope that, if nothing can be done before the Christmas recess, the Governmentwill go fully into the matter while Parliament is in recess, and will be able to assure us, when we meet again, that this part of the legislation will be repealed. I believe that the almost unanimous verdict of honorable members would be that it is hardly worth while troubling about the homes of the old people.

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney General · Kooyong · UAP

. - I have already intimated how this legislation will apply to cases such as that mentionedby the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton). The bill contains a definite provision for the guidance of the Commissioner with reference to exemption of property from the statutory charges. The rule will be that, where the imposition of charges according to the terms of the act will cause hardship to any person, the charges need not be insisted upon. Each case must be considered on its merits. Suppose that in the case quoted by the honorable member thechildren were well off. If, to take an extreme instance, they were each in receipt of £1,000 a year, there would then be no particular reason why their interest should be considered. On the other hand, if they were not in such circumstances, and had made these contributions, it might reasonably be said that in enforcing the charge against the home a hardship would be imposed. In that case the Commissioner has power to make an exemption. Every case would have to be considered on its merits, and in relation to the disposition made by will of the home. It must be recognized, as I have already said, that a mother owning a home is able to do anything that she likes by her will with her home, and if she were to leave it to one child who was perfectly well off, there would be no reason for exercising any exemption. Accordingly, I can only say that such a case would be considered in relation to its particular circumstances, but there is provision for dealing with it. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) referred to the case of two sisters, one employed, and i he other an invalid pensioner living in a cottage registered in their joint names. tn the first place, the interest of the nonpensioner is not affected at all, and she would not be charged with anything. Then there is the intreest of the nonpensioner, and in dealing with that I am afraid that I shall have to resort to technicalities. If the sisters owned the house as joint tenants then, upon the death of either one, the house would belong to the other, and if the survivor were the nonpensioner, there would be no charge upon the property, because it would be her property. No interest would be left in the pensioner sister who had died. But if it were the non-pensioner sister who died, then the house would become the property of the pensioner sister, and would be subject, upon her death, to the charge created by the statute. If on the other hand, instead of being joint tenants the sisters were tenants in common, they would each own an equal undivided half-share in the property, and the half-share of the pensioner would be subject to a charge. There, again, if the relevant facts showed any hardship, provision exists for dealing with it.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has suggested that there should be an extension of the provisions of section 52h. Under that section provision is made for the postponement of the operation of the charge in certain cases, as, for example, where the home or household effects of a pensioner pass to certa’in relatives who are pensioners, or to certain relatives who were permanently residing with the pensioner at the date of his death, and being males, were not less than 60 years of age, or females not less than 55 years of age, and, in the opinion of the Commissioner, in necessitous circumstances. The right honorable member has suggested that there should also be power .to postpone the charge in the case of a widow or widower. The Government is prepared to give favorable consideration to that suggestion, and if thought desirable will prepare an amendment giving effect to it before this measure is introduced in another place. There is evidently a good deal to be said for the postponement of the charge in such a case.

The amendment of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) deals with an important question to which the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) and the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) have also addressed themselves. The proposal in the amendment is that the charge of the Commonwealth shall be postponed in favour of any bona fide encumbrance obtained from any owner of property who is not at the time a pensioner, but subsequently becomes one. This proposal really deals with an aspect of this measure which has caused the greatest difficulty and concern. I have heard of it from various quarters, from building societies and the like, and also from legal practitioners, and I suggest that it affects the whole principle of the legislation. That principle is that, subject to the exceptions provided in the act, it is not unjust that the amount of pension received by. a person shall be recoverable from the property which that person leaves at death, and if there are proper exceptions, it appears to be difficult indeed to challenge the justice of that principle. If any serious inroad is made upon it at the present time,” then one can confidently predict that the old-age and invalid pensions will soon amount to £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a year, and whether it will be possible for the community to stand such a charge - probably an increasing charge - is a problem which may become acute indeed. The principle of this legislation is that prima facie it is proper that the money should be repaid out of property left at death, subject to the exceptions and exemptions mentioned in the legislation.

Now it’ will be said that this amendment only means that where there is an encumbrance obtained from an owner who is not a pensioner at the time, it shall not be interfered with by the Commonwealth charge. That, it is true, is the effect of the provision. But if this amendment is accepted by the committee, I anticipate that the result will be that pensioners will naturally and normally provide that such encumbrances upon their property exist in favour of relatives and friends at the time they became pensioners or just before. There will be nothing to which the Commonwealth charge can attach. Of course, I am aware that the amendment deals only with what are called bona fide encumbrances, but it would be quite impossible for the Commonwealth to prove that any given transaction is not bona fide. The officials are not in possession of information which would make it possible as a general rule even to consider whether the transactions were bona fide or not, and if this amendment is accepted there is no doubt that people who desire to protect their property for friends or relatives after their death will see that encumbrances are placed upon it. That will become the regular and normal thing to do.

Mr Forde:

– The solicitors will obtain considerable work from that.

Mr LATHAM:

– I can rely upon the members of my profession to take effective means to bring about that result. 1 admit that if the Commonwealth puts a first charge on property for the amount of pension, subject only to the specific exceptions mentioned in the legislation, it will be quite impossible to have other first charges running concurrently with or before it, and it will undoubtedly increase the difficulty of raising money on property. But the question is whether it is desirable to put in the bill an amendment which invites everybody by methods which will be lawful to escape most of the effect of the legislation.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Would it not be possible for the pensions department to issue a list of transfers of land ?

Mr LATHAM:

– I do not see how that suggestion would meet the case, because the department would have no particular information as to transfers except those assented to by the Commissioner, and as to those no difficulty would arise. The main feature of the amendment is that it would constitute a standing and open invitation to make this legislation largely nugatory. I admit that there are inconveniences, to which reference has been made, in the legislation itself, but I do not see how those inconveniences are to be avoided while the principle is maintained, and unless it is I feel reasonably satisfied that, even with such reductions as have been made, the pension bill will become so heavy that any government may bc forced to make a further all-round reduction. The object of this legislation, taking tho long view, is to make possible the maximum payment to those who need it. What I favour is a reconsideration of the whole system of pensions, which would exclude a number of those who are now obtaining a pension, so as to make it possible to pay more to those who really need help ; but it is difficult to devise such a scheme; in fact, this debate has shown the difficulties that arise where the interests affected are interfered with. If we were able to devise a contributory system of pensions, many of those difficulties would disappear. Unfortunately, the depression makes it particularly difficult to introduce any contributory system. Probably, a majority of honorable members would be in favour of such a system, under which practically everybody would contribute towards at least an “old-age pension, if not for an invalid pension, although that might also be provided for through friendly societies. In the absence of the possibility of a complete review of the system, which must take place some day, we must try. to adopt any fair methods which will relieve the burden on the community as a whole, and impose the minimum of hardship on pensioners. If the amendment is accepted, it will mean a substantial increase of expenditure.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– If the Commonwealth is given a first charge over the property of pensioners, the person who advances any money thereon prior to the grant of the pension, will have to pay for the pension,- not the pensioner himself.

Mr Stacey:

-Wouldnot a mortgagee make inquiries before advancing money ?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Yes, and he would find that, at the time, the man was not a pensioner. If a building society advanced £300 on a house valued at £450, the owner might pay instalments for about five years, and then become an old-age pensioner. So long as the mortgagor receives a pension a charge accrues on his property, which is finally secured on the part of the Crown, so that when the Crown enforces the charge it has on the property the pension is paid for, in whole or in part, by the money advanced by the building society. Yet the society rnakes a bona fide deal with a person in the belief that it has good security for the advance. When a mortgagor becomes an old-age pensioner the security he has given to a creditor is immediately weakened. The mortgagee is to be paid the balance, if any, after the Government’s claim is satisfied.

That is why, presumably, trustees are asking where they stand. If they find that there is risk in lending trust funds to build homes, they will not desire to touch that class of business, but will invest their money in Commonwealth stock or some other safe investment instead. That is undesirable. I hope that, if the Attorney-General cannot accept the amendment, he will consider the matter and endeavour to devise a scheme which will safeguard the interests of building societies to some degree.

Mr Latham:

– The power of the Commissioner to exempt will protect many transactions. I admit that it does not go the whole way.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Building societies collect deposits from depositing shareholders, and lend them to building shareholders, on long terms. I know several pensioners in my electorate who are building their homes with advances made by a Toowoomba society.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– If the amendment is not accepted, the mortgagees’ interests will not be preserved. Let me refer again to the case of a mortgagor who is 62 years of age, and at the time he applied for, and received his loan, was of non-pensionable age. Immediately he obtains a pension, if the mortgage is not satisfied, the Crown has a prior right over the property. If, f romtime to time, the department issued a list of pensioners, mortgagees would have definite knowledge on the subject, and would take steps to safeguard their interests.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The Attorney-General is very much concerned as to the amount of expenditure that will be involved if this amendment is carried. Actually it will be slight. It is doubtful whether the total amount to be recovered from pensioners’ properties will reach material dimensions. Unfortunately I have no statistics on the point. The chief thing to guard against is the fraudulent attempt of landowners to dispossess themselves of properties in order to obtain a pension. Section 22 of the principal act reads -

No person shall receive an invalid pension unless -

  1. he has not directly or indirectly deprived himself of income or property in order to qualify for a pension.

The same provision applies to both invalid and old-age pensions. So that the disqualification has existed ever since the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act became la w.

Mr Latham:

– It has had only a moderate effect.

Mr NAIRN:

– In recent years particularly, the department has detected such efforts, and, unfortunately, holds them for all time against the person concerned. In future the department will make all sorts of inquisitorial inquiries concerning the property transactions of pension claimants, so that the risk of fraud will be minimized. As to the justice of the matter, the provision giving the Crown prior claim on a property on which a person or an institution has lent money in good faith is damaging to business, and should not be tolerated.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Nairn’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22-

After section52e of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: - 52ea. (1) . . .

. . .

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– In order to disclose exactly where the Government stands in regard to recovering from the estates of deceased pensioners the amount of pension paid to them in their life time, I move -

That the following sub-section be added to proposed new section 52ea: - (5.) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this act the Commissioner shall not make any claim for repayment of a pension against the property of any pensioner when such property is bequeathed -

to a relative, being a widow, widower, father, mother, child, sister, or brother who has been deemed by the Commissioner or the court to be unable to contribute to the support of the pensioner; or

to a relative, being a widow, widower, father, mother, child, sister, or brother, who has discharged any obligations deemed satisfactory by the Commissioner or the court.

During the second-reading debate on the amending Financial Emergency Bill we were assured by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and his supporters that the reason why the Government desired the right to recover from the estate of a deceased pensioner the amount of pension paid to him was that large numbers of young men and women who were financially able to maintain their parents, declined to do so; and the Government, therefore, considered that they should not benefit by inheriting the property of their parents at death. But the act is so worded that children who have discharged all the obligations placed upon them by the Commissioner or court, or in the opinion of the Commissioner or court, were unable to maintain their parents, are put on the same level and made subject to the same penalties as sons and daughters who, without just cause, neglected their duty to their parents. Both classes are deprived of any benefits that otherwise might accrue to them at the death of their parents. If my amendment is agreed to, the sons and daughters of pensioners who stand up to their obligations, as the Government thinks they should stand up to them, and contribute to the . maintenance of their parents, will be entitled to the possession of any property that their pensioner parents may leave upon their death, and the sons and daughters who have satisfied the Commissioner of their inability to contribute towards the maintenance of their parents will also be entitled to possess any property their parents may leave, if it has been willed to them. I realize that a certain discretionis vested in the Commissioner of Pensions to meet cases of hardship, but it will be hard to define what constitutes hardship. If my amendment is agreed to, certain matters will be definitely determined. Honorable members opposite have said a good deal about the Government’s intentions in regard to this measure ; but their sincerity will now be tested. We have to face the fact that the whole basis of our pensions legislation is being altered. Hitherto, a pensioner has been entitled during his lifetime to possess the home which shelters him, and to dispose of it by will as he thinks fit. My amendment will provide that a pensioner will still be able to leave his home to his children if, in the opinion of the Government, the children have done what they reasonably could do to maintain their parents during their lifetime.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The honorable member has overlooked the provision of section 52f of the principal act, which reads -

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this act, there shall be deducted from the amount recoverable by the Commonwealth under section fifty-two c or fifty-two e of this act, the amount contributed, either voluntarily or compulsorily, by any relative of the pensioner in pursuance of section fifty-two m of this act towards the cost of the pension of the’ pensioner.

Mr Rosevear:

– I did not overlook that provision. My amendment deals with an entirely different set of circumstances.

Mr LATHAM:

– The position of relatively who contribute to the support of their parents is protected under section 52f. Section 52h provides that any charge on the property of a deceased pensioner may be postponed in certain circumstances. I admit that the case of certain persons referred to in the amendment is not covered by the sections that I have mentioned; but surely it is not reasonable that the community generally should be deprived of any return for the amount contributed by it for pension purposes.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– On Tuesday the Prime Minister assured the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Country party that if the House met at 10.30 a.m. each day this week there would be no all-night sittings. Consequently, I move in accordance with Standing Order No. 237-

That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I point out that more than fifteen minutes have elapsed since I last moved a similar motion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am in some doubt as to whether this motion is in order. The Standing Orders provide, in relation to a motion that progress be reported, that -

Should any such motion be negatived, no similar motion shall be received within a quarter of an hour of the declaration of the preceding decision, and no such motion shall be received if the Speaker or Chairman is of opinion that it is an abuse of the rules or forms of the House, or is moved for the purpose of. obstructing business.

The honorable member moved a similar motion earlier this morning, and I am not sure as to his motive now. In the circumstances I will allow the motion.

Question put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The Attorney-General made no effective reply to the points raised by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) when moving his amendment. The honorable member for Dalley wished to test the sincerity of the statements made by the Government when it introduced legislation enabling it to seize the property of pensioners upon their death in order to recover the pension that had been paid to them. The Prime Minister stated that this provision had been inserted because Minister were of the opinion that the children of pensioners who had refused to maintain their parents during their life should not benefit upon their death from any estate they might leave. He said that, if the Government were compelled to support pensioners because their children neglected to do so, it would take steps to reimburse itself out of any property the pensioners might leave. If that is the real reason why the Government introduced the legislation empowering it to reimburse itself out of the estate of pensioners, the amendment of the honorable member for Dalley provides it with an opportunity of proving its bona fides. It has now become obvious that, although the Government put forward that reason during the second-reading debate in justification of its action, it had really set itself to seize the property of pensioners, irrespective of whether their children had contributed to their support or not. That shows how far we may trust the statement of the Government in regard to legislation of this kind. If the Government were genuine in its protestations, it would say that, when it was proved that children had done all that could be expected of them, the pensioners would be allowed to will their property as they thought fit. We gathered from the reply of the Attorney-General that the Government is determined to seize the property of pensioners on their death, whether the children are able to contribute to their support or not.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.The Attorney-General stated that the amendment overlooked the fact that contributions by children would be taken into account by the Commissioner, but he admitted that this provision would also apply in cases in which the children of pensioners were deemed by the Commissioner to have fulfilled their obligations to their parents. They may have been able to contribute only a few shillings a week, which would fall short of the full maintenance, but, nevertheless, they would have contributed all that they could reasonably be required to do. Thisseems to me to be a reasonable amendment. It meets the argument of the Government that the property of pensioners should not, upon their death, go to relatives who, though in a position to do so, had failed to support their parents.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Rosevear’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23-

After section 52o of the principal act the following section is inserted: - “52ga. - (1.) The Commonwealth may accept a transfer from any pensioner or claimant oi any property which is not subject to encumbrance or of any interest of the pensioner or claimant under a ‘ will.”

Mr JENNINGS:
South Sydney

– This clause is designed to meet the case of persons who are debarred from receiving a pension because they own laud, the reputed value of which is, say, £100, but which is actually worth nothing, and an outstanding anomaly will be removed from the act if the AttorneyGeneral can assure honorable members that under this provision these persons will he able to transfer their property to the department, and obtain the full pension.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish to raise the same question as that raised by the honorable member for South Sydney, but from a different angle. This clause gives effect to the decision of the Go>vernment to rectify an anomaly which has been in existence for several years. It proposes to give to pensioners who own land, the reputed value of which has prevented them from obtaining a full pension, the opportunity to transfer that land, so that it will not be a bar against getting a pension. Many of these pensioners have been losing 5s. or 6s. a week regularly over a period of years as a result of owning land which is of no value to them. The Government is rectifying this anomaly in the wrong way.

Mr Latham:

– What does the honorable member suggest?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I suggest that pensions should not be curtailed because pensioners own land which probably is of no value to them. Their pension should be computed in the ordinary way, without taking the value of their land into calculation, but without taking the land from them, as is now proposed. What is now proposed is no compensation for what the pensioners have lost in the past, and it does not give them the pension to which they are really entitled. Under this provision a pensioner who transfers his property to the Commonwealth will not be able to dispose of it in the future. The AttorneyGeneral gave as an illustration, which he admitted was somewhat exaggerated, which suggested that under this provision so many blocks of land, allegedly valueless, might be transferred to the Commonwealth as to rob it of a portion of the revenue obtainable from the tax on unimproved land values.

Mr Latham:

– I do not think that I used my illustration in that way.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

Now that the Government has agreed that it was wrong to pay only a small pension to owners of property which was of no value to them, why should it attempt to rectify that anomaly by making it possible for those pensioners to obtain the full pension only if they transfer their land to the Commonwealth? That imposes a hardship upon the pensioner. It is wrong in principle, and I ask the Government io reconsider this provision.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- The object of this clause is merely to confer an option upon the pensioner. It confers no right upon the Commissioner, but it enables the pensioner, if he thinks proper, to transfer any unencumbered property to the Commonwealth, so that that property may not be held against him for pension purposes. We have heard from time to time of property which is alleged by the department to have some value, and which is declared by the pensioner to be valueless. If the pensioner really believes that his property is valueless this provision will remove the disability under which he suffers. If, on the other hand, he is not prepared to transfer his property in order to obtain a full pension, then it will be difficult for him to prove that itis valueless.

Mr Holloway:

– Any valueless property that is transferred to the Commonwealth may become valuable later.

Mr LATHAM:

– The pensioner cannot have it both ways. It would be absurd if people were allowed to place their own value upon their own property in order to secure a full pension. Where there is a difference of opinion between the department and the pensioner we must rely upon the fairness of the administration, but if the pensioner considers that his property is so absurdly over-valued that it will pay him to surrender it to the Commonwealth in order to procure a full pension, he has the opportunity to do so under this provision.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

. L cannot see that this provision will confer any great benefit upon pensioners.

Mr Latham:

– It is strictly optional.

Mr WARD:

– The fact that it refers to unencumbered land makes it of little value to pensioners who own property, because it is well known that the property of pensioners is usually encumbered with accumulated rates and taxes, and these unfortunate people will be debarred from obtaining the full pension because of their inability to rid their property of encumbrances. For years past pensioners who have held nonproductive lands have been compelled to forgo a portion of the pension. If a pensioner transfers his property to the Commonwealth in order to receive a full pension, the department should be prepared to make up the full pension for the whole of the time that the pensioner has been in receipt of a reduced pension. So that the clause may provide at least some measure of relief for pensioners, I move -

That in proposed new section 52 oa, subsection I, the word “ may “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ shall “.

In many instances these unfortunate owners of land have outstanding rates and taxes to the extent, not of £1 or £2, but of £20 and £30.

Mr Dennis:

– The land may not be worth that.

Mr WARD:

– That is quite true, but under this provision the pensioner, if he wants a full pension, will he compelled to find that amount of money so as to clear his property of encumbrances. I also suggest to the Government that where a pensioner may surrender his land and may die shortly afterwards, having received only a few pounds over and above his previous pension, his relatives should have some claim on the difference between the additional pension paid and the value of the surrendered property. In any case the pensioner should be able to transfer* his property to the Commonwealth, whether it is unencumbered or not.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The amendment of the honorable member would require theCommonwealth to accept from a pensioner any property, whether subject to encumbrances or not. That would mean that a person who had liabilities, which in some instances might be enormous, would be able to transfer his property with those liabilities to the Commonwealth.

Mr Beasley:

– What does the AttorneyGeneral mean by “enormous liabilities”?

Mr LATHAM:

– At present, a man possessing a property carrying enormous liabilities, liabilities which may perhaps be more than its value, does not usually apply for an old-age pension. He is able to obtain^ from other sources, sufficient for his requirements. But under the amendment such a man could compel the Government to take over the whole of his property, and would thus qualify for an old-age pension.

Mr Holman:

– If the Commonwealth declined to accept the property on account of the weight of its encumbrances, ought that not to qualify the owner for a full pension?

Mi-. LATHAM. - Not by any means. Practically every bankrupt has liabilities exceeding his assets. Surely the honorable member does not suggest that there should be any means whereby, if a bankrupt is of the specified age, he may have the right to transfer his liabilities to the Commonwealth and receive a pension? It is an idea completely alien to pension legislation. A’ liability which might appear small might prove to be a great one. That the Commonwealth should be compelled by any person to accept such a liability as a condition of his receiving a pension is a proposition that can hardly be entertained.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.I feel that this is one of the most difficult clauses in the bill. I disapprove of the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), yet I do not feel inclined to accept the clause altogether as it appears in the bill.

It would be absolutely wrong to create the possibility of the Government becoming loaded with a lot of valueless, vacant land in different parts of Australia.

Mr Latham:

– Fortunately, it is optional whether the Commonwealth shall take it.

Mr THORBY:

– I understand that the word “ may “ leaves the matter optional. If the Government is sincere in ‘putting the clause forward, and anticipates taking over a number of these assets-

Mr Latham:

– It anticipates that there will be a very few.

Mr THORBY:

– If it is in the mind of the Government to take over a large number of unimproved or improved assets, it must set up a new department of administration. In the first place, provision will have to be made for the transfer of these properties under the Real Property Acts of the different States. Provision will also have to be made for their maintenance. The Government will deprive local governing bodies of the rates which would be levied on these properties, if in private hands, and will thus place a heavier burden on the remainder of the taxpayers in those areas.

There is no doubt that if this clause comes into operation, quite a number of properties will be offered to the Crown. Where the properties are fenced, we know what will happen. If the fence is of wood, it will quickly disappear; if of wire, it will be stolen. It is difficult enough for private owners to keep their fences intact. If the property has a house, a shed, or a motor garage upon it, the Crown will be forced to establish a maintenance department, otherwise it will be answerable to the Audit Department for the subsequent depreciation.

I know how difficult the matter is. It will take the best legal brains in the House, assisted by departmental officers, to choose an effective form of words to enable pensioners who have unrealizable properties to qualify for a pension, and at the same .time protect the interests of the community. I realize the difficulties of applicants for pensions who have certain assets which are worthless. I know of an elderly couple who own several blocks of land at Blacktown, near Sydney, the value of which is assessed at £45. Consequently, a fairly heavy deduction is made from their pension.

Mr MCGRATH:

– Have they any other property 1

Mr THORBY:

– They have a few shares in a certain company, for which I would not give ls., although quoted at 6s. However, that has nothing to do with the matter. Quite, recently the municipal council of that area, exercising its authority under the Local Governing Act of New South Wales, offered about 150 blocks by auction. The majority of these brought 5s. Some realized 10s. In one case, a group of adjoining blocks, aggregating some acres, brought from £2 to £3. The council could hardly have got enough to pay for the expenses of the sale. That is why I am afraid that the operation of this .clause will result in the Government being loaded with a number of unrealizable assets. I suggest that a way out of the difficulty would be to give the Commissioner discretion to ignore the assets where he is satisfied that they are not of any appreciable value and bring the applicant no income, and grant a pension in the ordinary way. I appeal to the Government to postpone the consideration of the clause to see whether a simpler method can be devised which will eliminate the risks to which I have referred.

Mr HOLMAN:
Martin

– I support the views of the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby). The committee is now confronting one of the most illogical and indefensible provisions in the whole of the invalid and old-age pensions scheme. The difficulty which the honorable member for Ea3t Sydney (Mr. Ward) foresees, and is endeavouring to meet by his proposed amendment, and also the difficulties visualized by the honorable member for Calare, appear to me to have a common origin - that is, the act provides that deductions shall be made from pensions that are not based on income received by- the pensioner, but on his mere possession of property, whether it is incomeproducing or not.

Any proposal to remedy that state of affairs is bound to land us in further anomalies and illogicalities. I appeal to the general knowledge of honorable members, but I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that during the past fortnight I have been acting professionally for an organization in Sydney known as tlie Association of Mortgagors, and a series of rather startling facts have been put before me. Honorable members know that there are persons in Sydney who own terraces of houses, large properties from which they have not received one shilling in net revenue during the past few. years. Nevertheless such owners are justified in hoping that when the depression passes, and normal conditions return, their properties may again be worth many thousands of pounds. Consider the case of elderly people who have struggled for years to acquire a small property. “When the time comes for them to apply for a pension they are given the option - which, I admit, is the ‘best we can do for them while the provision remains that the mere possession of property affects the pension - of surrendering their property and receiving a full pension, or retaining the property and receiving a reduced pension. That is a cruel option to offer to a poverty-stricken person. Rightly or wrongly the owner believes that his property, to acquire which he has been scraping and saving throughout his life, has a prospective value for himself or his children ; but- he must either part with it or suffer a reduction of pension - sometimes a deduction which destroys the value of the pension. It is an option which the pensioner need not exercise, and will be extremely loath to exercise, but no applicant for a pension should be asked to make such a choice. The remedy is to be found, not by compelling the Government to take over properties loaded with onerous conditions - to that course the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has stated sound objections - but by going deeper, to the root of the trouble, and eliminating that provision of the act which makes the possession of property a detriment.

Mr Latham:

– The honorable member for East Sydney has given notice of a later amendment to that effect.

Mr HOLMAN:

– I hope that it will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.The later amendment which the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has circulated meets the require ments of the pensioner better than that which he has moved. It goes a long way to meet the point raised by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), but it may require drafting alterations to avoid fraud through property being occupied by relatives who pay no rent for it. I recognize that the Government has tried to meet the views expressed by honorable members regarding hardships ‘arising through people being deprived of their pensions because of their ownership of property which returns no income. But there is tremendous weight in the arguments of the honorable members for Calare (Mr. Thorby) and Martin (Mr. Holman). The Government may be accepting liabilities and responsibilities that will not be worth while; yet if the clause be withdrawn or negatived the pensioners or claimants may lose some of the advantages which it gives to them; therefore I am in a quandary. I cannot support any proposal to compel the Government to take over properties, and certainly not properties with encumbrances. I have learned over a long period of public life that .a large number of municipalities are always anxious to pass over some of their burdens and responsibilities to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth has always been unwilling to accept them. I believe that the amendment of which the honorable member for East Sydney has given notice could be altered to meet the requirements of all. At the same time I ask the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) not to abandon the concessions proposed in ‘the clause. Instead of arranging that transfers of pensioners’ properties may be accepted, we should give to the Commissioner discretionary power to decide that if property is in his opinion not earning or capable of earning income, it shall not be accounted against the pension.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I appreciate what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), but I submitted the amendment now before the committee because I did not know what would be the fate of the new clause of which I have given notice. I admit that the present amendment will not be needed if the later amendment is accepted. Could not, the further con- sideration of the present amendment be postponed until after my second proposal has been dealt with?

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– Notice has been given of three new clauses relating to invalid and old-age pensions, and I suggest that the committee might consent to their being considered at the end of Part V. instead of at the end of the bill, as is usual.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr LATHAM:

– Clause 23 is not one for which the Government professes particular enthusiasm. The Government realizes all the difficulties that have been pointed out by the honorable members for Calare (Mr. Thorby) and Martin (Mr. Holman), but the clause has been asked for by honorable members, speaking on behalf of pensioners, and the Government has proposed it as a concession. If, however, it is defeated, the Government will not be concerned. It removes some objections, and may be useful in a few cases. I appreciate the difficulties upon which the honorable member for Calare enlarged, and, because of them, the acceptance of a property by the Government is made optional. There are obvious risks whichwill have to be borne in mind when properties are offered to the Government, and that fact limits to a considerable extent the utility of the clause.

Mr.Ward. - In view of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), and the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 -

Section 52l of the principal act is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following proviso . . .

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I move -

That all the words after “amended” he omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “by omitting paragraph (c) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph : -

He shall, if required by the Commissioner to apply the money or other property in satisfaction of the charge or liability, be personally liable for the satisfaction of any such charge or liability out of any such money or other property of which he has the receipt, control or disposal.’.”

This amendment deals with the personal liability of a person who has the receipt, control or disposal of the property of a pensioner, and provides that his personal liability shall arise only after he has been required by the Commissioner to satisfy the liability. The amendment removes a weighty objection to the clause, as originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cameron:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-With the approval of the committee the proposed new clauses relating to Part V. (Invalid and Old-age Pensions) will be dealt with now instead of at the end of the bill.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 21a. After section 52e of the principal act the following section is inserted: - 52ea. The last preceding section shall not apply in respect of any amount of pension paid to a blind pensioner.”

The circumstances of the blind pensioner are different from those of any other pensioner. In the first place, his pension is intended to compensate him for a serious physical disability. A young man may be granted a pension at sixteen years of age because he is blind, and the pension may be continued throughout a long life. Such a man would, in the natural order of things, enter upon his life work, undertake the duties of citizenship, rear his family, and, in fact, do everything that an ordinary man would do, did he not labour under the grave disability of blindness. Like other men, he would desire to accumulate a little money, and buy a home for himself; but if the amount paid to him in pension may ultimately be deducted from any estate that he may leave, his prospects of accumulating anything will be very slight. I make an earnest appeal to the Government to accept this amendment, and to afford these pensioners the measure of relief suggested.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– Any appeal on behalf of blind people naturally strikes a sympathetic chord, and one is tempted to adopt the easy course of acceding to it; but the principle involved must be considered. The argument which the honorable member has applied to blind peoplemay be applied with almost equal force to many other invalids in the community. Blind pensioners have already been granted considerably easier conditions than any other class in the community. It would be hard to apply the conditions asked for by the honorable member to blind people, without extending them to other people in somewhat similar circumstances, and if that were done the effect would be serious to the whole pension system. I therefore regret that the Government is unable to accept the amendment.

Question - That the proposed new clause be inserted (Mr. Lane’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. Cameron.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 34

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - 10a. After section 25 of the principal act the following section is inserted: - “ 25a. Notwithstanding anything contained, in this act, vacant land to the value of £400 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining eligibilityfor pension or in assessing the amount of any pension, unless it is property from which income is derived.”

The wording of this amendment is slightly different from that on the copies of the amendment which are in circulation. The alteration has been made in order to guard against the possibility mentioned by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby). There seems to be an opinion among honorable members generally that blocks of unreproductive land which pensioners hold should not be taken into account against them in assessing a pension. Unfortunately, some of the people who hold such land have not been able to build on’ it, but have been obliged to rent houses. In such cases, they have been placed in considerable difficulty. They may not be ableto dispose of their land, and cannot surrender it to the department if it is encumbered; yet the possession of it will result in a reduction of their pension. The justification for this amendment has been stated several times during this debate, and I hope, therefore, that the Government realizes the importance of it, and will accept it.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– Ever since our invalid and old-age pension law has been in operation it has contained two sets of provisions, one of which enacts that in determining the amount of pension that shall he granted, the income of a claimant or pensioner shall, from time to time, be taken into account; and the other, that in determining the amount of pension that shall be granted, the accumulated property of the pensioner shall be taken into consideration. The pension payable is subject to a deduction of £1 for every £10 worth of property the net capital value of which exceeds £50. Hitherto a pensioner has been allowed to possess property, apart from his home, to the value of £59 without it affecting his pension. This amendment would alter the law by providing that property which does not produce income, and which is valued at less than £400, shall not affect the amount of the pension. It is obvious that this would be a far-reaching change, and I suggest that it would create many administrative difficulties. The property of an applicant for a pension might be let to a friend at nominal rental; that sort of case would be likely to occur if this amendment were accepted. We should, therefore, have to confer on the Commissioner discretionary power to determine whether the property ought to be producing income. The difficulties of administration would be comparable only with those encountered in the administration of section 21 of the Income Tax Act, which seeks to lay down what profits ought to be distributed. I do not know a great deal about shares, but I know that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company paid a dividend this year for the first time, I think, in three years. For two years, therefore, the shares were not income producing, and this amendment would apply to them. However, while the shares were not producing an income, they were always saleable at from 12s. 3d. to 14s., and now the price is about 28s. It is evident that a pensioner might be in possession of very valuable property which, for the time being, was not income producing. The Commonwealth could not afford to ignore this consideration in determining whether or not pensions should be granted. It is probable that the extra cost to the department, if the amendment were accepted, would run into six figures, and perhaps more. The amendment is inconsistent with the principles laid down in the act, and those principles are sound.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- -I hope that the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) will assist honorable members to amend the bill in a matter which is probably of greater importance than anything else that has been put forward. One of the first pension cases brought under my notice when I became a member of this Parliament was that of an old couple, over 70 years of age, whose pensions were reduced to 7s. 6d. a week because they owned property to the value of £400. They were paying 7s. 6d. a week rent for their dwelling, and even if the value of the property they owned were capitalized at 5 per cent., the income would not amount to what they were paying in rent. A pensioner may own land with a home to a total value of £3,000 or more without its affecting the amount of his pension; yet, if a pensioner buys a piece of land, but has not the money to build on it, he is penalized by having the value of the land assessed against his pension. No one owning vacant land is deriving anything from it at the present time, and he is compelled to pay rates and taxes on it. I do not believe that it would cost the Government very much to grant this concession. Of course, I agree that a good deal would be involved if the concession were extended to property such as shares and life insurance policies, though, in regard to the latter, I do not think that any account should be taken of small industrial policies with a surrender value of a few pounds, which have been taken out for the purpose of covering the cost of burial. Will the Attorney-General agree to the insertion of an amendment couched in these terms : - Notwithstanding anything contained in the act, vacant land below the value of £400 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the -liability of pensioners or for assessing the value of any pension unless it is land from which income is derived?

At the present time, the deductions made from pensions in respect of property are out of all proportion to the income which may be derived from it. I have made frequent representations to the department and to the Prime Minister on this subject, but have obtained no satisfaction. I realize that the Government has been asked .to make many compassionate concessions, but in this instance I maintain that an important principle is involved.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I appreciate ‘ that certain difficulties may arise in endeavouring to administer the act if the amendment as I have moved it be accepted, and, in order to remove those difficulties, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and to substitute the following amendment in its place: - 19a. After section 23 of the principal act the following section is inserted:-^ “25a. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, vacant land below the value of £400 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining eligibility for pension or in assessing thu amount of any pension, unless it is land from which income is derived.”

It was never intended that the value of vacant allotments should be a charge against pensions, and the amendment should meet with tho approval of the majority of honorable members.

Mr HOLMAN:
Martin

.I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) to give sympathetic consideration to the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), I do not propose to re-traverse certain arguments which I advanced in connexion with another clause, but there are certain aspects in the consideration of this amendment to which I wish to. draw the attention of honorable members. I imagine that the provision for a diminishing pension in respect of the possession of property was passed in a time of general prosperity, and that the idea of holding property which brought in no revenue was at that time not altogether a familiar one. It was realized that such things might happen, but it was believed that they were unusual. We have been taught by bitter experience during the past two or three years that the possession of property and the obtaining of revenue from it are experiences not necessarily associated. It is quite possible for persons to own handsome properties, which three years ago had a value of thousands of pounds, which to-day are not producing one shilling in revenue. That state of affairs may not last for ever, but still it prevails to-day. Now that we have had our lesson, we should alter the structure of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. The original intention of the act was to give to persons who had no other resources a certain minimum weekly income, upon which they could keep body and soul together. The aim even of the legislation which was passed some months ago, under the pressure of financial stringency, was to maintain the minimum income of pensioners, and the deductions were based on the fact that the pensioner was receiving a trifling income from some other source. To-day a pensioner who finds himself burdened with property which he has purchased with the savings of a lifetime, and does not desire to part with, is refused even this minimum amount - the pension. The pension is reduced in his case because of his property, and there is no suggestion that he receives any other income to make up that deduction. That, I submit, is contrary to the whole spirit and purpose of the act. I suggest that the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney is absolutely necessary, and I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to give it sympathetic consideration.

It- is necessary and proper that the Attorney-General, because of his experience and the knowledge that he has gained in his official position, should point to the possibilities of the misuse of such a provision as this before we finally decide to adopt it. We are not, however, dealing with men who own terraces of houses. If a pensioner has a house he is probably living in it, and, therefore, the possibilities of this misuse of the amendment,- if inserted in the bill, are exceedingly limited.

I come now to the ownership of shares. If a man has shares which do not return dividends, he should receive consideration at the hands of this committee. Had I nothing in the world but some shares which were not producing revenue, I should be entitled to a pension; but if those shares began to yield dividends, then my pension should be diminished in accordance with the dividends of the shares. That is a fair proposition in principle, and is easily administered. But if the shares became valueless again, must my pension be permanently reduced just because those shares had had some previous value? That is a dreadful position in which to place pensioners who rely on shares as their only other source of income, and it is following to its conclusion the iron logic that has been inserted into the provisions of this legislation by the Commissioner of Pensions or the draftsman. We are drifting into a position in which certain pensioners are in a state of semi-starvation owing to the fact that they do not receive sufficient income to enable them to keep body and soul together, not because of any alteration of their position to-day, but because of an alteration in their position a year or two ago. The danger of the misuse of the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney would be far less than is the genuine social danger confronting us every day. Pensioners, because of some nominal ownership of property which makes no difference at all to their income, are being forced below the level of an indispensable minimum of income. As one who has hitherto steadfastly supported the proposals of the Government, I appeal with other honorable members to the Prime Minister to accept this proper and valuable amendment, which aims at remedying a defect in the legislation as it exists to-day.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Holman) and other honorable members have approached this matter from the standpoint of the pensioner and not of the Treasury. They have failed to realize that the Government has the responsibility placed upon it of safeguarding the interests of the taxpayers and the Treasury.When the land tax proposals were under discussion we said that there was a limit to the remissions of taxation. When the exemptions from the sales tax were under discussion, one suggestion of an honorable member, if it had been acceded to, would have meant a loss of revenue of £5,000. It was explained at the time that the Government could not go beyond a certain financial limit in granting relief to any section in the community. It is all very well for honorable members to sympathize with pensioners who are owners of property, and to claim that this amendment is absolutely essential. They have done everything to recommend it but nothing to condemn it. But this Parliament must review it from a financial stand-point. If this amendment were accepted it would involve this country in a loss of £100,000. The Attorney-General has refused numerous requests by honorable members, not because he does not sympathize with the pensioners, but because the state of the finances does not permit of any further expenditure.

Mr Ward:

– If the pensioners surrender their land will not the Government still have to meet the expense of the additional pensions?

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, but not so much money would be involved. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, it is optional for the Government to take over these properties, and it is also optional for the pensioners to surrender them.

Mr Beasley:

– It is evident that this provision means nothing.

Mr LYONS:

– All these things have been taken into consideration in the estimation of the effect upon the revenue. This amendment, if accepted, would increase the financial difficulties of the country. It would result in a loss of revenue of over £100,000. I say, as Treasurer, that that cannot be agreed to at this juncture. I should like to meet honorable members opposite, because they are putting up the case from the stand-point of the pensioners, with whom I am sympathetic.

Mr Ward:

– Why does the honorable member always give his sympathy to the pensioners and his practical assistance to the wealthy classes?

Mr LYONS:

– The other matter to which the honorable member refers is not one of giving, but of collecting less than has been contributed in the past. The two positions are entirely different. I appeal to honorable members to endeavour to understand the seriousness of the financial position, and to realize that additional sums of this magnitude cannot be distributed.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– It has been truly said that it is but a step from the sublime to the ridiculous. This morning, the most exaggerated arguments have been advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), in an endeavour to excuse the Government for not accepting this amendment. The Attorney-General spoke of the shareholders of the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, because they have not received dividends for the past three years, coming to claim old-age pensions. I know of no honorable member who has been approached by shareholders with unproductive shares asking them to support their claim for a pension. I shall give an illustration of what the Government has accepted, and what it intends to reject. As set out in the excellent argument advanced by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), the Government must either establish an expensive department to look after these lands if they are taken over, or throw them on the market and accept what is offered for them, as was done by the Blacktown Shire Council.

Notwithstanding the abundant arguments against the Government becoming the possessor of numerous valueless blocks of land, scattered all over the Commonwealth, the Government is prepared to take land from claimants for a pension, and, in return, give them a pension. If the Government accepted the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), the land would remain in the hands of the pensioner, who would be responsible for its maintenance, and if at some future time it reached its assessed value and was sold, the Government would be recouped to the extent of the amount of pension paid. I ask honorable members to compare the value of the two proposals.

One straw man after another has been set up by the Attorney-General only to be knocked down again by the extravagant arguments of honorable members. As I haveindicated, no man with any experience in connexion with pensions has been approached by shareholders possessing unproductive shares who have advanced a claim for a pension. The Attorney-General put up the case of a person letting his house, and declaring that he was’ getting no rent from it. We are dealing with vacant land, not houses. It is astonishing that the Government should use its majority to reject a scheme based on sound business lines, and push through such an illogical proposition, as was clause 23.

Mr DEIN:
Lang

– I consider that the amendment is reasonable. Had it not been moved by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), it would have been advanced from this side. On the 17th May of this year, before any amendment of the act was foreshadowed, I had placed before me the case of an old lady, 77 years of age, who owns land valued at £400. At that’ time, not understanding the provisions of the act, I advanced her claim for a pension. It was rejected, although she did not possess a shilling, and could not sell her land. To all intents and purposes, she was left to starve. I felt that to be most unfair, and gave her an assurance that whenthe opportunity presented itself, I would seek to have the act amended.

Mr.Stacey. - Was that all the property sheowned.

Mr DEIN:

– Yes. On a previous occasion I was unsuccessful in getting an amendment accepted. I fully realize the difficulties of the Treasurer, but it is the duty of the people to assist the honorable gentleman to find money to help these deserving cases. I have no alternative to supporting the amendment, which I consider to be reasonable.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The proposal is now altered to apply only to vacant land, in spite of the remarks that were made concerning my observations on other property. The amendment seeks to draw a distinction between land not’ producing income, and other property not producing income. If the principle is sound it ought to apply to all property not producing income. Taking an extreme case, its effect would be that a man could possess vacant land to the value of £400, which would not be counted when considering his claim for a pension. Then property above that amount is taken into consideration. The first £50 does not count, and in the case that I assume the value of the property would reach £800 before the pension disappeared. Such a man and his wife could own land totalling £1,600 before their pensions disappeared. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the acceptance of this amendment would involve the country in a considerable amount of expense. In the circumstances, I ask honorable members to hesitate before they accept it.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.The Attorney-General omitted to mention the home of a person, which is exempted irrespective of value. I believe that a case of the greatest hardship occurs when a prospective pensioner owns unsaleable land which is charged against him on the value which obtained two or three years ago. I admit that there must be some limit to the liability of the Government. If the value of the applicant’s land is trifling, the Commissioner has the option of accepting transfer to the Government.

Mr Ward:

– It is not compulsory for the Government to take the land?

Mr NAIRN:

– I take it that the intention is that the Government should accept the land. If it is of considerable value there is the possibility of sale. The Government could help in that direction by consenting to fairly liberal conditions of sale. The trouble might be overcome more by administration than by anything else. The values adopted are municipal, and are too high, as corporations have not reduced values proportionately to the drop that has actually taken place in recent years. The true value of property is what a willing, but not over anxious buyer is prepared to pay, and what a willing, but not over anxious seller is prepared to accept. That principle could be applied, regard being had to the current values of similar land. In any case there would be a good deal of land for which buyers could not be found, although it would still have a value. I suggest, that the administration should look into all the circumstances, and by ‘adopting a fair basis provide a cure for the difficulty. If too. much liability is imposed upon the pension fund it will prejudice more deserving applicants. I should like to see the position reviewed so that those in receipt of small incomes will receive at least the minimum of 2s. 6d. per week.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

– Most of the trouble arises in connexion with blocks that were bought in boom times and have since depreciated in value. Such land still carries a high municipal valuation which the owners, being poor, have not troubled to contest. In some instances, I have induced the Commissioner to accept the assessment of a sworn valuator, and the pensioners have, received immediate relief.

Mr Beasley:

– Who pays the valuator’s fee?

Mr McGRATH:

– It is only 10s. 6d., but Ballarat valuators have travelled as far as 2TJ miles to inspect the properties of pensioners, and have given their services free of charge. We have heard much talk of the need for sympathetic administration, but intelligent administration would overcome many of the difficulties. If blocks at, say, Laverton or Broadmeadows, are in question, an officer of the pensions branch should be available to inspect them and assess their value instead of involving the pensioner in the cost of employing a valuator. I cannot support the amendment, because of the cost it would entail upon the Government ; but I believe that in 90 per cent, of the cases difficulties could be overcome by adopting the course I have suggested.

Mr Holman:

– That would throw a similar burden on the Treasury.

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

.I am as earnestly desirous as is any honorable member of relieving the pensioners, but before I accept this amendment I want to know to what it will commit us. It is unreasonable to expect the committee to agree to this proposal without an estimate of its cost.

Mr Ward:

– The committee has already accepted clause 23.

Mr DENNIS:

– I do not understand why the committee has been able to discuss this proposal so fully when an earlier amendment by the honorable’ member for Balaclava (Mr. White) was ruled out of order because it would increase the burden on the revenue. The proposal now before the committee should certainly be investigated. I am prepared to assist pensioners as far as possible, and I hope that the time is not far distant when the provisions ‘affecting homes will be repealed as they are causing considerable dissatisfaction.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Dennis) who is so anxious to know whither this amendment will lead him accepted clause 23 without hesitation.

Mr Scullin:

– And clause 4, which remitted £750,000 of taxation.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The amendment proposed by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) will not cost the country much, and the explanation given by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Holman) particularly should satisfy honorable members who really want to support it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has stated in effect that the Government may not take over properties even when they are free of encumbrances. That indicates that clause 23 will be operated to suit the Treasury, and not because of the merits of any proposal made on behalf of pensioners.

Mr Lyons:

– I was merely emphasizing what the Attorney-General had already explained to the committee.

Mr BEASLEY:

– If the pensioners are dependent upon legal gentlemen in the Cabinet, they will be dead before they get any relief. This country will never get rid of the evils incidental to the depression, if -the legal outlook prevails. The purpose of the amendment now before the committee i3 to give practical effect to. the desires of the Government as expressed in clause 23. If the Government has made up its mind to oppose the amendment, and has the requisite support to defeat it, we shall have to await another opportunity to rectify the wrong which the pensioners are suffering.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- The committee has been told that a person owning a home valued at £400 is also to be given, by this amendment, the right to own land worth £400, without detriment to his pension rights. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) has stated that a married couple would thus be able to own £1,600 worth of property, and still be entitled to draw the full pension. That is not the intention of this amendment. Its purpose is to put the person owning a block of land that does not produce income on the same footing as a person owning a home. I suggest the addition of these words, “ or the owner of the land also owns a home in which he permanently resides.” That will prevent a pensioner or claimant from enjoying a double exemption. The Assistant Commissioner in New South Wales has told me that there is on his list of pensioners a person with a home worth £7,000.

There is no limitation on the value of a pensioner’s home, so long as he resides in it. I plead with the Government to do something further to relieve the pensioners in respect of the property disqualifications. Honorable members on this side are not enamoured of the section which gives the Government the right to recover from a deceased pensioner’s estate the amount of pension paid to him during his lifetime. The Government will save a considerable sum through the reduction of certain pensions from 17s. 6d. to 15s. One pensioner told me that he had a block of land worth £100, but he had sacrificed it for £30 in order to be able to draw the pension. Honorable members have harrowing experiences in trying to explain to pensioners the provision of the law. Old people come to me, and ask what they are to do in regard to their small properties, and I have to advise them to sell them for any price they can get. If ever this Government made a mistake, it was when it interfered with the old-age pensions act, and did not give a fair spin to the aged and infirm. I shall support this amendment, and stand by the pensioners at all costs. I did not enter this Parliament to trample down the aged and infirm. There are men and women of 70, 80 and 90 years of age who are starving on a mere pittance of 5s. or 7s. 6d. a week. I sincerely hope that, if the Government cannot agree to allow a pensioner £400 worth of land, it will at least agree to allow £200 worth, and will accept the further amendment I have suggested, in order to give relief to the person who owns vacant land that produces no income.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I trust that the Government will give to this amendment more favorable consideration than it has received so far. If the proposal cannot ‘be accepted in full, it might be accepted in part. We should endeavour to remove hardships from the pensioners. Some of these people early in their careers bought blocks of land with the object of building on them, but their homes have never materialized. As a matter of fact, land that was bought prior to the depression of the nineties is in some cases valued at a lower price to-day than when it was purchased. I remember that this applies particularly to land bought at Horton Park and elsewhere nearly half a century ago. The purchasers are now old-age pensioners, and they have never been able to build the home of their dreams. As provision is now incorporated in our pensions legislation to enable the Government to recoup itself for payments made to pensioners, the whole situation has been altered, and there is no reason why this amendment should not be accepted. The AttorneyGeneral made some reference to amounts of £800 or £1,600; but we could easily protect that position by providing that the property held by a pensioner and his wife should not exceed £400 in value.

Mr Ward:

– That is what is intended.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The AttorneyGeneral also said that the cost of a provision like this might run into anything from six to seven figures, which means that it might be anything between £100,000 and £1,000,000. That, I suggest, is not a fair statement to make to honorable members. Our object in supporting this amendment is not to. get a vote which will help certain honorable gentlemen at election time, but to get a decision which will really help the pensioners. If the Government cannot see its way clear to accept this amendment at the moment, I ask it to give an undertaking that it will investigate the position, “and draft an amendment for insertion in this bill while it is before another place. That course could be adopted with’ dignity..

Mr Ward:

– The cost of this amendment would not be any greater than the amount involved in clause 23.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– TheGovernment is quite prepared to investigate the position; but it cannot undertake, as suggested by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), to draft an amendment before that investigation, has been made. Clearly, the revenue position must be examined, and we must frankly face that fact. Of course the right way out of this trouble is to value the lands, in question at the fair market value, and not at the high rate which has hitherto prevailed. The Government will undertake to make an investigation to ascertain what would actually be involved in the adoption of the amendment ; but it will not undertake to draft an amendment of the nature proposed until that investigation has been made. When the proposals of this bill were being considered, an estimate was made of the effect they would have on the revenue.

Mr Rosevear:

– What was the estimated cost of the -provisions of clause 23?

Mr LYONS:

– A calculation was made of the total amount involved in granting relief from land tax, income tax, and sales taxation, and in affording relief to the farmers and other primary producers, as well as to pensioners. Obviously, the amount could not be calculated to the last penny. Just as it was necessary to make a calculation of that kind, it would also be necessary to calculate the probable cost of a provision of this nature. The Government is prepared to make such a calculation, but it cannot promise to submit an amendment of this character to the Senate until the calculation has been made. We have to pay some regard to the position of the Treasury as well as to that of the pensioners.

Mr DEIN:
<Lang

.- I desire some more definite information in regard to the meaning of clause 18 of the bill and section 52 c of the principal act. Section 52 c reads -

  1. Where a pensioner becomes the owner of property (not including the home in which he resides) of a value exceeding Four hundred pounds he shall repay to the Commissioner the amount of pension paid to him after the commencement of this section to the extent by which the value of the property (not including such home) exceeds Four hundred pounds.
  2. Where husband and wife are both pensioners and arc not living apart pursuant to any decree, judgment, order or deed of separation, and they or either of them become or becomes the owners or owner of property (not including the home in which they reside) of a value exceeding Eight hundred pounds, they and each of them shall repay to the Commissioner the amount of pension paid after commencement of this section to them or either of them, to the extent by which the value of the property (not including such home) exceeds Eight hundred pounds. . . .

I can understand that those provisions apply to people who are already pensioners, but what about people who are seeking to become pensioners? Will the £400 exemption apply to them? I ask this question having in mind the case of the elderly lady to whom I referred previously.

Mr HOLMAN:
Martin

I welcomethe suggestion of the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page) and alsothe promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) that an investigation will be made into this matter; but I ask that the investigation be made immediately, in order that any action that is necessary may be taken while this measure isbefore another place. I also ask the Government to bear in mind the point made by the (honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), who, it is admitted, has a very wide knowledge of our pensions legislation. He told us that, in his opinion, at least 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the relief that is now sought by this amendment can actually be obtainedby pensioners working individually by other means. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane), who also has a wide acquaintance with the pensioners in his electorate, has made a somewhat similar statement. This being so, it must be apparent that only about one-fifth of the cost which the Attorney-General fears would result from the adoption of theamendment would fall upon the Government. Inthis circumstance is it not better for us to make this provision equitably in a general way than to allow our old-age and invalid pensioners at considerable cost in anxiety and strain, to compel the Government to grant it in a more indirect fashion?

Question - that the proposed new clause be inserted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Mr. Latham) agreed to -

That the following new clause be added: - 23a. Section fifty-twoh of the Principal Act is amended by omitting all words from and including the words “ to a relative “ to and including the words “transferee” (first occurring) and inserting in their stead the words: - “ to a person who is

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 10b. After section 25 of the principal act, the following section is inserted: - “ 25b. Claimants for invalid pensions shall have the right of appeal to a medical board which shall determine whether claimants are totally and permanently incapacitated within the meaning of the act “.

This amendment is in accordance with’” the suggestion put forward earlier in this debate by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), and by myself on many former occasions. It has been stated in the course of the debate that, despite the fact that applicants for an invalid pension present to the department certificates from specialists and public hospitals, the medical officers attached to the department have turned them down. This matter has been raised on previous occasions, but nothing definite has been done. Persons whose applications have been refused have no appeal from the decision of the medical officer. In repatriation cases, applicants may appeal to a medical board, which has power to override the decision of the medical officer. The right honorable member for Cowper suggested how the board could be established. I ask merely that the Government accept the principle which I am advancing, leaving the details to be worked out later.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

– I support the suggestion of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), I know invalids who have been rejected by medical officers although they possess certificates from their local doctors showing that they are permanently and totally incapacitated. It is very difficult to have applicants examined by a second medical officer after they have been rejected. If this proposal were agreed to, it would dispel from the minds of applicants any suspicion that they are not receiving a fair deal. I think that the “matter ‘might be covered by regulation, without passing amending legislation.

Mr Beasley:

– If we are given an assurance that this will be done, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Mr McGRATH:

– Recently I had before me the case of an applicant for a pension who was turned down by the departmental medical officer, although another doctor, who was just as capable, certified that he was suffering from tuberculosis, and this diagnosis was supported by X-ray photographs. Not only was the invalid’s application rejected, but most insolent and discourteous language was used by the medical officer, for which 1 reported him to the department.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I support the proposal. I know of one invalid who presented to the department, when making her application, a certificate from a Macquariestreet specialist. She was examined by the ordinary doctor, and her application refused. I asked whether the medical officer had been shown the specialist’s certificate, and was informed that, in no case, were such certificates passed on as a. guide to the examining doctor. Most invalids spend all their money on getting advice and treatment from specialists before they approach the department, and it is only as a last resource that they seek a pension. In one case, although the stipulated time had not lapsed, I insisted upon a reexamination of the applicant, and the pension was granted within a fortnight. I understand that in repatriation cases an officer_of the department accompanies the applicant to see that the examination is fairly conducted. Something of the kind is needed in regard to invalid pensions.

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

.- I urge the Government to accede to this request. In one case that came under my notice, an applicant for a pension complained bitterly to me o’f the treatment that she had received from the examining officer who, by the way, spoke with a foreign accent. I wrote to the Deputy Commissioner in Melbourne, and he was good enough to order another examination to be made. That examination took place, but nothing further was reported. Still, I submit that the patients should at least be entitled to courtesy. I support the suggestion of the honorable member for “West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). As it can be given effect by regulation, there will be no need to make an amendment in the bill.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I support the suggestion of the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr.

Beasley). If a specialized tribunal such as that suggested were appointed, it could co-operate with the specialized tribunal that deals with war pension cases, and in that way a standardized questionnaire might be framed which would simplify and make more uniform the work of the Commonwealth in respect of the examination of invalid pensions. I trust that the Government will give honorable members the assurance that the suggestion of the honorable member will be carried out by administrative act.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The Government is prepared to examine this proposal with a view to ascertaining whether it can be operated satisfactorily. : There would have . to be separate boards in every State.

Dr EARLE Page:

– Not at all. The board would adopt the practice of the Repatriation Board.

Mr LATHAM:

– I am trying to ascertain the. idea of honorable members. If this proposal means the establishment of a board in every State, and if the board travels to the applicants or the applicants to the board, considerable expense will be entailed. In the Repatriation Department there are files of war service records and reports of army medical men and others. There is a regular file which the tribunal may examine. In the case of a tribunal examining invalid pensioners, that would not be so. It is a different class of case, and there is no medical history as there is in respect of army cases. It might be that the tribunal would have to function simply on the report of a local doctor, and the work would be quite different from the repatriation work. ‘For invalid pensions there are medical referees, &c, who are specialists in various classes of case. If the board . is to be effective and worthy of its functions, it will have to be composed of specialists. It would have to be a highlyskilled body and, therefore, would not bc an inexpensive body. The only satisfactory system would probably be the panel system, under which. .the appropriate persons would be drawn foi the appropriate classes of case. Honorable members will see that it would be necessary to work out the whole system carefully. This,, system would require a good deal of attention and care-‘ ful examination. It would, therefore, be wise to consider before going any further with the matter the necessities of the case, and to remember that the failure of some applicants to obtain pensions does not reveal any necessity for an appeal board. We are all familiar with people who think that they are entitled to certain benefits, and if they do not obtain them, invariably ask for another hearing. We must ask ourselves whether there are really any serious evils in the existing system, and whether we are able to devise a system of appeal which will be reasonable, efficient, and not unduly expensive. I assure honorable members that the Government is prepared to examine the whole question.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I am pleased that the Government has given the assurance that it will examine the suggestion of the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) for the establishment of an appeal tribunal. If those whose applications for pensions were rejected were, on appeal, examined by a medical tribunal, they would be ‘ content to accept its decisions, and if their applications were then rejected they would not be likely to worry further, I have in mind the case of an unfortunate person who came to Australia. He was physically incapacitated, and unable to do anything but light work. The medical officer who examined this man could see no change in him over a period of years, and he still maintained that he was fit to perform light work, whereas the opinion of other experts was to the contrary. Had this man appeared before a medical appeal tribunal, his case would have been decided immediately, and, I have no doubt, he would have ‘ been satisfied. In cases such as that, and in respect of appeals that are made against the decisions of medical men, the appeal board would be of considerable value. I recently had occasion to report one of the departmental medical officers because of his treatment of a pensioner. There would be no need to report medical officers if the applicant for an invalid pension had an opportunity to appear before a medical appeal tribunal, because the tribunal would either support the action of the officer or overrule him, to the satisfaction of the applicant. I am glad to have the assurance of the Government that it is prepared to investigate the proposal of the honorable member for West Sydney.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

– I should feel more satisfied had I some idea, when the Government would give its decision on the proposal of the honorable member for We3t Sydney (Mr. Beasley). In common with other honorable members, I have had considerable trouble in connexion with doctors’ certificates. On some occasions I have taken as many as three certificates, obtained from different doctors, to the medical referee, and yet those certificates - have carried no weight with him. I make no complaint about the departmental officials, because I have always received courtesy at their hands. In most cases the opinions of doctors differ. The officer representing the department, just because he is not interested in the applicant for a pension, often rejects his application. It is amazing how long some of the old medical practitioners remain in their positions, and it would be far better if they gave way to younger and more highly-skilled medical officers. I should like to know from the Government when we may expect its decision in respect to the proposal of the honorable member for West Sydney.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– On the condition that the Government is prepared to examine my proposal immediately Parliament goes into recess, and give its decision when we meet again, I am quite willing to ‘ allow the matter to stand over. T suggest that we may be able to obtain a panel from the hospitals at various centres. From my own experience I know that the medical profession are only too anxious to assist the Government in the general cause of humanity, and I suggest that we take this matter up with the hospital authorities and fix a definite time for having appeals. I have no wish to penalize country appli cants; but, no doubt, many genuine cases would be quite prepared to go to the expense of travelling a reasonable distance in order to appear before an appeal board. I am anxious to have some system instituted on the lines that I have suggested, and I shall be pleased if the Government will promise to give favorable consideration to it.

Mr Lyons:

– The ‘ Attorney-General has given that undertaking.

Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 (Appropriation of £2,000,000 for relief to wheat-growers).

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.This clause provides for assistance to the wheat-growers, and in my second-reading speech I expressed my views upon it. I do not wish to traverse that ground ‘again at any great length at this stage, but I am not at all satisfied with the method that the Government is proposing for the granting of this assistance to the wheatgrowers. I can see no reason why this particular grant should be different from bounties given to other industries, and to other sections of the community. This is a proposal to make the wheat-growers really the wards of the States, and the inference is that we cannot trust them to handle the money that we propose to use for their benefit, and, therefore, we are handing it to the States with the request to supervise its expenditure, not on the basis of the quantity of produc-, tion but in certain other ways which are to be directed. That is not the manner to encourage people to remain on the land. As I have said on more than one occasion, it is necessary for this Government to step into this matter only for the purpose of maintaining production, employment, and the balance of trade, and of obtaining sufficient revenue to meet our overseas obligations. This assistance should be given as a direct bounty, and therefore as an instruction to the Government to grant a bounty on wheat of the 1932-33 harvest, I move-

That the clause bc postponed.

A bounty was granted last year, and, with the exception of a few complaints about some little delay in -the early part’ of the operation of the system, it worked wou.deriu.Uy. well-. The bounty was: paid; direct by the Common wealth to the growers. The machinery is ready. to. be put into operation, and- the Department «of Commerce, with its experience of last ;year, is ready to function. There1 canbe no- hitch in the arrangements. The amendment does not stipulate the amount pf the bounty, because, if it did, it. anight be ruled . out of- order. If this committee will support my amendment, we shall be able to discuss the amount of the bounty later. I favour the same sum that was given last year, to be paid in like manner. I have received representations from wheat-growers in the various States, and the concensus of opinon is in favour of a cash bounty.

Mr Abbott:

– Would the money for the bounty be borrowed?

Mr SCULLIN:

– The method of raising the money is a matter for later consideration. The Government has a £17,000,000 accumulated deficit in treasurybills, so that, in the circumstances, to talk of this being paid out of revenue is so much camouflage.

As a nation, we cannot let our wheatgrowers go out of production. I favour a direct bounty. I ask the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) how the assistance that is provided in the bill is te be given. Will it be taken out of revenue ? This £2,000,000 could be used for a bounty, which should be paid on a” production basis. » Statistics indicate that the price received for wheat, is less than the cost of production ; therefore the man who produces the greatest crop will lose most, and will be in need of the greatest assistance. The proposal of the Government is to provide assistance to growers by reducing the cost of production. If we have any faith in the wheatgrowers, we can rely on their using a cash bounty to the best advantage. I am convinced that had we not given a bounty last year, hundreds of growers would have gone out of production, with the result that their land would have remained idle, and we would be minus the national asset obtainable from it.

The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. .Maxwell) recently asked whether we should retain the industry if it is being worked at a loss. Let honorable members contemplate what would happen to Australia if our wheat and wool indus:-. tries- were to cease.. We should’ immediately be faced with default and national insolvency. The direct- and indirect employment- resulting from ie maintenance on the land of 60,000- wheatgrowers is considerable; at the seaboard, on our railways, in the repairing and manufacturing agricultural machinery, and on the farms. AU those activities are interwoven. I believe that

Ave can keep our nation in a solvent condition only by maintaining our primary and secondary industries side by side. I have always held that a nation’s prosperity must be built first on its primary industries, on which is placed the superstructure of its secondary industries. In times of depression, we must spread the loss incurred by any primary industry over the rest of the community. That can be done through our National Parliament.

I cannot understand the antipathy of the Government to a bounty. Is it because that was the method adopted by another government, to which the party opposite did not raise any objection at the time? As a matter of fact, honorable members opposite jibed at my Government time after time because it had not provided a bounty, and, when it did so, again jibed because it had not done so in previous years. Honorable members opposite know that I strove hard al earlier conferences to have it done, but the bankers refused their support, and the Senate rejected the wheat pool. My Government was faced with a deficit of £20,000,000, and it was necessary to take drastic action to balance its budget. To maintain employment and industry, it granted a wheat bounty. I know of- no other way to test the feelings of the committee on this issue than by moving this amendment.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.Time is of the essence of the contract. This committee knows that the Government has put forward a proposal to provide £2,000,000 for the relief of the wheat-growers. I urge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) to withdraw his amendment, because we cannot afford to delay the granting of the ‘relief. I had intended to move that the words “ two million “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof “ one million nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand “ as an indication that the money should he paid on the production of wheat.

Mr Baker:

– “What is the difference?

Mr Scullin:

– My amendment merely conveys an instruction to the Government ii nd would, not involve a delay of more than an hour or so while new clauses were being drafted for incorporation in the hill.

Mr GREGORY:

– I want something done immediately. A considerable time has elapsed since a deputation representative of all the parties in this House, and of the growers themselves, waited on the Prime Minister, urging that early action should be taken to assist the wheatgrowers. It was not until much later, through statements appearing in the press, that growers learned the intention of the Government. Although unacknowledged by the Government, those prophecies proved to be true. That deputation pointed to the seriousness of the position, and urged that a bounty should be granted on all wheat, particularly that produced lor export, on the assumption that internal sales would be increased to the value of the bounty, thus giving our growers a slightly better price. It also urged that the scheme could be financed by the imposition of a sales tax on flour, when one considers the prices of bread and wheat in New Zealand, Prance, Germany and Italy, one realizes that something is wrong in Australia. I am confident that even if a sales tax on flour slightly increased the price of that commodity, there would not be a consequential increase in the price of bread. It is too. late to employ those methods now, and I urge the Government to make this money available in the form of a bounty on production. Our press is unanimously of the opinion that a mistake was made in proposing to make the money available only to necessitous farmers. The Government also contemplated allowing the States to handle this relief money, under certain conditions that were stipulated. Surely the Government does not desire to give assistance to inefficient farmers? If production is on an unpayable basis, assistance to efficient men is imperative.

The Government proposes that this money should be made available to reduce the cost of production of wheat. That could have been done by other methods. Later we shall be told how the States are; to act in this matter. I do not understand how it is to be done, nor do the majority of the wheat farmers. The money is also to assist growers by -

Providing for the needs of individual growers but not upon the basis of the quantity of wheat produced by individual growers.

It would be necesary to form an organization in each State to work out a scheme t» assist growers. We all know the wretched state of the market and the low prices that will be obtainable for this year’s wheat crop, also how essential it is that production should be increased so far as possible to enable us to continue our export trade. I have received word from the president of the Growers Association in Western Australia that next year there will be a reduction of 20 per cent of the area under wheat production. That is probably the result of representations made throughout the world. Possibly on account of a movement that has been started in other wheat-producing countries, there is some justification for this proposal, but restriction of production would mean a big loss to Australia, and I hope that such a policy will not be necessary. The proposals of the Government are entirely unworkable. The £2,000,000 to be allocated to the States for the relief of wheat-growers is to be distributed in the form of charity to the most independent section in the community - men who had the courage to open up new country despite adverse conditions. The growers are to be required to make their claims before an authority to be established by the States, in the hope that doles will be handed out here and there. The proposal reflects no credit on the Government, and betrays a lack of knowledge of the conditions in the back country. I shall support the amendment moved by-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), but I want to be sure of the Commonwealth grant of £2,000,000. That money should be distributed on a production basis, as it was last year. The method of distribution then adopted was most successful, but under the present proposals of the Government, .the farmers have no knowledge ‘how, or when, the money will be made available. I hope that even at this late hour, the Government will agree to tho distribution of the £2,000,000 on the basis of production.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– The Government has previously made clear its opposition to the payment of a bounty on the production of wheat. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition- (Mr. Scullin) supporting a bounty, but I should have thought that the lifelong hostility of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) to anything in the nature of sops to industry, would prevent his support of the amendment that is now before the committee. The honorable member for Swan has suggested that the proposals of the Government will mean the subsidizing of inefficiency. That is not so. The Commonwealth grant is to be distributed through the States, and they will not be compelled to subsidize inefficiency; indeed, the Commonwealth 1 will not impose any conditions which would have the effect which the honorable member fears.

Mr Blakeley:

– What are the Government’s reasons for refusing to grant a bounty on production?

Mr LYONS:

– I pointed out to the deputation that waited upon me that - N not because of inefficient or uneconomicmethods - many growers will have no crop on which to claim a bounty.

Mr Hill:

– That was true of last year also.

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, and the Government is trying to avoid repeating the mistake that was made last year. I want to assist those who, through no fault of their own, are in difficulties. It is the duty of the Commonwealth and State Governments to keep such people in production if their methods are satisfactory. The whole object of the proposed assistance is to he’p the growers who cannot continue to produce at the present low prices of wheat, but there are many growers who can continue in production without assistance from the Government. I reminded the deputation that the Commonwealth grant had to be provided by the taxpayers, who should not be asked to pay a subsidy to wheat-growers, or any other section of people, who can carry

On without such assistance. Again, the suggested sales tax on flour was rejected by the Government because it would impose a burden on people who are suffering just as much as are the wheat producers. Some of them are engaged in other branches of primary production. Others are receiving the dole, and they and the old-age pensioners would have to pay more for their bread, because of the increased cost of flour. There are two ways in which the wheat-growers can be helped. The first is by the reduction of the cost of production. When the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) suggested that the farmers might be helped by the reduction of- railway freights, I agreed that the costs of production should be extended to include marketing. The Government is prepared to accept an amendment such as the honorable member then foreshadowed.

Mr Gabb:

– But ‘the . Government would have no guarantee that the States would grant a reduction of freights.

Mr LYONS:

– No, but they would have liberty to ‘utilize that method of assistance if they so desired. Short of consenting to their using the Commonwealth grant for the payment of a bounty on production, the Commonwealth will leave the States as free as possible. I have had experience as a State Minister, and I regard State governments as having a full sense of their responsibility to the people. The Commonwealth Government is prepared to support to the fullest extent any proposal made by the States to assist in reducing the cost of production, but it insists also that a proportion of the grant to the States shall be paid to the farmers who are in difficulties, and would get no relief from freight concessions, or a bounty, because they have no crop. Therefore, whilst we would not compel the States to subsidize industry, we would stipulate that assistance should be given to the growers who are in financial difficulties. The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition; it does not desire unnecessarily to hamper the States in the expenditure of the Commonwealth grant, and, subject to the policy I have indicated, will do everything within -reason to meet the requirements of both the States and the growers. I ask the committee not to accept the amendment.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– The first consideration by which the committee must be guided is the necessity for the farmers to get cash into their hands at the earliest possible moment. To that everything else should be subordinated. I am prepared to accept the general principle of the Government’s proposals, if they are modified in the manner proposed by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), who has proposed an amendment to strike out the restrictions proposed in paragraphs a and b of section 27, and to insert in their stead “ such methods as the respective States and the Commonwealth Treasurer approve, and this clause shall be deemed to be a resolution of the Commonwealth Parliament, as referred to in section 91 of the Constitution.” I do not wish the States to he excluded from the use of any methods which seem to them to be wise, and likely to ensure the payment of this money into the hands of the growers as early as possible. If the Government is not prepared to accept, at any rate the” principle of the amendment, I shall have no option but to support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition to provide for the payment of a bounty on a production basis. The best machinery that can bo employed for the distribution of the Commonwealth grant is that of the States, and I am in agreement with the general plan which the Government has adopted, including the allocation of the £2,000,000 to the States on a production basis. But I cannot agree to the differential treatment of primary and secondary industries. When the Government proposed to restore the 30s. primage duty on galvanized iron, it did not ask whether the company of Lysaght Limited was in urgent need ; it merely treated the manufacture of galvanized iron as a national industry, and, as such, deserving of assistance.

Mr Casey:

– The amount of cash involved was very much smaller than would be involved in a wheat bounty.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Thecost of assisting the galvanized iron industry cumulatively added to the cost of production throughout the community. It has increased the cost of equipment on the farm, and the prices of the commodities produced. When a bounty is distributed to the farmers, the government liability ends, but we never know to what amount government assistance to a secondary industry will grow. This Parliament should not differentiate between a big secondary industry and a big primary industry, giving to one unconditional assistance, and to the other merely a dole. I am not satisfied with the bounty method as a permanent solution of ourwheat problems. If the Commonwealth Government would accept the recommendations of the Wool Inquiry Committee, and apply them generally, there would be no need to provide government assistance for the wheat industry, because our farmers would be able to export their wheat under conditions which would be in keeping with the cost of production. But the Government is not willing to follow the recommendations of that report, so some other method has to be adopted. Immediate assistance is necessary for the wheat-growers. It is necessary, of course, to safeguard the payment of any bounty. I do not care whether the assistance provided by the Government is called a bounty or something else; it will ultimately have the effect of a bounty. But, however the money may be distributed to the wheatgrowers, it must surely in some manner have relation to the production of export goods. Three-quarters of the wheat produced in Australia must be exported. I remind honorable members that section 91 of the Constitution provides that -

Nothing in this Constitution prohibits a State from granting any aid to or bounty on mining for gold, silver orother metals, nor from granting with the consent of both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth expressed by resolution any aid to or bounty on the production or export of goods.’

Money that is applied to the reduction of freights on the carriage of wheat from the place where it is harvested to the port of export would surely be an aid to export ; but assistance of that kind must he covered by a resolution of the Parliament. I am concerned that there shall be no block in the provision of aid to the farmers. We know frombitter experience that, even after measures have been passed through both Houses of this. Parliament, the assistance provided has not been forthcoming. Certain legislation affecting wheat-growers passed two years ago is still on the statute-book, but not a penny has been paid to the farmers in accordance with its provisions.

Mr Scullin:

– But money was paid under the provisions of subsequent legislation.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– That is true. “My point at the moment is that I do -not want abortive legislation to be passed. -I am not reflecting on anything that has been done hitherto; but I am concerned lest in the period which elapses after the rising of this Parliament and before it re-assembles, some technicality may make it impossible to allocate any money that may be provided for the assistance of the farmers. Consequently, if the Government is willing to adopt what we regard as a reasonable attitude, we shall oppose the motion that has been moved; otherwise, we shall support it.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– Wheat has had a troubled history in this Parliament in recent years.

Mr Gregory:

– And so have the wheatgrowers!

Mr LATHAM:

– I have not denied that. If the wheat-growers were not in trouble, there would not be any need to discuss their position just now. Not much light is thrown on the subject by the observation that the wheat-growers have been in trouble. Any assistance that is granted to the wheatgrowers should have some relation to their trouble. I have had the benefit of study of the speeches of some eminent authorities on this subject, including some speeches that I myself have made upon it, and I have been delighted to find how sound my views are.

Mr Paterson:

– The Attorney-General supported the payment of a bounty a couple of years ago.

Mr LATHAM:

– I desire to quote from certain of my speeches which happen to indicate clearly the position of this Government. In December, 1930, I said -

This help ought to be in proportion to the need of the farmers and should not be given where it is not needed. It could be given through established State organizations, such as drought relief boards and the like. .1 further suggest that steps be taken to make sure that the farmers obtain supplies of superphosphate and seed for next year’s crop.

If it is thought desirable, . action of that kind can be taken by the State authorities.

Mr Gregory:

– The Attorney-General also said that he hoped that the cost of production would be reduced.

Mr LATHAM:

– If the honorable member could only give me credit for some measure of good faith I should be really obliged to him. In several speeches that I have made on this subject I have referred to the wheat bounty. On one occasion I said -

There is no hope of arriving at a solution of the farmers’ difficulties by measures such as this. The object of the bill is to provide relief for present distress; not to make wheat-farming in Australia profitable, but to help the farmers to live during the next season.

I went oil to say that the only real remedy for our trouble was a reduction in costs. I pointed out that that was absolutely necessary. In discussing a measure known as the Wheat Bill, I stated-; -

This temporary or emergency measure of assistance should, in my opinion, be given on a selective basis, and not in a general manner such as the Government has proposed.

On the same day I said -

Numbers of wheat-farmers are men of means who have had decent crops for years, and who, until recently, have enjoyed good prices.

I went on to say that the crop reaped was not a proper basis on which to grant assistance. The proposals now being made by the Government for the assistance of the wheat industry are along tho lines that I have been advocating for two or three years.

This subject has also been discussed at various Premiers conferences. I mention this fact because certain proposals that have been made to assist the farmers have been described in” some quarters as insulting to the farming community. A loud outcry has also been made in certain directions because the phrase “ necessitous farmers “ has been used, though not in the proposals of the Government. But I remind honorable members that in February, 1931, all the Governments of Australia agreed to the following proposal : -

That it be a recommendation to the Premiers Conference that a loan of £6,000,000 be raised for. the purpose of granting assistance to the wheat-growers, and that of this amount £3,500,000 be utilized for the purpose of paying a bounty of (id. per bushel on wheat of the 1930-31 season exported; and £2,500,000 bc made available as a loan to thu , States for the purpose of assisting necessitous wheat-growers, such amount to be allocated amongst the States in thu proportions . as estimated below on the basis of the production of wheat in the respective States during the 1930-31 season -

Then follows the proposed basis. On the 10th June, 1931, the then Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) reported to the Premiers Conference a decision of the Loan Council that there should be “ finance ‘ by way of advances from the banks or by loan on the market for the purpose *of having £2,500,000 distributed amongst the necessitous wheat-farmers of Australia “.

Mr Scullin:

– That amount was to be raised by the States.

Mr LATHAM:

– That point is not relevant at the moment. In September, 1931, while the Scullin Government was still in office, a Premiers Conference reached the following resolution, the Premier of Tasmania dissenting: -

That the Commonwealth Government provide a bounty for wheat-growers for the 1931-32 season at Od. per bushel (on the basis of f.a.q. wheat) for wheat exported (an equivalent bounty for flour) provided such bounty shall not increase the f.o.b. price for wheat above 3s. per bushel.

Mr Scullin:

– That proposal was . altered subsequently.

Mr LATHAM:

– I am dealing with the subject stage by stage. Although it was proposed that a bounty of 6d. per bushel should be paid, that amount was limited by the reference to 3s. a bushel. That limitation was evidently decided upon by considerations of finance, and by reason of the fact that it was thought that 3s. a bushel was enough to pay if the assistance was to be provided out of public funds. At that time wheat was selling at country sidings for from ls. 7d. to ls. lOd. per bushel. The price was very low, but it rose subsequently.

Mr Scullin:

– The limitation of price was necessary in order to get the consent of the banks to the advancing of the money. Later, the price was increased to 3s. 6d. a bushel. .

Mr LATHAM:

– Ultimately a bounty of 4£d. per bushel was paid on wheat. The cost of growing wheat has frequently been mentioned in debates on the subject in this chamber; but it is only possible to ascertain the cost by reference to particular instances. It is not possible to obtain a general average, because seasonal conditions, and the qualities of the soil, and other circumstances vary very greatly. It is not any more practicable to speak of the average cost of producing, wheat than to speak of the average cost of producing wool. These commodities: are not produced on a factory basis. At present the f.o.b. price of wheat is 2s. lOd. or 2s. lid. a bushel. It may vary a farthing one way or the other from day to day. One of the most valuable reports ever made on the wheat industry is that prepared by the Auditor-General of South Australia. In dealing with the Debt Adjustment Act, that report stated that-

As the whole of the farmers’ affairs were subject to control under this legislation it was possible- to obtain the following very important costs of production, lt should, however, be realized that many of these costs were obtained by special efforts and in a crisis in the affairs of the farmer, but they do show what can be done.

Then follows a set of figures relating to costs of production, and the remarkable thing about them is the great variation shown in regard to every item of cost. The averages which have been struck hardly prove anything. For instance, interest charges are set down at 57. 7d. per bushel in some instances, and at as little as 4d. a bushel in others. The cost of the production of wheat is assessed on a basis which does not apply when costs are being determined in any other industry. Ordinarily, a man’s residence is not reckoned as part of the capital upon which he expects his business to return him interest, but, in regard to the production of wheat, the dwelling is usually included. ‘ The South Australian figures all relate to farmers under departmental control, and, therefore, in some degree, in financial difficulties. In 1931, out of 14,000 wheatfarmers in South Australia, 3,491 came under the operation of the Farm Relief Act. After an examination of the figures on the basis of last year’s prices, the Auditor-General, on page 54 of his report states -

The first column in the foregoing statements shows the net financial result of the season, after allowing for living expenses, and including the wheat bounty, which is not included in the column “ Receipts “. Sufficient funds were retained in each case to meet living and cropping expenses for the 1932-33 season and other necessary expenditure; the amounts so retained are shown.

Most farmers paid the expenses of sowing and reaping their crops, interest and hirepurchase instalments, rates and taxes, &c. (C/4). Some also paid substantial amounts off their antecedent debts (C/5). A few paid off the whole of their antecedent debts.

Of the total number of wheat-farmers now under the control of the Debt Adjustment Act, not more than four are at present regarded as being in a hopeless financial position; but some have liabilities for land and machinery greater than are justified by the earning power of their holdings.

It is evident, therefore, that while no one is doing particularly well at the present time, some of the farmers are able to stand the stress much better than others. Those who favour the payment of a bounty propose that a flat rate should be paid on every bushel of wheat produced or exported, so that the bounty would fall equally on those who need it, and on those who do not. The rate per bushel would be the same, but the actual return to the various growers would, of course, vary greatly. I do not suggest that the money should be distributed mathematically in proportion to the farmer’s needs. If I had the responsibility and opportunity of distributing the money, I should consider various methods of rendering assistance. For instance, special consideration might be given to the case of the farmer on laud from which, for perhaps three or four years in succession, he obtains a crop of only two or three bushels to the acre, while in the third or fourth year, he might obtain a satisfactory crop.

Mr Prowse:

– Those farmers ought not to be growing wheat.

Mr LATHAM:

– Would it not be a good thing to put them somewhere else, or to use the land, if it is usable, for purposes other than growing wheat? We have to deal with the whole problem of rendering assistance, and the grant of the available money for distribution by the States will enable them to deal with the problem as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

-I fail to understand the objection of the Government to paying a bounty in accordance with the wishes of the farmers. There is not the slightest doubt what the farmers want. Representations have been made to the Prime Minister, and a deputation qualified to speak on behalf, of the farmers waited upon him to prefer their requests. Some members of the Country party, it would appear, represent districts which do not produce wheat. They do not know the needs of the wheat farmers, or they do not wish to know them. Members of the Country party are on their trial over this issue. The deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister represented growers from South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. It consisted of farmers actually engaged in the production of wheat, and included also the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock), and other members of the Country party who understand wheat-growing. This deputation stated that it was necessary that the Government should pay a bounty on the production of wheat. The Attorney-General has been at some pains to peruse a report prepared by the Auditor-General of South Australia, dealing with the cost of producing wheat. The only marked variation in costs revealed by the report is in respect to interest. In South Australia, they have been growing wheat for 50 years.

Mr Gabb:

– Not the men in the Mallee.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– In any case, it is true that in South Australia, as in other parts of the Commonwealth, the wheatgrowers are faced with serious difficulties. Last year, the morewheat a man sowed, the more money he lost, and the same position obtains this year. Perhaps in a few favoured spots, where the soil is particularly rich, the. farmers are doing better than in other places, but there is no farmer, be he on richand or on poor, who, if he has to pay interest on the capital cost of his land, is able to show a profit. Notwithstanding this, the Attorney-General says that, if it were in his power to distribute this money, he would do something for the man who was obtaining a return of only two bushels an acre. That man must eventually fail, even if he is paid a bounty of1s. a bushel.

Mr.Fenton. - What about those on the drought-stricken Mallee farms?

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The honorable member has always been a high protectionist. His policy is to give the same amount of protection to a huge concern like the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, as to the small factories. He makes no discrimination in the case of secondary industries, so why should he discriminate in regard to those engaged in primary industries ? The ‘ honorable member makes it clear that he knows nothing about the wheat industry. The Prime Minister stated, in an indefinite way,, that assistance would be given to the farmers by helping them to pay freight, and to purchase superphosphate and other fertilizers. Even if that is done, more assistance will be given to the big man than to the small one; so that we come back to the same position in the end. The Attorney-General made much of a statement prepared by a South Australian official” to the effect that costs of production varied greatly; but the general consensus of opinion among those in a position to know is that wheat cannot be produced in Australia at less than 3s. 5d. a bushel.

Mr Hutchin:

– Then let the wheatgrowers give up producing wheat.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The honorable member has been associated with various industries in the past, and has abandoned them in favour of others, but I remind him that Australia cannot afford to abandon the wheat industry, because it depends for its financial stability upon the export of wheat. Probably the big growers are in a position to turn their attention to the production of other commodities, but if they do so, Australia as a whole will suffer. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) . put forward- some nebulous proposals which seems to be floating at the back of his mind-

Mr PATERSON:

– My proposal has been committed to paper, and is on the table.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I do not care where it is; the proposal is a. ridiculous one. The honorable member must be completely out of touch with the needs of the wheat-growers. The honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), and the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), who are in close touch with the growers, have stood fast for the payment of a bounty. The Loader of the Country party referred to tariffs, and said that when they were adjusted, costs of production could be reduced. The point is that the growers need help now. It is of no use helping them to buy superphosphate next year. They must receive the help now, or they will not be able to continue producing. The figures quoted by the Attorney-General prove nothing. Everybody admits that interest charges are too high, but it cannot be denied that, ai the present time, the price obtainable for wheat is ls. a bushel below the cost of production, and this applies practically all over Australia. I trust the Government will reconsider its decision, and will, agree to the payment of a bounty.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- I wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government has seen fit to alter its original proposal to provide a subsidy of £1 a ton on approximately 1,000,000 tons of superphosphate for use throughout the wheat-growing States of the Commonwealth. The wheat-growers are in serious financial difficulties, and one thing that they require more “than anything else, is ready cash. They must have an increased return for the wheat that they are selling this year. The market value of wheat is exceptionally low, and it is the obligation of this Government to do everything in its power to assist the growers and to prevent them from being financially embarrassed. I appreciate the financial difficulties of the Commonwealth as much as any other honorable member. The Government has stated definitely, that it is prepared to allocate £2,000,000 immediately for the aid of the wheat-growers of Australia, and I am prepared to support any suggestion which will secure the immediate distribution of that money in preference to the suggestions that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin). This session is not to last long, and we must decide this issue immediately. I suggest that £2,000,000 in cash should be distributed among the wheat-growers through the State governments which have the machinery, departments, and the necessary legislation already in operation.

Mr Scullin:

– What better machinery do we want than that in use last year ?

Mr THORBY:

– The States are much better equipped than the Commonwealth to effect the distribution of this money. This Parliament can legitimately allocate £2,000,000 to the wheat-growers, but the proper authorities for the distribution of the money are the State governments, which, at the present time, have records of the. position of practically every farmer in Australia. It has been suggested by members of the Opposition that certain delays may take place in providing assistance to the wheat-growers, unless some form of bounty is introduced. The bounty system has both advantages and disadvantages. An export bounty has an advantage over any other form of bounty, whether that bounty is based on production or on sale. The Commonwealth Government should allocate this money to the States practically without restrictions as to its distribution. There ‘is no authority more capable of dealing with the individual problems of the wheat-growers than the respective State governments. The difficulties of the growers vary in the different States. In South Australia, railway freights are comparatively small, but in other States they are a heavy burden upon the growers. The wheat-growers of Queensland are in a position different from that of the wheat-growers of Western Australia. New South Wales and Western Australia produce almost the same quantity of wheat, but whereas New South Wales consumes locally one-third of its production Western Australia consumes locally only one bushel out of every fifteen bushels produced. A flour tax is already in operation in New South Wales, and from it the Government derives a considerable revenue. A flour tax in Western Australia would be of little advantage to the government of that State, because the local consumption of wheat is not considerable. There are various ways in which the State governments could assist the wheat-growers. Every State government could grant a subsidy to its transport agency, where the wheat is carted by lorry to the seaboard, as is done to some extent in South Australia. In most of the other States transport is by rail, and a subsidy to the railway departments of the States would enable them to reduce railway freights by from 25 per cent, to 50 per cent, thus leaving sufficient money with which to pay a cash bonus to wheatgrowers who have already incurred a heavy cost in fallowing land in preparation for next year’s wheat crop. The farmer who has already fallowed land should be encouraged, for the reason that he has expended money in employing labour, and has definitely established the fact that he does not intend to relinquish - wheat-growing. He has made provision for the future, and has, therefore, the interest of Australia at heart. The wheatgrowers of Australia have produced their crop this season, and it will be marketed irrespective of price. It is to the everlasting credit of the primary producers that they have never gone on strike or attempted to curtail production just because prices were low and they were losing money. Their efforts have enabled the Commonwealth to maintain the flow of exports, and to provide year by year the finance necessary to enable the government of this country to be carried on. This grant should be allocated to the States practically free of restrictions. There is nothing to prevent the States from augmenting the Commonwealth grant by money which it has available for the purpose of assisting the wheatgrowers. In New South Wales, there are on the statute-book several pieces of legislation which will assist the distribution of this money. The Rural Industries Branch of the Department of Agriculture in that State controls advances to farmers who are in financial need. Those farmers receive assistance in the purchase of seed, superphosphate, fuel, horse feed, stores, and other essential requirements.

Mr Nock:

– There are 6,000, farmers on the books of the Rural Industries Branch.

Mr THORBY:

– Out of a total of approximately 21,000 wheat-farmers in New South Wales, 6,000 are on the books of the Rural Industries Branch of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr Francis:

– Those growers could receive immediate assistance.

Mr THORBY:

– That is so. That branch has a record of every unscrupulous farmer in New South Wales, and also the record of the farmers who can be trusted. A similar organization exists in nearly every other State. New South Wales has a rural bank, the Farmers Belief Board, and the Government Guarantee Board, and the Flour Acquisition Act is also in operation. There are several ways in which the wheat-growers could be assisted. Assistance could be given to the railway departments of the States for the purpose of reducing freights, and in that event it would be necessary to have some reduction in the freights on flour, bran, and pollard, otherwise every country miller would be at a disadvantage.

If the Commonwealth Government specifies the conditions under which moneys will be allocated to the States for distribution to the wheat-growers, it will be necessary to pass resolutions in accordance with section 91 of the Constitution which reads -

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a State from granting, with the consent of both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth expressed by resolution, any aid to or bounty on the production or export of goo ds.

I am concerned not about a bounty on the production or export of goods, but about a grant in aid. Unless a resolution is passed by this Parliament in the form necessary to comply withthe requirements of the Constitution, certain technical or legal difficulties may arise, and prevent the States from exercising the liberty that they must have in order to distribute this money in aid of those engaged in the wheat-growing industry. The wheat-growing industry is not the only industry that has received a bounty. Since 1927-28 the following bounties have been granted by the Commonwealth : -

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

– This matter has been thrashed out during the second-reading debate, and I do not propose to repeat the statements that were made then. I merely intend to make my own position clear. I am pleased that the Government is making £2,000,000 available to assist the wheat-growers. In doing so it is performing a national service. Unless that assistance is given promptly, the wheat industry will go out of existence. I am glad that the Government intends to pay this amount out of revenue, not out of loan money. The bounty that was granted last year, in all good faith, was paid out of loan money, and has to be repaid by wheatfarmers over a period of years. So that they really found the money to assist themselves. I do not intend to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), because I do not believe that the Commonwealth Government is the authority that should distribute this money to the wheatgrowers.

Mr Scullin:

– Everything was all right when that was done last year.

Mr GIBSON:

– On principle I am opposed to the practice. I cannot understand the action of the Commonwealth Government in trying to perform more and yet more of the functions which should be performed by the States. It should be only too glad to hand over this responsibility to the States, which have the necessary machinery.

Mr Scullin:

– What was wrong with the distribution of the bounty last year ?

Mr GIBSON:

– I do not suggest that anything was wrong, but I am opposed on principle to the method employed. 1 am also opposed to bounties. They would not be necessary if the Government treated the primary industries as it does manufactures. Unfortunately, that is not done. Special legislation is provided to enable manufacturers to pass on their costs to the consumers. The opinion of economists have been quoted in this chamber which show that 16 per cent. of the costs of the primary producers are brought about by tariffs. Many wheat-farmers in the north of Victoria will be forced out of production if they are not assisted very soon. In any case, the area under wheat will be decreased next year.

It is impossible to say what the cost of growing wheat is. I could make the production of wheat profitable at 3s. 4d. or 3s. 6d. a bushel, whereas scores of others could not do so under 4s. 6d. a bushel. Everything depends upon rainfall, soil, seasons, and a thousand and one other conditions. 1 urge the Government, to accept the amendment that will he moved by the honorable member for Gippsland ; I cannot see how any exception can be taken to it. It will make clause 27 read -

Any money paid to a State under this part shall he applied by the State for the benefit and ‘ assistance of wheat-growers by all such methods as the respective States and the Commonwealth Treasurer approve. [ understand that the Attorney-General has intimated that the remainder of the clause as it stands is not necessary. If so, the honorable member for Gippsland is prepared to have it omitted. When talking to a Minister of the Victorian State Government only yesterday morning, I asked him, “If the State Governments have this £2,000,000 granted to them under the conditions laid down by the Commonwealth Government, how are they going to spend it?” He answered, “ It could not be done. It would take two years if we set up boards throughout the length and breadth of Victoria, and went into the position of every wheatgrower.”

Mr Latham:

– But the bill, as drawn, allows a tremendous opportunity and choice to the States, which can do practically anything except distribute the money on a bounty basis.

Mr GIBSON:

– All that I and those who support the honorable member for Gippsland ask, is that the States should have a free hand in distributing the money, subject to the agreement entered into, with the Commonwealth Government. Surely that is not asking too much? I urge the Government to accept the honorable member for Gippsland’s amendment, and ask the Attorney-General to give an assurance that the last portion of the clause, which refers to section 91 of the Constitution, is unnecessary to give power to the States to spend the money. If the Commonwealth Government intends to impose certain conditions on the States, and does not want to give relief to farmers in necessitous circumstances, I am prepared to agree to the States being instructed that the amount of money shall not be paid to any wheat-farmer who has paid State land tax during the last two years.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

– The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Scullin) is reasonable, and it should have the support of the majority of honorable members. Is it not what the wheat-growers of Australia are asking for?

Having heard a number of the speeches made by honorable members of the Country party, it occurs to me that those honorable members are at sixes and sevens. What is the considered opinion of the Country party on the subject? Arc they in step with the wheat-growers, who are asking for a straight-out bounty, and for some money immediately to enable them to carry on? I have heard certain members of the Country party oppose a bounty. Yet Mr. Field, the president of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, addressing a meeting at Wagga within the last fortnight, said -

Throughout the length and breadth of the wheat-growing areas in Australia there was a strong opposition to the bonus to superphosphate. It was thought that a bounty on export wheat would be of immense benefit because it would mean the raising also of the home market to the extent of the export bonus. Unfortunately for the primary producers of the Commonwealth, the Minister for Commerce was. not familiar with tho problems of the man on the land. There was no proposition put before the deputation by either Mr. Lyons or the Minister for Commerce which would be of any benefit to the wheat-growers of Australia.

Who is voicing the opinions of the wheatgrowers of New South Wales? I believe it is that section which advocates the payment of a bounty on export or on all sales. When the Scullin Government was in office, it did not decide upon a bounty without consulting the wheatgrowers. They were called into conference at Canberra by the then Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) and later by myself as Acting Minister. Now the system is to be discarded, and the matter of assistance to needy farmers left to the States. When the wine bounty legislation was before Parliament was there a concerted demand on the part of Country party members that the money should be given to the States to be expended ? No. The expenditure of that money was regarded as a function of the Commonwealth. The wine-makers and grape-growers were trusted. Similarly with the gold bounty and the bounties on iron and steel and on cotton. But, in the opinion of the members of the Country party, the wheatgrowers are not to be trusted. “Why should they be considered as wards of the State? Why should the State run the rule over them, and give assistance only to those who are in necessitous circumstances? The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) has stated that the Government’s scheme is absolutely impracticable, and the Minister for Agriculture in Victoria has declared that boards will have to be set up by the State to investigate the financial position of the wheat-growers, and that probably from twelve months to eighteen months will be required to determine to whom assistance shall be given. It is clear that a great deal of delay and cost will be involved, and the Government should even now retrace its steps, and pay a straight-out bounty to the growers. Of course, the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) is, and always has been, the- principal obstacle to the payment of a bounty. Indeed, when the Scullin Ministry, after consulting experts, including the then honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart), decided to pay a bounty on production, the present Attorney-General strongly resisted that, and urged that assistance should be given only to necessitous growers. Mr. Stewart, replying to the AttorneyGeneral on that occasion, said -

Yi.-t, if the yardstick of the Leader of the Opposition were employed, he who grew the least wheat would get the most bounty. In exceptional cases that might result in subsidizing inefficiency and discouraging the grower who works hardest and adopts the most up-to-date methods.

Mr. Stewart was a recognized authority on the wheat industry. While the Scullin Ministry was in office, many suggestions were made by members who are now sitting on the ministerial side, and also by members of the Country party as to how the wheat-growers could be assisted. Some of these members strongly condemned the methods adopted by the then Government, and suggested the imposition of a sales tax ‘ on flour in order that the wheat-growers might be more generously helped, but now, when our critics are in power, .they themselves fail to deliver the goods; they have fallen down on their jobs. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will reconsider its decision. Honorable members should recollect that the appeal made to the farmers to “ grow more wheat “ was national ; it was made on behalf of all other sections of the community. We wanted to increase the volume of our. exports in order to rectify the adverse trade balance. In 1919-20, Australia exported £22,500,000 worth of wheat. In the next vear, the value rose to £34,000,000. In “1930-31, it fell to £14,700,000, and last year it was £19,000,000 in Australian currency. The value of production rose to £62,000,000. in 1920-21. It fell to £27,000,000 in 1927- 28, and in 1931-32, was estimated at £30,000,000. Those figures indicate’ the enormous losses that have been sustained by the wheat-growers. During the last few years, the export price of wheat has been : 1926-27, 5s. 7d. ; 1927-28, 5s. 6d. ; 1928- 29, 4s. lOd. ; 1929-30, 5s. ; 1930-31, 2s. 5id.. and this year it is estimated at 2s. 10d., which is equivalent to 2s. 2$d. at country sidings. To-day, wheat is being sold in Australia at approximately ls. below the cost of production. The cost of producing a 12-bushel average id Western Australia last year was estimated at 3s. 5d. a bushel at railway sidings. Generally speaking, the. average cost of production is in the vicinity of 3s. 6d. a bushel, and, to-day, the price at railway sidings in New South Wales is 2s. 2-id. It is clear that thousands of growers on whose behalf an appeal is being made this morning are selling their wheat at approximately ls. 4d. below the cost of production. Wheat-growing is a great labour-employing industry, and the Commonwealth has a responsibility to go to the assistance of the growers, not with sympathy, but with a direct cash payment. The money should not be handed over to the States for distribution in a manner that must involve a great deal of cost and delay. The growers are entitled to a direct bounty, such as was paid by the Scullin Ministry last year, when the financial position of the country was much, worse than it is to-day, and when- the growers were getting 9d. a bushel more than they are now getting. While the Government is endeavouring to save money by these niggardly proposals, it is remitting £700,000 worth of taxation to wealthy pastoralists and city landlords. Thousands of wheat-growers throughout Australia are on the verge of bankruptcy, and many of them may be forced off their holdings ; yet when a cash bounty is requested, the appeal falls on deaf ears. I am surprised that even members of the Country party, instead of being unanimous, are speaking with different voices. If they had the interests of the wheat-growers at heart, they would reconcile their differences, and present a united front to the Government. Instead of that, we have heard one member of the party declaring that he did not want a wheat bounty.

Mr Gibson:

– Who said that?

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) said that he was opposed to bounties at all times.

Mr Gibson:

– Yes, under certain conditions.

Mr FORDE:

– Yet, when the BrucePage Government was paying out bounties on steel, wine and sulphur, the honorable member raised no protest. He was a member of the Ministry, and he remained silent rather than jeopardize his position in the Cabinet.

Sitting suspended from 7.40 to 10 a.m. (Thursday).

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

The original proposals of the Government have been modified, and in that form are much more acceptable. It would have been preferable, and certainly would save a good deal of trouble, to make a straightout payment. The farmer is possibly the best judge of what is most likely to meet his needs. I do not know that anything is to be gained by merely insisting on the imposition of certain conditions. After all, it is not a very big bone thai we have to offer, and is not worth haggling about seriously. Objection has been raised to the participation in this payment of what are described as the big wheat-growers. I point out, however, that they are performing a national work equally with the small wheatgrowers. I do not believe that, in the present season, any wheat-grower is making a substantial profit. Wheat, generally, is being grown at a loss, and if those who have big holdings are cropping them fully, they are probably working on overdrafts, and not making substantial profits. Like the gentle dew from heaven, a bounty falls on the rich and the poor alike.

Mr Hill:

– That is not so.

Mr NAIRN:

– My friend, the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), may contend that there are no rich wheatfarmers. I believe that all farmers are having a lean time, and that there is no justification for excluding any man from whatever benefits this payment may confer, merely because he may happen to be comparatively successful. The more wheat produced, the better the service rendered to the country. The present scheme has the advantage that it will enable some special relief to be given where crops have failed. Those who will have to administer the fund in the States are the most competent to judge as to where relief should be afforded. Two alternatives have been proposed. That of the Labour party amounts to a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and I cannot see that that would be of any value to the wheat-growers; it certainly would not expedite the relief that is so urgently needed. On the other hand the members of the Country party prefer,- as I do, that this money shall be handed over to the States unconditionally, and distributed by them; but, apparently, they are prepared to agree to its being handed over subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Commonwealth and the States. I hope that the efforts of the different governments to arrive at agreement will not result in the postponement of the payment until after the Christmas holidays. Promptitude is the principal factor. If the States have imposed on them conditions that require the setting up of tribunals, and the making of inquiries among the 60,000 wheat-growers in Australia, to ascertain who are most in need, months will elapse. Such a procedure would be costly, and it has nothing to commend it. The only question that has to be considered is, who can most suitably make the payment. In my view, the Commonwealth is not the most suitable authority, and it would be better to hand the money over to the States. They have just as much interest in the matter as have members of this Parliament, and probably are in a better position to make the distribution, because they are more closely in touch with the farmers, and are acquainted with the circumstances- that operate. In addition, they have the necessary machinery. This Parliament should trust to their making a prompt and a fair distribution, and should not hamper them too greatly by imposing restrictive conditions under the bill- I support the proposal which the measure embodies.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– I am glad that sufficient latitude has been wisely allowed to permit of our dealing to some extent with clause 27 in conjunction with clause 25, because it is impossible to consider the one fully without making some allusion to the other. I did not rise earlier to discuss the amendment that I have circulated - because that amendment is to be moved to clause 27; but in view of the fact that we are permitted to allude to that clause, I should like to make clear my position. It is necessary that we should understand at this stage the attitude of the Government towards my projected amendment, so that some’ of us may be able to determine the attitude that we ought to adopt towards the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin).

The first point that I make in connexion with clause 27 is that,, as it stands, the reference to reducing the cost of production of wheat obviously cannot relate to this year, for the simple reason that the cost of production of what has already been produced cannot be reduced. The next point that strikes one is that the clause as it stands apparently would not permit of the States using a portion of this grant to make concessions in con- nexion with railage or marketing, because those are really expenses incidental to marketing rather than production. Another point that has exercised the minds of some of us laymen, is what we believe to be the effect upon clause 27 of section 91 of the Constitution. As I read that section, it appears to prohibit a State from granting any aid or bounty , on the production or the export of any ‘ commodity, without the consent of both Houses of this Parliament as expressed in a resolution. I understand, however, from an explanation that has been given by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), that while bounties are prohibited in that way, aids to production are not, although in the section they are mentioned alongside bounties, and that as aids are not mentioned in any section of the Constitution in which a prohibition is imposed on a State in the matter of paying a bounty, a State is not prevented from giving aid to production or to the export of goods. The fear that it was so prevented was sufficient to account for the inclusion” of the words referring to section 91 of the Constitution in the amendment that I intend to move at the proper time. That amendment proposed to omit paragraphs a and b of clause 27, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following- words : -

Such methods as the respective States and the Commonwealth Treasurer approve; and this clause shall be deemed to be a resolution of the Commonwealth Parliament as referred to in section 91 of the Constitution.

I am now given to understand that it would be improper to insert the latter words, because a clause of a bill such as this cannot, so we are informed, be deemed to take the place of “ a resolution of the Commonwealth Parliament ‘as referred to in section 91 of the Constitution “. The effect of the amendment would be to free the States from the conditions set out in paragraphs a and b; but the Commonwealth Treasurer would still have the right to sanction any proposal advanced by the States, or to veto what he regarded as unreasonable. I, and many other members of the Country party consider that, as the Commonwealth Government does not propose that this shall be a direct Commonwealth grant of assistance to wheat-growers, but that the instrumentalities of the States shall be invoked, the States should be given a reasonably free hand and should not be hampered by conditions that may result in difficulty being encountered in one State, if not in another. It has to be recognized that in a continent the size of Australia, with varying conditions in the several wheat-growing States, a method that may prove most effective in one State may very well prove least effective in another. By clause 26 it is proposed to allocate certain definite amounts to the States. Having allocated those amounts, there seems to be no good reason why the States should not have- considerable latitude in determining the best means of distributing the money. It must be obvious to honorable members that the method which might best assist the wheat-growers in, say, South Australia or Tasmania, might not have similar results in New South Wales or Queensland. We recognize that certain objections can be raised to the Commonwealth handing over the money to the States without having a voice in its disbursement, and for that reason we now propose that the Commonwealth Treasurer shall have the right to sanction any proposal advanced. He is thus linked with the respective States. That, in my opinion, is a reasonable proposition, which surely overcomes any difficulty that the Government might otherwise apprehend. The reason for our desire to include the reference to section 91 of the Constitution was, that we feared that some arrangement, without constitutional authority, might be come to between the States and the Commonwealth Treasurer. We have now been informed that we cannot regard a clause of the bill as a resolution of the Commonwealth Parliament as referred to in section 91 of the Constitution. Having decided to eliminate those words from this amendment, we desire an assurance that the amended clause will constitute full authority to the States to adopt whatever methods may be agreed upon between the States and the Commonwealth Treasurer. Further, if such an arrangement should be made between the States and the Commonwealth Treasurer, and some doubt should in future arise as to its validity, will the Government be prepared to pass the necessary resolution in conformity with section 91 of the Constitution in order to validate it? If the Government will do as I suggest, we are prepared to oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and pin our faith to this amendment.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– I feel that I should be unfaithful to those engaged in the wheat-growing industry if I did not support the amendment moved by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin). I know that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but I do not think that the right honorable gentleman has submitted his amendment merely for party political purposes. He has been consistent in his endeavours to assist this great primary industry. In the second paragraph of his policy speech,’ the right honorable gentleman said that he supported -

The development of primary industries for the production of exportable wealth and an extension of Australian manufacturing to help to balance our external trade and to employ our own people as well as to maintain a larger population.

He further said -

I believe that the wheat-growing industry of all primary industries is one which will most readily respond to proposals for expansion.

About that time the right honorable gentleman was asking the wheat-growers to produce more wheat on the understanding that his Government would give the growers a guaranteed price. The Leader of the Opposition is, therefore, consistent when he asks the committee to treat this industry not from the view-point of individual growers, but as a national industry. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) says that the taxpayers’ money is involved. I remind the right honorable gentleman that Professor Copland said that the tariff increases the cost of wheat-growing by 16 per cent., which is equivalent to approximately 4d. a bushel on this year’s production. Surely the wheat-growers are entitled to more consideration from a Parliament which has imposed such heavy burdens upon them. The royal commission .which inquired into - the effect of our customs tariff on export industries also said that the tariff imposed a handicap of 9 per cent, upon export commodities. I remind the committee that during the last ten. years this industry ‘ has exported wheat and flour to the value of £24,000,000 per annum, and, as it is second only to the wool industry, it should be maintained on a- sound basis in the interests of the whole community. I cannot understand why the Government should adopt this pernickety attitude towards an industry of such magnitude. There has been no discrimination of this nature when bounties have been paid to other industries or when tariffs have been imposed. When a bounty is paid ou cotton, iron and steel, sulphur, wine, and other commodities, there has been no such discrimination. I notice that the Victorian Parliament is imposing a tax of 30s. a ton on flour which will give an additional 2½d. a bushel to the wheatgrowers of Victoria. If this Government were to impose a tax of 30s or 40s. a ton on flour, the price of bread would not be increased, but it would assist an industry which is exporting commodities to the value of £24,000,000 per annum. If immediate action is not taken, it will be exceedingly difficult for the industry to recover the ground which it has already lost. At present, wheat is bringing in New Zealand 6s., in Germany, 8s., inFrance, 7s., and in Italy, 9s. a bushel. In these circumstances, there is no reason why the price of Australian wheat should not be brought up to 5s. a bushel. When it was that price bread was not any dearer than it is to-day. It is the duty of the Government to arrange for an inquiry to be held into the unnecessarily high cost of bread. No farmers’ organization has asked for assistance in the direction which the Government proposes. When there was an agitation the other day with respect to the banana industry, the Government was stampeded to such an extent that it agreed to return to the growers the money collected in the form of a duty. A representative deputation of wheat-growers which waited upon the Prime Minister and other Ministers asked that there should be. no differentiation, and I, therefore, cannot understand why the Government should be opposed to the payment of a bounty. If farmers’ crops have been destroyed the loss will have to be covered by insurance, and, therefore, the number which the Government proposes to assist is small. Moreover, the cost involved in carrying out the Government’s proposals will be enormous, particularly as it will be necessary to establish an inquisitorial tribunal to determine what wheat-growers are to derive the benefit.

Mr Lane:

– A tribunal is already in existence.

Mr PROWSE:

– A tribunal was appointed to administer last year’s contribution to the industry, and that machinery, which is now available, has worked smoothly. The merchants and storekeepers who have been carrying the farmers for some time should also be considered. I intend to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and if that is negatived . I shall support the proposal of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson). I hope, therefore, that this Parliament will recognize the importance of this industry to every other industry, and, indeed, to every citizen in this country, and will make its contribution in a magnanimous and effective way, so far as £2,000,000 can be effective.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I shall oppose the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin). I can understand the psychological phenomenon which has caused a claim to be made for a bounty on wheat. It is the inevitable sequel to the policy that has been adopted by past governments. The farmers of Australia have seen manufacturing industries, and some primary industries, receive artificial protection by means of bounties, and it is only natural that, when the basic exporting industries of the country are in difficulties, they also should demand a bounty on production. That is a natural, if not a justifiable, claim on the part of men who are engaged in the great exporting industries of this country. At the . same time, we must recognize that, no matter how natural the demand is, it cannot, as a general principle, be acceded to. One only has to examine statistics to see that, apart altogether from the economic aspect of the proposal, it is utterly impossible to grant bounties in all instances in which a good case can be made out for assistance. I have prepared some figures comparing the average prices of certain commodities for the five years ended 1928-29, with the latest official statistics showing the prices today. The following table shows the drop in the prices of wheat and other primary products during the period mentioned: -

The average fall in the price of those commodities is- approximately 52 per cent., compared with 49 per cent, in the case of wheat. On that basis, we could make out just as strong a case for a bounty on wool, or tallow, or rabbit skins, or any other of the commodities mentioned, as for wheat. I agree with the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) that the provision df a bounty for those industries would be economically unsound. Nor do I suggest that we can expect a strict adherence to the canons of economic propriety on the part of any government. That has not been our experience during recent years. Governments seem to have been guided by expediency rather than by sound economic principles. It must be obvious that, no matter how strong a claim may be made out for a bounty on wheat, a much stronger claim could be made out for assistance to the wool industry. In saying that, I am not advocating a bounty on wool. The freight on wheat over the State railways of New South Wales is .75d. a ton per mile, whereas in the case of wool, it is 3d. a ton per mile. The production costs in the wool-growing industry are quite as high as in the wheat-growing industry, and the conditions under which the producers of wool labour are just as hard as those which affect the growers of wheat.

Mr Nock:

– The costs are less per acre.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– That is arguable. I submit that as strong a claim could be made out for wool as for wheat on that point. Assuming that the wool clip this year wil] amount to about 3,000,000 bales, the loss on production, according to the Wool Committee’s report, will be about £20,000,000. Since the Leader of the Opposition supports a bounty on wheat, I ask him whether he would also support a bounty on wool and sheepskins ; and if his reply in the latter case is in the affirmative, whether the bounty should be equal to the tax on sheepskins which his Government imposed.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bell).The honorable member is digressing.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– i submit that it is competent for me to follow the line of argument used by the Leader of the Opposition, and to show that if we attempt to carry out his argument to its logical conclusion, we must subsidize the production of tallow, rabbit skins, barley, and potatoes, all of which are natural primary industries, and are suffering just as much as the wool industry.

Those honorable gentlemen who strongly advocate a bounty on wheat seem to divide the wheat-farmers into two groups. The first group con-tains those better-off farmers who, by reason of their long association with the land, and the high degree of development of their properties, are able to carry on today at lower costs than are possible to others. The Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) seem to regard these oldestablished farmers, in good districts, close to railways, as the very paragons of piety, propriety and efficiency in the wheat-growing industry; while on the other hand, they regard the wheat-growers who are financially embarrassed as lazy, slovenly ruffians, whose only desire is to get something for nothing, and are not particular how they get it. I classify wheat-growers differently. Those who established themselves in the industry 25 or 30 years ago naturally picked out the best wheat-growing lands available. They settled close to railways, and were able to develop their properties at costs immeasurably lower than present day costs. They also had the advantage of high prices for wheat during and after the war period. Obviously, these old-established farmers are in a much stronger position than are men who, in more recent years, engaged in wheat-growing, as did hundreds of returned soldiers, on unsuitable land, in many cases away from railways, and developed their farms on a much higher cost basis than that of 25 or 30 years ago. Moreover, these more recent settlers while developing their farms have had to contend with a higher tariff wall as a result of which they have had to pay more for their implements and machinery and other requirements, and, in addition, they have paid much higher prices for their land. I submit that the Government is under a greater obligation to these men, particularly the returned soldiers among them, than it is to the men who have been a long time in the industry and working land better than that of those who have recently commenced wheat-growing. It is the duty of all governments to give these men special consideration. I remind those who strongly support a bounty on production that these small farmers, who to-day are financially embarrassed, are not dissolute men, inefficient, lazy and slovenly. Inefficiency in production in any industry can result as easily from a lack of working capital as from other causes, and lack of capital has largely been the. cause of the unhappy position in which these small farmers find, themselves to-day. I, therefore, stress the inadvisability of granting the wheat-farmers assistance in the form of a bounty on production over which the government would have no control. If the money is allocated to tha farmers according to their individual merits,, there will be an infinitely better chance of its being spent wisely, in a way approved by the governmental authorities, and in the best interests of the industry and of the Commonwealth.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.I expressed my views on this measure in my second reading-speech, and1 shall, therefore, not delay the ‘ committee with repetition. I appreciate the Government’s recognition, of the need of the wheat-growers of this country, and for that reason I do not propose to give harrowing details of their serious plight. Their condition has been recognized by the Government, which has agreed to make available £2,000,000 for their relief. I desire, however, to refer to the method by which the £2,000,000 proposed to be made available for the assistance of wheat-growers is to be distributed. I appreciate that the Government has changed its original policy, and that the money is to be allocated on a different basis from that at first intended.

I differ from the Government in regard to the method of its allocation. Personally, I prefer a bounty, and I recognize that if the assistance is granted on an export basis, the farmers, in the aggregate, will receive the greatest possible benefit from the limited amount available. We have, however, reached the stage when the crops are being harvested, and it is now too late, in these last days of the session, to turn the bill back on the Government, and ask that it be reconsidered. I prefer to take what is available rather than chance what might happen, if the bill were rejected and another measure not brought before us until next February. I object to the policy enunciated by government supporters with regard to the policy of discrimination. I put it to the committee that the Government is dealing, not with individuals, but with an industry that is in urgent need of assistance. I recognize that, if assistance is given in the form of a bounty, anomalies will creep in, but I challenge the Government to submit any other proposal for the distribution of this money that will be free from this objection. In South Australia this year, large areas of wheat are affected by rust. Last year, a considerable number of farmers in New South Wales suffered in the same way, with the result that their returns were comparatively light. In some cases also, crops were entirely destroyed by fire. If the bounty were provided on an export basis this year, farmers who suffer in that way would not participate, and the anomalies would ‘ be repeated. It should be noticed that there is no reference in the bill as to how the money is to be applied. There is a suggestion that it may be used to reduce the cost of production, but it is rather strange to talk about reducing production costs in respect of crops that have been already stripped. If the assistance is to be given towards production costs of next year’s crop, the subsidy should be on an acreage basis, and the Government should also adopt the suggestion made by one of our members and allow the money to be applied towards reducing rail freights. Used in that way, it would be of general , assistance, and we would welcome an assurance from the

Government that such an arrangement should be permitted. But we wished to go further. Our desire, was that, if the Government declined to consider the bounty proposal, the money should be transferred to the States for allocation in a manner to be determined by State governments. I have received hundreds of telegrams and letters urging the members of the Country party to fight for this proposal to the last ditch. It has been contended that section 91 of the Constitution precludes assistance being given to any industry in the form of a bounty unless resolutions dealing with the matter have been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and despite the assurance from the Government that the course now proposed is constitutional, we are, I think, justified in favouring the railway policy of “ safety first “. Accordingly, we ask that this provision be validated by the submission of resolutions in both Houses of the Parliament. A rebate on railway freights would really be equivalent to a bounty on production, because nearly all wheat marketed is transported by rail either to local mills or to the seaboard for shipment overseas. If the rebate were fixed at 2d. a bushel all round, it would be practically the same as a bounty of 2d. on production. If, however, it were fixed on a percentage basis of 20 or 30 per cent., the rebate would be more advantageous to the farmers in the more remote areas. “Wheat-farming methods vary in the different States. In South Australia, for example, a great quantity of the wheat is conveyed by the farmers direct to the seaports. Consequently, there is very good reason why State governments should be allowed to determine the manner in which the money should be allocated in the best interests of the growers. I admit that the Government is justified in asking that it should bc distributed in such a way as to maintain production, because the continuity of the wheat industry is vital to the future of the Commonwealth, but obviously it is impossible for our farmers to continue with costs at their present level. For this reason, assistance in the form of cash would be exceedingly welcome.

Objections have been raised to the proposed sales tax on flour. Some honorable members complain that it would mean an increase of the price of bread to the workers on the basic wage and to the unemployed. I would,, however, point out that such a contention is absurd, as there is only one pennyworth of wheat in a loaf of bread when wheat is 2s. 6d. a bushel; so “the proposed sales tax on flour would represent an addition of l-15th of a penny to the cost of the family loaf, and, as the average household uses about eleven loaves a week, the burden of the sales tax would not add more than Id. per week to the household bread bill. From this, it is clear that opponents of the sales tax are really making a mountain out of a molehill. The Government is most inconsistent. It agrees to allocate the money on a production basis to the various States, but objects to the States distributing it on a production basis to farmers within those States.

Mr Latham:

– It was on that basis from the beginning.

Mr Scullin:

– No; at the outset the Government proposed to assist farmers in the purchase of fertilizers.

Mr NOCK:

– The Government is dealing with a national industry, and it should treat our wheat producers as it treats our secondary industries, ‘ which receive assistance through the tariff or by means of bounties. There is no justification whatever for assisting the wheat industry on a different basis. The States should have complete freedom in the distribution of this money, because cash assistance is vital to thousands of our farmers.’” It is stated that 6,000 farmers in New South Wales have given liens to the Rural Industries Board on their crops, and, in addition, many have also given liens to country storekeepers and machinery firms, so that the assistance will go to the lienee if the money i3 used for rebates on rail freights.

Mr Scullin:

– It would’ be difficult to give direct assistance to the growers if the money were paid on export production.

Mr NOCK:

– I recognize that; but, if that were done, they would receive more. Every industry appears to have got into this vicious circle, and is seeking bounties, or some other form of assistance. The position of the wheat-growers is extremely grave. Their industry cannot be allowed to crash. It is held that the Government is partly responsible for present high costs in. our primary industries. I agree with that statement. About eighteen months ago the Commonwealth Government was offering 6 per cent, interest on money at the Treasury. Consequently, private banks which were financing rural industries were forced to base their overdraft rates on those offered by the Government, plus working expenses and profit. When a deputation representing rural interests waited on the principal bankers of New South Wale3 to ask for a reduction of the rate, a definite promise was given that if the Commonwealth Government would reduce the- Treasury rate by 1 per cent, there would be an immediate reduction of overdraft rates charged by the banks. It is, therefore, clear that competition by the Commonwealth Government for money to carry on its activities has helped to raise interest rates against Australian industries. High tariffs have been an additional, handicap.It is estimated that the existing tariff on commodities required by our farmers means an increase of the production cost of wheat by at least ‘4d. a bushel. In 1893 wheat was ls. 9d. a bushel, but fanners then were in a much better position to recover because costs’ of production were not anything like on the present scale. I hope that the Government will adopt the proposal made by the Country v party, and that this ‘money will be transferred unconditionally to the States, which should determine the method of its distribution. If provision for this is not made, we may have to consider taking other action, even to the extent of supporting the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I assure the committee that the Government is not unresponsive to those different views that have been expressed in this debate. It may be complained in some quarters that the Government has changed its proposals. If this be true it at least indicates that the Ministry has approached the consideration of this question with an open mind in its desire to seek the best solution of an exceedingly difficult problem. The proposal now made by tlie Government is that a sum of money should be made available for the assistance of wheat-farmers, and another sum for the purpose of subsidizing* the purchase of fertilizer’s. The wheat-farmers are stronger numerically than any other agricultural producers in Australia, and they are able to bring more pressure to bear than other agriculturists. Accordingly, there ha3 been a very strong movement to obtain all the money for the wheat-farmers, as was the case last year. The Government does not think that that . is a proper course to adopt, and, accordingly, proposes the division which is made in the bill, under which other primary producers than wheat-farmers will receive very greatly needed benefits. The proposal in the bill, so far as wheat-farmers are concerned, is that the money shall be paid to- the States. The States will then spend it for the benefit and assist- ance of wheat-growers by reducing the cost of the production of wheat, which is surely the thing at which everybody who speaks on behalf of the Country party, at least,” professes to aim. Yet when it is offered, it is said that it is impossible to do it for this season or next season. Secondly, the bill provides for the needs of individual wheat-growers, but not on the basis of the’ quantity of wheat produced by individual, growers. The Government announced some time ago, when it was understood that the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) was proposing to move a particular amendment, that it would accept that amendment. The Government, I understand, was informed that it was to be an amendment for the purpose of making it clear that the phrase “ the cost of production “ either included, or should be made to include, “ the cost of transport and marketing of wheat “. The Government is prepared to accept that proposal and, indeed, itself, to put it into the bill, so that the paragraph would read, “Reducing the cost of production of wheat, including the cost of transport and marketing “. With that addition, the Government proposes that the method by which the money is distributed shall be determined by the States subject only to provisions which surely are wide enough to cover almost anything which, up to the present, has been suggested from any quarter, except the bounty basis under which money is paid into the hands of the wheat-growers in proportion to the quantity of wheat they happen to grow this season. The methods permitted by the bill would allow of assistance in relation to the railage or other transport of any wheat by sea or land, would help in marketing, would help towards providing superphosphate, seed or fallow, and would also afford relief generally to farmers on any basis other than a mere mass quantity basis Our experience last year must have convinced many honorable members that in the case of the wheat industry, at a time of difficulty, the bounty basis is unsound and unjust to the rest of the community. The bounty is paid irrespective of the needs or requirements of the recipient. Speaking generally, the less the need - that is to say, the bigger the crop - the greater is the payment made.

Mr Hill:

– Not necessarily.

Mr.LATHAM. - Of course not. I particularly said that I am speaking generally. In South Australia, on this occasion, crops which were expected to produce 13 bushels to the acre are returning only 3 bushels, on account of red rust, take-all and other diseases. These farmers would receive from a bounty payment according to the number of bushels they produce ; and they are good farmers in good farming areas. They are not in poor agricultural areas where it may be a question of whether it is desirable and economic to carry on wheat-farming at all. A bounty basis also pays no attention to the variations in price in the States as between Queensland and Tasmania and the rest of Australia. All honorable members know how great are those variations. Putting the matter shortly, the number of bushels is no measure of the needs of the individual, nor can distribution of the money upon the basis of the number of bushels produced by an individual be any measure of the general wisdom of the distribution made. Every conceivable means has been used for the purpose of forcing the Government to introduce a bounty and a payment of cash to the farmers. The’ methods of argument and persuasion used in this chamber are perfectly justifiable.

There have been indications that other methods may be attempted in some parts of Australia; but the Government is not prepared to yield to methods of that description. The latest method which is used here, and which honorable members who believe in it are entitled to use, if they think proper, is to be found in the proposal of the honorable member for Gippsland. That is a . proposal that the conditions laid down in clause 27 should be struck out and that the matter should be left to agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of the States, there being an assurance from this Government, if necessary, that provision would be made for the passage through Parliament of the necessary resolutions to enable the States to expend the money granted upon a bounty basis.

Mr Paterson:

– We did not say that at all.

Mr Gibson:

– On an agreement basis between the Commonwealth and the States.

Mr LATHAM:

– The honorable member for Gippsland asked for an assurance from the Government that, if necessary, action would be taken to prevent section 91 of the Constitution interfering with any agreed scheme.

Mr Paterson:

– Exactly.

Mr LATHAM:

– That is all I wish to say on that point. There is only one objective in that, namely, to make it possible for the Commonwealth and the States to agree upon a bounty basis.

Mr Paterson:

– That is not my objective.

Mr Nock:

– The Treasurer would have the right under the bill to veto any State scheme.

Mr LATHAM:

– That is so. The only object of including any reference to section 91 of the Constitution must be to make it possible for the Commonwealth and the States to agree upon a bounty being paid by the States.

Mr Hawker:

– Are we to understand that section 91 is not a bar to a State making a payment as an aid to production in any other form than on a bounty basis?

Mr LATHAM:

– So I read it, but when I compare section 91 with other relevant sections, such as section 51, I admit that I am not very clear in my mind as to the distinction between” aid to “ and “ bounty on “ production. The distinction is drawn in the Constitution, but is not explained in it. We all know well enough what a bounty on the production or export of goods means, and there can be no such bounty paid by the States, except in the case of mining and precious metals, without resolutions of both Houses of the Parliament. But there is not, in terms, any similar prohibition of aid to the production or export of goods.

Mr Scullin:

– If a. State were to distribute the money in cash on the basis of individual needs, would that be “ aid “ and would that action be barred under section 91?

Mr LATHAM:

– Itwould not be prohibited by the Constitution. It is important to realize that the prohibiting section of the Constitution is section 90, not section 91. Section 91 is a facultative or permissive section. Section 90 provides that upon the imposition of uniform duties of customs, the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament to grant bounties on the production or export of gpo.ds shall become exclusive. That is the section which prevents the State from granting bounties, but there is no provision which prevents a State granting “aids,” whatever they may mean. Section 91 says that there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a State, . itself, in the case of gold, silver, or other metals,, granting a bounty, and in the case of other goods a bounty upon or aid to the production or export of goods with the consent of both Houses of this Parliament.

Mr Scullin:

– Could the Commonwealth Government make a grant of 4d. a bushel to the State?

Mr LATHAM:

– That would be a bounty, and, as such, would be prohibited. The object of the reference to section 91 is obviously to make it possible for the State to pay a bounty which otherwise would be prohibited. The Government is not prepared to give any assurance of that description ; it is not prepared to accept the proposal that this matter shall be left to be determined by agreement, without any prescription of conditions in the bill, so, that those who have not the same direct responsibility as the Commonwealth Parliament, which provides the money, would be in a position to bring pressure to bear on the Government, and place the complete responsibility upon it for refusing to do what the most influential section of the wheat-growers might desire it to do. Accordingly, I conclude by saying that the Government is prepared to insert an explicit provision that the cost of production includes costs of transport and marketing; it is prepared to submit that to the committee and take the committee’s judgment upon it ; but it is not prepared to abandon the condition which will prevent the distribution being on the same sort of basis as last year - a bounty upon production or export.

Mr Hawker:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral assure the committee that sections 90 and 91 would not preclude the States from paying a subsidy on acreage or fallow?

Mr LATHAM:

– That I regard as perfectly clear. Out of this money, the States would be able to aid wheatfarmers in any way they thought proper except by the method of a bounty.

Mr Hawker:

– And without asking the Treasurer’s permission ?

Mr LATHAM:

– Without asking any permission of the Treasurer. There would be complete freedom, to the exclusion only,, as, provided in the clause,, of payment “upon the basis of wheat produced by individual wheat-growers.”

Mr McBRIDE:
South Australia

– In view of the assurance given by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) I feel quite clear in my own mind that the desires of not only the Country party, butalso all honorable members who have the interests of the wheat-growers at heart, are met. Consequently, I am quite certain that the amendment proposed to be inserted by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) will be brought into conformity with the wishes of the Government in this regard. I desire to make my position quite clear. When speaking on the second reading, I was under the impression that the amendment to be moved by the honorable member for Gippsland would be in conformity with what has been stated by the Attorney-General.

In consequence of that, I should have lent, my support to his proposal; but I realize now that I can support neither the proposal of the honorable member for Gippsland nor the amendment of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), the special purpose of which is to ensure the payment of a bounty on wheat. I am in entire agreement with the attitude of the Government. While a bounty might be an easier method of distribution, it would not give the relief that is necessary in certain quarters. I do not agree with the statement of the Leader of- the Opposition that, because the cost of production is lower than the price realized for wheat, the biggest producers are losing the most. That contention will not stand analysis. On account of seasonal conditions, or other factors, one man with a 500-acre block may reap a crop of 10 bags to the acre, a total of 5,000 bags, whereas another with a less fortunate experience may reap only 4,000, 3,000, 2,000, or even 1,000 bags. The cost per bag of producing that 1,000 bags, I suggest, would be infinitely greater than that of producing the 5,000 bags. Consequently, it would not be equitable to assist equally per bushel the two wheatgrowers.

That illustration affords a real reason for the abandonment of the bounty method of distribution, and on that account T definitely ally myself with the Government in its determination to disallow what to my mind is an extreme method of distributing the money available. That remark applies, also, to a method of assisting only necessitous farmers. I do not suggest that all men who have low yields are inefficient. I agree entirely with the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John’ Lawson) that there are circumstances over which a wheat-grower has no control, be he as efficient as he may. If necessitous circumstances only were considered, the efficient farmer who received a certain return would get nothing. But midway between those two extreme methods is a third by which we should endeavour to have the money distributed. Under the present proposal of the. Government, .the whole of these cases will be . met.

A good deal has been said concerning the distribution of this money. It has been suggested in certain quarters that, because of the disallowance by the Government of a bounty on production, many wheat-growers will go out of business. I point out, however, that the total amount to be allocated to the wheatgrowing industry is only £2,000,000 ; and as, according to the latest figures, there are 75,000 wheat-growers in this country, the average receipt, if all participated, would be less than £27 each. Therefore, it is rather an exaggeration to say that the withholding of such an amount would cause widespread insolvency. I do not suggest that £27 would not be of some assistance; but the very fact that the amount is so small is of itself evidence of the unlikelihood of wholesale insolvency resulting from its being withheld. It is incumbent upon the Government to apply the best possible method of distribution, and to give relief where it is most needed, and that will be done under the present proposals. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) has argued that necessitous cases should be met by the States., It is perfectly well known that in South Australia, at all events, necessitous farmers are assisted by the State Government in the form of loans, which are repayable to the Government. The assistance now proposed takes the form of a grant, and is outside the category of a loan to which,., from the point of view of assisting the farmer who is in necessitous circumstances, it is infinitely preferable. A State government cannot assist other than by way of a loan unless, as is being done in some- of’ the States, the money is raised by means of a flour tax. In South Australia, where the export proportion is large compared with the amount required for home consumption, a substantial flour tax would be needed each year to yield any considerable sum. A State, particularly South Australia - and I suggest also Western Australia - cannot- undertake that responsibility. Consequently, it is to the Commonwealth Government that the farmers must look for relief. If the £2,000,000 that is to be allocated, were raised by such a means it would not be a charge upon either the State or the farmer in years to come. I realize that last year, when the claim of the wheat-growers for assistance was urged, the government of the day was in a difficult financial position, and did what was best in the circumstances. But I strongly deprecate a statement made for political propaganda purposes that the price of wheat was then 9d. a bushel higher than it is to-day. It was then proposed to make it a condition that no bounty should be payable when the price of wheat exceeded 3s. a bushel. Therefore, it is not a fact that the then Government was prepared to pay the bounty on a price 9d. a bushel higher than now obtains. As the assurance has been given that the States may give assistance in any form, except on a direct bounty basis, the wishes of the Country party are met, and I hope that the members of that party will support the proposal of the Government.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– I had not the pleasure of listening to the whole of the remarks of the honorable member for Grey (Mi-. McBride), but his concluding statement, that the Country party should be satisfied with the assurance of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) that the States will have an absolutely free hand to use this money in any way thought fit, except on the basis of a bounty upon production, is not only illogical, but also rather absurd. It amounts to this, that we are asked to support every proposal except the one that we favour; to subscribe to the intention of the Government to hand the money to the States free from all conditions except that to which we object, whereas we contend, that the money shall be distributed on a fair and equitable basis to all growers, necessitous and non-necessitous, on the assumption that every person engaged in the production of wheat is operating on a losing basis.

Mr Stewart:

– The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) did not say that.

Mr THOMPSON:

– From my knowledge of the honorable member, that is the view that he takes.. I do not believe that he differentiates between the socalled necessitous and non-necessitous wheat-growers.

Mr Hill:

– They are all necessitous.

Mr THOMPSON:

– It is well that we should be clear as to where we actually stand in this controversy. Stripped of all argument, our case, in a nutshell, is that to-day all wheat-growers, large and small, are losing money in the production of wheat, and are entitled to any assistance that the Commonwealth is able to provide. That is not only the starting point but also the concluding point of the whole of our argument, and everything else revolves round it. We should rather stultify ourselves if we accepted the proposition of the Attorney-General that, so long as the States have a free hand to do everything except what we want them to do, we should be perfectly satisfied. It is not possible for us to accept such a proposition. As the representative of many thousands of wheatgrowers in northern New South Wales, I certainly cannot accept it.

Mr Lane:

– Can the honorable member not trust the Country party in the New South Wales Parliament?

Mr THOMPSON:

– We are quite prepared to trust the New South Wales Government, irrespective of the part that the Country party plays in it. But we are endeavouring to help that government by preventing its being drawn into an arrangement that is absolutely unworkable. We are fighting to give the State Governments a chance to handle the business on behalf of the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth is tying their hands before handing the money to them. I do not know whether honorable members have seen in the press during the last few days references to the fact that certain State Governments, particularly those of New South Wales and Victoria, do not see how they can carry out the stipulation of the Commonwealth that the money shall be distributed in any way except in the form of assistance to production.

Mr Lane:

– What did the honorable member for Calare say?

Mr. -THOMPSON.- I did not hear the speech of the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), but I think that I know his views upon this subject. I do not think that that honorable member suggests that it will be easy to determine who are necessitous farmers. Every one knows that it will be very difficult indeed. Has there been any suggestion as to how a selection is to be made? I disagree with the honorable member for Calare if he said that it will be a simple matter.

Mr Holman:

– I think that he said that it was possible.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Then a reservation is attached to the honorable member’s proposal. It is a question of time and of - the expense to be involved. We have been informed that some Government officials who have been investigating this proposition have said that it would take the best part of a year to establish an efficient organization and to distribute the money to purely necessitous cases. I admit that the honorable member for Calare knows a good deal concerning the wheat industry; he has been a Minister for Agriculture in a New South Wales government. I have been associated with the politics of New South Wales for many years, and I have never known of any scheme proposed by the parliament of that State under which governmental assistance has been given to purely necessitous cases after examination of aU the persons associated with a whole industry. The attitude of this party is that it cannot accept the Government’s proposition to hand out money in such a way that it will be payable under every condition excepting that which appears to us as reasonable. We wish the money to be paid to the wheat-growers on an equitable basis. I am not a wheat-grower, but I know the attitude of the wheatgrowers on this subject, and I have received many telegrams and letters from them stating most unequivocally what they desire, and I am now merely plac- ing their views before the committee. As I represent one of the largest wheatgrowing areas in New South Wales, I have a right to speak on behalf of tho wheat-growers in that State. The representatives of wheat-grow.ers’ organizations and individual wheat-growers have said that any scheme to single out a certain class of so-called necessitous farmers, will cause a good deal of friction and illwill, and, in their opinion, will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to administer. The honorable member for Macquarie dealt with the general principle of bounties and quoted some interesting figures from which he drew certain deductions with which I totally disagree. He said that the decline in wheat prices since 1928 had been equal to 49 per cent., and that with respect to certain other primary commodities such as wool, tallow, hides and so on, the decline had been 52 per cent. He contended that if a bounty were paid on wheat it would a*so be fair to pay a bounty on the other commodities I have mentioned, and this, he said, would be preposterous.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I said that it would be impossible.

Mr THOMPSON:

– It is not generally recognized that all such industries aire entitled to some form, of bounty which they are now receiving through the exchange rate. The exchange rate has been kept up to 25 per cent, or 30 per cent, for practically two years as a part of our national policy. We are asked why we should single out wheat for this special form of financial assistance? There is no analogy between the economic position of the wheat industry and that of many of the industries mentioned by the honorable member. Wheat is what may be termed a bread-and-butter industry. It is perhaps the largest employer of rural labour in Australia. Hon.orable members know that many towns depend almost solely upon its prosperity, and that such towns are vastly different from those which depend upon the wool industry, or the dairying industry, or any other form of primary production. If the wheat industry suffers a severe reverse farmers begin to go bankrupt, and there is an immediate financial crash in the town in which they do their business. It is easy to render financial assistance to the wheat-growers by way of a bounty as was done last year, and by that means give those towns depending on the wheatgrowers a chance to survive a temporary crisis and to struggle along until the general economic conditions improve. The danger which applies to the wheat industry does not exist in connexion with other industries; it is most acute with respect to wheat. If there is a sudden collapse and the wheat-growers are unable to pay their debts, country towns immediately become affected with economic paralysis.

Mr Maxwell:

– Why should that he so?

Mr THOMPSON:

– My experience during the last 25 years has shown that although they are immediately affected by a sudden depression, they also respond more rapidly. Moreover, most of the farmers are being carried by the storekeepers, who, in turn, are being financially assisted by the wholesale merchants. The country stores provide a good deal of employment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– As a city representative, I have been deeply interested in the arguments adduced by the representatives of the Country party with respect to the proposed appropriation of £2,000,000 for the relief of necessitous wheat-growers. I have the greatest sympathy with primary producers generally, but I feel that it is impossible for me to support thepayment of a bounty on the production of wheat. I was impressed by the arguments of the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson), particularly with reference to the possibilities, in certain circumstances, of bounties being paid to other industries almost indefinitely. Unfortunately, some industries appear to regard the Government as the executive of some charitable institution. By. their action, in seeking bounties and bonuses in various directions, they are making Australia appear as a mendicant country. Individually, the people are asking for the dole, and collectively, they are seeking high protective duties on all Australian manufactures, and are asking for State grants and the like. If we persist in a policy of paying bounties and bonuses, we are likely to sap the virility of the nation. I am pleased that the Government is standing firm with respect to the allocation of this money. It is necessary that the States, and the States only, should decide how to relieve their necessitous wheat-growers. It should be remembered that the wheatgrowers are subsidized to a remarkable extent through the existing rate of exchange. In 1931-32 the wheat exported from Australia was valued at £19,000,000, and on the basis of the present rate of exchange, the wheat-growers have re ceived an extra £5,000,000. The estimated yield this year is immense, and, therefore, the wheat-growers will receive a subsidy of equal magnitude. Yet, in addition to that, they are to receive 90 per cent. of the total relief to be granted to the necessitous farmers. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), in answer to an interjection, said that the States should look after necessitous wheat-farmers. I should like to ask the honorable member if the States are not under an obligation to other primary producers. The wheat-farmer has, as I have said, already received an additional £5,000,000 through the exchange rate, and is now to receive another £2,000,000. Last year the percentage of wheat exported from Australia, compared with the total production, was as follows: -

The balance was consumed locally. If a bounty were paid on the quantity exported, obviously Tasmania and Queensland would receive nothing. I submit that the necessitous primary producers in those States should receive some consideration. They are just as rauch in need of assistance as are farmers in the other States. Under the present Government’s scheme, New South Wales farmers will receive one-fifth of the grant of £2,000,000, but with an export bounty they would take from the other States 68 per cent. of the total grant which it is now proposed those States shall have. In his second-reading speech, the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. McClelland) said that the price of wheat to-day is 9d. a bushel less than when the bounty was given last year, and he urged that as a reason why a bounty should be paid again this year. His comparison between the price of wheat when the bounty was paid and the present price may be correct, but it is not if a comparison is made between the present-day price and that which obtained when the bounty was decided on last year. On the 10th September, 1931, when the f.o.b. price of wheat was 2s. 2d. a bushel, a conference of Premiers agreed to the payment of a bounty of 6d. a bushel on -wheat exported. The way the resolution was framed made it clear that if the price of wheat reached 3s. a bushel, no bounty was to be paid.

Mr Hill:

– Does the honorable member know what “ f.o.b.” means?

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Yes. “ F.o.b. “ means free on board, or all expenses paid up to shipment, and if the honorable member will study the report of the discussion which took place at the Premiers Conference he will find that my statement is accurate. The price of wheat to-day is 2s. 10½d. a bushel, which is Sid. a bushel more than it was on the 19th September, 1931, when the conference agreed to provide a bounty.

Mr McClelland:

– I shall put the honorable member right presently.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The arguments of members of the Country party lead us nowhere, because they proceed in circles.

Mr. A. Green continuing to interject despite frequent calls to order,

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) must apologize for his offence in not regarding the order of the Chair.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I do so willingly.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The honorable member’s heat is evidence . that my remarks have been effective. Because of the difficulties which were encountered, the bounty was later reduced from 6d. to 4£d. a bushel on all wheat sold or delivered for sale.

A bounty on production makes for inequality of distribution. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) referred to a hailstorm which destroyed his crop on one occasion, and the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) mentioned that rust or “ take-all “ sometimes destroys one man’s crop, while not affecting other crops in the same district. These things show how a bounty on production would operate inequitably. The Government is wise in leaving to the States the settlement of problems peculiar to them, and, in my opinion, it is wise also in making it clear that this assistance shall be granted only to necessitous cases. I agree with the Government’s proposals, and shall support them.

Mr MCCLELLAND:
Wimmera

– As a statement which I made in my second-reading speech has been challenged by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. e. J. Harrison), I shall repeat it for his benefit. I said then, and I now repeat, that the price of wheat to-day is 9d. a bushel less than it was when the bounty was agreed to last year. The honorable member also said that the granting of bounties was sapping the virility of the people of this country. I invite him to accompany me to any of the wheat-growing areas of Australia, where I should be happy to introduce him to numbers of men who have lost none, of their virility. Tho manner in which they have faced the difficulties of the last three years is ample evidence of that. The honorable gentleman represents a suburban electorate, and evidently his outlook has been circumscribed by his restricted environment. Were he to go out more into the broad spaces, his outlook on national questions might broaden.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– It might become as broad as the outlook of the Country party on the question of tobacco.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Personal references are provoking, and should not be indulged in.

Mr Mcclelland:

– Nothing that has happened during the last three years has so disheartened the wheat-growers of this country as has the dilatoriness of the Government in coming to the support of this national industry. About a month ago, the Government put forward a proposal which gave the wheat-growers of Australia the greatest shock they had received for many years. They had been encouraged to believe that a sympathetic Government would not allow them to continue to attempt to produce wheat for which they would receive only one-half or two-thirds of the cost of production. They had not forgotten the promise made to them by the leader of a former government, when he appealed, to them to produce more wheat. I do not know why that appeal should have been made to those engaged in the wheat industry any more than to those engaged in many other industries. It takes a wheat-farmer twelve months to produce a crop, whereas other Australian industries which have received millions of pounds by way of bounties could have produced their products and exported them within a month or two. Why was no appeal made to them?

Mr Scullin:

– There was no market for their products.

Mr MCCLELLAND:

– When that appeal was made, the wheat-growers were encouraged to believe that, if they responded to it, they would not be the losers. That appeal was made by a government led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) who has moved this amendment - an amendment which I intend to support. Honorable members know what the wheat-growers received for that crop. The following year they received a bounty of 4½d. a bushel, and <as no pronouncement of an alteration of policy was made by the present Government, they naturally expected that a similar bounty would be paid again this year. It came as a great shock to th:-..r, bo find that this Government did nothing until, altogether too late, it introduced the proposal contained in this bill. The relief possible under this belated proposal cannot be so effective as it would have been had it come some months earlier. The £2,000,000 which the Government proposes to make available to assist the wheat-growing industry would have accomplished infinitely more for the industry had. it been granted ns an export bounty, instead of in the way now proposed. The dilatoriness of the Government has caused wheat-growers to doubt whether the Government realizes the value of their industry to the nation.

Mr PROWSE:

– It does not.

Mr MCCLELLAND:

– A realization of the Government’s lack of appreciation of the value of the wheat-growing industry has done more to dishearten the wheat-growers of this country than any drought could have done. I predict that many years will elapse before anything like the crops of the last three years, will again be produced in Australia. Why should the wheat-growers be expected to continue to produce wheat at a loss ? The honorable member for Wentworth asked why the wheat-growing industry should be assisted in preference to other industries? I reply that were it not for the wheat and wool industries, there would be no other industries in this country. For the last three years,- the wheat-growers have not received for their crop anything like the cost of production, and, therefore, I have consistently advocated the payment of a bounty to them. I have no compunction about advocating a bounty on production, particularly when I reflect that the assistance given by the Commonwealth to many other industries has been largely at the expense of the unsheltered primary industries of Australia. It was inevitable that sooner or later, these great industries would have to ask for assistance. I assure the committee that it affords me no pleasure to apply for assistance on behalf of the wheat-growers whom I represent; nor is it any pleasure to those engaged in the industry to ask that representations be made on their behalf ; ‘ nevertheless, I have no compunction in asking that these people, who are carrying on an essential industry, shall at least be paid a bounty of 2-ld. a bushel, and further that they should be granted sufficient assistance to enable them to cover production costs.

Mr Holman:

– Is the honorable member urging a larger total amount?

Mr MCCLELLAND:

– If the wheatgrowers cannot get at least the cost of production they cannot carry on, and if the export industries of Australia are not able to realize more for their products than it costs to produce then, Australia, itself, cannot carry on. That is the position in a nutshell.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) referred to the cost of production and quoted from certain returns furnished by the Auditor-General for South Australia, showing that a few of the wheat-growers in that State had been able to meet their obligations. Why did the honorable gentleman lay emphasis on that point, excepting to endeavour to make out a case, for discrimination between one wheatgrower and another? Why should not all the wheat-growers be able to meet their obligations? If they cannot do so, Australia cannot meet her obligations.

A good deal has been said about the necessity for the Premiers plan. That plan was necessary because those engaged in OUt export industries could not make ends meet. This inability on the part of our export industries to make end3 meet has been the chief cause of all our difficulties. Until that difficulty has been overcome this country will not get back to prosperity. Referring again to production costs. I remind the committee that three or four months ago, when urging the Government to take action in the interests of our export industries, I asked the then Minister for Commerce (Mr. Hawker) what action it proposed to take to put them on at least a costs basis. The reply given by the honorable gentleman who, I presume, stated the policy of the Ministry at the time, was that the Government intended to adhere to the plan recommended by the economic committee to the Premiers Conference in April last. Two of the principal recommendations of that committee were that the tariff wail be reduced, and that the exchange position be managed in some way so as to increase prices. In this bill, wo have another proposal for reducing costs, but I desire now to know if this Government has anysettled policy of reducing eosts of production, or is it merely indulging in a wild gamble that prices may rise. The Government has handed over the tariff to the Tariff Board, and. has left the exchange position to be controlled by the Commonwealth Bank. I have no particular objection to either body, but I should like to know if this Government really has a policy with regard to these important matters. Obviously, we must get away from the payment of bounties to industry. Such expedients will never get us anywhere. In these matters, we have been putting the cart before the horse for the last quarter ofa century, and the policy must sooner or later break down under its own weight. Because the wheat industry has been contributing more than its share of the bounties paid to other industries it has been forced to seek assistance for itself, and, consequently, the proposal for a wheat bounty has become a hardy annual, this being the third occasion, upon which we have discussed this form of assistance to our wheat-growers. Nobody has ever been able to say authoritatively what really is the cost of wheat production in Australia. Two years ago, according to the Attorney-General, it was 4s. 9d. a bushel, and although prices then were higher than now, our wheat- farmers were not able to pay their way. Clearly, there is urgent need for the appointment of a committee to inquire into all phases of the wheat industry with a view to placing it on a costs basis. If we do not get our two major industries, wheat and wool, on at least such a basis, our last stage will be worse than our first.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I agree with practically all that was said by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. McClelland) with regard to the difficulties of our wheat-growers. He mentioned particularly the excessively high costs of material and services required by our farmers and graziers, and the urgent need for reducing them. A real and permanent solution of our farmers’ troubles can only be achieved through some better relation of costs to prices received for their products. At the moment, we should consider, not the long view, but the more direct problem of assisting our wheat-farmers so that they will be able to carry the nation through next year. We have available the sum of £2,000,000 for assistance, and I am delighted to know that it is being provided out of revenue in spite of what has been said about the probable increase of treasury-bills. Although it may be necessary to increase the issue in the early part of the year, I feel sure that there will be sufficient revenue, during the twelve months, to cover the expenditure contemplated. The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has moved an amendment, the effect of which, if carried, would be to apply this £2,000,000 in the form of a bounty, as was the case last year. There is in that proposal a suggestion that more treasury-bills shall be used to increase the amount, although the right honorable gentleman was not very explicit on that point.

Mr Scullin:

– I would not have been in order if I had mentioned it.

Mr HAWKER:

– Apparently, I have correctly interpreted the intention of the right honorable gentleman. The Government’s proposal is that the money shall be distributed according to the needs and local circumstances in the different States with the widest possible choice of alternatives, excepting the pay- ment of a straight-out bounty on a bushel basis. Then we have the amended scheme mentioned by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson). That gives the Government an opporunity to save its face, for while it does not suggest that the money shall be made available in the form of a bounty on a bushel basis, it is open to outside interests to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to enable the money to be distributed on that basis in certain circumstances. I intend to support the Government’s proposal. As this is an emergency measure, and is not offered as a permanent solution of the difficulties which confront our wheat-growers, I do not consider that a bounty on a bushel basis will give the country and the industry the best value for the limited amount of money available. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson), who, incidentally, is not one of the leading wheat-growers in this Parliament, has. said that the view of the Country party is that practically all wheat-growing is being carried on at a loss. I do not dispute that statement; I know only too well that, on present prices, it is an unpayable proposition. But there is a great difference between the severity of the loss incurred by men who, because of a favorable finish to the harvest season in their district, get a 40-bushel return, and men in other districts who, through rust, or because of unfavorable climatic conditions, have to be content with a return below the average for their district. For this reason alone, relief given in the form of a bounty on production would be in inverse ratio to the needs of individual farmers. Also, there are cases of inefficiency in land as well as in individuals. Farmers on land of poorer quality should not suffer undue hardship if the assistance is given in one or the other of the forms suggested by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), who presented the House with an admirable list of alternative proposals. The Government has made it plain that it is prepared to enlarge the provisions of paragraph a of clause 27, so that it will bc possible for State Governments to distribute the money to relieve handling charges,” as one way to aid production, in ‘the form of a subsidy upon the acreage harvested, on the acreage “ prepared for next season, or the acreage1 fallowed - thus making it possible to give aid in the purchase of superphosphates. Again, it would allow the States to allocate part of the funds to those farmers who, from drought or adverse circumstances, are suffering the most. I am not clear whether the honorable member for Gippsland submitted his amendment with the intention of opening the back door to agitation and pressure on the Treasury from the States to. enable this assistance to be given on a bushel basis; but from the interjection which the honorable gentleman made while the AttorneyGeneral was speaking, I do not believe that that was in his mind. From his own observations, I gathered that his purpose was to make it quite certain that aids to production other than on a bushel basis would not be rendered invalid, and that ^ the assistance proposed to be given to our wheat-farmers would not be delayed by constitutional difficulties. Now we have the assurance of the Attorney-General that that cannot happen in any form of relief, proposed other than that given on a bushel basis.

Mr PATERSON:

– Yet the AttorneyGeneral admitted that he was not quite clear ‘ whether “aids “ and “ bounties “ did not mean the same thing.

Mr HAWKER:

– I expected that the honorable member for Gippsland had in mind that possibility, and for that reason I support him in asking for an assurance from, the Attorney-General that those words will not be an impediment to any possible form of assistance, other than on a bushel basis. I understand that the Attorney-General gave us that assurance. I desire also to be assured that if his opinion proves to be wrong he will be prepared to bring before the Parliament, at the first opportunity, the necessary resolutions validating the action taken to carry out what, he believes to be a proper course of action. Therefore, I intend to vote with the Government. In regard to the two proposals of the Country party I do not think it is fair, first of all, to persuade the Government to retreat from its original position and then to attack it indirectly from a second loophole by putting pressure on it through the States.

As the Country party’s proposal makes provision for a second attack on the Government, to try to coerce it into distributing this fund on a bushel basis, I do not propose to support it; but I support its request for the clearest possible assurance that the requirements or the provisions of the Constitution will, if necessary, be complied with.

Mr Scullin:

– An assurance from the Government is not a judgment pf the High Court.

Mr HAWKER:

– I intend to vote on the basis of the assurance already given.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– When I spoke on the second reading of the bill I did not intend to say anything further regarding it, but in view of the trend of the debate, I feel impelled to address the committee again. Honorable members have already referred to- the fact that Queensland occupies a position quite distinct from, that of the rest of the Commonwealth. The wheat-farmers in that State have made it clear that they regard a bounty on production as the form of government assistance that they desire. As they are the people who have had experience of the wheat industry, surely they ought to know the form of relief best adapted to their needs; and I submit that if a grant is to be made to Queensland, that State should be left to determine in what form the relief should be distributed. I sincerely trust that the Prime Minister, merely because of an academic belief that bounties are not good, will not insist that some other form of relief should be substituted so far as Queensland is concerned. I hope that the Government is not influenced by that belief. If that could not be done, it was suggested that the cost of marketing should be allowed as a form of relief. Therefore, I urge the Government to allow the bill to go through in such a way that it may be possible for the States to obtain that form of assistance that is best suited to their requirements. The latest announcement by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) seems to me to differ from his original proposal. When I spoke on the second reading it seemed to me that he desired that all words after “ wheat-growers “ > should be omitted’ to make the’ grant ‘ unconditional.

It was also suggested to eliminate the words at the end of paragraph b, “but not upon the basis of the quantity of wheat produced by individual wheatgrowers,” because they imposed a limitation. Now the honorable member proposes an amendment to eliminate both paragraphs a and b, but I gather from the statements made, and the conversations that have taken place, that it is not the desire to have an agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the States, whereby a State would be able to give assistance by way of a bounty on production. I sincerely hope that that is not the intention. Under his present suggestion the honorable member for Gippsland would leave the wording of the clause in sufficiently wide terms to enable assistance to be given by “such methods as the respective States and the Commonwealth Treasurer approve “. The honorable member indicated clearly that what he had in his mind was something in ^ the nature of a bounty, because he followed on by using in. his proposed amendment the words - “ and this clause shall be deemed to be a resolution of the Commonwealth Parliament as referred to in section 91 of the Constitution “. That would provide for perfect elasticity and for a scheme adapting itself to the best needs of individual States, and removing the possibility of any constitutional hindrance to the granting of a bounty. I regret that the honorable member has not left it at that. It would be in the interests of the Government and would provide a most satisfactory means of having this appropriation distributed. It has been pointed out that a straight-out bounty on production falls on the just and unjust, the ,big producer getting more benefit than the small producer. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) suggested other bases of payment, but relief on the basis of freight paid on wheat would not bc of much help to a farmer who does not produce any’ crop, and it might not be of much assistance to a farmer who’ has no great distance to carry his wheat to the seaboard, as is often the case in South Australia. Another suggestion was that the payment should be made on the basis of acreage of crop. That would cause similar trouble to payment on the basis of production. Then again, what a wheat-grower leaves in fallow depends on the area of land he can afford to fallow. The quantity varies in different localities. In Queensland, for instance, there is not the same need. After a crop of wheat, a grower can obtain a crop of maize in the same year. Therefore the alternative schemes suggested by the honorable member would lead’ to just as great anomalies as if the bounty were paid on the basis of production. The men engaged in the industry obviously know best what their own requirements are.

On the Darling Downs, where I was born and bred and have lived all my life, there are many small farmers and they realize that a bounty on production would prove most equitable, taking the industry as a whole. The proposed assistance would not be given because of droughts or because hailstorms occasionally destroy crops. These calamities have occurredin the past, and it has never previously been suggested that assistance should be given on their account. The help is to be rendered because of the general fall of the price of wheat throughout the whole industry, and therefore everybody associated with it is affected. Our desire should be to grant assistance to the industry as a whole. I should like to see the scheme left so elastic that payment might be made on production in any way the individual States may consider desirable. I do not desire the Government to find itself in such a position, either under the present clause or under the Country party’s proposal, that a bounty will not be payable on production even in a State that wants that method of assistance applied. It might be forced into that position if a narrow interpretation were given to the modified amendment submitted by the honorable member for Gippsland. If the clause were agreed’ to the principle of a bounty on production would be ruled out. I prefer the proposal of the honorable member for Gippsland to that of the Government, because it, is wider in its terms. It would make it possible for States to grant assistance other than in the narrow way defined in the bill.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I do not propose to traverse the ground covered by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham). The honorable member forWakefield (Mr. Hawker) drew from the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) the statement that the Attorney-General was not quite definite as to whether there was any distinction between aid and bounty. The Minister said that possibly the Constitution might prevent the utilization of the money, apart from the payment of bounty, in a particular State in the way that that State desired, subject to approval by this Parliament. The position is that the Attorney-General is most definite on the matter. There is no doubt about it at all. An assurance can be given that there will be no interference and no prevention of the use of the money in that way.

Mr Nock:

– Upon a resolution of the Parliament that the money should be provided as an aid ?

Mr LYONS:

– The Attorney-General issatisfied that there would be no need for such a resolution.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– In the case of a bounty?

Mr LYONS:

– No; apart from that the Attorney-General and the Govern ment have definitely opposed the granting of a bounty, but aid in any other form may be granted and the Government will guarantee that there would be no interference. The Commonwealth alone would benefit through a State being unable to avail itself of this money, and the Commonwealth Government gives a definite assurance that the money will be paid over to the States to be utilized by them in the way that they think best, subject only to the one condition that it shall not be paid on a bushel basis. Therefore, I hope the honorable member for Gippsland will accept the assurance that there is no doubtabout the posi tion, and that if any doubt arises the Government will safeguard the position from the growers’ point of view.

Mr Nock:

– On the bounty basis?

Mr LYONS:

– I mean that the money may be utilized in any of the directions indicated by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), who suggested many appropriate ways in which the growers could be assisted. A message will be brought down to cover the insertion of the words, “ transport or marketing”, and I re-affirm what has already been stated by the Attorney-General, and concerning “which we were in consultation before he made the statement. There is no necessity for the Commonwealth Treasurer to have any right of veto once -a condition has been accepted by a State.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– A good deal has been said about another -amendment which I alluded to in the ^speech that I made two or three days ago. It referred to paragraph a, of clause 27, and I suggested the inclusion of die words “ transport or marketing “, in order to widen the basis of the clause which, as drafted, refers merely to the reduction of the cost of production. It seems to be inferred that in some way I must have changed my mind, in view of the fact that I have given notice of another amendment of a somewhat comprehensive character. I wish to make the position perfectly clear. When I spoke on the second reading of the bill on Wednesday, I said that the majority of the members of the party to which I belong believe that if the States are to be the medium for the distribution of this assistance to the wheat-growers, they should be given the money unconditionally. At the conclusion of my speech, I expressed the hope that the Government would be prepared to consent to amendments that would make the bill more acceptable to the growers. I did not specify them, but this is one that I had in mind. True, in dealing with paragraph a of clause 27, I asked the Government to explain its meaning. I said that, obviously, it could not permit the granting of assistance in connexion with, for example, rail freights, and that, to enable such assistance to be given out of this grant, the insertion of the words “ and marketing “ would be necessary. I do not see how it could be inferred that that was the only amendment that I intended to move. I. wished it to be understood that if the States were to be used as the medium for the provision of this assistance, the money should go to them practically unconditionally.

I regret very much that the Government is unwilling to consent to my proposals. Earlier in the morning, I understood that it was not averse to it. There are two methods that’ the members of the . Country’ ‘ ‘ party believe may be most advantageously employed in assisting the wheat-growers. The first is by a direct Commonwealth bounty, the States making provision for special cases of hardship. That method provides for the industry a3 such, and. does not discriminate between, individuals. A good deal has been said to-day concerning the impropriety of paying a bounty to all and sundry. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a bounty on wheat should be regarded as a sort of compassionate allowance, and why a bounty on sulphur, iron and steel, &c, as well as the virtual bounty obtained from the enhanced price that is made possible by the imposition of duties on secondary products, should be regarded as being in an altogether different category. No taint is considered to be attached to that form of bounty. It is regarded as perfectly respectable and worthy of acceptance by men in the very best circumstances, men who may be members of the most exclusive clubs in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet a similar degree of .assistance, when given to a primary industry such as wheat, is regarded as a compassionate allowance, a kind of charitable dole that it is hardly respectable to accept. Why this extraordinary discrimination?

I have mentioned one of the means that members of the Country party regard as satisfactory for the giving of assistance to the wheat-grower. The next is the distribution of the money by the States, provided that they are left untrammelled in their choice of the means to be adopted. Realizing that the Government, perhaps not unnaturally, would regard it as unwise to hand over money absolutely unconditionally, and without any sort of control by the Commonwealth, I endeavoured to meet its wishes by including in my amendment the provision that the approval of the Common wealth Treasurer, as well as that of the State Governments, should be given to any proposal. If that plan were adopted, any arrangement come to by the State. Government would have to be submitted to this Government, and be accepted or possibly vetoed by it.- That is a very fair proposition.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) suggested that, in asking for an assurance that a resolution would be submitted to Parliament in the event of an arrangement being come to that might, otherwise conflict with section !)1 of the Constitution, an endeavour was being made by a sort of backstairs method to force on the Government a bounty proposal by the States. 1 assure the honorable gentleman that I had no such idea in mind. I point, out to him, and to the Prime Minister, that there is a kind of bounty which I believe would conflict with seclion 91 and yet be wholly unobjectionable to the Government. Let lis suppose, for example, that a’ State Government received £500,000 from this grant, and proposed to use £100,000 for the assistance of absolutely needy producers, £200,000 for concessions in regard to rail freights, and the remaining £200,000 towards the payment of a bounty of a small amount per bushel, but excluding that section of the farmers who were fortunate enough to have been obliged to pay income tax within the last year or two. That would be a very simple means of excluding from participation in the distribution men needing assistance least, and confining it to men needing it most. Could that method be condemned by those who say that, the well-to-do farmer should be excluded? Perhaps only from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, of the farmers would be excluded, but the proportion of the wheat crop would be from 20 per cent, to 30 per cent, on the assumption that the more well-to-do are presumably the bigger growers. I take it that such a proposal would require the sanction of section 91 of the Constitution, and yet would not infringe what the Prime Minister regards as the principle that assistance should not be given to the more well-to-do growers. That is only one illustration of the manner in which the proposals of the State Government might come into conflict with section 91.

Mr Latham:

– Section 91 is purely permissive; there is no question of conflict with it. Section 90 is the obstacle.

Mr PATERSON:

– -To one who is not a lawyer, section 91 appears to lay it down that the State may provide bounties only in the event of a resolution approving of them being passed by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parlia ment. I take it that a bounty which ex: eluded the well-to-do men would come within the ambit of that section. I am astonished that the Attorney-General’s should suggest that I brought this forward merely as a sort of backstairsmethod of obtaining a general “per bushel” bounty.

Mr Latham:

– I did not suggest that it was a back-stairs method. I thought that it was perfectly open, and that it could have no other object.

Mr PATERSON:

– I assure the hon.orable gentleman that I was only anxious to make assurance doubly sure. I merely asked the Government’ to agree to pass such a resolution if an arrangement were come to which necessitated that being done. That, I consider, was a very reasonable request. I am intensely disappointed at the rejection of my proposal. “We have endeavoured to meet the Government as far as possible. I feel that I can support one or either of the two proposals that 1 have mentioned. Apparently, however, the Government is not prepared to concede either. Therefore, to me it appears that I have no option but to support the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin).

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

– I hope that, if the amendment that is now before the committee is lost, the Government will clarify the position on clause 27, so that we shall be able to realize exactly what is promised. The words “reducing the cost of production of wheat “ are absolutely ineffective, and must be elaborated.

Mr Latham:

– The amendment, suggested is to add the words “ including costs of transport and marketing”.

Mr GREGORY:

– That will make a lot of difference. I have been criticized mildly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and other honorable members because of my advocacy of a bounty. I agree with the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) and others that the system of bounties is bound to bring this country to ruin, and I am opposed to if. J recognize, of course, that at certain times it may be essential for the protection of this or that industry to give some temporary assistance. Last year, when dealing with the future of Australia, the

Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) said that we had to look to the reduction of production costs to relieve us from our difficulties. He went on to say -

The position of the farmers is acute, but no permanent relief can be afforded by this scheme, so long as we depend on world’s prices.

I speak more particularly for Western Australia. Practically the whole of its production of wheat has to he exported to the markets of the world. I agree with the AttorneyGeneral that it is essential to reduce the cost of production, and that if that were done assistance of this nature would not he sought. I object to action such as that taken by the Government the other day, under which benefits were conferred on such a wealthy concern as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, whose £25 shares to-day are worth £56 on the stock exchange, and whose dividends amount to £3 a share.

Mr Latham:

– We have done our best under considerable difficulties.

Mr GREGORY:

– The Government has not done enough for the primary producers, particularly with respect to tariff matters. We have only to consider the assistance given to the iron and steel industry, and other industries, to realize the extent to which the primary producers are exploited. I do not charge the Government with dishonesty; but there is undoubtedly something distinctly immoral in imposing unnecessarily high customs duties, which increase the cost of the commodities used by the wheat-growers, and then refusing to give them assistance in the way they consider best. Consider how the sugar industry has been assisted by the Government.

Mr Latham:

– The price of sugar has been reduced.

Mr GREGORY:

– It should be reduced still further. I am thinking more particularly of the people in Western Australia. If they were given the right to look after their own affairs, by permitting them to purchase their requirements in the markets of the world, they would not thenbe opposed to selling their products in competition with the products of other countries in the same market’. But they are not permitted to dp so. The tariffs imposed by this and other governments prevent it. I am justified in protesting when I know how the people are being exploited. I quoted a circular the other day in which it was stated that the Australian price of a certain commodity was 400 per cent. higher than the oversea price. These prices have to be paid by Australian primary producers, who have to sell their produce in open competition in oversea markets. The primary producers must have some substantial assistance. The right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) said that there would be no undue delay in granting financial relief to the wheat-growers, but how’ can they readily be assisted under this scheme? I do not believe that Australia will ever recover financial stability under the policy adopted by this Government. I suggest that we should adopt the suggestion made by the Attorney-General last year, and reduce the cost of production so that primary industries can be carried on at a profit.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Does the honorable member think that it is possible to reduce the cost of production to such an extent that wheat-growing would be profitable ?

Mr.GREGORY.- Perhaps not under existing conditions ; but the present price is abnormal. I remind the honorable member that Professor Perkins, the Director of Agriculture in South Australia, said that if the cost of production were reduced to the pre-war level, the Australian wheat-growers would be able to compete against Russia, with its system of mass production. Our wheat-growing areas are extensive, and the Australian growers have not to contend with many of the difficulties experienced by the Canadian producers, although these growers are much closer to the large consuming centres of the world. I do not believe in the Government’s policy in this respect, and I cannot support it. It is impossible for Western Australia to make any progress under existing conditions. I have received numerous telegrams and letters from people in Western Australia asking me to take the most drastic steps within my power to prevent matters drifting as they are to-day. I ask the Prime Minister to provide the earliest possible opportunity to enable Parliament to come to a decision on a matter which I have already brought forward, so that the people of Western Australia will definitely know the attitude of this Government towards that State. Sitting suspended from 12.50 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BAKER:
Oxley

– I have no intention to traverse the arguments of previous speakers, but some points do not appear to have received sufficient attention. I shall put my views before the committee notwithstanding that, in all probability, the Government will pay no attention to them. According to our parliamentary procedure, before an appropriation of money can be made, there must be an act of Parliament, lt is then the duty of the Auditor-General to see that the money is properly appropriated. Under this legislation the money will be given to the States, more or less unconditionally. It is true that they will be required to see that the costs of production are reduced, and that the money is paid to more or less needy wheat-growers ; but there must necessarily be a fairly wide interpretation of the words “ reducing the cost of production of wheat “. It is suggested that one State will use the grant to purchase fertilizers for wheat-growers, that another may use it to obtain rail concessions, and that still another may apply the grant towards bettering the conditions of the workers in the industry. Another point that does not seem to have been considered by the Government is the cost of administration by the several States. Apparently, that cost will have to be taken out of the amount provided, in the event of the States being left to deal with the matter. My point, is, that it is the duty of the Federal Auditor-General to sec that the moneys are correctly expended and accounted for. If the money is handed to the States, and they are given a more or loss free hand in the spending of it, it will be impossible for the Federal; Auditor-General to follow the expenditure of the money. It may be contended that there have been cases in which this Parliament has divided a certain amount; of money among the States for the purpose of compensating them for certain . disabilities. Such cases are specifically provided for in the Constitution, but that does not detract from the force of my argument to-day. In connexion with matters such as that now before us, there are several things which the Government must decide. It must first decide the amount to be paid; then, to whom it is to be paid; and, following that, in what way and for what purpose it is to be paid. Those matters are not set out so clearly in the bill as they should be. This Government prides itself on its orthodoxy. The argument it used against the Labour party’s banking and financial proposals was that they were innovations, and, therefore, could not be correct. The proposal contained in this bill may, perhaps, be strictly legal; but it is unorthodox. All previous bounties have been paid directly to the persons concerned, and, therefore, those persons were subject to the control of the Commonwealth Government. ‘ In such circumstances, it was easy to trace how the money was spent.

The Government professes to believe in private enterprise, but in this case it gives the control to a State enterprise. lt will not permit individual fanners to deal with the- money. The farmers of Australia will resent the insult that they cannot be trusted with the money. Instead of paying the amount directly to them as in the past, the Government will pay it to the States. The machinery set up by the. Scullin Government is still available for use, and it would be cheaper to use it than to adopt other methods. Even now, I ask the Government to reconsider the position and accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin).

Mr JENNINGS:
South Sydney

– I realize that if only we could get the primary producers of Australia on their feet and out of debt, many of our financial difficulties would be solved. The wheat-farmers of Australia have been led to believe that they will be given some assistance. Now that we are asked to vote £2,000,000 for that purpose, we must face economic facts. I have in mind the bounties and grants approved by this Parliament last year. Bounties were granted to the iron and steel bounties, the sulphur industry, as well as for the production of cot-ton and wine and other things. A bounty of £3,300,000 on wheat was also paid. The seriousness of the position will be realized when we reflect that the total amount of the wheat bounty paid represented 25 per cent, of the sum received by way of federal income tax. It is now proposed to allocate £2,000,000 to assist the wheatgrowers. That is approximately 20 per cent, of the estimated revenue from in<come taxation, this year. “We cannot have it both ways ; we cannot at the same time reduce taxation and grant bounties. A “ show-down “ is inevitable. We are inviting the people of Australia to -emulate the Australian aboriginal, who holds out his hand and asks for money, instead of urging them to show the independent spirit of the pioneers of the country. I suggest that, before next year, when this matter will come before us again, another system be devised to grant assistance to necessitous farmers.

Mr WATSON:
Fremantle

.- I welcome the proposal of the Government to grant some assistance to the farmers of Australia. Their great need is ready money. I suggest that the amount to be made available to them should be distributed by the Commonwealth Government itself. I, for one, will never support any proposal to hand money over to the State governments for distribution. I learned my lesson during the outbreak of rinderpest in Western Australia. I registered a vow then that I would never interfere with the Federal Government doing its own job. The distribution of this grant is the job of the Federal Government, and I hope that it will realize that that is so. The farmers of Australia have produced the wheat in respect of which ‘this grant will be made, so that in distributing the money among them we are only giving them something for what they have already done. It has been suggested that in some way this money should be used to reduce the cost of production, but I do not see how that can ‘be done. I know that my ideas are unpopular, and I admit that I may be wrong, but the figures that I shall present to the committee will not be wrong. By the payment of bounties and subsidies, by the imposition of embargoes by market manipulations, and by fostering combines and monopolies, we have quixotically created many exotic industries, the cost of establishing which has laid a heavy burden on the primary producer, with the result that his position as a competitor in the world’s market is impossible. These things have made the cost of production of wheat what it is to-day. In memory I go back to my early days - about 50 years ago - when I worked as a farmer. I remember the struggles of those times; I remember the obsolete and primitive machinery then used - the single furrow plough drawn by two horses with which a man did well if he ploughed one -acre a day. Bullocks also were employed. When we got a back delivery reaper we thought we were well off. I remember when wheat was cut by hand, and carted and stacked in the field by manual labour. I have worked on a threshing machine for from sixteen to eighteen hour3 a day, and with the assistance of fifteen others, working under the best conditions, found that 200 bags a day was our limit. I remember the little homely “ shacks “ in which the farmers dwelt in those days; I remember their ideals, their enterprise, and I appreciate their work. They had to contend with bad seasons and adverse markets, and they had no efficient fertilizers to aid them. In those days bread was never more than 3d. a loaf, and, generally, not more than 2-£d., which is about half the present price. If the farmers of that time could have visualized the advance in scientific machinery which would enable one man to produce as much as six or eight men then produced, they would have expected that wheat could profitably have been produced at ls. a bushel, and bread sold at 1-Jd. a loaf. What has caused the difference between that time and this? The farmers of to-day are just as full of enterprise; they work just as hard as the farmers of 50 years ago. The trouble is that they arc crippled by excessive overhead costs. The burdens placed upon them are too heavy for them to bear. Unless the Government is strong enough to abolish all bounties, control the operations of combines and monopolies, and remove the restrictions that are hampering industry, in that way reducing the cost of production and the cost of living to the lowest level on record, within two years Australia will experience the biggest smash in its history. How long can

Ave continue to pay £2 for an article which, is ‘ worth only £1. The wheat-growers of Australia have been crippled. We have given assistance to almost every othersection of the community, but we have not done much for our wheat-growers. The assistance offered in this measure is not half enough, but it is better than nothing. It means about 2¼d. a bushel which, honorable members will agree, is not much. I shall support any proposal to assist the wheatgrowers so long as the money is not handed to the State governments for distribution. One government handling the money is sufficient. I remember the misery caused to the people of Western Australia by the clashing of two governments when the rinderpest outbreak occurred in Western Australia, and I do not wish to see a repetition of what then took place. I shall support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Question - That clause 25 be postponed (Mr. Scullin’s motion) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 39

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 25 -

Subject to this part there shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund which is hereby appropriated accordingly the sum of £2,000,000 for the purposes of financial assistance to the States in the provision of relief to wheat-growers in the States and for the purposes of providing relief to wheatgrowers in any territory.

Mr GABB:
Angas

– I move-

That all the words after “to the” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ wheat-growers in Australia by payment of a bounty on the production of wheat, and for other purposes “.

Mr Latham:

– On a point of order, I submit that this is an appropriation clause, and that the effect of the amendment would be to change the destination of the grant. Therefore, it is unauthorized by the message.

Mr Gabb:

– The amendment would not, as the Attorney-General says, change the destination of the grant. The money which would be paid under it would go to the same taxpayers. The point of order is taken merely to side-track the issue.

Mr Scullin:

– I had certain advice that the point of order would be taken, and that the Chair would rule against the amendment. Therefore, I moved for the postponement of the clause. I do not agree with the views expressed by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham). The purpose of the bill is “ to provide financial relief for wheat-growers and other primary producers, and for other purposes “. The portion of the bill now under consideration indicates definitely the destination of the proposed grant. The appropriation message upon which the bill is founded does not say that action must be taken through the States or by any specific method. All that it says is that provision shall be made forfinancial relief to wheat-growers. I, therefore, submit that the amendment is quite in order.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment would alter the purpose for which the GovernorGeneral had recommended ‘ the appropriation. I, therefore, rule it out of order.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- This clause appropriates the sum of £2,000,000 for the relief of wheat-growers. My proposed _ amendment, which was ruled out of order, would not have changed the destination of the grant. If a direct bounty of 2d. a bushel were provided, there would be a balance of nearly £400,000, which could be distributed by the States to necessitous farmers. The Government should have compromised in this matter.’ The Ministry has, however, taken a definite stand against any bounty on production, on the ground that its distribution would be inequitable. There is urgent need for ready cash to be placed immediately in the hands of our wheat-growers, many of whom are in great want. My proposal would have made that possible.- This Government and this Parliament, in handing this money over to the States for distribution, are following the line of least resistance. As this Parliament appropriates the money, it should determine the manner in which it shall.be allocated. My proposal would have provided for a bounty of 2d. a bushel, with a limitation in the case of each grower of £60. If the Government would meet me I would be prepared to accept £40 as the maximum to be paid to any individual grower by way of bounty. No one can argue seriously that the distribution of this money through State channels will make for expedition. The Government could, give a bounty of 2d. a bushel on 200,000,000 bushels, which will probably prove to be the maximum quantity of saleable wheat’ in the Commonwealth this season. The total amount of bounty would amount to £1,666,666, but I think that even that amount would not be required. At any rate, it would leave a balance out of the £2,000,000 of £333,334, which could be allotted in accordance with the terms of the bill. In that way, we could meet the cash needs of necessitous growers, and of those who have practically no wheat at all. If the money is. placed in the hands of the State authorities, there is a danger that they may merely write credits in the State banks and similar institutions against the names of tho farmers who- are in debt to them, and therefore the farmers will get no cash at all. I have in mind the deplorable conditions of many farmers in the mallee district of South Australia. They have been receiving sustenance through the State bank to enable them to carry on. A grant of £60 in ready money would put fresh heart into them. It would enable their womenfolk to provide household articles such as clothing and crockery, of which they stand in great need, and would encourage them to remain on their holdings for the coming year. Surely that is one of the objects of the bill. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) remarked that certain honorable members took the stand that some farmers had not been successful, because they were inefficient and slothful. I resent that statement. I know the conditions of men in the mallee in South Australia, who, in the past five years, have experienced three years of drought and two years of low prices. Some of them are living in small lean-to homes. I have seen babies placed outside under boughs to escape the heat inside iron houses, and I have seen women compelled to take shelter in the thatched stables. Some of these settlers have not seen the colour of money, and I am willing that they should be granted a minimum of £40, if a bounty of £60 is not acceptable to the Government. Yet the Government says, “No. We trust the State governments to do the right thing “. In South Australia, there will be a State election in four months, and in Western Australia there will also be a State election shortly. Is this money being made available to the States to enable State governments to play with it as they like?

Mr Lyons:

– That remark is entirely unworthy of the honorable member.

Mr GABB:

– It was not intended to be offensive. Does not the Government realize that moat ministries use money along lines that will help to return them to the treasury bench?

Mr Lyons:

– I consider that the State governments have as great a sense of their responsibility as has the Commonwealth Government.

Mr GABB:

– That is not saying much. One Federal Government kept itself in power with a £20,000,000 gratuity bribe, and we are paying interest on the money still.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is digressing from the question before the Chair.

Mr GABB:

– It has been said that there is some hope that this money will be distributed on the basis of the freight paid by the farmers on wheat. There is something to be said in favour of that, if one were assured that the State governments would do it; but would it be paid on the basis of the distance growers are situated from ports of shipment? It occurs to me that some growers are located near the centres of population, and the tendency would be not to grant the payment in accordance with the freight paid. The mcn whose farms are situated outback are scattered over wide areas, and they do not have many votes, whereas near the cities the farmers are more numerous, and they return more members of Parliament. I do not say that this fact would influence the decision of a State government, but under such a proposal there would be a loophole for unfair action. If a cash payment were to be made on the basis of the freight paid, I would be satisfied; but I should be afraid of a flat rate of 2d. a bushel.

Mr Thorby:

– State railway freights are fixed on a tapering scale, the farmer furthest out receiving the lowest rate.

Mr GABB:

– I know that; but who can say that that basis would be adopted ? If the Government can assure me that payment will bo made on the basis of the freight paid, I shall say nothing further; but we are saying to the State governments, “ You “can take this £2,000,000, and, except for one condition, you may do what you like with it “. That is not the way in -which the Commonwealth’ Parliament should deal with this matter. I have received ‘many telegrams about the method by which the proposed assistance should be granted. One of them is as follows :-

Emergency meeting of farmers at Naddaurge you influence House for federal grant to be paid ‘ direct to growers, otherwise thousands penniless.

I know the man who sent me that telegram. The farmers in that district are mostly returned soldiers. I appeal to the Government, even at this stage, to provide that necessitous farmers ‘shall receive a cash payment. In the course of some of the arguments that have been advanced, it has been said that a bounty on an acreage basis would be fairer than a bounty on production. I point out that, a bounty on acreage would also prove inequitable, because the same rate per acre would be paid to two farmers, one having a crop of 3 bushels and another a crop of 14 bushels to the acre. Similarly, if payment were made on a bushel basis, one grower would receive a larger payment than other. In South Australia the other day Mr. C. T. Chapman stated that last year he obtained £800 by way of wheat bounty. I can understand circumstances such as that tending to make the Government take its present stand, but my proposal for a maximum cash payment of £60 would prevent such large sums from being paid in bounty. I notice that the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) remarked that if bounty were paid on production, speaking generally, the less the need, the greater would be the payment, but my p’roposal not open to that objection, because th. particular needs of Ibo most necessitous farmers would be met. I regret that the Government has not stood up to its job in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– Before the luncheon adjournment, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) made a statement with reference to the intention of the Government, which I am afraid was not fully understood in all quarters. Accordingly, it is desired that the position of the Government should be made perfectly plain in relation to this matter. Its intention is that the money to be provided shall be spent by the States, and as they think it. should b*> spent, for the benefit of the wheat-grower, subject only to the one limitation that it shall not be spent by way of bounty. The Government is not prepared, therefore, to undertake to submit the parliamentary resolutions that would be necessary in order to enable the States to pay a bounty in accordance with the provisions of section 91 of the Constitution. There is, however, an idea that it might be necessary to introduce such resolutions in order to authorize the States to .” aid “ the production or export of wheat in any other’ way. The plan of the Government is to allow the fullest liberty to the States in using this money for the purpose, if they think proper, of “ aiding “ the production or export of wheat in any way other than by paying a bounty. In order to remove any misunderstanding, the Government undertakes that it will, if unexpectedly it should prove to be necessary, submit resolutions to the Parliament in order to enable the States to “ aid “ the production or export of wheat otherwise than by way of bounty. It is not anticipated that it will be necessary to introduce such resolutions, although, obviously, they are referred to section 91. Ever since the establishment of the Commonwealth, the States have been aiding the production of various goods - seldom the export of goods, but often the production of goods.

I have never hitherto heard it suggested that it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament before the States could aid in such way as they thought proper the production of goods. This statement is being made on behalf of the Government in order to make it plain that if any further action should be necessary to enable the States to carry out the scheme provided in this bill the Government will take it. At a later stage a message will be submitted to honorable members from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending an appropriation of revenue for the purposes of clauses 27 and 28 of the bill, and providing in express terms that the money made available shall be applicable towards the reduction of costs of production and of transport and marketing of wheat. I hope that this statement will be sufficiently explicit. It was thought that the Prime Minister’s statement before lunch had been explicit, but apparently, that was not so.

Mr Collins:

– How long will it be after the passing of this bill before the money will be made available to the States ?

Mr LATHAM:

– That is a matter for the Treasury, but I have discussed it with the Treasurer (Mr. Lyons) and I understand that the money will be available immediately, but it is not proposed to pay the whole of this large amount in a single instalment. The honorable member may rest assured that the money will be made available as it is required.

Mr Lyons:

– That is so.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- The statement made by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) respecting the Government’s intentions is quite satisfactory to me. Had the statement made earlier by the Prime Minister bo@n as explicit as this one, I should have found myself voting for, and not against, the Government. The Attorney-General was courteous enough to intimate to me that this statement would be made.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bell).Order ! The honorable member for Gippsland has already spoken twice on this provision ; I take it that he is now speaking to the clause.

Mr PATERSON:

– That is so. I merely wish to intimate that we are satisfied with the assurance that the Government will do anything that proves to be necessary, even to the introducing of motions in both Houses of the Parliament, in order to validate, in accordance with section 91 of the Constitution, anything that may be done by the States in expending this money.

Mr Latham:

– That is, anything that may need validation.

Mr PATERSON:

– Quite so. In the circumstances, I intimate that I do not now intend to move the amendment to clause 27 that I have forecast.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Progress reported.

In the House :

Further message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Stewart) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of. an amendment to be moved by the Minister for Commerce in a bill for an act to reduce taxation; to remove anomalies in relation to invalid and old-age pensions; to provide financial relief for wheat -growers and other primary producers; and for other purposes.

In the House:

Resolution reported, and - by leave - adopted.

In committee:

Clause 27-

Any money paid to a State under this Part shall be applied by the State for the benefit and assistance of wheat-growers by -

reducing the cost of production of wheat ; and

providing for the needs of individual wheat-growers, but not upon the basis of the quantity of wheat produced by individual wheat-growers.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I move -

That after the word “wheat”, paragraph (a) the following words be inserted, “ (including the cost of transport and marketing) “.

This amendment is in conformity with the undertaking given by the Government that it would allow the States the widest freedom of action in the distribution of this money. The Government desires to leave the States as unfettered as possible, excepting for the one limitation which has been insisted upon. If this amendment is agreed to, the State Governments will be able to utilize the money which the Commonwealth Government is providing in the various ways enumerated during this debate, with the single exception to which I have referred. Various honorable members have expressed surprise at the Government’s insistence upon that one limitation. The honorable member for Angus (Mr. Gabb) declared a little while ago that the Government was taking the line of least resistance.

Mr Gabb:

– And I say it again now.

Mr STEWART:

– If this is the line of least resistance, I am glad that the Government did not take the line of most resistance. The Government has merely indicated the manner in which this money shall be distributed. It believes that, in the interests of the general taxpayer, it should insist that the money shall be made available to those wheatgrowers who are in the greatest need. Certain honorable members have dilated on the fact that some of the taxation remitting provisions of this measure are calculated to give an advantage to the big taxpayers as against the small ones. I desire to show how the distribution of the bounty of 4½d. a bushel worked out last year, and these figures will demonstrate the inconsistency of those who claim to speak for the “small man,” and yet oppose the Government’s proposals, which definitely favour the small wheatgrower. In NewSouth Wales last year there were 20,425 claimants for the bounty. Of these, 16,742 collected 41 per cent. of the money, and 3,953 collected 59 per cent. In Victoria, out of 20,840 claimants, 17,829 collected 53 per cent. of the bounty, leaving the other 47 per cent. to be collected by 3,011. In South Australia, 14,981 growers collected 44 per cent. of the bounty, while the other 56 per cent. was collected by 3,618. The aggregate result over the whole of Australiawas that 20 per cent. of the claimants for wheat bounty collected no less than 55 per cent. of the money paid, the other 80 per cent. of claimants sharing the remaining 45 per cent. That is why the Government favours an alteration this year of the method of distribution. We are standing by our proposal, because I believe that it will give most assistance where the need is greatest, and I have yet to learn of any more equitable method for the distribution of public money.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– I am prepared to support this amendment in lieu of an amendment which I myself had intended to move. My amendment was for the purpose of enabling the grants to be made practically unconditionally to the States. I attached more importance to obtaining an assurance of a certain nature from the Government than even to the amendment itself, and the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has now given me that assurance in these words -

The Government, in order to remove any misunderstanding, undertakes that it will do anything which may prove to be necessary, for example, by submitting resolutions to Parliament, in order to enable the States to aid the production or export of wheat otherwise than by way of bounty.

I regard that as a most important statement, and, in view of it, I am satisfied to support the amendment just moved by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart), and to drop the amendment of which I gave notice this morning.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- The Minister, when moving this amendment, tried to justify the attitude of the Governnent, which has brought about all this rouble by saying that it proposed to do what was best for the small farmers.It might be interesting to the Minister, and to honorable members, to know that 95 per cent, of the wool-growers of Australia produce 50 per cent, of the Australian clip, while 5 per cent, of the growers produce the other 50 per cent. The disparity in that case is much greater than in the case of the wheat-growers, regarding whom the Minister quoted some figures.

Mr Stacey:

– But the wool-growers arc not receiving government aid.

Mr PROWSE:

– No; I am drawing a comparison between the two great primary industries. I am convinced that the Minister now in charge of the bill holds opinions which are opposed to the best interests of the wheat-growers. The fact that a grower is producing only a small quantity of wheat does not necessarily mean that he is in any worse position financially than a man producing a large quantity. The large man may bo no better able to bear his losses than the small one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

. I move -

That paragraphs a and b he omitted with a view to insert in lien thereof the following words, “ such methods as the respective States and the Commonwealth Treasurer approve.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– Standing Order 135, dealing with the priority of amendments, states -

No amendment shall he proposed to any part of a question after a later part has been amended, or after a question has been proposed on an amendment thereto, unless the proposed amendment has, by leave of the House, been withdrawn.

Mr Scullin:

– Am I to understand that because certain words have been added by way of amendment to paragraph a, it is not permissible to move for the deletion of paragraphs a and b without the insertion of any new words?

The CHAIRMAN:

-The amendment which has been agreed to deals only with paragraph a; paragraph b ha3 not been affected.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I move -

That paragraph 6 be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph : - “ (?>) a bounty shall be paid on the quantity of wheat produced.”

The proceedings in this committee to-day have been amazing. First of all, we had an admission from the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), who was eager to move an amendment, that a pair of six months’ standing had been claimed on the ground that the life of the Government was in danger. That is why honorable members of the Country party, who were so eager, when speaking, to defend the interests of the wheatfarmers, failed to vote in support of my amendment. So concerned was the Government that it even brought in the Speaker to vote on that amendment. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) made two speeches this morning, both of them on an amendment which be had foreshadowed. He was not strictly in order in doing so, but, with the indulgence of the committee and of the Chair, he was allowed to explain his proposal. When he saw how the vote was likely to go, he withdrew his amendment on the most flimsy pretext, namely, that he was satisfied with the assurance given by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) - an assurance which the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) said was worth nothing. When the Attorney-General rose to give that assurance, he pushed the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) aside without ceremony.

Mr Latham:

– It was at the request of the Prime Minister that I spoke.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The AttorneyGeneral said that the Prime Minister had made a statement which was not Nearly understood in some quarters, and that he would make its meaning perfectly clear. Of course, the Prime Minister himself could have explained his statement, but instead of that being done, the Attorney-General’ had to come forward and give the explanation. The assurance which the honorable member for Gippsland regards as of such importance, and which satisfied a’l his scruples within five seconds, is contained in these words -

The Government, in order to remove any misunderstanding, undertakes that it will do anything which may prove tobe necessary, for example, by submitting resolutions to Parliament in order to enable the States to aid the production or export of wheat otherwise than by way of bounty.

The only portion of the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) which has any relation to the Minister’s statement, is the latter portion of it dealing with section 91 of the Constitution. The amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland provides for wider powers for the States, to enable them to cooperate with the Commonwealth in giving aid to the wheat-growers. The honorable member had some doubt as to the constitutionality of his amendment, and he added to it a reference to section 91 of the Constitution. The assurance of the Attorney-General respecting the need to pass resolutions refers only to the constitutional aspect, and not to the substance of that amendment. On a flimsy pretext, the honorable member for Gippsland has withdrawn his amendment, which he foreshadowed 4S hours ago. The whole proceeding is a hollow sham and pretence on the part of honorable members who are supposed to represent the wheatgrowers of this country.

Mr Paterson:

– I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) to withdraw the remark to which exception has been taken by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson).

Mr SCULLIN:

– If the honorable member considers my remark personally offensive, I withdraw it; but I, myself, thought that it was very apt.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw that qualification.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I withdraw it. I listened earlier to-day to the speech of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison), in the course of which he made an attack upon the wheatgrowers, and said that they had lost their virility. What has happened during the last three years has demonstrated the manliness of the wheat-growers of this country in face of the most adverse conditions, and a tremendous decline in the prices of their products. If we look at the figures relating to the acreage sown in those years, we shall find that the wheat-growers - to use a colloquialism - did not drop their bundle. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. McClelland) made a spirited speech in defence of the wheat-growers. He pointed out that I, as Prime Minister, appealed to the wheat-growers to grow more wheat, and he asked why that section of the community should have been specially appealed to. The reason must be obvious to any one who has studied the position of Australia during the last three years. My Government was faced with default overseas, and we sought advice from every quarter. As a result of the advice that we received, and from our own knowledge, we appealed to that section of the community which we thought could make the quickest response in respect of producing something which we could sell overseas. It has been suggested that we could have approached another section of the community which would have produced goods within a month. I presume that the honorable member who made that suggestion was referring to some of our secondary industries, and if so, I would inform him that there is practically no market overseas for our secondary products.

Mr Thorby:

– There was, at that time, a market overseas for our coal.

Mr SCULLIN:

– There was not.

Mr Thorby:

– There was a market in South Africa.

Mr SCULLIN:

– There was no market for coal, and any one who followed closely the coal industry must have been aware of that.

Mr Thorby:

– I followed the coal industry as closely as the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I was in constant conference with the representatives of the coal-owners and miners in an endeavour to find some means of rehabilitating the coal industry, and my Government made every effort to regain the markets that we had lost overseas.

Mr Thorby:

– So did the State Government of which I was a member.

Mr SCULLIN:

– My Government, at that time, worked in close co-operation with the Premier of New South Wales. We decided that the wheat industry offered the best prospect of export production, aud, consequently, we appealed to the wheat-growers on behalf of Australian governments to grow more wheat. They responded nobly to that appeal, and ever since, I have felt that I am under an obligation to the wheat-growers to see that they are not let down by the Federal Parliament. I have no wish to raise a party issue, but we have done our -best to assist the wheat-growers, and we did expect to have the co-operation of members of the Country party.’ On this occasion, I am positively ashamed of their attitude.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment which the Leader of the Opposition wishes to move would alter the purpose for which the Governor-General has recommended the appropriation, and is, therefore, out of order.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

;- I appreciate the Government’s efforts to make money available to the States, with the reservation that it shall not be used for the purpose of paying a bounty on production. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) should have endeavoured to side-track the issue, and to mislead the wheat-growers by attempting to move a further amendment which, I submit, would be nothing more than a hollow sham and pretence.

Mr Scullin:

– That remark is not so apt as mine.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the amendment referred to by the honorable member for Calare has been ruled out of order, he cannot now discuss it.

Mr THORBY:

– I do not wish to discuss it; but I wish to refute the accusation levelled by the Leader of the Opposition at the Country party. The demand of that party was that in the interests of the wheat-growers the money should be made available in cash to the various States with as little restriction upon its distribution as possible. That having been achieved by the amendment of the Minister for Commerce, the Country party has no hesitation in supporting it. In my speech this morning, I appealed to the Government to allocate the money with as little restriction as possible, so that it could be utilized by the State Go vernments in assisting the wheat-growers immediately, by way of ,a direct cash .payment, a railway subsidy, a reduction in silo charges where silos exist, or a reduction in the cost of production, marketing and transport and,-in addition, to assist the wheat-growers to meet their obligations, to enable them to carry on. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. .Gabb) made a dramatic appeal to this committee to realize the need of the wheat-growers, particularly those in the mallee country who are financially embarrassed, and generally in need of cash payments. I venture to say that his appeal to this committee would have been stultified had the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition been accepted, because under the bill as it stands, every provision is being made to enable the State Governments to provide for the needs of the farmers, and if there is anything that they need more than cash, I should like to hear of it. Paragraph b states that the State Governments shall provide for the needs of individual wheatgrowers. That has been done in the past, and will be done in the future by the State authorities, which have the necessary machinery and the decentralized organizations which will enable the scheme to be put into operation immediately. Assistance will be given in respect of freights, should the State Governments decide to distribute their portion of the money in accordance with paragraph a, which has been amended to include transport and marketing. The State railway authorities will, undoubtedly, continue to ‘carry out their accepted policy of providing a tapering rate for the benefit of the wheat-growers farthest from the seaboard. A concession on railway freights would mean to the wheat-growers an increase of so many pence per bushel at country sidings. Quite a number of the wheat-growers are under lien to rural banks or State departments, and no one knows their position better than I do. The credits of approximately 7,000 wheat-growers of New South Wales are under lien to the Rural Industries Branch of the Department of Agriculture. I administered that department for over three years, and I can authoritatively state that every year cash payments were made to the wheat-growers to help them to meet their commitments, including medical expenses in connexion with their families, and other incidentals for which assistance was not asked.

Mr Gabb:

– That is a wider system than that in operation in South Australia.

Mr THORBY:

– It may be wider in some details. But when Mr. Cowan was Minister for Agriculture in South Australia, I had the privilege of inspecting the Department of Agriculture in that State with a view to effecting improvements in the administration of the department in New South Wales. I can assure the honorable member that the administration of relief to settlers through the departments of agriculture in both South Australia and Western Australia was at that time carried out on an effective and efficient basis. Assistance was given for every conceivable purpose - the erection of fences, the control of pests, such as wild dogs and rabbits, the planting of crops, and the transport of stock.

Mr Gabb:

– Many of the growers in South Australia received superphosphate too late to enable them to sow their crops.

Mr THORBY:

– It is of no use to talk about mere details of that description. . A few individual farmers might have reecived their superphosphate too late to permit of their putting in their crops. I can give particulars of such cases in New South Wales. On investigation, I discovered that they left their application for superphosphate until it was almost seeding time; so that the delay was their own fault.

This bill, as amended, leaves the door open for the State authorities, who are in direct touch with the needs of primary producers, to grant financial assistance to enable farmers to carry on the production of their crops and. meet their financial obligations. I commend the Government on having agreed to the amendment which has been embodied in the clause, and I again protest against the endeavour of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) to introduce extraneous matters, the only result of which would have been to delay the granting of this relief. The right honorable gentleman.,, knows that this House, and another place will not sit much longer this year, and that it is essential to place this legislation on the statute-book at the earliest possible moment, so that the promise of the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) may become effective, and that the money will be available for distribution immediately after the bill has become law.

Is it the desire of any honorable member to prevent or delay the passage of this legislation?

Mr Makin:

– The honorable member is trying to save his face.

Mr THORBY:

– There is no need for me to endeavour to save my face. The attitude of the Country party and myself has been consistent ever since the matter of relief to wheat-growers was mooted. We have made demands, and secured their recognition in full. We are justified in asking for anything that we feel would benefit those engaged in producing the basic wealth of the country.

Mr Makin:

– Why does not the honorable member stand up to his statements?

Mr THORBY:

– I do not intend to allow any party in this committee to use the Country party’s vote to defeat the Government on this issue. I challenge any honorable member to indicate any way in which the Country party has been inconsistent in connexion with this agitation for relief for wheat-farmers. The Government stated that £2,000,000 would be granted for the purpose, and my party has done everything possible to see that the money will be available at the earliest possible moment, to meet demands that wheat-growers might make on their respective State Governments.

I commend the Government upon having avoided the necessity of setting up another federal department for the purpose of distributing this money. The distribution can now be made by the Commonwealth Treasurer signing six, instead of 50,000 or 60,000 cheques.

A great deal has been said about the various delays that have occurred. A tremendous amount of delay took place in connexion with the distribution of the wheat bounty last year. Many payments had not been completed so late as August and September last, and even now the Government is compelled to introduce legislation to finalize its liabilities under the Wheat Bounty Act.

I, and other members of the Country party, feel that we have every reason to be satisfied with the bill as amended. This money will be available for distribution to the wheat-growers by departments of the different States in a manner that will meet, individual needs and local conditions. Climatic and soil conditions, railway distances, cost of production, marketing, and varieties of wheat differ in the different States, so that the problem has to be treated differently in each one. Under this system, money may be spent to assist growers who have lost their crops through fire, hail, storms, floods, or other reasons,which would not be possible under the bounty system.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) has endeavoured at some length to convince himself and the committee that the party with which he is associated has been consistent throughout these negotiations on behalf of the wheatgrowers. Certain honorable members of the Country party have been consistent, but he has been the least consistent of all. The honorable member headed the deputation that waited upon the Prime Minister, consisting of representatives of the wheat-growers from South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales, and honorable members who represented the views of Western Australian growers. The deputation unanimously expressed the wish that a wheat bounty should be granted similar to that made available lastyear.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Action taken by a deputation does not concern this legislation.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– A good deal of explaining of side issues has been indulged in during this debate. I am combating the claim of the honorable member for Calare that he has been consistent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Strictly, the consistency or otherwise of an honorable member does not concern the amendment. An honorable member may claim that he has been consistent in his attitude, but it is a different matter when other honorable members contendthat he has not been consistent.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– If you, Sir, refuse to allow me to debate such matters, my position is much more circumscribed than that of the honorable member who preceded me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not the wish of the Chair unduly to restrict the remarks of the honorable member. Whether an honorable member’s attitude in this committee is, or is not, consistent with his utterances outside of Parliament does not concern this legislation.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Wheat-growers everywhere have asked for a bounty. Any other proposal is entirely at variance with their desires. The only argument that has been advanced against a wheat bounty is that the smaller man would necessarily receive less than larger producers would. The point is that the growers themselves are satisfied with a bounty, and believe it to be the best form of assistance. Therefore, the lengthy apologia of the honorable member for Calare cannot be sustained.

It has been said that, in the past, State Governments have made silos available, through their agricultural departments, have reduced freights, made grants of superphosphate, financed fencing and so forth. That is entirely a matter for the State Governments. This year growers have sustained an average loss of ls. a bushel on production. They are more concerned about receiving some ready money to pay their debts than about putting in seed for next year’s crop.

It has been argued that the need for assistance is urgent, and that we should not discuss anything but the Government’s proposals, otherwise delay will take place. Surely that is straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. The contention of my party is that the payment of a bounty towheat-farmers received nothing but praise, and that dissatisfaction exists in connexion with the proposed arrangement. The Government itself has unduly delayed matters. For months honorable members of the Country party and others have asked questions upon the subject, without stirring the Government into action. Apparently it was waiting in the hope that a rise in the price of wheat would occur, and so obviate the granting of assistance. Now, prices are worse than they have ever been. I consider that this £2,000,000 is entirely inadequate, but, the Government has toyed so long with the idea it is as well to accept even this sop.

I understand the position of certain members of the Country party who are not prepared to embarrass the Government, but I cannot understand their being so solicitous about the welfare of the Government that they break faith with those whom they represent by approving a form of relief which is entirely different from that desired by the wheatfarmers.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– I am one of those members of the Country party who accept the Government’s composition in a spirit of resignation. I do not share the enthusiasm of the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby). I am profoundly disappointed that my party was not able to obtain more liberal concessions from the Go,vernment on behalf of the wheat-growers. All that has been secured is the stipulation that the proposals to be submitted to the States will be widened so that the States will be enabled to use this money for transport and marketing purposes as well as for general assistance to wheatgrowers. The objection that the States are restricted from making the money available as a bounty on production, still remains. I hope that the scheme will work out as predicted by the honorable member for Calare, but at the moment I cannot see that it will give the States any greater power than they would have enjoyed under the original proposal.. Take, as an example, the position of- wheatgrowers in the New England district. Although there are thousands of growers in northern New South “Wales, there is not one silo, so that the Government cannot assist in that direction.

Mr Gibson:

– Unless they build silos.

My. THOMPSON.- They have had twenty years in which to do so.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Growers in those districts obtain high yields.

Mr THOMPSON:

– And they also are subject to frequent droughts. They do not use superphosphate, and therefore will get no benefit from any government proposals in that regard. Also, there are no large wheat-growers in northern New

South Wales. Probably 90 per cent, of the farms are from 200 to 300 acres in extent; a farm of 500 or 600 acres is exceptional. Therefore, the statement of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) regarding the inequitable distribution of the bounty last year does not apply to northern New South Wales. All the growers there received an equitable share. I had hoped that the committee would have an opportunity to deal with the proposal of the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) ; I did not approve of it entirely, but it provided a good starting point. The . wheat-growers in my district have suggested that the bounty should not be paid to any individual grower in respect of more than 1,000 bags of wheat, but the ruling of the Chair that the destination of a vote may not be altered, prevents me from moving such an amendment. The original proposals of the Country party were not dictated by any desire to make political capital out of the distress of the wheat-growers, but they have been defeated mainly because the Government has stated that it has only a certain amount of money available, and cannot, or will not, raise more to extend to the growers assistance upon tho conditions which the Country party favours. Originally, we advocated a bounty on export, but the export season having already started before a decision” was announced, we switched to a bounty on production. After the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) had informed a deputation that the Government would not entertain a bounty, we decided, rather than risk the loss of the £2,000,000 which the Commonwealth was offering, to endeavour to have the money handed over to the States unconditionally. That proposal seemed to us so fair that we were surprised at the opposition to it displayed by the Government. The Minister for Commerce has stated, in justification of the Government’s attitude, that last year 20 per cent, of the growers received 55 per cent, of the bounty, and the other 80 per cent, of the growers only 45 per cent: of the bounty. Those figures, however, prove nothing. The statement is uncontradicted that the average loss on production is at least 9d. a bushel ; therefore, the greater the production the greater the loss.

Mr Stewart:

– Surely the yield per acre must affect the cost of production.

Mr THOMPSON:

– We have been told that the average cost of production is 4s. 6d. a bushel. That estimate is probably too high ; 3s. would be less than the average. But the average, whatever it is, must be the basis of all calculation. The grower is losing on his production, whether it be great or small. The large grower will become bankrupt sooner than a small grower, and his financial problems will be more difficult to adjust. Therefore the argument against the bounty on production is not valid. Apparently, the figures quoted by the Minister for Commerce this afternoon were regarded as a live shell, but, in my opinion, they were a “ dud “. I am sorry that the committee has not had an opportunity to come to a vote upon some of the provisions in the bill, particularly the restrictions placed upon the States. These restrictions have been retained in their entirety, because a condition is being attached to the grant that the States must not distribute the money as a bounty on production. This will hamper the States in every direction ; they have been given a difficult, if not impossible, task, and the growers will regret that the proposal of the Country party was not adopted. The Government has got out of an awkward situation very well. I assure members of the Opposition who are suggesting that members of the Country party have abandoned their policy that we, like the members of the Labour party, are governed by majority decisions, and the majority, in its wisdom, has decided to make the best of an offer that is not quite satisfactory, but is apparently the most we can expect to get.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) has stated that he was not one of those Country party members who were fooled into accepting an alleged concession, by which the Government gave away nothing. I compliment ‘ the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) on the astute manner in which he extricated the Government from an awkward situation. For some weeks we have read of the impending defeat of the Government over the wheat issue. We were assured that the voting would be close, and that the Ministry could not win by more than one vote or two. I listened with interest to the second-reading speech of the Deputy Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), and I was amazed by the mildness of his attack. He said -

While we have been unable to work up a great deal of enthusiasm over the Government’s proposals to assist the wheat-growers, we have gained at least some measure of satisfaction from the Government modifying its original proposals.

That seemed a luke-warm attack on the Government for letting the wheat industry down, and I expected that at least a section of the Country party would put up a better fight for the 60,000 wheatgrowers. Each week-end I come in contact with growers in the Riverina district, and I know that their condemnation of the betrayal of their interests by the Lyons Government during the present session is freely expressed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is discussing the attitude of the Country party, rather than the clause.

Mr FORDE:

– I learned with regret that the honorable member for Gippsland had withdrawn his amendment, which, if carried, would have improved the bill. Now paragraph b of clause 27 will remain in the bill. It enables the States to apply the Commonwealth grant for the benefit and assistance of wheat-growers by “ providing for the needs of individual growers but not upon the basis of the quantity of wheat produced by individual wheat-growers.”

Mr Gabb:

– .Cannot the last part of the sentence be struck out?

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member may move such an amendment. When will the needy growers be assisted ? The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) stated that the money will be made available as soon as possible, but the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) quoted the Victorian Minister for Agriculture as having stated that it would probably take two years to determine to whom the assistance should be granted. The growers want cash quickly. The necessary investigations into the claims of individual wheatgrowers will occupy a considerable time. Unfortunately, thousands of the, growers are on the verge of bankruptcy, and they must be helped at once. The Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) stated thi3 afternoon that last year 20 per cent, of the growers received 55 per cent, of the bounty. I am not impressed by that statement. As a Minister in the Scullin Government, I came in contact with the leaders of the wheat industry, and I know, from information supplied to me, that the cost of ^production is at least ls. a bushel more than the grower can get for bis grain at the present time. A farmer with 1,000 or 1,500 acres under wheat will lose very much more than a man with a small crop, and will be in more urgent need of financial assistance. The depression has not come upon the growers only in the last twelve months; it has continued for two or three years, and many of them are nearing the end of their resources. The Attorney-General this morning assured the honorable member for Gippsland that, in order to remove any misunderstanding, the Government will undertake to do anything which may be necessary to enable the States to reduce the cost of production and marketing; but will not agree to the payment of a bounty on production. The Government, which has all along set its face against the bounty, has, by mere words, satisfied the honorable member for Gippsland, who, apparently, was seeking a plausible justification for retreating from what we were led to believe was a front-line trench. The honorable, member’s action was characteristic of the sham fighting of some of the older members of the Country party. Though I do not charge the younger members of that party with the adoption of such tactics, I regret that the Government has not acceded to the requests that have been made for the payment of a bounty, and that it has fooled the wheat-growers of Australia.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– The wheat-growers of Australia have been given . a substantial concession this year by reason of the fact that the money provided by this bill for their assistance is being found out of revenue. The money needed last year for the payment of the bounty of 4£d. per bushel was provided by loan, and it will be fourteen years before the debt incurred in that connexion is liquidated. I believe that the wheat-growers of Australia will realize that they are being generously assisted from the coffers of the Commonwealth Treasury by the grant of £2,000,000. In this respect, they are much more fortunate than many other sections of primary producers in this country. While the disabilities and struggles of the wheatgrowers has not been exaggerated in any way, it is well to bear in mind that, although the producers of other primary products have also had to bear their trials and privations, they are not receiving the consideration that is being accorded to the wheat-growers. In view of the financial condition of the country, the measure of assistance which the Government is now providing for wheat-growers is generous. The inclusion of the provision which covers the transport and marketing of wheat meets, to a very large extent, all the desires of the Country party. Some members of this party are thoroughly satisfied with this amendment. It was for that reason alone that the Deputy Leader of this party intimated that he did not now intend to move the amendment of which he had given notice earlier in the debate on this bill.

Mr Maxwell:

– But it is a great disappointment to the Opposition !

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– That may be so, but we should look at these matters, not from the stand-point of possible party political gain, but from that of the welfare of the producers and the community generally. They stoop very low in political life who object to the withdrawal of an amendment simply on the ground that it may rob them of a party political advantage at election time. The Country party has no desire to adopt such tactics. It is satisfied with the concessions which the Government has been able to provide, and, therefore, it is according its support to the amendment. I know of many individuals thoroughly acquainted with every aspect Of wheat-growing who’ believe that the measure of assistance which the Government is now giving to this industry is a magnificent contribution to it. I hope, however, that before another twelve months have passed, the wheat-growers of Australia will organize themselves into one body, which will be able to speak with authority for the whole industry. There is no such body in existence at present.

In every State certain organizations claim to represent the wheat-growers, but these bodies do not speak with one voice, and it is highly necessary that one voice shall speak for this great industry. This is particularly desirable if we are ever to take the place we should take among the wheat-growers of the world and assist in arranging for the orderly marketing of the world’s wheat. In some other countries, the wheat-growers have organized themselves in this way, and it is high time that we had one body in Australia which could inform the Government of the real opinion of the wheat-growers and give it advice and assistance when it is dealing with this industry.

I repeat that the amendment forecast by the Deputy Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) has been withdrawn only because the concessions granted by the Government have met practically all the desires of this party. We have no wish to make political capital out of our association with this industry, particularly in view of its unfortunate position at the moment. In all the circumstances there is every justification for the decision of our deputy leader not to move the amendment which he’ had intended to submit.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2S-

The Minister of State for Commerce may, out of the amount appropriated under this part, provide assistance and benefits to wheatgrowers in any territory by -

reducing the cost of production of wheat; and

Amendment (by Mr. Stewart) agreed to -

That after the word “ wheat “, paragraph a, the words “(including the cost of transport and marketing)” be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Appropriation of £250,000 for relief to primary producers).

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– As I intimated in my secondreading speech on this bill, I am of the opinion that an investigation should be made into the affairs of certain of the primary industries of Australia. Whenever a proposal is made for the granting of assistance to a secondary industry, the subject is referred to the Tariff Board or some other body for investigation and report, and I think that a similar procedure should be adopted when proposals are made for the granting of assistance to primary industries. I do not make this statement with any desire to set the primary industries against the secondary industries, nor do I suggest that our primary industries are not efficiently conducted. Some honorable members have made statements of this kind, but I disagree with them. But there is room for greater efficiency in every industry, and my motive in suggesting that thorough inquiry should be made into any industry, before assistance is granted to it, is to ensure that the industry concerned is being conducted at the highest possible efficiency in view of all the circumstances which surround it.

I wish particularly to suggest that an inquiry should be made into the butter manufacturing industry. I do not think that the small dairymen are getting as much as they should get from the butter manufacturers for the cream they sell. The dairying industry is developing into an important Australian enterprise. I admit that I have not had a great deal of practical experience of this industry, but I have been closely associated for a number of years with various organizations which pay attention to the welfare of the employees engaged in the industry. This has led me to form the opinion that the brokers or middlemen are doing remarkably well out of the dairy-farmers. Of course, people are entitled to benefit by their initiative and enterprise, but it would be fair to protect the interests of both the producers and consumers. The dairy-farmers are not getting as much as they should get for their product, although the butter consumers are paying a substantial price for butter. I believe that an investigation would lead to the discovery of ways and means of improving the circumstances of this industry, at both the production and consumption ends. As the result of the Paterson stabilization scheme, the butter consumers of Australia are paying a substantial toll in the interests of this industry. The cost of butter boxes is a fairly considerable item of the expense of marketing butter. Although the cost of material and of labour is less now than it was in 1928-29, the price of the completed butter boxes is actually higher. The cost of such raw materials as timbers, nails and wire has fallen by from 10 per cent, to 15 per cent., and labour costs have come down by from 15 per cent, to 20 per cent., the drop being nearer the latter figure than the former. Moreover, the efficiency of labour has increased, as always occurs during periods of depression. I do not want it to be understood that I am suggesting that workmen were in the habit of going slow during good times, but, during periods of extraordinary competition, all sections of the community, whether traders or workers, exert themselves unduly in order to retain their jobs or their trade as the case may be. The plant used in the box-making factories is more efficient than ever. In one firm with which I am familiar, the plant is the last word in efficiency. Notwithstanding all these advantages, the price of butter boxes is 20 per cent, higher now than in 1928-29. These figures warrant the holding of an investigation. In order to demonstrate that butter boxes are not a trivial item in butter costs, I quote the following figures regarding them: - Last year, 1,387,305 butter boxes were exported from Victoria. The price of boxes in Queensland was ls. 2d. each, in New South “Wales, 2s. each, and in Victoria, ls. 8£d. each. In Victoria, the price of butter boxes in 1928 was ls. 6^d. each, as against ls. 8£d. at the present time, the increase representing an additional charge of £33,000. The accuracy of those figures should be investigated, and if they are found to be correct, a searching inquiry should be made into this phase of the industry. When analysing a set of facts which disclose the existence of anomalies, it is usual for thinking men to look for the reason behind it all. I know that the firm which makes most of the butter boxes in Victoria, and which is the most up to date in that State, is a co-operative” society called the Co-operative Butter Box Making Association. The same men who are shareholders in that association also run a co-operative association for the making of the butter itself. They make the boxes for themselves, and charge the cost against their own butter manufacturing association. It appears to me that, in this association, there is room for the making of unfair charges against the consumers of butter. There are several box manufacturers in Victoria, and one would imagine that, in the ordinary course of events, those needing butter boxes would call tenders for their manufacture, so that, by means of competition, they might obtain what they wanted at the lowest price. The butter manufacturers of Victoria, however, do not follow this course; they give all their orders to the one co-operative society. This firm ought to be able to produce at the lowest rates. It is in a position to manufacture on the basis of permanent mass production, itS output is uniform, and its plant is efficient, so that the cost of production should be getting lower and lower. Nevertheless, in spite of all those advantages, the price of the finished article, instead of going down, has increased.

I do not oppose the present proposal to assist primary producers other than wheat-growers, but I say that, before any further help is given to them over sud above the assistance that is urgently needed this year, an inquiry should be made into the dairying industry to determine whether it is being run in the most satisfactory way. Attached to the Marketing Board are dairy experts who could, in a few hours, place the Minister in possession of all relevant information. If an inquiry such as I have suggested were made, some of the dairyfarmers themselves, and the public generally, would receive the shock of their lives. [Quorum formed.]

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

.- I listened with a great deal of interest to. the speech of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) in which he referred to the organization of the dairying industry. He seemed to he of the opinion that that organization is directed against the interests of the consumers. No other primary industry in Australia is organized so well as is the ‘ dairying industry. It is actually able to impose on the consumers a higher price than they would otherwise have to pay, and this is accomplished without the . assistance of Parliament, merely by virtue of its own organization. In this respect, the dairying industry is an example to the wheat-growing and otherprimary industries. If the wheatgrowers were similarly organized, there would be no need for them to approach Parliament for assistance. They would be able to do for themselves what the dairy-farmers have done under the Paterson butter scheme. That scheme has received no legislative backing, but it is worth millions of pounds annually to the butter producers of Australia. I do not think that the butter consumers are being charged unduly high prices as a result of that scheme. It is only giving to the dairymen a reasonable return for the hard labour involved in producing butter. This is, for the most part, a family industry, in which the young people do a great deal of the hard work before they go to school, and more when they return. If, by means of organization, the dairymen can obtain a penny or two per lb. more from the consumers, they are entitled to get it.

Mr Holloway:

– My desire is to ensure that they shall get it.

Mr GIBSON:

– If it were not for the Paterson butter scheme, the dairymen would be receiving only 7d. per lb.’ for their butter fat to-day. As it is, they obtain only lid. per lb.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports referred to the manufacture of butter boxes, and mentioned the enormous number of such boxes which are exported from Australia every year. His speech would lead one to believe that the cooperative companies are exploiting the dairymen in the manufacture of butter boxes. As a matter of fact, the cooperative box manufacturing company is a subsidiary concern of the butter factories themselves, and if any profits are made on the manufacture of boxes, these eventually find their way into the pockets of the dairymen. It does not really matter what profits are made, because the dairymen benefit. The profits do not go to proprietary companies or private persons who might exploit the industry. I should like to see the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research investigate the practicability of manufacturing butter boxes from casein, which is a by-product of milk. At present this commodity is shipped in large quantities to Great Britain, but if it could be made up into boxes, which’ would be sent abroad with butter packed in them, that would.be an ideal arrangement. Then the -boxes, when emptied in Great Britain, could be used .for making buttons and other articles. There is surely room for investigation in this direction.

In my opinion, the consumers are receiving a fair deal from . tlie dairyfarmers. I do not think that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports considers that the dairy-farmers should receive less than lid. per lb. for their butter fat. The other day, the honorable member for Gippsland quoted figures showing what was being done in Gippsland by means of herd testing to improve, the standard of dairy herds. He pointed out that some Gippsland herds had been tested, and that many of the cows were showing as much as 300 lb. of butter fat, which is more than double the average of Australia. What I rose to speak about was the appropriation of £250,000 for the relief of primary producers other than wheat-growers. This is the finest effort of the Government to assist the smaller primary producers in this country. It, is only right that those who in previous years contributed towards the wheat bounty, should now receive some assistance themselves, and I think this assistance will be of more ‘ benefit to them than is anticipated by the Government. It was stated during the second-reading debate that many country districts do not use superphosphates. There is one butter factory in my electorate which is using 1,000 tons of superphosphate for dairying purposes alone. Large factories at Camperdown, Cobden and Colac, and other places, have entered into contracts with the superphosphate companies. They are purchasing 1,000 tons of superphosphate, and are selling it in small quantities to the dairymen at actual cost. As a result of top-dressing, the Cobden district has practically doubled its butter production. When speaking in this chamber the other day regarding the wheat position, I pointed out that in my own neighbourhood, a farmer with a small holding of 400 acres had, by pasture improvement, obtained £1 per acre for his wool clip from land which had cost him £10 an acre. That shows the value of pasture improvements. I have no doubt that many honorable members who listen to the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon addresses broadcast from the

Wesley Church, recently heard one of my own neighbours, speaking at that church, say that, by pasture improvements he had increased his wool clip by from 7 lb. to 20 lb. an acre. I am referring now to areas of from 4,000 to 6,000 acres. Another grazier, by the use of topdressing, increased his wool clip from 120 bales in 1929, to 360 bales this year. That is happening in a district which has a rainfall of about 20 inches. One can hardly imagine the pastoral development that has taken place in the country districts of Victoria, and many growers will take advantage of this appropriation which is being made on their behalf. It will enable them, at any rate, to obtain superphosphate at 15s. per ton less than they are charged to-day. Orchardists and market gardeners will receive relief under this provision. I hope that the manufacturers of superphosphate - and, incidentally, I refer to the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), who is a director of a superphosphate company - will reduce their charges to the growers. The first proposal of the Government to pay a subsidy of fi a ton on 800,000 tons of superphosphates was wrong in principle, because it would have meant that the superphosphate company would have received £800,000 in cash, despite the fact that it would give terms only in respect of three-quarters of the quantity of superphosphate sold to the growers. This provision will assist the users of superphosphates, and, as a result, will probably double the carrying capacity of much of the dairying and small farming areas throughout Victoria and other places which have a rainfall of about twenty inches. I welcome the measure.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I should not have risen to speak had the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) not referred to a butter box factory in my electorate which employs about 250 hands. That factory is, as he has stated, owned by the cooperative butter companies. The butter factories in the country areas send their butter to co-operative selling companies in the city, of which there are three - the Victorian Butter Factory Co-operative Company, the Western District Cooperative Company and the Gippsland Cooperative Company. Instead of each company establishing a box factory of its own, one factory to serve the purposes of each was established at Yarraville, in my electorate. I hope in a day or two to visit that factory. It is true, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has said, that this is one of the most up-to-date box factories in Australia, and I have no objection to inquiries being made, not only into its operations, but also into the operations of the dairying industry generally. As the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) has stated, the dairying industry of Victoria has one of the finest cooperative organizations in Australia, and it was in existence long before the Paterson scheme was thought of. Millions of pounds have been saved to the dairymen as a result of the establishment of these co-operative companies. Last year 1,387,000 butter boxes were manufactured in these factories and from at least 25,000 tons of butter were exported. The honorable member for Corangamite has suggested that casein, which is extracted from skim milk, should be used for the manufacture of butter boxes. That, I consider, is an excellent suggestion. One of the finest casein ornaments that I have ever seen was exhibited at the Olympia in London, when the British Industries Fair was being held. Beautifully coloured ornaments manufactured of Australian casein were exhibited at the Australian stall, and one of them, of which I have a facsimile in my own home, was purchased by Her Majesty the Queen.’ This is one indication of the wonderful resources of the dairying industry. We rightly boast of our wool and wheat industry, but as one who has played a humble part in the dairying industry for some years, I am pleased <to be able to say that during the twelve months ending the 30th June, 1932, the returns from the dairying industry topped the poll so far as Australia is concerned. The return from that industry from the 1st July, 1931, to the 30th June, 1932, was no less than £40,000,000. I agree with the honorable member for Corangamite as to the necessity for topdressing pasture lands. There are in this chamber honorable members who, because of using top-dressing ion their lands, are enjoying rich and handsome returns. In

Victoria, we expect by the use of topdressing, the treatment of soils and herd testing to treble the butter output in less than ten years. This provision will afford a much needed assistance to orchardists, dairymen and small graziers. We must not forget that the assistance which the wheat industry received last year, and which it is proposed to give it this year, amounts to approximately £6,000,000. I do not regret that; in fact I am sorry that the amount is not larger. It is now proposed to assist the wheatgrowers to the extent of £2,000,000, and I suggest that that assistance could be augmented by the State governments themselves in reducing the railway freights on the carriage of wheat. As most honorable members seem to be imbued with the Christmas spirit, I hope that this measure and other measures which are to be considered will be expeditiously passed, to enable us to return as quickly as possible to our homes.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I congratulate you, Mr.’ Thompson, on your elevation to the position of Temporary Chairman of Committees, and I hope that is is but a stepping stone to greater elevation in this chamber. I feel that your characteristic ability and smiling countenance fully justify your appointment. I am glad that the sum of £250,000 is to be made available for the relief of primary producers other than wheat-growers. A portion of that amount could well be expended in encouraging persons to settle in our back-blocks, and earn a pittance for themselves. We should also encourage by practical assistance those who, living under rough conditions in bark huts, roofed with galvanized iron, have pioneered our great forest areas, and established worth-while national industries.

Honorable members must realize the importance of our dairying industry, which employs such a great number of persons directly and indirectly, and whose exports add considerably to our revenue. It will be admitted that those in it are entitled to any assistance that may be granted by this Parliament.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) referred to certain phases of the butter industry. I point out that, in Queensland, the industryis administered mainly by the primary producers themselves, 95 per cent. of the butter factories being controlled by them, and their methods are up-to-date and thoroughly to be commended. They also manufacture their own butter boxes, so that there is not much opportunity for hungry “ cormorants “ to victimize the community by charging excessive prices for butter. It may be that Victorian factories have ‘increased the price of butter boxes or containers, because of expense incurred in selecting taintless timbers. Had Queensland not been subjected to drought last season, its butter production would have exceeded all expectations. As it was, the figures startled the pessimists. Undoubtedly, Queensland is destined to be one of the greatest butter-producing areas in the world. No industry has progressed more noticeably than the butter industry, and its value to Australia is inestimable. I therefore hope that substantial assistance will be granted out of this £250,000 to those engaged in the industry.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I wish to say a few words in commendation of this part of the bill. I have, on many occasions, recommended making available cheaper fertilizers as a means of increasing the productivity of land. The price of fertilizers in Australia is £1 a ton more than it is in any other part of the world. No restriction should be placed upon the importation of fertilizer, as it is so valuable to the producers, it. being common knowledge that, with a given rainfall, a dressing of superphosphate will treble the carrying capacity of land. It has been claimed that only a limited area of land is available to our producers. Obviously, the solution of the problem is to increase its carrying capacity by the use of superphosphate. We should also make every endeavour to ensure that transport costs between here and Nauru, and other phosphate-producing countries, are reduced to a minimum. I hope that this portion of the bill will have a speedy passage.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- Clause 29 contains the words” other than wheat-growers.” I should like to know whether it is the Government’s intention to confine this assistance to primary producers other than wheat-growers, or to provide a bounty on fertilizers for purposes other than the growing of wheat? The Minister realizes that there is a difference. Clause 30 also contains the words, “ other than wheat-growers “. In clause 31 appear the words “in the production of primary products other than wheat “, while clause 32 states, “ to each primary producer not being a wheatgrower “. I should like to know whether a man who, although a wheat-grower, also grows potatoes or top-dresses his lucerne, will obtain the concession on the fertilizer used in respect of his crops other than wheat ; or whether, being a wheat-grower, he will be debarred from any advantage under the clauses.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- Will the Minister state whether there will be any appreciable reduction in the price of superphosphate as a result of the increased demand that will undoubtedly result when this assistance is granted? When the proposal was first mooted, the Prime Minister said that fertilizer companies would substantially reduce their prices because of the greater turnover.

The course that is being pursued by the Government in this connexion is extremely wise, as by reason of the lower prices now obtaining for many of our primary products, it is necessary to increase the carrying capacity of the land if producers are to make their endeavours pay. The district which extends from the Hunter River, in New South Wales, to the Mary River, in Queensland, and embraces an area roughly three times greater than Denmark, and in which the greater part of the land is alienated, is probably the best natural dairying country in the world. At present it produces about £10,000,000 worth of butter per annum. On the other hand, Denmark, with its smaller area and poorer land, which is subjected to the rigours of winters, yearly produces £25,000,000 worth of butter,’ £24,000,000 worth of cheese, and £20,000,000 worth of pork. One can readily imagine the potentialities of the area to which I have referred if it were more closely settled, if it’s producers used superphosphate extensively, and cultivated and stored exotic grasses. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that1 there will be a substantial decrease in the cost of fertilizer.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- When speaking on the second reading of this bill, I mentioned that it contained certain clauses which I support, and others which. I oppose. Those clauses which provide relief to primary producers to the extent of £250,000 by making available cheap fertilizer, represent one of the good features of the measure.

As a representative of what is substantially a dairying area, where that industry has progressed steadily in the last ten or fifteen years, I realize the importance of the top-dressing of pastures and fodder conservation. Particularly is it necessary in a State like Queensland, which is subject to such variation of climatic conditions. The use of fertilizer, coupled with fodder conservation, will undoubtedly play a big part in the future development of the butter industry. Even during the last half-dozen years the production increase in that industry in Queensland has been phenomenal. Here are some of the figures -

while the export has been -

I have always supported the formation of pools for the marketing of farmers’ produce. In Queensland there are pools operating which control the marketing of £18,000,000 worth of farmers’ produce annually. I have also been a consistent supporter of what is known as the Paterson butter scheme, which provides a’ bonus on the export’ of butter. Thus the average price received by the dairyfarmers is increased. We are told that this stabilization scheme cost the Australian consumers up to £4,000,000 per annum. But those engaged in the dairying industry are amongst the hardestworked in Australia; they labour from daylight to dark every day in the year, and in Queensland, where some of the dairying districts are subject to periodical drought, a farmer may- lose a large proportion), and even the whole, of his herd.

Hence the necessity for them to receive all the assistance possible to encourage fodder conservation. Considering the Queensland industry by and large, the dairy-farmers make only a reasonable living. Therefore, I support the continuance of the Paterson butter scheme, a pooling system, and the fixation of prices within Australia, in order to ensure a reasonable return to those engaged in the industry.

I am glad that assistance is to be extended to other primary industries in the form of a payment of 15s. a ton on artificial manure used by the producers. Some of the primary industries of Queensland have not received a fair deal. One industry, which Part VII. will probably benefit, is pineapple-growing. It has suffered a decided setback as a result of the Australian delegation to Ottawa agreeing to surrender the preference which had been secured from Canada for Australian pineapples. Canada imports yearly approximately 20,000,000 lb. of canned pineapples, consisting of about 180,000 cases of high-class fruit, and 600,000 cases of the cheaper grades. The high-class pineapples Canada procures mostly from Hawaii, and the cheaper grades. from Singapore. One of our main problems is how to find markets for our primary produce. In Queensland . many returned soldiers are engaged in the production of pineapples exclusively. The Scullin Labour Government realized the possibilities of the Canadian market for pineapples, and, in the agreement .negotiated by “Mr. Parker Moloney with the dominion, the Commonwealth received, in respect of pineapples, a substantial preference over all other countries, the rates being - 1 cent per lb. on Australian canned pineapples; 3’ cents per lb. on British fruit, including that from Singapore ; and 5 Cents per lb. on foreign fruit, including that from Hawaii. This meant that the rates per dozen, at normal exchange, would be approximately - Australian 10d., Singapore 2s. 6d., and Hawaii 4s. 2d. This agreement gave a decided preference to Queensland growers ; but, as a result of the new agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom, they will lose probably £200,000 worth of the Canadian market annually. The1 Hawaiian Pineapple Company, an American concern, has established a branch factory in Fiji and will take advantage of the new preference to British Crown Colony fruits to supply the Canadian market. This is possible only because of the shortsightedness of the Australian delegates at Ottawa. I hope, however, that the pineapple industry in Queensland will benefit as a result of. the distribution among all the States of £250,000 in the form of a subsidy on the use of artificial manures. As the industry is losing a market worth £200,000 yearly, it will, even with the assistance that it may receive under this bill, be in a much worse position than it occupied last year.

Mr HILL:
Echuca

.- The manufacturers of superphosphate are entitled to know exactly their position in relation to Part VII. of this bill. Can the fertilizer that is to be made available to primary producers, other than wheatgrowers, be used for oats, barley, maize, hay, orchard and garden purposes, potatoes, onions, sugar cane, and all classes of top dressing for grasses and pastures ? Is only wheat being excluded ?

Mr Stewart:

– Absolutely.

Mr HILL:

– Probably a large quantity of superphosphates will be required. I agree with the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) regarding the beneficial effects of artificial manures, and I am pleased that the Government has set aside £250,000 to cheapen supplies to the primary producer. That will mean that 333,000 tons can be made available at a reduction of 15s. a ton. How and when will the subsidy be paid? I understand that it is to be paid to the user of superphosphates; but will he be entitled to receive it before he has paid the manufacturer or supplier? The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) stated that superphosphate is dearer in Australia than in any other part of the world, and I propose to mention a few facts for the information of some honorable members who apparently know very little about the subject. The statement that superphosphates are cheaper in Great Britain than in Australia is without foundation.’ I have consulted the Fertilizer Journal published in England on the 16th September, 1931. It does not quote the 22 per cent, superphosphate which is the- standard used in Victoria. The lowest price quoted is £2 10s. a ton for superphosphate, London standard, which is from 14 per cent, water soluble phosphoric acid. For what is sold in Australia as 22 per cent, superphosphate, that is, containing 20.5 per cent, water soluble phosphoric acid, this price would be equivalent to £3 18s. 8d. sterling. Converting this into Australian currency at 30^ per cent., the rate of exchange then ruling, the price is brought up to £5 2s. 6d. a ton. To this would have to be added the cost, of two extra bags, as the English practice is to pack in ten bags to the ton, using second-hand bags. “The value of these at Liverpool is given as 3d. each. Six months earlier the London price for the 14 per cent, superphosphate was 7s. 6d. a ton higher. The Fertilizer Journal of the same date quotes under the heading for 30 per cent, grade, £3 a ton- free on rail at Newport and Swansea, but the 30 per cent, referred to in these places is equivalent only to the 14 per cent, -water soluble phosphoric acid quoted in London.

Australia is not the only country in which a bounty is being paid on superphosphates or phosphatic rock. In May, 1931, the price of superphosphate in New Zealand was £4 17s. 6d. a ton on trucks at works, net cash, monthly accounts. . From July to October, 19’8l, the price was £4 las., and from. October to January last, £3 17s. 6d. The price on the 1st February, 1932, was £4 2s. 6d. In October, 193J, the New Zealand Government decided to subsidize the purchase of rock phosphate to the extent of £1 per ton. For this purpose £100,000 was allocated, and was to be available to June, 1932. The subsidy of £1 a ton on rock phosphate is equivalent to lis. a ton of superphosphate. The reduction of 17s. 6d. a ton in the price of superphosphates in October, 1931, was made up as follows : - lis. a ton, Government subsidy; ls. 6d. from the distributor’s commission ; and 5s. from the manufacturers. The superphosphate is sold as from 44 per cent, to 46 per cent, water soluble. This is equivalent to 20 per cent, to 21 per cent, water soluble on the Victorian standard.

I desire the committee to know what has been done by the Australian superphosphate manufacturers, including the company of which I am chairman of directors. Between 1924 and 1927, the price of 22 per cent, superphosphate rose in progressive steps, obviously by mutual agreement between all . supplying companies, from £5 to £5 7s. 6d. per ton. The Phosphate Co-operative Company started manufacture in June, 1927. The price of 22 per cent, standard superphosphate at that time was £5 7s. 6d. per ton. Its entry was the signal for an immediate drop of 2s. 6d. per ton, that is, to £5 5s. Included in this price was an allowance of Ss. 6d., and sometimes lis. per ton, to agents. This payment was compulsory, and was received by the agents in the respective districts, even when the order was given to the manufacturer direct. The Phosphate Co-operative Company introduced the system of direct dealing, which immediately relieved its shareholders of the compulsory agency charges. In the 1928-29 season, other suppliers followed suit, in that they gave their customers the option of ordering direct and saving these charges. In the case of one company, the agent’s commission was drastically reduced. The first effects of the formation of the Phosphate Cooperative Company were, therefore, to render it possible for producers to obtain superphosphate at £4 16s. 6d. per ton instead of £5 7s. 6d. In its second season of manufacture the company supplied its members at £4 8s. 6d. per ton, and for further orders at £4 14s. per ton. This applied to deliveries for the 1928-29 season. Between the 24th April and the 11th July, the Tariff Board held an inquiry, the result of which had not then been announced. In the meantime, the pending amalgamation of four of the principal manufacturers occurred, and the price of raw materials had fallen slightly. These reductions were one dollar, 4s. 2d., in the price of sulphur on the 1st June, 1928, and 2s. 9d. in the price of Nauru and Ocean Island rock thirteen months later. On the 9th August, the amalgamation announced new prices. Taking the most favorable method of’ purchase, that is, cash before delivery, these were £4 10s. per ton for orders given direct, or £4 12s. 6d. for orders given through an agent. It will thus be seen that the agents’ commission has been cut down 2s. 6d. a ton. For this, the Phosphate Co-operative Company is alone responsible.

Mr Casey:

– What about the use of imported sulphur?

Mr HILL:

– The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Casey) has previously twitted me because this company uses sulphur in preference to pyrites and zinc concentrates. But I point out to him that our works are not adapted for the use of concentrates or pyrites. We claim to have the finest phosphate manufacturing works of 100,000 tons capacity in Australia, and visitors from overseas have been good enough to say that they are among the finest works in the world. We claim that we are doing a national work.

As the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) mentioned a few days ago, we have made superphosphate available to the Dairy Factories Association in 1,000 ton lots at £4 2s. per ton net cash, which is a reduction of £1 5s. 6d. per ton on the ruling rate when this company started operations in 1927. This has been done, notwithstanding the fact that the increased cost of bags and imported sulphur, owing to the exchange, has added 6s. per ton to our cost of production.

I congratulate the Government upon having made £250,000 available for cheapening the cost of superphosphates to primary producers. I believe that the increased production brought about by the more extensive use of this fertilizer will more than recompense the country for this expenditure. I agree with the statement that was made in this House some time ago that Australia was destined in the near future to become one of the greatest butter producing countries in the world. By the scientific use of superphosphates, and the improvement of pastures in areas which have a 20-in. rainfall and upwards, and in our irrigation districts, we shall be able enormously to increase our productivity.

Referring again, for a moment, to the use of sulphur-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– The Government has been pleased to hear the chorus of approbation of these provisions in the bill. I hope that the appreciation of honorable members will be shown by their giving the remaining clauses of the bill a speedy passage. The honorable mem ber for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) may rest assured that the term “primary producers other than wheat-growers “ is wide enough to cover all primary producers who use superphosphate, including wheatfarmers who use superphosphate for purposes other than wheat-growing. It was necessary for drafting reasons to draw the clauses in the words which appear in the bill, because some of the provisions have a personal application, and some have not. I regret that the Government has not so far been able to make arrangements with the fertilizercompanies for a reduction of the price of fertilizers. When the larger scheme was under consideration, tentative arrangements had been made with the companies for special conditions, but those arrangements were not confirmed when the more restricted scheme was adopted. The honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill) has asked whether the bounty would be paid to the consumers or the phosphate manufacturers. The bill takes no cognizance of the manufacturers. But they will be in no worse position than at present. They now have to take precautions to protect themselves in regard to the sale of their product, and they will still be able to do so.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.

Clause 32-

There shall he payable out of the amount appropriated by this part to each primary producer (hot being a wheat-grower) in any territory an amount representing fifteen shillings per ton of the artificial manure used by that primary producer in that territory during the year ending on the thirtieth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I move -

That the following proviso be added: - “ Provided that, in calculating the amount which may be paid to a primary producer under this section in respect of artificial manure used by him during that year, fractions of a ton shall be excluded.”.

This clause relates to payments to primary producers in federal territories who use superphosphates, and the object of the amendment is merely to provide that fractions of a ton shall not be taken into consideration. The amendment will bring the conditions applicable to phos phate users in federal territories into conformity with those applicable to phosphate users in the States.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I suggest that the words “ primary producer not being a wheat-grower “ should be altered to make the intention clearer. If we provided that the bounty should be payable to users of superphosphates for purposes other than wheatgrowing it would, in my opinion, be better.

Mr Stewart:

– I shall look into the honorable member’s suggestion with a view to having an alteration made in another place if it is thought necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 36 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (by Mr. Stewart) proposed-

That the report be adopted.

Mr McCLELLAND:
Wimmera

– While I appreciate the fact that the wheat-growing industry is being granted a measure of assistance under the provisions of this bill, I think all honorable members will agree that we are applying a palliative, and not a cure to the ills of this industry. I have, on several occasions in this House, urged the necessity of thoroughly investigating the circumstances of this industry, and I again urge that this shall be done. During this debate, much has been said about the cost of producing wheat, but all the opinions expressed have been personal, and have had only a restricted application. No one can say definitely what is the cost of producing wheat in Australia. I feel sure that honorable members will agree with me that, until the industry has been restored to a condition in which it can sell its products for at least as much as they cost to produce, we shall have a repetition of these annual appeals for governmental assistance. As one closely associated with the industry, I can assure honorable members that the wheatgrowers derive no pleasure from being compelled to ask for assistance each year. The growers are an independent body of men, who do not wish to be regarded as persons asking for something to which they are not justly entitled. I desire to impress upon the Government the urgent necessity for appointing a committee, such as that which recently reported on the wool industry, to inquire into every phase of the wheat industry, so that not only the Federal Government, but State Governments as well, may know what is required to put the industry on a sound basis.I feel strongly on this matter, because the wheat industry, being one of the basic industries of Australia, there is grave risk of its collapse, with disastrous consequences to the country as a whole.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I support the proposal of the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. McClelland) for the appointment of a committee of inquiry. The recently issued report of the Wool Investigation Committee is an extraordinarily valuable document, which clearly sets out the causes which have made the production of wool unprofitable at the present time. If we could obtain an authoritative report on the wool industry on which to base remedial measures, the need for granting a wheat bounty and other palliatives would disappear. The country cannot recover from the present depression until the great key industries are placed in a position in which they will not have to depend on spasmodic, governmental assistance. I should like the Minister to say that the Government will favorably consider the proposal for the appointment of a committee of inquiry such as the Wool Investigation Committee, which performed most valuable work at very little cost to the Commonwealth.

Mr Stewart:

– The matter will be given prompt consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Stewart) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- The Government has been warmly congratulated by several honorable members upon having brought down this measure providing financial relief to various sections of the community. I should like it to be clearly understood, however, that the very substantial benefits which will be derived by certain sections have been obtained at the expense of other, and more needy sections. It is pleasant to be able to give people what they want, but it is not a matter for congratulation if that is done by imposing hardships upon other sections of the community. That is what has been done in this case, and I desire that the public should know the truth. Approximately £1,100,000 has been remitted in federal land tax and super tax on incomes from property chiefly to. the wealthy owners of city land, and to others in affluent circumstances, and this has been done at the expense of those in receipt of pensions. I feel that I must protest against this inequitable legislation. Perhaps nothing has contributed to the inglorious record of this Government more than the legislation now before the House.

It is evident from a document which has come into my hands, that the proposal to reduce pensions was not put forward for the first time within recent months, but was advanced as early as May of last year by an organization known as the “ All for Australia League”, which supports the present Government. During the course of the debate on this bill, honorable members have quoted cases of hardship among pensioners, and it is evident that there has been a revulsion of feeling among members and the public generally against the hardships which this legislation imposes.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member should not upset himself.

Mr MAKIN:

– Many people in Australia have been upset because of the legislation for which this Government is responsible. I have before me an’ agenda paper for the first State convention of the All for Australia League held in Victoria. The document contains proposals for the cutting down of pensions in the manner with which we are familiar as a result of the legislation with which we are dealing. The public will be astounded to learn that, on this agenda paper, there is a proposal that the vote should be taken away from pensioners doubtless so that the Government, which has reduced their pensions, may be protected against their wrath. I have no doubt that eventually the Government will seek to put that proposal into effect, thus taking away from those in receipt of pensions their rights of citizenship. Of course, it was never intended that this revelation should be made to the Australian people. I am glad that, before this iniquitous proposal can be advanced a further stage, I have been able to disclose to the House, and to the people, that it is the serious intention of those who support the Go vernment to take away the rights of citizenship from a most deserving and honorable section of the community. Those on the other side of the House who accepted the support of this organization, have much to answer for. The proposal will, I am sure, be strongly condemned by every true supporter of the principles of democracy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3282

BILLS FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Committee of Public Accounts Bill;

Judiciary Bill;

Jury Exemption Bill;

Sugar Agreement Bill;

War Service Homes Agreement Bill;

page 3282

WAR SERVICE HOMES AGREEMENT BILL

Assent reported.

OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 p.m.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

by leave - I move -

That Standing Order No. 70 be suspended fur the remainder of this sitting to enable opposed business to be taken after 11 p.m.

This is one sitting, and there is a standing order which prevents new business from being taken after 11 p.m. Therefore, it is necessary to move this motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3282

ESTIMATES (No. 2) 1932-33

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting additional estimates of revenue and expenditure and additional estimates of expenditure for additions, new works, buildings, &c., for the financial year ending the 30th June, 1933.

Ordered to be printed and referred to Committee of Supply.

In Committee of Supply:

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · Warringah. · UAP

– These Estimates are submitted in. pursuance of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on tha 10th November, that the Government would provide a further £100,000 for works expenditure this year. It has not been possible to secure requests from departments to absorb the whole of the £100,000 on capita’ “works. A portion of the money will, therefore, be . spent on necessary maintenance works. Two sets of estimates are being brought down -

Summarized, the proposed expenditure is as follows: -

Arrangements are being made for these works to be put in hand immediately. The money, to be spent in the various States will be approximately as follows : -

Provision has also been made in the additional estimates for ordinary services to enable a refund of estate duty to be made in very special circumstances. The amount which it is proposed to refund is £16,977, being portion of the estate duty paid upon the estate of Thomas Baker, deceased. The late Thomas Baker left the residue of his estate as a charitable fund, the income of which was to be applied to medical and charitable purposes. So far as the will was concerned, a very wide discretion was given to the persons administering the fund as to the objects to which the income of the fund were from year to year to be applied. The charitable purposes for which the income could be used were not confined to Australia, nor were they limited to the kinds of charitable institutions and funds set out in the exemption clauses of the act. The Commissioner of Taxation was therefore required by law to charge duty upon the whole of the estate. In an appeal to the High Court, the trustees claimed that tha portion of the estate subject to these trusts should be exempted from .duty under the act, but the court, Mr. Justice Dixon presiding, decided that the assessment was in accordance with the law. There are, however, special circumstances connected with the case which have convinced the Government of the propriety of relieving the estate of payment of the duty charged upon this portion of the estate. It has been demonstrated that the income of the fund is such as to enable the trustees to comply only with that part of the trust which relates to the Thomas Baker, Alice Baker and Eleanor Shaw Medical Research Institute. This institute is conducted in conjunction with the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, and is, in substance, the medical research department of that hospital. The effect of charging duty upon the residuary estate i3 to reduce the amount of the charitable fund, and, consequently, the annual income available for the purposes of this institute, which is sorely in need of funds in order that it may continue its activities, which have already had to be limited. The trustees have definitely decided that the future income of the fund will be devoted exclusively to the purposes of this institute, and the whole income from the fund has, in fact, been so used since the death of Mr. Baker. Had the will limited the income of the fund to the purposes of this medical research institute, the part of the estate representing the fund would have been exempt from duty under the act. Since, in fact, the income is to be devoted exclusively to the purposes of the institute, and since insistence upon payment of duty will greatly hamper its operations, it has been decided that special provision should be made to enable the duty paid to be refunded to the trustees. The income available for the use of the institute will thereby be increased to the extent of the interest earned upon the investment of the amount of duty refunded. It is intended that the refund of duty will be subject to an undertaking by the trustees that the future income of the fund will be applied exclusively to the purposes of the Baker Medical Research Institute. I am unable at this moment to state the total amount of money relating to this estate, but it is a considerable sum, and it is to be used entirely for charitable purposes.

The amount of £100,000 provided in these estimates is to be expended on purely federal works, and is no way connected with the allotment of money that has been made to the various States. These works will be undertaken at once. I move -

That the following additional sum be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1932-33 for the several services hereunder specified, viz: -

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Resolution ofWays and Means founded upon resolution of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Archdale Parkhill and Mr. Francis do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoingresolution.

page 3284

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1932-33

Bill brought up by Mr. Archdale Parkhill, and - by leave - passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 3284

ESTIMATES (No. 2), 1932-33

Additions, NewWorks, etc., Buildings.

In Committee of Supply:

Motion (by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) agreed to -

That there be granted to His Majesty to tbe service of the year 1932-33, for the purposes of additions, new works, buildings, &c., an additional sum not exceeding £45,920.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended ; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means founded upon resolution of supply reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Archdale Parkhill and Mr. Francis do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 3284

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL (No. 2) 1932-33

Bill brought up by Mr. Archdale Parkhill, and - by leave - passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m.

page 3284

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL

(No. 2).

Order of the day called on for the resumption of the debate on motion (by Mr. Francis) -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Mr FRANCIS:
Assistant Minister · Moreton · UAP

– The committee of returned soldiers appointed by the Government to investigate the circumstances of the occupants of war service homes reported to me on the 30th July last, and on the 12th August Cabinet approved of all its recommendations, the general .effect of which was to ease substantially the conditions of purchasers who, on account of the general depression, were experiencing difficulty in meeting their obligations. By administrative action, effect was given to all the recommendations except Nos. 1 and 7, as from the 1st August last. Legislative action is necessary to give effect to recommendations Nos. 1 and 7. The bill agreed to by the House yesterday to approve an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State Savings Bank of Victoria, by which those who have been purchasing homes through that institution will be brought under the control of the commission, and enjoy the same concessions as are in operation in other States, was in accordance with recommendation No. 7. Recommendation No. 1 was -

Where n purchaser or borrower satisfies the War Service Homes Commissioner that he is unable to pay the existing monthly instalment of the amount of any purchase money or advance, the term of such purchaser’s or borrower’s contract of sale or mortgage to be extended, according to the value of the security, to a maximum period of 45 years, the reduced monthly instalment payable by reason of any extension of the period of repayment to be calculated on the liability (including arrears) of the purchaser or borrower to the Commissioner as at the 30th June, 1932.

That recommendation also necessitated legislative action, but to give immediate relief to the purchasers, the Government, by administrative act, gave effect to it as from the 1st August, and this bill is intended to ratify what has been done.

Mr Price:

– What is the position in’ South Australia?

Mr FRANCIS:

– The State Savings Bank of South Australia has given to its war service homes clients all the concessions recommended by the committee of inquiry, and adopted by the Commonwealth. Government. -,

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Purchase money or advance - How payable or repayable).

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.- The War Service Homes Purchasers Association in New South Wales has sent to honorable members an analysis of the report and recommendations of the committee of inquiry. Did this organization have an opportunity to place its case before the committee? Has the clause merely given effect to certain recommendations that needed immediate attention, leaving other matters for later consideration?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I gladly admit that the agreement made between the Commonwealth and State Savings Bank of Victoria, which was ratified in the companion bill dealt with yesterday, will better the conditions of the occupants of war service homes in that State by placing them on the same footing as those purchasers in other States who dealt directly with the commission. A great deal of trouble has been experienced in Victoria “because the bank did not treat the purchasers of war service homes as leniently as the commission treated its clients.

In regard to the bill now before the committee, I ask the Assistant Minister (Mr. Francis) to state what advantages have accrued to purchasers as a result of the adoption of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry. When discussing the circumstances of war service homes purchasers some time ago, I stated that many of them were surrendering their homes because the arrears of payments had accumulated to such an amount that the purchasers despaired of overtaking them.. Rather than continue to carry such a liability, they were voluntarily giving up their homes. I urged the Government then to ease their conditions, so as to encourage them to remain in the houses and complete their contracts. What relief did the committee of inquiry suggest? Did it advise that the charges should be reduced to bring them more into conformity with existing economic conditions?

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- I am glad that the Government has introduced this measure, which provides for an extension of the period of repayment in certain cases, and meets certain other anomalies. Some time ago, I directed the attention of the Minister to certain spec.al cases in my electorate which are under the Advances for Homes Act of 1928. Paragraph 60 of Division IV. of the Commonwealth Housing Scheme reads -

The rate of interest to be charged to any purchaser or borrower in respect of any purchase money or advance under this Part and the term for payment thereof shall be such rate and term as. are in each case fixed by the bank.

The bank mentioned is, of course, the State Bank of South Australia. The maximum term granted under the act was 30 years, and the rate of interest fixed was 6J per cent., which has since been reduced to 5i per cent. The occupiers of the homes who made representations to me requested an extension of the term of repayment, and a capitalization of their arrears. When I asked for this concession I was informed that -

No extension can be granted as the Commonwealth Government insists upon repayment within 30 years, and as no funds are available arrears of interest cannot be capitalized.

However, I am glad that this bill to some extent meets these cases. I understand that about 250 loans were made under the Advances for Homes Act to persons in receipt of less than £12 per week. The fact that over 50 per cent, of these tenants are n6w. in arrears, shows how their income has been reduced. The favorable consideration which the Government has been able to give to these people is much appreciated.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I also am glad that an extension of time is being granted under this bill for repayments due in respect of homes occupied by the widow or widowed mother of Australian soldiers; but an extension of time does not fully meet the case. In my opinion, there is an urgent need for a revaluation of war service homes. We all know that in spite of denials that have been made from time to time, many war service homes are of faulty construction. I know of one such home that has caused its occupants a great deal of trouble. While the first occupant of it was in possession, the front foundations settled, and the walls of the house cracked. That occupier subsequently left the place p-nd secured another. .After the foundations had been lifted and the clear evidences of faulty construction removed, the home was made available to another occupier, but he was not informed of its faults. Since he has discovered them, the department has steadfastly refused to revalue the property. We all know that the income of many persons in occupation of war service homes is at least 33^ per cent, lower than it was when they took possession of their homes, and that it is almost impossible for them under these conditions to maintain their payments. In many cases, the occupier cannot pay the interest charges, let alone meet the capital payments. In view of the altered condition of the property market in these days, there is every justification for the request that these homes shall be revalued. In order to indicate to honorable members the condition into which some of the homes have fallen, I shall presently quote from a report on certain war service homes in the North Belmore area, prepared by officers of the Now South Wales Tramways Sailors and Soldiers Association. This report was prepared after a thorough investigation, and it shows beyond question that the homes should be revalued, and the cost written down to a great extent. Under existing conditions the occupiers of many war service homes have not the slightest prospect of ever completing their payments. It is regrettable to me, also, that under the provisions of the amended act passed earlier this year, the department should allow homes to be abandoned, renovate them, partly at the cost of the unfortunate person who had to leave them, and then sell them to other people at a very much lower price than the original occupiers were expected to pay. The report to which I have referred gives the following particulars of a number of homes : -

Boronia-street, No. 1(5. - Renovated, and whs occupied by Mr. Lindsay and wife for very short period, and has not since been occupied, only by bagmen, who have used portion of the fence for firewood. Tiles are also falling off roof.

Boronia-street, No. 1.7. - Renovated, and has udt since been occupied, only as a cow paddock. Front windows broken and swinging open. Further particulars shown hereafter.

Bazentine-street, No. 48. - Has been renovated, and is now in a bad state of repair. Further particulars shown hereafter.

Madeline-street, No. 151. - Tiles off roof and vacant. Back windows broken.

Madeline-street, No. 131. - Renovated. Vacant six months.

Seymour-parade, No. . 81. - Renovated; Vacant two years.

Seymour-parade, No. 05. - Vacant about six months; nearly all windows broken.

Seymour-parade, No. 53. - Vacant about two years; window broken.

Seymour-parade, No. 33. - Vacant about six months; very bad condition. Tiles missing, windows broken, and door off back.

Scymour-parade, No. 3. - Vacant about two years. Renovated.

Seymour-parade, No. 0. - Vacant about one mouth. Woodwork broken under front window. Bathroom and interior disgraceful.-

Linda-street, No. 37. - Vacant. Front door open. Inside badly smashed.

This cottage (No. 48) has been vacant about two years, and has been repaired on two occasions* by the Commission, at the estimated cost of roughly £100 to put it in order, and again, it is like many others, an eye sore to the district in general.

The back fence, which has a sheer drop of 25 feet into the railway cutting, was renewed when this house was renovated, and on inspection on 22nd April, 1932, not onn palingexists, and in the very near future, no rails will exist, as they are practically on the ground waiting to be carried away by individuals requiring firewood.

Surely, in the light of these facts, there is no need to enlarge upon the necessity for a revaluation of these places. People who had every prospect of complying with the agreements which they made nine or- ten years ago in respect of their war service homes are to-day unable, through unemployment or the rationing of work, to meet their obligations. In fact, they are finding it very hard to satisfy the pangs of hunger. If the repayment period were extended 100 years, they would not be able to pay off the cost of them. In these circumstances, a mere extension of the time for repayment will not get us very far. I ask the Minister whether the committee which recently inquired into the affairs of the War Service Homes Commission made any recommendation in favour of a revaluation of the homes. I believe that it would be advisable for the Government to cut the loss now, and enable the present occupiers of these homes to make repayments at a rate in keeping with their present incomes and the true value of tlie properties which they occupy. Recently, the Minister in charge of Repatriation and other members had the- Opportunity of attending a conference at which a request of this nature was made, and it appeared to me that the case that was advanced was unanswerable. We know that war service homes purchasers arc now being organized with the object of formulating a definite policy for presentation to the Government. The experience of these people has been similar to that of ordinary home purchasers. In view of the services which our returned nien rendered to the country, and the risks they took to preserve existing conditions, I submit that they, of all people, should be granted conditions which willenable them to keep a home for themselves and their families.

Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison

.- Like the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), I am glad that provision is being made for an extension of the time of repayment for war service homes. I also think that there is every justification for the request that the value of these homes should be written down. Real estate values have slumped tremendously in the last few years. It is now quite impossible for many occupiers of war service homes to carry out the contract they made with the Government. An extension of the time of repayment is an act of clemency which deserves commendation; but more than that should be done. We know that in the ordinary way, the period of repayment for weatherboard homes bought on extended terms does not exceed 25 years; that for brick homes 30 to 35 years, and that for concrete homos, a little longer. Many of our war service homes will have vanished long before 50 years have expired, for it is common knowledge that not a few of them were jerry-built, in times when costs were high and building rapidly done. I therefore endorse the suggestion of the honorable member for Dalley that the Government should now face the necessity of writing down the cost of the homes, and so relieve many returned soldiers of a crushing burden that is now resting upon them. If this course is taken, if will simply amount to the variation of an ordinary business deal because of altered circumstances. It has been frequently stated during the course of the debates in this House that values have permanently altered, and that it is impossible to restore the prices which prevailed during the boom years. We have found it difficult to secure acceptance pf that opinion by certain honorable members opposite, but it is evident that some of them have now become convinced that there is no prospect of getting back to the values which prevailed between 1320 and 1928. For my part, I do not think that we shall see a return to those values for a long time, if at all. It is desirable that the writing down of values should be done as soon as possible. If prices recover later, and it is found that the purchaser, after completing the contract, is somewhat better off than present. values would lead one to expect, the National Government should be able to afford this concession to the soldiers. “We should make it possible for the purchasers of war service homes to obtain a freehold title to the properties as soon as possible. The action of the department in extending the term of payment is to be commended, but it should combine this concession with the writing down of values in order to put the whole matter on an equitable footing.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- I support the proposal of the last two speakers. I approve of the concession which has been made; but it does not go far enough. There is no doubt that property values have fallen, and war service homes should be revalued accordingly. If a war service homes purchaser is unable to keep up his payments, and abandons the property after paying £200 or £300 on it, the next man who goes into it is -charged with the full value of the home.

Mr Francis:

– All homes are revalued before being handed over to new purchasers.

Mr WATKINS:

– That system must have been introduced very recently, I. know one man who wanted the department to take the home over from him, and relieve him of further liability so that he might be free to rent a cheaper place from a private owner, but the department refused his request. Many of the war service homes are falling to ruin. One row of homes erected in my electorate was so badly built that I was able to scrape the mortar away from between the bricks with’ my fingers, and I sent gome of it in a cigar-box to the then Minister for Repatriation. The steps of some of the houses had fallen away, yet the department expected soldiers to live in them. The homes should be revalued so that purchasers might have a chance of completing their contracts within a reasonable time. As it is, they will be old men before they own the places.

Mr LANE:
Barton

– I trust that the Government will accept the suggestions that have been made, and agree to write down the value of war service homes. The proposal to extend the term of payment to- 50 years is not calculated to fire the ambition of the returned soldiers. They will be dead long before they have paid off the purchase money, and, in some instances, their families will be dead, too, before they can complete the contract. A soldier settler who is dissatisfied with the valuation of his farm may apply to the department for a revaluation. An officer is sent to the place, and if it is found that the land is too highly valued, relief may be granted. The same principle should be applied to war service homes. It may be argued that the soldiers entered into the contracts with their eyes open. They brought propositions before the department which were examined and agreed to. While that may be true, it has since become evident that, in many cases, the homes are not worth what the purchasers have contracted to pay for them. The 0111.y fair thing to do is to write down values so that the purchasers may, within a reasonable time, make the homes their own. Interest payments should be reduced so that they may not be a burden on the purchasers and their families. No doubt the Minister will tell us that very few soldier purchasers have been evicted from their homes. That is true, but many of them have been summoned to appear before the court within a month, and, rather than face court proceedings, they have abandoned their, homes. The present economic depression has lasted now for nearly three years, and values are at their lowest. In the city in which I live, rentals have fallen by 50 per cent, and more. I know of homes which, a few years ago, were let at £2 5s. a week, which are now bringing in only 25s. a week. Returned soldiers are regarded by many money lenders as fit subjects on which to prey. When they fall behind in i heir payments to the War Service Homes Commission, some of them are forced to seek accommodation from the money lenders, and are compelled to pay from GO per cent, to 100 per cent, interest on the money they borrow. I have before me the card of a money lender who last year advanced £64 to a returned soldier. During the year, the borrower paid back £24, but still owed £62 of the original debt. It would be a good thing if the War Service Homes Commission were to appoint a legal officer authorized to examine the financial position of soldier purchasers who have fallen into arrears in their payments. It would be found that, in many cases the soldier had got into the grip of one of these “ Shylocks “, who are practising usury of the worst kind. I have recently presented this case to the Minister and to the Commissioner for War Service Homes and they have informed me that nothing can be done. The returned soldier home purchasers have no desire to have their instalments spread over a period of 50 years, because that confines them to one district. They desire to be free to move from one suburb to another.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the bill which relates to the amendment of section 29 of the War Service Homes Act. “

Mr LANE:

– This slight concession which is to be given to the returned soldier home purchasers is only a palliative, and has been granted by the department merely to make a showing that it is at least doing something to assist these’ men. Instead of extending the period of purchase to 50 years, the returned soldier occupants should be allowed to transfer the property to the department, and to become tenants. Many of these returned soldier home purchasers are suffering severe hardship, and it is time that definite steps were taken to give them a substantial measure of relief.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- I quite appreciate the concessions which the Government is offering to the soldier home purchasers. But I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one disability under this clause. The period of payment is being extended in the case of a widow for 50 years, or in the case of the original purchaser for 45 years; but we must recognize that the weekly or fortnightly payment is principally interest, and that the amount of the actual instalment is small. It would give the soldier home purchaser genuine relief if a drastic reduction were made in his interest rate. Even if we extended the term of repayment to 100 years, it. would not affect to any great extent the weekly or fortnightly payments. I am in favour of the extension of the period of repayments to 50 years in the case of the widow of a returned soldier home purchaser. Under the act, in the event of the death of a soldier who is a home purchaser, the department claims the right to re-value the home before it is transferred to the widow, and even when the property is transferred, the widow is not given the benefit of the whole of the instalments that have been paid on the home. I have copies of resolutions carried at representative meetings of returned soldiers who are interested in the purchase of homes. They appear to have serious grievances, and one case in particular seems to merit the sympathetic consideration of the Government. I have been informed that when a soldier purchaser dies, his widow is not given the full credit for the payments that he has made on the home. In other words, his equity in full is not passed on to, his widow. The department makes a revaluation and re-assessment and that, undoubtedly, denies the widow all the rights and the full equity which were enjoyed by her deceased husband. Recently 1 received a letter dated the 29th October, 1932, from the War Service Homes Purchasers Association of New South Wales, in which it is stated -

We hereby demand that the Government give full consideration and discussion to the various features and disabilities under which purchasers of homes are at present placed.

One of the demands in that letter is, the transfer of the property under contract on the death of the purchaser to the widow or next of kin. Following upon that I received a circular from the association which emphasizes the same point in another way. In it the association asks for an amendment of theWar Service Homes Act. It states -

The War Service Homes Act should be amended to ensure that upon the death of a war service home purchaser, the original contract be transferred to his widow or next of kin, if so desired with the proviso that all payments made by the deceased should be credited to the transferee.

Mr Francis:

– The association has since admitted that that statement is entirely incorrect.

Mr THORBY:

– I do not doubt that the Minister’s statement is true. However, the circular continues -

This is to he made retrospective from the date of the first contract made by the War Service Homes Commissioner.

I heard this and other statements made at a meeting of 350 members of this association. The resolutions were carried unanimously. Those who attended the meeting comprised well educated men, including legal men. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander), the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane), and the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Marr), were also present, and made no attempt to refute the statements that were made. As these letters and circulars were forwarded to me, I felt that it was my duty to bring them before the notice of the Minister and of honorable members generally.

Mr Francis:

– Since that meeting was held, I have met a deputation from the association, and it admitted that the statements referred to were incorrect.

Mr THORBY:

– I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister, and to know that the widow of a deceased soldier home purchaser will obtain the full equity of the home.

Mr Francis:

– I informed the “War Service Homes Purchasers Association that if it could bring one such case under my noticeI would refund every penny of any over payments by a widow. I made that statement two months ago, but the association has not since communicated with me.

Mr GANDER:
Reid

.- I support the remarks of honorable members who have preceded me. This bill does not go far enough. It provides for the extension of the term of repayment to 50 years, but of what use is that to a man who is unemployed? The proposal is ridiculous. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has already referred to the dilapidated condition of many unoccupied war service homes in the suburbs of Sydney. The doors and windows have been smashed, washing tubs have been taken, and many other things have disappeared. Some of the homes have been unoccupied for a considerable time, and a person who is not a returned soldier is able to occupy any one of these homes at a rental considerably lower than the charge which was imposed upon the returned soldier occupant.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the bill, which relates to the period of purchase.

Mr GANDER:

– The returned soldier home purchasers are not anxious to have the period of purchase extended to 50 years. They would prefer to transfer their homes to the department and to live in them as tenants, so that at any time if they thought fit, they could move to other premises.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr GANDER:

– The bill does not go far enough. I believe that the Minister is endeavouring to assist the soldier home purchaser, and I therefore, commend to himthe suggestion of the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) that instead of extending the term of repayment, the department should make a drastic reduction in the interest rate. It might also reduce the capital value of the home.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must insist upon the honorable member confining his remarks to the clause.

Mr GANDER:

– I regret that I have not yet a thorough knowledge of the rules of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member understands the rules sufficiently to know that he must obey the Chair.

Mr GANDER:

– I hope that the time is not far distant when the Minister will bring down an amending bill to rectify a number of the anomalies which exist in respect of the purchase of war service homes.

Mr. FRANCIS (Moreton- Assistant reply briefly to the various questions that have been asked concerning war service homes. Replying to’ the honorable member for “West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), I point out that the purchaser of a war service home, who has three children, and is in receipt of an income of 50s. a week, is required ‘ to pay the pro rata rate of 6s. and not one guinea a week. I belive that representatives of the “War Service Homes Purchasers Association gave evidence before the committee of inquiry, which was considered by the committee when it formulated the recommendations that have been’ embodied in the report circulated among honorable members.

Mr Beasley:

– Why are the amendments restricted to one clause? Is there some reason why the Minister did not deal with the other matters?

Mr FRANCIS:

– As I explained when we were dealing with clause 2, I have introduced two bills, one validating the agreement between the Commonwealth and the State Savings Bank of Victoria, and the other extending the term of the war service homes agreements from 25 to 45 years. I interviewed a deputation from the War Service Homes Purchasers Association in Sydney, and discussed with it all the points raised by the honorable member. The deputation went away perfectly satisfied.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) asked what- concessions will be granted to the occupants of war service homes lately under the control of the State Savings Bank of Victoria which have now been taken over by the War Service Homes Commission. I refer the honorable member to pages l and 2 of the report of the committee of inquiry, which sets out -

  1. Where a purchaser or borrower satisfies the War Service Homes Commissioner that he is unable to pay the existing monthly instalment of the amount of any purchase money or advance, the term of such purchaser’s or borrower’s contract of sale or mortgage to bc extended, according to the value of the security, to a maximum, period of 45 years, the reduced monthly instalment payable by reason of any extension of ‘the period of repayment to be calculated on the liability (including arrears) of the purchaser or borrower to the Commissioner as at 30th June, HI32 (paragraph 40).
  2. Where the reduced monthly instalment payable in consequence of any extension of the period of any contract of sale or mortgage exceeds 20 per cent, of a purchaser’s or bor rower’s income, such reduced monthly instalment to be further reduced, for a period extending to 30th June, 1035, to an amount not exceeding 20 per cent, of his monthly . income, provided that, where the income is less than 65s. per week, the payment required of him is to be in accordance with the following scale, or such variations thereof as may from time to time be approved by the Minister: -

These payments are subject to- minor adjustments, and the whole position is to be reviewed in June, 1935.

Mr Holloway:

– That does not deal with maintenance and the payment of rates and taxes.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Rates and taxes are paid to the local authority concerned, not to the Commissioner.

Mr Rosevear:

– What about a man whose work is rationed?

Mr FRANCIS:

– If a married man with a wife and three children received £5 one week and nothing for the next, his income would be reckoned at 50s. a week, and his pro rata rental would be 6s. a week. Every effort is being made by the Government to keep these soldiers in their homes during this period pf depression. The committee of inquiry recommended that these special conditions should be extended until June, 1935. It is expected that by that time the Government will have steered Australia back to prosperity, and these matters can them be reviewed.

Mr Rosevear:

– Will a man’s arrears be capitalized and added to the principal in 1935?

Mr FRANCIS:

– If a returned soldier had contracted to pay off his home in twenty years, and he was two years in arrears, those arrears would be added to the outstanding principal and repayment spread over the period of 45 years. That reduces the rates of monthly payments by about 40 per cent., and enables purchasers, even with their reduced incomes, to meet their obligations. It is the desire of the Government to make the purchaser feel that he is secure in his own home’ if, notwithstanding the extent to which his income is reduced, he is prepared to pay according to his ability to do so.

The points raised by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) concern homes bought with money borrowed from the State Savings Bank of South Australia, not from the War Service Homes Commissioner.

Mr Holloway:

– Has the Government made any agreement with the South Australian State Savings Bank?

Mr FRANCIS:

– There was not the urgency in connexion with the homes of returned soldiers in South Austraia as was the case in Victoria, for the latter State found it was unable to give any concessions to the returned soldier purchasers for the reasons that I outlined in my second -reading speech on the companion bill. The agreement with the South Australian State Savings Bank is being further considered.

The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) quoted a statement from the New South Wales Railways and Tramways Returned Sailors and Soldiers Association regarding valuations. The arrears on war service homes do not amount to the fabulous sum which he suggested.

Mr Rosevear:

– I did not suggest anything. I said that the purchasers of these homes were being evicted, and the houses were going to ruin.

Mr FRANCIS:

– When the depression struck Australia in the summer of 1929, the arrears of payments on war service homes amounted to less than 1 per cent. To-day they amount to but 3.83. That is a great tribute to the determination of returned soldier purchasers of homes to stand up to their obligations, and at that I am very pleased. I want to check any idea that may be gathered from the debate to-night that returned men are not standing up to their obligations. The full purchase price has been paid on 20 per cent, of the war service homes. From the 1st July, 1927, to the 30th June, 1932, 582 homes which reverted to the Commission have been sold, at a profit of £4,325.

The proposal for a revaluation was submitted to the committee of inquiry by a number of soldier organizations, but after the matter had been given the fullest consideration it was rejected, one of the reasons being the huge cost entailed. If the value of homes owned by the Commission were reduced by 10 per cent., it would be necessary to wipe off £1,840,000 ; . if it were reduced by 20 per cent., the figure would be nearly £4,000,000. If that were done in times of difficulty, a revaluation would have to take place when prosperity returned, and the homes would then be written up.

Mr Holloway:

– The returned men would not lose by that.

Mr FRANCIS:

– They want stability.

Mr Holloway:

– Such a writing down would help to put them on their feet.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I am satisfied that the representations of the returned men were given full consideration. The report of the committee gives its reasons at length for rejecting a revaluation; and I suggest that honorable members should read them. The honorable members for Denison (Mr. Hutchin), Newcastle (Mr. Watkins), Barton (Mr. Lane), and Reid (Mr. Gander) all urged that there should be a revaluation. I advise them that the amendment submitted by the Government is based on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry and will take effect until 1935, when the whole position will be reviewed.

The matters referred to by the honorable member for Newcastle are ancient history. I know of all the homes which he mentioned. It is a very old story; they were repaired and written down by the Commission many years ago. His remarks do not refer to the present time.

The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) mentioned a reduction of interest. That has been carefully considered by the Government. The position is that the interest paid by purchasers of war service homes is .7 per cent, less than the Government has to pay for the money ; that is 4.5 as against 5.2. The Government does not charge any administrative costs, which amount in the aggregate to £100,000.

In regard to widows, at the soldier’s death ‘ the home is transferred to the widow with the liability of the ex-soldier as shown on the books of the commission at that time. The department does not revalue the home. When a deputation from the “War Service Homes Purchasers Association waited upon me I asked for the name of any soldier’s widow whose home had been re-valued on the death of the soldier. One member of the deputation declared that one home bequeathed to a widow had been re-valued at an increase of £200. I replied that if the charge could be proved I would order a refund of the £200 to the widow. I asked that the case be identified so that the circumstances might be investigated, but so far that challenge has not been accepted. No record of any such case can be found in my department.

Mr Gander:

– The Minister stated that no soldier who was making an honest attempt to meet his obligations would be evicted. Will that consideration be extended to soldiers who are out of work ?

Mr FRANCIS:

– Since the present Government assumed office no soldier has been ejected from his home. If a purchaser complies with the recommendation of the committee of inquiry and pays according to his ability to pay, he may remain in his home’ until 1935, when the matter will be reviewed. It is the desire of the Government to do everything possible to ensure that each soldier continues in possession of his home and that he will ultimately become its owner.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– As a result of the explanation which the Minister has given, honorable members are better able to appreciate the nature of the report of the committee of inquiry and the effect of this bill. Nevertheless, I cannot accept the Minister’s statement that he completely satisfied the deputation from the War Service Homes Purchasers Association regarding the work of the committee, and the concessions made in this bill.

Mr Francis:

– I referred only to the matters which the deputation brought before me.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The Minister’s statement is at variance with the association’s comments on the report. Those comments are summarized in this way -

An .analysis of the summary of the recommendations contained in the report shows that, in effect, they fall far .short of the relief to mortgagors afforded by the Moratorium Act (1930) of New South Wales, from which war service homes purchasers are excluded by reason of the fact that they are mortgagors to the Crown.

That is a definite statement that, although the Government has adopted the recommendation of the committee of inquiry, the purchasers of war service homes are not getting the same relief as is being provided to other mortgagors under a State law.

The power of repossession proposed to be given to the commission in June, 1935, will far outweigh the little relief afforded to purchasers by the recommendations, if adopted.

The meaning of that is that the concessions in regard to the extension of the period of repayment and the reduction of charges will be more than offset by the right of the commission to repossess the homes in 1935.

The proposals can have but one result - interest and instalments will accumulate to the extent of rendering the position of the purchaser intolerable, and, if adopted, June 30th, 1935, will prove a tragic day for thousands of war service homes purchasers, and a black day for Australia.

The Assistant Minister may not be in office in 1935, but I hope that whoever is then administering war service homes will be as sympathetic as he claims to be. The association’s summary concludes -

The machinery will then be set in motion that will seek to dispossess large numbers of purchasers of the improvements affected in their properties, the equities they put into them or acquired, tho moneys they have spent on them, and leave their dependants without a roof to shelter them.

That is a concise and clear statement. The members of the association have been trained in all walks of life, are capable men, and have given a close study .to the war service homes scheme. I am always glad to pay attention to their representations, and to assist them where possible. They are reasonable men who know their job; they are playing the game with the Government, especially are they protecting the rights of the widows and families of soldiers, and we, in turn, should play the game with them. I am concerned at the statement regarding the serious effect of the provision for repossession in 1935, but I hope that the committee will agree that, if this clause does not provide the necessary safeguards, the purchasers of war service homes may rest assured that a full measure of sympathy and relief will be extended to them in 1935. Above all, we must help them to keep a roof over their heads.

Mr FRANCIS:
AssistantMinister · Moreton · UAP

– The terms of reference governing the inquiry were -

Messrs. J. L. Treloar, W. C. Thomas, and G. C. Allen are hereby appointed a committee for the purpose, subject to the directions herein contained -

of inquiring into and reporting to the Minister administering war service homes upon the effect of the present industrial depression in, and economic conditions of. Australia upon the carrying out of contracts entered into by purchasers of homes under the War Service Homes Act 1918-1929, and upon the repayment of advances made under that act ; and

of making recommendations to the said Minister as to the action which should, having regard to the last preceding paragraph, be taken with a view to the completion of the contracts entered into by purchasers and borrowers under the said act and the continued occupation of the homes in course of acquisition by those purchasers and borrowers by virtue of the said contracts.

The committee shall, in recommending any proposal under the terms of this appointment, take into account the financial position and obligations of the Commonwealth and the financial position of taxpayers generally throughout the Commonwealth.

The committee shall, in recommending any proposal dealing with the payment of instalments (including arrears) of the amount of any purchase money or advance, frame its proposal so as to cover a period not exceeding five years.

The committee made the recommendations I have already indicated, and the five-year period will expire on the 30th June, 1935. The act is being sympathetically administered, and every effort is being made to keep the soldiers in their homes. I arn certain that whoever is administering the act in 1935 will take into sympathetic consideration the circumstances then existing, and do everything practicable to give effect to the spirit and intention of the act, which is to provide homes for our soldiers, and ensure that they may ultimately own them.

Clause- agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3294

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) agreed to -

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

page 3294

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1932

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue to 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; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

Bill brought up, and (on motion by Mr. Lyons) read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to appropriate £10,000,000 for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions. Similar appropriations are made from time to time for this purpose, the last having been made in May, 1931. It is probable that that appropriation will be exhausted before Parliament reassembles.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3294

PATENTS, TRADE MARKS, AND DESIGNS BILL

Second Reading

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main object of this bill is to amend the Patents Act, the Designs Act, and the Trade Marks Act, for the purpose of giving effect to an international convention for the protection of industrial property, as revised at a conference held at The Hague in 1925; but opportunity is also being taken to make two necessary and desirable amendments of our existing law, not relating to that convention. The convention at The Hague in 1925 was attended by LieutenantColonel C. V. Watson, who was then Australian Commissioner of Patents and Registrar of Trade Marks and Designs. The first convention of this kind was agreed to in 1883. That convention was revised in 1911, and further in 1925. The Commonwealth adhered to the first convention in 1907. In 1925 it adhered to the revised convention of 1911. Lieutenant-Colonel Watson signed the revised convention of 1925 on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia; but, before the Commonwealth Government can notify the secretary of the convention that the convention has been ‘ ratified by the Commonwealth, certain alterations are necessary in our legislation.

Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 of this bill are designed to effect these amendments.

Clause 2 of the bill proposes to amend the Designs Act 1906-12, as amended by the Designs Act 1932, in compliance with paragraph 5 of article 5 of the convention, which reads -

The protection of designs and industrial models may not under any circumstances be liable to cancellation by reason of the importation of articles corresponding- to those protected.

Section 28 of our Designs Act provides for the cessation of the copyright in a design if the design is not used in Australia in the manufacture of articles within two years after registration. If the design is manufactured abroad, the period of two years is limited to six months. In order to comply with article 5 of the convention, it is proposed, in lieu of revoking the copyright in design, to confer upon the High Court the power to grant a compulsory licence to any interested party who satisfies- it that the design is applied by manufacture to any article in a country outside the Commonwealth, and is not so applied in the Commonwealth to a reasonable extent. By these means, if the owner of a registered design will not himself use it in the manufacture of articles in Australia, the court may grant a licence for some one else to do so. A proviso is added to prevent the making of an order’ which would be at variance with any treaty, convention, arrangement or engagement between the Commonwealth and any other country. The provisions of this clause are identical with those of section 58 of the Imperial act. 1Clause 3 extends section 48 of the Designs Act to meet the requirements of article 4 a of the convention, which is as follows:-^

Any person who has duly applied for a patent or for the registration of a utility model industrial design or model or trade mark in one of the contracting countries or his legal representative or assignee shall enjoy for the purposes of application in other countries and reserving the rights of third parties a right of priority during the periods hereinafter stated.

Section 48 already provides a right of priority for a person who has applied for the registration of a design, but not for his legal representative or assignee. Clause 3 proposes to amend the section accordingly.

Clause 4 proposes to permit the assignment of a patent for a part of the Commonwealth or a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth. Section 53 of the Patents Act now provides that -

Every patent when scaled shall have effect throughout the Commonwealth unless any State be excepted therefrom, in which case it shall not apply to such excepted State.

Provision is made in the act for the assignment df a patent, but no refersence is made to the possibility of an assignment of a patent for a portion of the Commonwealth. For example, a State government may purchase patent rights for use in that State, but there is doubt whether such an assignment is valid. Personally, I think that there is considerable doubt about it. At present, Australian patent rights are apparently indivisible. It is now proposed to make it possible to assign rights for a part of the Commonwealth, or a territory of it. Rights might be assigned, for instance, for Victoria only, the patentee making arrangements suitable to himself with some one to work the patent in that State, but dealing with it differently in the other States. As a matter of fact, many assignments have been made with respect to a part of the Commonwealth, and there is a considerable amount of doubt whether they are valid. In Great Britain, since 1SS3, partial assignments have been allowed, and no difficulties of a practical kind have arisen. There is no reason why we should not allow inventors in the Commonwealth the same facility of disposal of their rights.

Clause 5 is designed to amend section 87 of the act in’ accordance with paragraph 4 of article 5 of ‘ the convention. Paragraph 2 of that article reserves to contracting countries the right to prevent abuses of the exclusive or monopoly rights conferred by a patent ; for example, where there is a failure to work a patent. Our patent laws contain provisions under which there is a possibility, either of obtaining a revocation of a patent, or of forcing the grant of a compulsory licence where the patentee is not working the patent in the country which protects it. Paragraph 4 of the convention provides that in no case can the patent be made liable to such measures before the expiration of at least three years from the date of the grant of the patent. The idea is to give the patentee an opportunity to put his patent on the market. Section 87 of the Patents Act deals with the abuse of the monopoly right by providing for the grant of compulsory licences, or, alternatively, the revocation of the grant. Any person may at present apply for a compulsory licence or revocation after the expiration of two years of the granting of the patent. Clause 5 proposes to substitute three years for two years. The section already contains a provision that revocation cannot be effected until three years from the date of the patent. The amendment proposed by paragraph a of this clause would make this provision unnecessary, and paragraph b, therefore, proposes its deletion.

Clause 6 proposes to extend section 123 of the Patents Act in compliance with article 5 (3) of the convention, which reads -

In each of the contracting countries the following shall not be considered as infringements of the rights of a patentee: -

The use on board ships of other countries of the union, of a patented invention in the body of the ship, in the machinery, tackle, apparatus and other accessories, when such ships penetrate temporarily or accidentally into the territorial waters of the country, provided that such invention is used exclusively for the actual needs of the vessel.

The use of a patented invention in the construction or working of aircraft or land vehicles of other countries of the Union, or of the. accessories to such aircraft or vehicles, when such aircraft or vehicles penetrate temporarily of accidentally into the country.

Section 123 already contains provisions covering ships of other countries, and is designed to protect the masters or owners of those ships against actions for infringement because inventions used on the ship happen to be covered by patents held in the Commonwealth. The provision is directed against the bringing to the Commonwealth of ships which are, in effect, floating factories, and the use on them of inventions in circumstances which would constitute an infringement of the rights of Australian patentees. Clause 6 extends the provision in the act to cover air craft and land vehicles from any part of the British dominions, or from foreign countries, which are only temporarily within the Commonwealth The provision is intended to cover the case of a man who flies to Australia in an aeroplane. He would be here only temporarily, and he should be protected against action for infringement for any of the inventions used on his aeroplane. Again, a man might bring a speed motor car to the country for a special purpose, and it would be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the comity of nations, that actions for infringement should be instituted against those having the management or control of the vehicle.

Clause 7 proposes a temporary provision rendered necessary by the impending transfer of the Patents Office to Canberra. During the period of transfer, it is inevitable that a certain amount of dislocation in the administration will be experienced. The object of clause 7 is to prevent the public from suffering any possible ill-effects from such dislocation. The Patents Act, the Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act require many acts to be performed within a limited time. Clause 7 proposes to give the GovernorGeneral power to extend those times, if necessary, by regulation. The provision is limited in its operation, and it is anticipated that, before the 30th June, 1934, the work of the office will have become normal, and the emergency regulations will then be repealed.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– This is an involved hill, and is difficult to follow. I understood the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) to say that clause 2 provided thatpersons acquiring designs in other countries for use in Australia, would,by this bill, be required to exploit them within six months, whereas the time previously stipulated was two years. We have been told that clause 5 of the bill extends the period from two to three years during which Australian patentees may exploit their inventions. Six months appears to me to be a short time in which to exploit designs acquired overseas. During this depression, difficulty may be experienced in raising the necessary capital, although prospects may have appeared bright enough when the designs were acquired. I agree, of course, that inventions should be used for the benefit of the community, and that people should not be allowed to acquire rights to valuable inventions, and not use them, butI should like an explanation from the Attorney-General on the point I have raised.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– There is no general provision in the act for the cancelling of a design, but there is a provision in section 28 that the owner of a registered design shall, within two years, substantially use it, or his right ceases altogether without any application being made by any other person. It is proposed to repeal that provision, and, instead, to confer the right upon any person interested - which would naturally be some one in the trade - to apply to the court for the cancellation of the design on the ground that it has been previously published, or he may apply for a compulsory licence on the ground that the article, though registered in Australia, is not reasonably and sufficiently used, and that the people of Australia are, therefore, deprived of the benefit of a design or article which has proved useful elsewhere.

Mr Blakeley:

– The design may have been kept purposely out of use for some time.

Mr LATHAM:

– Possibly. Where it is not used, any one interested can. if the court approves, force the grant of a compulsory licence. These provisions are in accordance with the international con vention. They are soundin principle, and much to be preferred to the existing section, which provides that where the design is not sufficiently used, the right to it shall cease after two years. That is a vague provision, and, under it, persons interested hardly knew where they stood, and to ascertain the exact position would need resort to litigation. Now there can be a definite application for a compulsory licence. As to patents, it is true that the time is being extended. It is difficult to decide whether two or three years is the most desirable period. But three years is the international compromise, and I suggest that we should be in general agreement with the other nations of the world. I hope that what I have said has sufficiently met the point raised by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3297

BILLS FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests -

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1932-33.

Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill (No. 2) 1932-33.

Bills of Exchange Bill.

page 3297

WHEAT BOUNTY CLAIMS BILL

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the completion of the accounts in connexion with the Wheat Bounty Act of 1931, which stipulates that a bounty at the rate of 4½d. a bushel should be paid on all wheat sold or delivered for sale up to the 31st October, 1932. But it makes no provision for fixing a date beyond which claims would not be received. This bill remedies that defect, by fixing the final date on which lodgment of claims for the bounty may be made, and the date fixed is the 17th December, 1932. An urgent reason for the passage of this bill is the danger of overlapping in respect of last season’s and this season’s wheat.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3298

COLONIAL LIGHT DUES COLLECTION BILL

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Although the matter dealt with in this and two other related bills, is a very simple one - the collection, on behalf of the British Government, of light dues in respect of lighthouses erected in the West Indies, and the payment to that Government of the amounts collected - it is necessary under the Constitution that it shall be dealt with in three sections, covered by three distinct bills. The Constitution provides that any charge imposed by an act, except for a service provided under that act, shall be regarded as a tax. As honorable members are aware, a taxation bill may deal only with the imposition of the tax and nothing else. The Constitution also requires that the proceeds of taxes shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue, and that any payment therefrom must be covered by an appropriation by the Parliament. In the present case, therefore, three bills are necessary; first, a machinery measure, the Colonial Light Dues Collection Bill; secondly, a taxation measure, the Colonial Light Dues Rates Bill, which fixes the amount of the light dues to be paid by ships passing and benefiting by the lights; and thirdly, an appropriation measure, the Colonial Light Dues Appropriation Bill, authorizing the payment to the British Government of the amount of light dues collected. We are dealing now with the first of the three bills - the Colonial Light Dues Collection Bill.

Great Britain, in addition to providing lights on its own coast, has, in a number of instances, erected, at its own cost, lights in many of its possessions abroad which have been unable to provide the necessary funds themselves. Provision is made in the Merchant Shipping Act - section 670 - that where such a lighthouse has been erected the light dues to be paid in respect thereof by the owner or master of every ship which passes the same and derives benefit therefrom may be fixed by order of the King in Council. A proviso is, however, attached that dues under such an order “shall not be levied in any British possession unless the legislature of that possession has, by an address to the Crown, or by act or ordinance duly passed, signified its opinion that the dues ought to be levied “. The Commonwealth is a “ British possession “ within the meaning of this provision. Certain, lighthouses and a buoy have been erected on, or near the coasts of, the Bahamas and Leeward Islands, in the West Indies. The normal maintenance of these lights involves the British Government in an expenditure of, roughly, £27,000 per year. During the past four years Great Britain has spent nearly £100,000 in improvements, and during this and next year will spend about £50,000 for that purpose. The returns from light dues do not nearly cover even the running costs. The collections at present are about only £3,000 per year, obtained at ports in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many ships benefiting from the lights do not, however, call at these ports, and so escape payment of dues. The order of the King in Council under the Merchant Shipping Act, fixing the dues payable by ships passing these lighthouses and buoy, was made on the 17th December, 1931, and the dues so fixed have been collected in the United Kingdom as on and from the 1st April last. In a circular despatch received from the Secretary of State for the Dominions, advice is asked as to whether the Commonwealth Government would be prepared to take the steps necessary to authorize the collection, in Australian ports, of the due3 set out in the order, to supplement the collections in ports in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This has reference more particularly to cases where vessels trading to Australia - between New York and Sydney, or between Europe and Sydney, via Panama - pass and derive benefit from the lights, but do not in the course of their voyage call at any port of the United Kingdom. It is intimated in the despatch that similar requests for advice have been addressed to the Governments of Canada,

New Zealand, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland. There is no practical difficulty in the way of acceding to the request that has been made. Two methods are available. By an address to the Crown adopted by both Houses of the Parliament, the order of the King in Council referred to would automatically become effective in the Commonwealth. Apparently the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act relative to the collection and recovery of colonial light dues, as such dues are called, would then become operative in the Commonwealth. The objection to this course was, however, that ship-owners and masters, and even the Commonwealth officers collecting the dues, would be uncertain as to their obligations and duties and as to the law on the matter. The alternative method - that a Commonwealth act be passed to give effect in Australia to the order of the King in Council and providing the necessary machinery for the collection of the dues - appears to be the better, and has been adopted. That is the purpose of the bill now before the House. It is purely a machinery measure, and contains nothing of a political or contentious character. Its administration will entail no additional expense on the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3299

COLONIAL LIGHT DUES (RATES) BILL

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is the taxation measure to which I have already referred. As I have already explained its purpose, it is hardly necessary for me to make any further comments upon it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3299

COLONIAL LIGHT DUES APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

As I have already intimated, the Constitution requires that the proceeds of taxes shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue and any payment therefrom must be covered by an act of Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3299

ADJOURNMENT

Police Administration - Vesteys Limited

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I think it desirable to call attention to certain statements that have appeared in the Canberra Times and the Labor Daily, substantially in the same terms. I do so, because the police force of Canberra is a portion of the department over which I preside as Attorney-General, and I am sure that the reputation of the force would be affected if such statements were allowed to go unchallenged. The article reads -

TOUCHING SCENE.

Father in Handcuffs.

Standing with bowed heads, one on each side of the grave, the father and mother of the eleven months’ old child, Charles Robert Porter, who died in tragic circumstances at Kingston on Monday, presented a pathetic spectacle at the service attending the burial of the child in the Presbyterian section of the Queanbeyan cemetery yesterday.

The infant’s death at Kingston on Monday last has been responsible for the father, Bernard Howard Porter, aged 25 years, being held on a murder charge.

In the custody of Constable Sigmont, of the Canberra Police Force, the father stood close to the graveside, while opposite him stood the child’s mother who had been estranged from her. husband. Both with tears streaming down their cheeks listened to a sermon by the Rev. H. W. Woodhouse, who conducted the burial service.

In a touching appeal,Rev. Woodhouse expressed the hope that the tragedy of their child’s death would bring the couple together again.

At the conclusion of the service, each went their separate way, the husband handcuffed to the constable, and the young wife, bereft of husband aud child and sobbing hysterically, being supported by relatives.

Tt is only proper to inform the House that, the constable was in plain clothes. At the graveside the prisoner stood between his mother and his sister, with the constable several paces in the rear. No handcuffs were used, and there was nothing to indicate that the prisoner was in custody. This report seems to me to exceed the limits of ordinary human decency and, in the interests of the reputation of the Federal Capital City and its police force, it is but right to state these facts.

Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory

– Addressing myself to this House on the Ottawa agreement a short time ago, I said, among other things, that Vesteys Limited had carried on an intensive campaign against any meat quota being granted to Australia. Lord Vestey’s attorney in Australia, Mr. Conacher, thought fit to rush into print in the Adelaide Advertiser of the 25th November, and his letter was rehashed in the Brisbane Courier of the 29th November. His object was to chastise me verbally, and contradict the statements that I made. He declared that it was an. attempt to appeal to the prejudices of the people, and described me as one of the chief creators of “ the artificial difficulties which caused our enterprise to cease.” He said that I had tol i the House that Vesteys wanted to see the Argentine benefit at the expense of Australia, and then set out to ridicule my statement. He also questioned what I said about the manager of a large station in the Northern Territory, declaring that Australia would live to rue the day that Vesteys came to Australia. He further added that I had charged Vesteys with deliberately inflating wages in the territory, so that it would not be profitable for others to compete! against them there. His letter adds -

If that was so, then Mr. Nelson was ray tool, and his fellow workers were his dupes, because he and I signed agreements controlling the bulk of the workers in the territory from 1910 to 1920.

That is a paltry method to adopt to combat my assertions. The fact of the matter is that I became so tired of Vesteys inflating the wages of the men working alongside the group of which I was in charge that I had an arrangement insorted in the agreement which automatically increased the wages of my section every time a rise occurred elsewhere. To that extent, I was responsible for signing such an agreement. I have not changed my opinion as to the reason why Vesteys altered wages. After attempting to ridicule my remarks about Ottawa, Mr. Conacher said that he want3 evidence to assure him that either the Government or members of the Labour party desire to develop the Northern Territory. I shall demonstrate conclusively that Vesteys have not made any serious endeavour in that respect. I have here a copy of a confidential letter that was distributed by Lord Vestey to the members of the House of Commons in connexion with the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa. It begins -

page 3300

QUESTION

A GRAVE OUTLOOK FOR BRITISH FOOD PRICES

Foreword

The purpose of this pamphlet is to show members that the interests of Britain are in grave danger of being jeopardized at Ottawa by endeavours of dominion and home producers for their own benefit, without any consideration for the real interests of this country, to secure the control of Britain’s supplies to imported meat by moans of quotas or prohibitive tariff.

The letter continues with a statement that Lord .Vestey is the owner of several thousand retail meat shops, a number of wholesale departments, and some fruit shops. He claims to be an authority on the subject of meat, which he is. In the “ message “ as he calls the pamphlet to which he refers in his letter, he says -

Let me therefore affirm that I am an Englishman first -

Lord Vestey did not demonstrate that trait when he deserted England during the war to evade the operation of the excess war profits tax. He continues - and as such T feel it my duty to warn my fellow countrymen of what would happen at Ottawa if the plans, propaganda, and intrigues of certain dominion and home producers should be consummated.

Lord Vestey then charged us with exploiting British patriotic sentiment. At least, we did not run away from the Motherland when it was in trouble. He goes on -

How many on the other hand will connive at, if not support actively, a ramp to reduce supplies and increase the cost of Britain’s meat, butter, apples, oranges, grapes, &c, for the benefit of those they represent.

He also says that -

British farmer.-, arc already producing ton much beef to supply the available market.

That statement was made because Lord Vestey obviously desires less production in England so that he can introduce more Argentine beef, and obtain a better price for it. His article continues -

Any serious attempt to reduce the quantity nf Argentine beef available would immediately cause a great increase in the price for the reduced quantity that would be available on the market, thus paving the way for disturbances.

Referring to his works at Darwin, Lord Vestey adds-

The machinery is being gradually removed to other countries, where we can utilize it for the export of meat to England.

He says that he could not produce meat at a profi t at Rockhampton or at Geelong, because, among other reasons, the seasons were so uncertain.. Protesting against the quota for the dominions, Lord Vestey has this to say -

Tha increase of meat prices by tariffs or quota boards to drive foreign producers out of business would result in raising the price to the British consumers, not by a farthing, but by pence a lb. for the exclusive benefit pf dominion farmers.

He says that we cannot produce beef profitably in Australia, and that we arc only exploiting patriotism by pretending that we can. I ask whether such a person should be allowed to hold an area of ‘land in the Northern Territory equal in extent, to Tasmania, and two-thirds of the size of Victoria. Vesteys have no intention of developing that country, but are trying to get a further twenty years extension of lease added to the long lease they already possess. I hope that now that Vesteys have shown their hand, not only will their leases be curtailed, but an endeavour will be made to force them out of Australia, and put genuine Australians on to that land. He quoted correspondence published in the London

Times from Adelaide, Melbourne, and “Wellington to show “the propaganda being carried ou by dominion supporters of the wrong kind of Imperial preference “. He also said -

The ruination of the South American farmer would .entail the stoppage of interest on loansand dividends on “commercial undertakings; representing more than £500,000,000 of British capital. Why should Britain, wish to ruin these producers? They should be grateful fo: the cheap beef they have supplied that no other part of the world can supply at anything approaching tho price.

Australia does not produce chilled beef. ThiBritish public will not. buy frozen beef at any price, in any quantities.

If that statement is true, why did Vestey’s expend huge sums of money in the establishment of works to export a commodity which they knew beforehand would be unfavorable? The explanation is that they expended that money with the object of damaging this country. That was admitted by one of their managers. As Lord Vestey said in this article - “ There can be no competition in an article that cannot be sold “. 1 say deliberately that he came to Australia with the object of damaging the Northern Territory, Australia, and the dominions generally. His firm sends frozen beef from Argentine to England and placards it in shop windows “ Second- rate beef There is no need to export frozen beef from Argentine, because there is abundance of chilled beef which realizes high prices. The purpose of displaying frozen beef and marking it “second rate”, is to’ ki 11 the Australian export trade. If time permitted, I could also give the Australian people some information regarding a large cheque which was offered to Lord Beaverbrook to maintain silence in regard to Ottawa and about a cold storage monopoly. Lord Vestey’s article concluded -

How many among the 1,000 delegates at. Ottawa will be inspired by the single aim nf protecting the British consumer against exploitation and of preventing the fulfilment of schemes calculated seriously to impair, if not completely to wreck, Britain’s commercial prestige and independence, and, incidentally, to make Ottawa the gallows of the Conservative party ?

That is a straight-out confession. This man does not camouflage his objectives. There is not the slightest doubt that his aim was to damage Australia and tho other dominions. He has no scrupulous regard for the British Commonwealth of Nations or even for the United Kingdom ; Argentine is his all. He will down any part of the Empire if, by so doing, he can secure a monopoly of thebeef trade.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr. Gabb rising to speak,

Attention called to the state of the House. There being no quorum present,

Mr. Speaker adjourned the House at 10.38 p.m. (Thursday).

page 3302

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Wages of Commonwealth Railways Workers

Mr Makin:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he received a communication embodying resolutions of protest and representations for protection to Commonwealth railway workers and business interests in Port Augusta and Quorn against the recent draft award of Judge Drake-Brockman ?
  2. If so, will he, in response to those representations, have reinserted in the Financial Emergency Act the provision for stabilizing the basic wage at not less than £182 per annum, and further provide that no further cuts will operate under the cost of living decreases until the full amount of the previous percentage has been absorbed, as was laid down by the previous Government?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The position of the Government in relation to this matter was fully explained by Ministers in the course of the debate upon the honorable member’s motion for the adjournmentof this House yesterday.

Export of Fauna

Mr Gregory:

y asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What permits for the export of fauna were granted during the year ended 30th June, 1932?
  2. Will he place the papers relating to such permits on the table or in the Library for perusal?
Mr Guy:
UAP

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

  1. Permits for both protected and unprotected fauna are granted by the various State collectors under general conditions laid down, and details of such permits are not immediately available.
  2. Each State collector may have issued permits, and if the honorable member will inform me of the particular permits or class of permits he refers to I shall be glad to give him the fullest information.

Bananas

Mr Nairn:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

As the only edible bananas available in Western Australia have to be imported from Java, will the Government (agreeably with the proposed method of assistance to Queensland banana-growers) consider allocating the amount of duty collected on bananas in Western Australia as a fund For the encouragement of banana culture in that State?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The special assistance contemplated in connexion with the Australian banana industry, to which the honorable member refers, relates only to the marketing of bananas. Any representations the honorable member may desire to submit under thathead will be given due consideration.

Export of Eggs

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

son asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Is he in a position to make a statement regarding the inspection and rejection of some 5,000 cases of eggs presented in Melbourne for export, and on the various reports connected therewith, as set out in the Bendigo Advertiser of the 11th instant?

Mr Stewart:
UAP

– The following is a statement of the position : -

On the 14th September, 1932, a shipment of eggs belonging to Mr. Earle was being loaded into trucks for shipment by the SS. Hobson’s Bay. One of the cases became damaged owing to rough handling, and the departmental inspector who was present noticed that the eggs in the damaged case were faulty, many being soiled and others with ruptured and enlarged air cells. The shipment in question had previously been passed by inspectors after examining samples, but the discovery of the faulty eggs prompted further investigation. On a second lot of samples being drawn, examination revealed a large percentage of eggs below export standard. Between the 14th September, when this second examination was made, and the 22nd September, 1932, 5,332 cases of eggs submitted for export by Mr. Earle at the Government Cool Stores, Melbourne, were rejected by inspectors of the Department of Commerce, because the examination of certain cases showed that they contained eggs which were soiled, cracked, poor quality, stale, undersized, and with large and ruptured air cells.

With the permission of the department, Mr. Earle was allowed to repack the 5,332 cases at his own store, the repacking in lots of 500 to 787 cases being accomplished between the 25th September and the 1 1 th October. This repacking was performed under the supervision of two departmental inspectors. The result was that 4,033 cases were accepted by departmental officers as suitable for export, and 1,299 cases were rejected. Sonic of the latter were rejected by the two inspectors present during repacking operations, and the balance by other officers who made a supplementary inspection.

The regulations made under the Commerce Act impose the obligation on the department of ensuring that only eggs conforming to prescribed standards are shipped, and to this end any inspection considered necessary may be imposed at any stage right up to actual shipment.It is quite a common practice to review at ship side produce which has already been inspected by departmental officers. Power to make this re-examination is contained in Regulation 39 of the Commerce (Export Dairy Produce) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1930, No. 132. which readsas follows: -

If an officer has reasonable cause to believe that the condition, quality, grade or class of any goods examined under these regulations has changed since the examination, he may re-examine the goods and, if necessary, cancel the certificate and permit already given, the Kangaroo brand, the grade mark and the approved stamp applied to the goods, and proceed to deal with the certification, grade marking and stamping of the goods as if they had not been previously examined.

On the 13th October, 1932, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) asked the Minister for Commerce if. he could obtain reports concerning this matter from the inspectors who originally rejected the shipments, and also from the inspectors who were present during repacking and who passed the 4,033 cases. These reports were called for and were subsequently shown to Mr. McGrath, who informed the Minister that they did not represent the original submission by the inspectors concerned, and Mr. McGrath undertook to produce copies of earlier reports which, he said, had been unacceptable to departmental officers and which were consequently returned to the inspectors. He subsequently produced copy of a report dated’ the 20th October, and one dated the 22nd October, all of which purported to be copies of reports by the inspectors concerned, and which were returned by the department as unacceptable. On investigation it was found that one report dated the 20th October, had been submitted to the secretary of the department, but was returned to the inspectors, as it was really a reply to a series of questions which had been originally formulated by Mr. McGrath, but which were never actually asked in the House. A copy of these proposed questions, however, had been remitted to the department and had ultimately been shown to the inspectors. Their report of the 20th October was incorrectly based on these questions instead of on the question which was actually asked by Mr. McGrath. This constituted a perfectly justifiable reason for the return of the report to the inspectors.

The report, dated the 22nd October, which was also claimed to have been refused by the department, was merely returned for the purpose of eliminating an opinion expressed by the inspectors on a matter on which they could have had no personal knowledge, and was really not material to the case. It might have been better had the report been accepted without being again returned to the inspectors for the excision of this particular reference, but I am satisfied there was no questionable motive whatever in the action of the officers who drew the inspectors’ attention to this matter, and, subsequently, secured from them the final report. The newspaper reports refer to an earlier report (first report), which it was stated was lodged by the inspectors with the department, and subsequently returned to them. Although such a report was prepared by the three inspectors when they originally learned of Mr. McGrath’s questions, it was ascertained upon investigation that on reflection they (the inspectors themselves) decided not to present it. The first intimation the department had that this report existed was when it appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser. Tha outstanding facts revealed by the departmental investigations indicate that this shipper has not yet realized the superlative importance of maintaining the high reputation which Australian eggs have already won for themselves in overseas markets, but the departmental officers have been instructed to intensify rather than relax their efforts in this regard.

In the Bendigo Advertiser of the 11th November, Mr. Earle refers to a consignment of egg pulp whichhe purchased in Adelaide, and which on arrival in London contained three tins in faulty condition, and stated that this pulp was actually manufactured by machines, although the use of machines was not permitted by the officers in Victoria.’ The facts are that the regulations do not bar the use of machinery in the manufacture of pulp; further, the consignment referred to was manufactured in Adelaide under official supervision by a firm which has received very favorable comment in London for the quality of its egg pulp. A cable has been sent by the Department of Commerce to the High Commissioner in London on the matter, and his reply is awaited. Mr. Earle further complains that in Victoria manufacturers of egg pulp for export are required by the regulations to provide a freezing plant, but this condition is not enforced in other States. The regulations do not require a manufacturer of pulp for export to provide freezing accommodation. It is necessary, however, for those manufacturers, who are not in a position to cool store pulp manufactured on their own premises, to send the pulp to an approved cold store.

The statement that no standards are laid down by the regulations to guide either inspectors or exporters is contrary to fact. The regulations definitely indicate that eggs which havebroken or damagedshells or which are in an unsound, unclean or other abnormal condition shall not be packed, and may be rejected by officers as unfit for export.

The answer to the assertion that the butter graders of the department, whose duty it is to inspect eggs, are not qualified, is that these graders have for some years past been engaged on the inspection of eggs for export. They have a full knowledge of the regulations and of the methods necessary to test the quality of eggs. Their competency as egg inspectors is recognized by producers and traders throughout the Commonwealth and has never boon called in question previously.

Mr. Earle suggests that a steady market at remunerative prices could be obtained for Australian eggs below the standard at present prescribed by the regulations. Practically all of the exporters in Australia, and those interested in the purchase and distribution of Australian eggs in theUnited Kingdom are satisfied that any departure by the Department of Commerce from the present standards would result in an irreparable harm in the egg industry. The Commonwealth Dairy Officer in London recently reported that a rumour that lower grade eggs were to be exported from Australia created quite an alarm in trading circles. In the true interests of Australian eggs the officer stated, “ It is sincerely hoped that nothing but first quality will be exported.” The High Commissioner also cabled that reports had been made by British importers in which it was stated that if any lowering of the standard were permitted, great damage would he done to the Australian egg industry. In view of this evidence, the Minister will insist upon the present grades and standards being rigidly adhered to by exporters, and will not permit any variation, as to do so would seriously damage the reputation which Australian eggs enjoy at present on the overseas market.

Victorian Position in Respect of Eggs Exported.

The excess of exports of eggs from the various States up to the 12th November, 1932, over the total for the 1931 season, is as follows: -

This statement shows that the excess of exports from Victoria this season is greater than that of any other State, except South Australia, and emphatically contradicts the statement of Mr. Earle that Victorian producers have been scandalously penalized by the departmental methods of inspection.

It might be of interest to note that the eggs produced in the Bendigo district have proved to be of very high grade. Of the total quantity that could be identified as coming from the Bendigo district, namely, 5,356 cases, only 1.3 per cent. were rejected for export. This compares with a percentage of rejections of 10 per cent. of the whole of the eggs submitted in the State

Mr Stewart:
UAP

t. - On the 9th November, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. With reference to the request by the honorable member for Ballarat on the 18th ultimo,for the Minister to obtain a report from the graders who inspected the 5,000 cases of eggs packed for export by J. C. Earle, is it a fact that the Bendigo Advertiser of the 5th instant, asserts that three reports were submitted to Mr. P. J. Carroll prior to the final report being submitted to the Minister?
  2. If the statement of the Bendigo Advertiser is correct, will the Minister inform the House who is responsible for withholding the three reports from the Minister?
  3. Will the Minister call for the first three reports as written by the graders, Messrs. Gray, Seamons and Lloyd?

The information desired by the honorable member is contained in the reply furnished to-day to the honorable member for Bendigo.

Unemployment Relief in Canberra.

Mr Perkins:
Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) asked me, without notice, whether there was any truth in the allegation that unemployed persons in the Federal Capital Territory had to become members of the Australian Workers Union before they were engaged on relief work? I now desire to advise him that unemployed persons are not required to become members of the Australian Workers Union before they are engaged on relief work, and no action will be taken to alter the existing practice.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 November 1932, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1932/19321130_reps_13_137/>.